JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeals arise from judgment dated 20.1.1988 by the Sessions judge, jalore in Sessions Trial No. 11/1987 and Sessions Trial No. 15/1987 convicting the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.130/1988 under Section 302/34 IPC to life imprisonment with fine and default stipulation. Criminal Appeal No.266/1988 has been preferred by the State questioning the acquittal of the other four accused Respondents as not sustainable in law. 2. The Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.130/1988 appear to have been enlarged on bail soon after institution of their appeals. The order-sheet is not very clear with regard to the exact date. The name of the Counsel for the Appellants and the acquitted accused appears in the cause list but there is no representation on their behalf. Considering that the appeals are very old of the year 1988, we were not inclined to adjourn the matter or issue notice to the parties, much less issue any notice for cancellation of bail to the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.130/1988 in view of the observations in (2014) 14 SCC 222 Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh as follows:- "25. The enunciation of the inherent powers of the High Court in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction already articulated by this Court on several occasions motivates us to press Section 482 into operation. We reiterate that there is an alarming and sinister increase in instances where convicts have filed appeals apparently with a view to circumvent and escape undergoing the sentences awarded against them. The routine is to file an appeal, apply and get enlarged on bail or get exempted from surrender, and thereafter wilfully to become untraceable or unresponsive. It is the bounden duty cast upon the Judge not merely to ensure that an innocent person is not punished but equally not to become a mute spectator to the spectacle of the convict circumventing his conviction. See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh If the court is derelict in doing its duty, the social fabric will be rent asunder and anarchy will rule everywhere. It is, therefore, imperative to put an end to such practise by the expeditious disposal of appeals. The inherent powers of the High Court, poignantly preserved in Section 482 CrPC, can also be pressed into service but with care, caution and circumspection." 3. It is, therefore, imperative to put an end to such practise by the expeditious disposal of appeals. The inherent powers of the High Court, poignantly preserved in Section 482 CrPC, can also be pressed into service but with care, caution and circumspection." 3. We therefore requested the State Counsel to assist us so that both the appeals could be taken up together for consideration. Learned State Counsel has meticulously taken us through the FIR, the post mortem report, the inquest report, Exhibits etc., as also the police statement of PW-1, Babulal, the son of the deceased Smt. Chouthi recorded after the FIR and subsequently when other accused not charge-sheeted were summoned by the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. We have also been taken through the Court statement of PW1-Babulal again at both stages, as also the Court statement of PW-2,Thakra Ram, brother of PW-1, Babulal. Our attention has also been invited to the discussion in the judgment under appeal acquitting four of the accused on benefit of doubt and the reasoning for the same. We therefore now take up the appeals for consideration on merits. 4. The husband of the deceased Smt. Chouthi, were four brothers, Harchand Ram, Rama, Sona and Uda Ram. Rama and Sona were unmarried and resided with Harchand Ram and his family. Their share of the lands were therefore being cultivated by the family of Harchand Ram. The three convicted Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.130/1988 are the sons of Uda Ram. There was a running enmity between them regarding the lands in the share of Rama and Sona with Harchand Ram and the former on one side and Uda Ram and his sons on the other. Earlier there had been proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against the Appellants including cases for theft of crops from the lands. 5. The deceased was in the field described as "Aakhadiya" while PW-1,Babulal and PW-2, Thakra Ram were in the adjacent fields described as "Panchkhadiya" at a distance of 100 steps. Because of the land dispute, the deceased and the two prosecution witnesses went to sleep in the fields at night to protect their properties and crops. At about midnight of 04.10.1986/05.10.1986 they heard their mother shout for help. The two witnesses went to the fields in which their mother was sleeping and in the torchlight saw the accused persons assaulting her. At about midnight of 04.10.1986/05.10.1986 they heard their mother shout for help. The two witnesses went to the fields in which their mother was sleeping and in the torchlight saw the accused persons assaulting her. The two witnesses protested when the accused persons threatened to assault them also, they therefore ran away for their own safety. Their mother was thrown in to the well by the accused persons. The house of the Appellants was next to the well. The recovery of the body from the well has been proved by PW-5, Ranjit Singh the Investigating Officer, who has also proved the inquest report Exhibit P/4. He has also proved the place of occurrence marked Exhibit P/6. The shoes of the deceased were also recovered from near the well marked Exhibit P/3. The Investigating Officer has also proved having sent the body for post mortem to PW-6, Dr. Mohan Lal Doshi and the post mortem report marked Exhibit P/15. 6. The post mortem report revealed commuted fracture of scalp and skull (broken into pieces) on left side involving left parietal, temporal frontal and occipital region bones with fracture of base of skull, lacerated under the fractures and the brain lacerated in the parietal region with pieces of bones entering into it. There was also commuted fracture of the left tibia and fibula at lower ends, commuted fracture of right ulna in its middle region, commuted fracture of right radius and ulna in elbow joint, dislocation of head of right humerus bone, commuted fracture of head of humerus at left shoulder joint, fracture of left clavicle at both ends. Apart from the same, there was some lacerated wound 6"x3" skin deep on left gluteal region in its middle, one abrasion 4"x3" on left shoulder joint and four bruises of varying sizes on the back of the right knee joint in the middle, on the back of chest on left side below the lower end of scapula, on the back in middle on right side and on the right knee joint. All the injuries were opined to be ante mortem in nature with the doctor opining that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries, and the time elapsed since death being 12 to 18 hours. 7. PW6-Dr. All the injuries were opined to be ante mortem in nature with the doctor opining that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries, and the time elapsed since death being 12 to 18 hours. 7. PW6-Dr. Mohan Lal Doshi in his Court statement opined that all the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Some of the injuries could not have been caused by a lathi. It was also opined that if the deceased had been thrown into the well in an unconscious condition, some of the injuries could be attributed to the free fall with the body banging the sides of the well. The injuries to the spleen were also opined to have been caused by the body banging against the side of the well while having been thrown inside in an unconscious condition. 8. The convicted Appellants being related to the two prosecution witnesses PW-1, Babulal and PW-2, Thakra Ram were known to them from before. The two witnesses have spoken of them individually carrying torches and having identified them in the light of the same. Even otherwise in a dark night there is never absolute darkness. Identification at night also by the two witnesses was a distinct possibility as the Appellants were known to them from before. In (1996) 10 SCC Krishnan v. State of Kerala it was observed as follows:- "11. So far as the contention of insufficient light is concerned, we may indicate that in an open field on a cloudless starry night, there was no difficulty in identifying a known person from a close distance. That apart, it should be kept in mind that there was no difficulty in identifying the victim by the assailants because of existence of some light with which identification was possible. PW 1 being a close relation of both the accused, there was no difficulty for PW 1 to identify them." 9. The two witnesses have stated to have seen the occurrence from a distance of ten steps after they came running on hearing the shouts of their mother. In 1998 SCC (Criminal) 907 Kedar Singh v. State of Bihar the observations with regard to night identification of a known person are also relevant as follows:- "3.....It has also to be observed that even on a full dark night there is never total darkness. In 1998 SCC (Criminal) 907 Kedar Singh v. State of Bihar the observations with regard to night identification of a known person are also relevant as follows:- "3.....It has also to be observed that even on a full dark night there is never total darkness. There can be other means to identify another through the shape of the body, clothes, gait, manner of walking etc. Identification is possible by voice too...." Likewise in (2001) 8 SCC 311 Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar it was observed:- "34. It must be remembered that the incident had taken place in a village. As has been held by this Court in the case of Kalika Tiwari v. State of Bihar the visibility capacity of urban people who are acclimatised to fluorescent lights or incandescent lamps is not the standard to be applied to villagers whose optical potency is attuned to country-made lamps. It has been held that the visibility of villagers is conditioned to such lights and hence it would be quite possible for them to identify men and matters in such light. Also the appellants were from the same village and were known to PW 3 and PW 4." 10. The identification of the Appellants by the two witnesses therefore goes beyond pale of any doubt. We have been taken through the written police report lodged by PW-1, Babulal on 5.10.1986 in the morning marked as Exhibit P/1 and the formal FIR registered upon the same marked as Exhibit P/2 naming seven persons as accused. The police after investigation did not submit charge sheet against the four Respondents in Criminal Appeal No.266/1988. They were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after the Court statement of PW-1, Babulal was recorded. We have also been taken through the police statement of PW-1, Babulal recorded on 5.10.1986 itself and also on 17.10.1986 after those not charge-sheeted were summoned, as also his Court statements made on 20.7.1987 and 2.11.1987 after those not charge-sheeted had been summoned. 11. They were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after the Court statement of PW-1, Babulal was recorded. We have also been taken through the police statement of PW-1, Babulal recorded on 5.10.1986 itself and also on 17.10.1986 after those not charge-sheeted were summoned, as also his Court statements made on 20.7.1987 and 2.11.1987 after those not charge-sheeted had been summoned. 11. The witness at each stage is consistent commencing from the relationship between the parties, the long standing land dispute, the existing cases between them, his going to the fields with PW-2, Thakra Ram as also the deceased going to the adjacent field at a distance of 100 steps coupled with the assault made at the dead of night and the witnesses running to the place of occurrence with a torch identifying the assailants till the deceased being thrown into the well. The contradictions sought to be extricated from his police statement and court deposition are minor and trivial in nature and contain no material contradictions so as to make his evidence doubtful. Nothing has emerged from his cross-examination to doubt the credibility of the witness much less his presence and being a witness to the occurrence. Merely because he was the son of the deceased will not be sufficient reason to doubt or exclude his evidence and look for independent corroborative evidence. At a dead of night in the fields it can hardly be expected that independent evidence would be forthcoming. Naturally it will be the relatives who will come forward and give evidence. 12. PW2-Thakra Ram is also a perfectly natural witness who was present in the field along with PW-1, Babulal and was also carrying a torch light. Nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to suggest that he was not present at the time of occurrence much less that he did not see the assault. 13. Not much can also be read into the fact that the two witnesses quietly went home as they have adequately explained that they did try to go to the help of the deceased but had to run for their own safety when the accused threatened to assault them. PW-1, Babulal has adequately explained that he was scared and therefore came home and slept. Having witnessed a murderous assault on his mother we do not find his conduct unusual as his sensibilities must naturally have been stunned with fear. PW-1, Babulal has adequately explained that he was scared and therefore came home and slept. Having witnessed a murderous assault on his mother we do not find his conduct unusual as his sensibilities must naturally have been stunned with fear. At the crack of dawn he went looking for his two uncles and then went to the Police Station and lodged the report after having it drafted by one master. The fact that he could not name the master is not very crucial in view of the fact that lodging of the report has been adequately proved by PW-5, Ranjit Singh the Investigating Officer.The trial Judge has concluded that both PW-1, Babulal and PW-2, Thakra Ram were credible and reliable witnesses speaking the truth. We find no reason to come to any different conclusion. Merely because they were the sons of the deceased cannot be sufficient ground to doubt their truthfulness and suspect false implication in view of the land dispute as observed in (2013) 4 SCC 607 Subal Ghorai v. State of West Bengal :- "39. It is true that the prosecution has relied on the evidence of interested witnesses but, interested witness is not necessarily a bad witness. In fact, if the witness is related to the deceased, there is less chance of his leaving aside the real assailants. The evidence of interested witness has to be analysed with care. But, once the court comes to the conclusion that it is truthful and in accord with the relevant circumstances on record, the court should not hesitate to accept it and record conviction on the basis thereof...." 14. The doctor who carried out the post mortem report has opined that not all the injuries on the person of the deceased could be attributed to a lathi only. Some of the injuries could have been possible if the deceased had been thrown into the well in an unconscious condition and in a free fall her body may have hit the sides of the well before it reached the bottom. The injuries opined to be ante mortem in nature clearly suggest that the deceased was alive though she was unconscious when thrown into the well. 15. The injuries opined to be ante mortem in nature clearly suggest that the deceased was alive though she was unconscious when thrown into the well. 15. The assault according to the two prosecution witnesses is attributed to all the accused in an omnibus manner when they said that they could not see with preciseness who assaulted in a particular manner and on which part of the body as they had surrounded the deceased. The trial Judge held that the Respondents in the State appeal were never charge-sheeted, the allegations against them were omnibus, land dispute existed between the convicted Appellants and the prosecution witnesses only. Therefore the possibility of their having been falsely implicated could not be completely ruled out and in support of the same, the trial Judge has adequately discussed that if 7 persons had assaulted the deceased with lathis there would have been more hard blunt injuries on her person than that actually found suggesting that the assailants were not in large number as sought to be contended by the prosecution thus giving benefit of doubt to the Respondents in the State appeal. It cannot be said with certainty that it is not a possible view and hold that there has been gross mis-appreciation of evidence or gross miscarriage of justice warranting interference with their acquittal. An order of acquittal ought not to be interfered with so lightly. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the acquittal and concur with the benefit of doubt given to them. 16. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.130/1988 is dismissed. The bail bonds of the Appellants are cancelled and they are directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into the custody for serving out the remaining period of their sentence.Criminal Appeal No. 266/1988 questioning the acquittal of the four Respondents is devoid of merit and is dismissed.Appeals dismissed. *******