ORDER : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 25th June, 2011 by which the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: “Hanuman Sahai, Ram Gopal @ Gopal, Nanchu Ram, Bhag Chand and Bhagwan Sahai - Under Section 148 IPC one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default whereof to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 452 IPC three years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default whereof to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Under Section 323/149 IPC three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default whereof to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 325/149 IPC three years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default whereof to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Under Section 302/149 IPC life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each; in default whereof to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Thakarsi - Under Section 148 IPC one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default whereof to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 452 IPC three years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default whereof to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Under Section 323/149 IPC three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default whereof to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 325 IPC three years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default whereof to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Under Section 302/149 IPC life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each; in default whereof to undergo two months simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.” 2. The facts of the case are that a written report was submitted by one Narsi at Police Station Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur on 19.6.2009 at 2.00 am inter alia alleging that while he was at his home in the previous evening at 5.00 pm on 18.6.2009, Nanchu came there in a tractor. He was accompanied by about 30 persons. These people were armed with ‘kharwada’ (kulhari), iron rods and ‘lathis’. Immediately on arrival, they started beating the informant and members of his family, as a result of which, informant himself, Chittar Mal, Babulal, Gopal, Mangli, Sita, Phooli, Mamta, Mewa, Sita wife of Balram, Dhapa sustained injuries on the head, hands and legs. He was accompanied by about 30 persons. These people were armed with ‘kharwada’ (kulhari), iron rods and ‘lathis’. Immediately on arrival, they started beating the informant and members of his family, as a result of which, informant himself, Chittar Mal, Babulal, Gopal, Mangli, Sita, Phooli, Mamta, Mewa, Sita wife of Balram, Dhapa sustained injuries on the head, hands and legs. Thakarsi, Nanchu Ram, Hanuman, Bhagchand sons of Ganesh, Bhagwan Sahai, Gopal S/o Mahadev (Jagdish), Ram Singh S/o Bhagwan, Lokesh S/o Ram Narayan, Sher Singh S/o Gopal and women of their family namely; Manjri Devi, Nanchi Devi, Sant Devi, Geeta Devi, Sushila Devi, Kiran, Sita Devi, Mangli, Chhoti Devi, Navli, Nana Devi were the assailants. 6-7 of their relatives, out of which Narayan R/o Village Gharwada, Rameshwar R/o Sundar Ka Bas Parta and Kishna R/o Manpura were also with them. Thakarsi, Nanchu Ram, Hanuman Sahai, Bhag Chand had ‘kharwada’ (kulhari) with them and caused injuries to Chhitar, Gopal, Babulal, Mewa, Phooli Devi and informant on the head. Others caused injuries on the members of the complainant party by ‘lathi’ and iron rod. Out of them, Babulal, Gopal, Chittar, Mewa, Dhapa, were admitted in SMS hospital, Jaipur and their condition was quite critical. Police conducted the investigation. During the course of investigation, injured Chittar succumbed to his injuries, which led to addition of the offence u/s.302 IPC. Charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellants Hanuman Sahai, Bhag Chand, Bhagwan Sahai and Ram Gopal @ Gopal for the offences u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 452 and 302 IPC. As against accused-appellants Thakarsi, Nanchu Ram and other co-accused persons, investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed to the Court of Sessions, Jaipur District, Jaipur from where, in turn, it was made over to the court of learned Additional Sessions judge, Fast Track, No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur for trial. Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet was filed against Thakarsi and Nanchu Ram as also other co-accused persons for the self same offences. Their case was also committed to the trial court and the trial was consolidated. The learned trial court framed the charges for offence u/s.148,452, 323, 325 and in alternative u/s.325/149 and 302/149 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined 27 witnesses and got exhibited 40 documents. Their case was also committed to the trial court and the trial was consolidated. The learned trial court framed the charges for offence u/s.148,452, 323, 325 and in alternative u/s.325/149 and 302/149 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined 27 witnesses and got exhibited 40 documents. The accused-appellants in examination u/s.313 Cr.P.C. pleaded false implication. The defence examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents. After hearing the parties, the trial court, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that the trial court has erred in law while mechanically convicting the appellants for the alleged offence. Even though the prosecution evidence is short of the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that out of 15 accused, who went for trial, 9 have been acquitted and therefore has caused serious dent to the veracity of the prosecution case. The appellants, therefore, could not have been convicted on the self same evidence. If the witnesses are not speaking truth, the case set by them was so interviewed with each other that the truth and falsity i.e. grain and chaff could not be possible separated. The learned trial court has erred in law in making out a new case for the prosecution, which led to miscarriage of justice. The medical evidence does not lend any corroboration to the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which puts a grave penumbra of doubt on prosecution version. 4. It is argued that FIR itself was lodged with an inordinate delay of 9 hours at 2 AM on 19.06.2009 whereas the alleged incident occurred at 5 PM on 18.06.2009, which goes to show that the same was lodged with due deliberation and coercion putting a question mark on the forensic worth of the prosecution case. Moreover, deceased Chittar died 20 days after the incident and it is quite evident from the medical evidence that he died on account of secondary infection. The trial court therefore erred in law in convicting the appellants u/s.302 IPC. 5. Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the incident in the present case has in fact occurred in the agriculture filed, which was in possession of the accused-party and not in the house of the complainant party. The trial court therefore erred in law in convicting the appellants u/s.302 IPC. 5. Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the incident in the present case has in fact occurred in the agriculture filed, which was in possession of the accused-party and not in the house of the complainant party. The prosecution has miserably failed to explain the injuries suffered by members of the accused-party. This shows that members of the complainant party was the aggressors, which has opened assault on members of the accused-party in the agriculture filed, which was in their possession. The accused-appellants therefore could not be said to be members of the unlawful assembly. It is argued that as per the injury report of Chittar, he sustained two injuries on his person both by blunt weapon, whereas allegation in the FIR is that he was associated with sharp edged weapon and the postmortem report has given another twist to the matter when it stated that he sustained three injuries and not just two. It is argued that recovery of weapons allegedly effected from the accused does not further the case of prosecution. No recovery of any sharp edged weapon has been effected. The ‘lathis’, which were alleged to have been recovered, do not get connected with the offence as there is no report from the FSL to the effect that they contained any blood stains. 6. Learned counsel submits that the accused party has been able to probablise its evidence that they were in possession of the agriculture field in which incident took place, whereas the complainant party has miserably failed to show that they were in possession of the agriculture field. The allegation of the prosecution witnesses in the first information report and the statement of the prosecution witnesses that Thakarsi, Hanuman Sahai, Nachuram and Bhagchand were armed with axe and caused injury to Chittar (deceased), Narsi (PW1), Gopal (PW2), Babulal (PW11), Mewa (PW5) and Phooli (PW4) does not find any corroboration from their injuries. The evidence thus shows that the prosecution witnesses have deliberately suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and they have not come with clean hands. They have consistently made improvements in their version from stage to stage in order to align their version with the medical evidence. The evidence thus shows that the prosecution witnesses have deliberately suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and they have not come with clean hands. They have consistently made improvements in their version from stage to stage in order to align their version with the medical evidence. The defence on its part through cross-examination has been able to bring out the discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and established that the prosecution witnesses are not trustworthy and reliable. 7. It is argued that while in the FIR it is alleged that Thakarsi, Hanuman Sahai, Nachuram and Bhagchand were armed with axes, whereas, in the court statement the prosecution witnesses have stated that Thakarsi caused injury using an iron rod only in order to match their story with the MLR of deceased, Ex.P.38, wherein it has been stated that the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Thus, the eye witnesses have improved their version only to fit the MLR. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhola Singh vs State of Punjab 1999 (9) SCC 50 . Furthermore, no iron rod or axe has been recovered at the instance of any of the accused. As regards the recovery of ‘lathi’ from Hanuman Sahai, Jagdish, Bhagchand and Ram Gopal is concerned, no forensic analysis to determine the presence of blood has been performed. Shyam Lal (PW21) and Surendra Singh (PW22), who were the Investigating Officers, have accepted in their cross-examination that recoveries were from open place, accessible to all and PW22 also states that no blood was found present on the ‘lathi’ recovered at the instance of Ram Gopal. 8. Learned counsel submitted that there are 12 injured persons from the accused side and Hanuman Sahai has suffered a grievous injury in the form of fracture of radius as per his MLR (Ex.D.30). All the injured eye witnesses have not properly explained the said injuries, but rather denied the knowledge of their injuries. Their testimony is therefore not reliable. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in Lakahmi Singh vs State of Bihar- (1976) 4 SCC 394 ; Ganesh Datt vs State of Uttarakhand- AIR 2014 SC 2521 and Kanhalya vs State of Rajasthan-2011 (1) RCC 65 in support of this argument 9. Their testimony is therefore not reliable. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in Lakahmi Singh vs State of Bihar- (1976) 4 SCC 394 ; Ganesh Datt vs State of Uttarakhand- AIR 2014 SC 2521 and Kanhalya vs State of Rajasthan-2011 (1) RCC 65 in support of this argument 9. Learned counsel argued that the trial court in the judgment has brushed aside the point of non-explanation of the injuries of the accused by the prosecution, simply by observing that two of the eye witnesses namely, Mamta (PW8) and Babulal (PW11), have stated that the injuries of the accused side were self inflicted. Such an approach of the trial court was highly erroneous. The explanation given by these two eye witnesses is also highly puerile. Moreover, when one of the accused-appellant, namely; Hanuman, suffered a grievous injury in the form of a fracture of the radius bone of arm, the same cannot be considered to be self inflicted. 10. Learned counsel argued that it is a case of free fight as most of the witnesses accept that there was no enmity/dispute prior to the incident and the fight started suddenly. There is sufficient material to create doubt as regards the place of incident i.e. the incident took place on the field rather than the house of the deceased and that the complainant party attacked accused Ram Gopal. Learned counsel referred to the statement of Dhapa Devi (PW3) and submitted that in cross examination he stated that Chittar fell from the tractor and that the incident happened in the agriculture field. Balveer Yadav (PW6) has admitted that the incident did not take place in their house. Sita (PW7) did not accept that blood and broken bangles were lifted by the police from the agriculture field. Ram Narayan (PW10) states in cross examination that incident happened at point ‘Z’ in the site plan (Ex.P2) and police took blood from the agriculture field. 11. It is argued that there are a lot of discrepancies in oral evidence while as per the site plan (Ex.P2) the accused entered a room in their house and started beating the deceased, however, the prosecution witnesses state that the incident took place at their house and no one went to the extent of saying that the accused entered in their room in the house. The defence has brought about enough material during cross examination to create sufficient doubt that the injuries on the deceased could have been caused due to fall on the bonnet of the tractor. Dhapa Devi (PW3) in her cross examination accepted that Chittar fell on the tractor and even Dr. S.L. Dasania (PW24) has accepted the same. 12. It is argued that the alleged incident took place on 18.06.2009, whereas the deceased Chittar, died on 08.07.2009 i.e. 20 days after the incident; As per Dr. S.L. Dasania (PW24), death is caused due to coma resulting from 3 injuries on the head but he also stated about Pus formation. As per the injury report of the deceased (Ex.P38), the injuries were caused by blunt weapon, but there is no justification for the trial court to observe that these injuries were caused from the blunt side of an axe, because the presumption is that the allegation is about use of a weapon, which should have been used by sharp side. Even if a person possessing a sharp edged weapon uses the blunt side than the intention of causing such injury was likely to cause death can still be attributed to him. It is surprising that as per the allegation of prosecution, 25 persons attacked, still the deceased received only 2/3 injuries and on the side of complainant only one, Babulal (PW11), has received a grievous injury, that too, a fracture of finger and two simple injuries. Therefore, learned counsel alternatively submitted that intention of the accused-appellants was never to commit murder. At the maximum, they could be convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-II, that too only against Thakarsi for his personal act. 13. It is submitted that all the prosecution witnesses namely; Narsi Yadav (PW1), Sita (PW7), Mamta (PW8), Mangli (PW12) and Suman (PW20) have attributed the injury of deceased Chittar only to Thakarsi. It is only Suman (PW20), who has alleged that injuries to Chittar was caused by Hanuman Sahai, Bhagchand, Bhagwan Sahai, Ram Gopal, Nachuram and Thakarsi. Her testimony, however, cannot be relied on as she is a partisan witness being daughter of the deceased. It is only Suman (PW20), who has alleged that injuries to Chittar was caused by Hanuman Sahai, Bhagchand, Bhagwan Sahai, Ram Gopal, Nachuram and Thakarsi. Her testimony, however, cannot be relied on as she is a partisan witness being daughter of the deceased. Secondly, she was not named in the FIR; and, more importantly, her statement under Section 161 statement as well as the injury report were prepared on 02.07.2009 i.e. after 15 days of the incident, wherein her injury as per Ex.P26 is only compliant of pain and there is no other injury. Lastly in her cross-examination, she has admitted that she came after the assault had taken place on Chittar and he was unconscious. The trial court has wrongly relied on the statement of Suman (PW20) to convict the six accused appellants. 14. Learned counsel referred to the testimony of Babulal (PW11) and submitted that he has shown presence of Thakarsi at the time of incident and stated that he came after the fight has started and that he and Thakarsi were sitting at a shop and started from there on receiving the information about the incident. 15. It is contended that Sita (PW7) was not named in FIR as an injured person, but she says that she was working in the field and when the incident took place in the house, she covered the body of the deceased to save him; and thereafter, again she says that she was hiding in the filed. Mamta (PW8) was neither injured nor named in the FIR and stated that she was hiding in the vicinity, therefore, she cannot be said to be an eye witness. 16. Learned counsel submitted that Sita (PW9) W/o Gopal contradicted the statement of Mamta (PW8) and says that Mamta was also injured and was not hiding at the time of the incident. As regards Narsi Yadav (PW1), even though his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 19.06.2009 but still his medical examination was conducted 12 days thereafter on 30.06.2009. Gullaram (PW18) cannot be believed as an eye witness because his name was not mentioned in the FIR. He claims to have come at the place of incident to calm things down. Even his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded 10 days after the incident on 28.06.2009. Hari Narayan (PW15) and Bhonri Lal (PW16) are chance witnesses. Gullaram (PW18) cannot be believed as an eye witness because his name was not mentioned in the FIR. He claims to have come at the place of incident to calm things down. Even his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded 10 days after the incident on 28.06.2009. Hari Narayan (PW15) and Bhonri Lal (PW16) are chance witnesses. Bhonri Lal (PW16) has made a lot of statement in her police statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D14). Learned counsel submitted that evidence given in the cross case has been wrongly used by the trial court to come to the conclusion that both the groups had exchanged land and were cultivating each other’s land for the last 50-60 years. Evidence of the cross case cannot be read in the other case. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Mitthulal and Anr. vs State of MP- AIR 1975 SC 149 . 17. Shri R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Atul Bhardwaj for the complainant have opposed the appeal and supported the judgment passed by the trial court. It is argued that the trial court has correctly analysed the evidence to the extent of over implication and acquitted as many as 9 accused, but it found the case of remaining 6 proved beyond reasonable doubt. There was flare amount of consistency in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as regards the allegation against the present accused-appellants. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to it in detail the testimony of the eye witnesses, who received injuries in the incident and prayed that in view of the overall evidence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 18. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 19. Informant Narsi Yadav (PW1), son of the deceased has appeared as PW1. He has attributed the injury of the deceased Chittar specifically to Thakarsi by iron rod. He also submitted that his mother Phooli Devi, Babulal, Gopal, Meva Devi, Sita Devi, Dhapa Devi, Mangli, Mamta and he himself also sustained injuries. As per his injury report (Ex.P3), Narsi has sustained one simple injury by blunt weapon. While he along with Babulal, Gopal, Phooli Devi, Dhapa Devi, Meva Devi and Mangli sustained injuries on the head, Dhapa Devi has sustained injuries on her left hand. 20. As per his injury report (Ex.P3), Narsi has sustained one simple injury by blunt weapon. While he along with Babulal, Gopal, Phooli Devi, Dhapa Devi, Meva Devi and Mangli sustained injuries on the head, Dhapa Devi has sustained injuries on her left hand. 20. Gopal (PW2) has stated that Nanchu Ram along with 30-35 people came to uproot their barley crop in the agriculture field with the tractor. They were also armed with ‘kharwada’, ‘lathi’, iron rod and hockey. Chittar requested them not to do so, then all these accused started bearing Chittar and they also caused injuries to him (this witness). He has stated that injuries on head was caused by Thakarsi and at his back by Ram Gopal. As per the injury report of Gopal, he has sustained four injuries by blunt weapon. 21. Dhapa Devi (PW3), an old aged woman of 80 years, is yet another injured eye witness, has stated that Gopal @ Ram Gopal, Thakarsi and Hanuman came to uproot the harvest of Barley in their agriculture field. They caused injuries on her head and hand by ‘lathi’ and ‘kulhari’ The first injury on hand was caused by Bhagwan, second injury on head was caused by Thakarsi and third injury was caused by Hanuman by ‘lathi’. Then she became unconscious. As per her MLR (Ex.P6), she sustained two simple injuries by blunt weapon. 22. Mewa (PW5) is also an injured eye witness. She has stated that when they were at their home Thakarsi, Hanuman, Ramgopal, Bhag Chand, Bhagwan, Jagdish, Nanchuram, Jamna, Ganga, Santi and Nanchi came there. Thakarsi had a ‘kharwada’, some had ‘lathis’ and some other had iron rods in their hands. Jamna caused injuries on her head by iron rod. She also sustained injury on her hand. Chittar died in the incident. Her MLR Ex.P8 indicates that she sustained two simple injuries by blunt weapon. 23. Sita (PW7) is also an injured. After naming all the accused, she has stated that Thakarsi was armed with an iron rod, who immediately on coming there inflicted injury on the head of her father-in-law (Chittar). Others had ‘kulharis’ and ‘lathis’ in their hands. When she tried to cover the body of her father-in-law, Soni, Jamna, Ganga and other women of the accused side caused injuries on her head and stomach by ‘lathis’. Others had ‘kulharis’ and ‘lathis’ in their hands. When she tried to cover the body of her father-in-law, Soni, Jamna, Ganga and other women of the accused side caused injuries on her head and stomach by ‘lathis’. Even her injury report (Ex.P9) indicates that she also sustained two simple injuries by blunt weapon. 24. Mamta (PW8) has also stated that the accused came to their agriculture filed in a tractor to uproot their harvest of Barley. Her father-in-law Chittar requested them not to do so. All the accused then started beating him. Apart from Chittar, Phooli, Gopal, Babulal, Mangli, Sita and Narsi also sustained injuries. Her father-in-law thereafter died. 25. Sita, wife of Gopal (PW9), who was also an eye witness has stated that Thakarsi caused injuries on the head of her father-in-law by iron rod. When she tried to protect him, they gave beating to her as well. Gopal, Hanuman and Bhago also caused injuries to her. Her mother-in-law also sustained injuries. The injury report (Ex.P10) of Sita indicates that she also sustained two injuries by blunt weapon. 26. Babulal Yadav (PW11) has also been cited as an injured eye witness. He has stated that distance between the houses of the accused-party and the complainant party was hardly about half a kilometer. They wanted to forcibly take possession of their agriculture land. They came with ‘kulharis’, iron rod and ‘lathis’ and started beating members of the complainant party. He has also sustained injuries on his head and hand. Thakarsi caused injuries to him by iron rod as a result of which, he sustained fracture of hand. His injury report is Ex.P18, according to which, he sustained six injuries. As per his x-ray report (Ex.P40), one of the injuries resulted into fracture of fourth and fifth metacarpal bone of right hand. 27. Mangli (PW12) is also an injured eye witness. After naming all the accused, she alleged that Thakarsi caused injuries to her father-in-law Chittar by iron rod. She (this witness) also sustained injuries on her head, stomach and also on ribs. Jagdish Bhagchand and Nanchi caused injuries to her. Then she repeated the allegation that it was Thakarsi who caused injuries to her father-in-law Chittar whereafter he died. She stated that these people have come to their agriculture field for forcibly occupying the same. According to her injury report (Ex.P19), she sustained two simple injuries by blunt weapon. 28. Jagdish Bhagchand and Nanchi caused injuries to her. Then she repeated the allegation that it was Thakarsi who caused injuries to her father-in-law Chittar whereafter he died. She stated that these people have come to their agriculture field for forcibly occupying the same. According to her injury report (Ex.P19), she sustained two simple injuries by blunt weapon. 28. Hari Narayan (PW15) has stated that Thakarsi, Gopal, Nandu Ram, Bhagchand and other 20-25 persons came to the house of the complainant party. They were armed with iron rods and ‘lathis’. He went to intervene. Bhonri Lal Gurjar and Gullaram Yadav also came to intervene. Thakarsi was armed with iron rod, others had ‘lathis’ and Hanuman Sahai had a ‘kulhari’. 29. Bhonri Lal (PW16) has alleged that Thakarsi has an iron rod, Gopal, Hanuman and Thakarsi caused injuries on the head of Chittar. 30. Suman (PW20) has however made allegation against Thakarsi, Bhagwan Sahai, Ram Gopal, Nandu Ram, Bhagchand and Hanuman Sahai for causing injuries to her father Chittar. She has stated that when she tried to save her father, she too received certain injuries. But it is difficult to believe her testimony because her police statement has been recorded quite belatedly on 21.7.2009 inasmuch as her injury report Ex.P26 also indicates that her medical examination itself took place on the same day. Moreover, the two injuries that has been indicated in the injury report are merely complaint of pain. According to her version, injuries to the deceased has been caused by Thakarsi, Bhagwan Sahai, Ram Gopal, Nandu Ram, Bhagchand and Hanuman Sahai. Besides, she was not named in the FIR and rather in cross examination admitted that she arrived at the place of incident after his father had already received injuries and became unconscious. 31. As against the aforementioned version of the prosecution witnesses and without going into the deviations, which they had made from the original version given to the police in their statement recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C. with which they have been confronted, we may also take note of the fact that in this case there are 12 injured on the side of the accused party. According to injury report of Ganga Devi (Ex.D20), she sustained three injuries, which are simple in nature by blunt weapon. The injury report of Chhoti (Ex.D21) shows that she received one simple injury by blunt weapon. According to injury report of Ganga Devi (Ex.D20), she sustained three injuries, which are simple in nature by blunt weapon. The injury report of Chhoti (Ex.D21) shows that she received one simple injury by blunt weapon. The injury report of Soni Devi (Ex.D22) indicates that she received two simple injuries by blunt weapon. The injury report of Jamna (Ex.D23) does show that she received four simple injuries by blunt weapon. The injury report of Ramgopal (Ex.D25) indicated that they received two injuries by blunt weapon. The injury report of Mangli Devi (Ex.D26) indicates that she received only one simple injury by blunt weapon. The injury report of Geeta (Ex.D27) indicates that she received one simple injury by blunt weapon. The injury report of Bhuri (Ex.D28) indicates that she received two injuries; one by sharp and another by blunt, but both are simple in nature. The injury report of Sita (Ex.D29) indicates that she received three injuries, all are simple and by blunt. The injury report of Hanuman (Ex.D30) states that he received four simple injuries by blunt weapon. The injury report of Jai Singh (Ex.D31) indicates that he sustained fracture of lower end of radius bone. Thakarsi, who has been attributed to give the head injury to the deceased by large number of witnesses vide injury report Ex.D24 himself sustained 6 injuries, all of them were simple by blunt weapon. 32. The evidence in totality suggests that the accused-party were the aggressors and they had come there to dispossess the complainant party from their possession on agriculture land by use of force and they formed unlawful assembly with a common object to not commit murder of anyone, but was to give them beating/threshing so that they could be evicted from the agriculture field. This is evident from the fact that even though they caused injuries to as many as ten persons on the side of the complainant, none of them suffered any grievous or dangerous injury except the fracture of metacarpal bone sustained by Babulal. The complainant on their part resisted onslaught by the accused party and caused injuries in return to the members of the accused-party. The accused party could not prove that the possession of the disputed land was with them, rather the complainant was able to prove that the disputed land was with them for a long time. The complainant on their part resisted onslaught by the accused party and caused injuries in return to the members of the accused-party. The accused party could not prove that the possession of the disputed land was with them, rather the complainant was able to prove that the disputed land was with them for a long time. We are not inclined to believe the arguments that the deceased must have died due to fall from the bonnet of the tractor and injuries suffered thereby. However, the evidence indicates that one of the member of the unlawful assembly on the side of the accused namely; Thakarsi acceded the common object of assembly and caused head injuries to the deceased-Chittar and it was singularly Thakarsi to whom the injury of deceased Chittar has been attributed by a large number of prosecution witnesses, except one Suman (PW20), who in our considered view cannot be relied, but the manner in which the incident had taken place and the fact that the complainant party failed to explain the injuries of the accused brings his offence within the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part-I of IPC. 33. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment dated 25th June, 2011 is modified in the following manner: (1) that the conviction of accused-appellants Hanuman Sahai, Ram Gopal @ Gopal, Nanchu Ram, Bhag Chand, Bhagwan Sahai and Thakarsi for offence u/s.302/149 IPC is set aside. However, accused-appellant Thakarsi is instead convicted for offence u/s.304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years. The conviction of Thakarsi for offence under Sections 148, 452, 323/149, 325 is maintained. (2) that the conviction of the accused-appellants Hanuman Sahai, Ram Gopal @ Gopal, Nanchu Ram, Bhag Chand and Bhagwan Sahai for offence under Sections 148, 452, 323/149, 325/149 is maintained. They are in jail for a period of about 9 years, 7 months, 2 months, 2 years and 9 years respectively. They are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The accused-appellants Bhagwan Sahai and Hanuman Sahai are in jail. They are set at liberty forthwith. The accused-appellants Ram Gopal @ Gopal, Nanchu Ram and Bhag Chand are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender. They are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The accused-appellants Bhagwan Sahai and Hanuman Sahai are in jail. They are set at liberty forthwith. The accused-appellants Ram Gopal @ Gopal, Nanchu Ram and Bhag Chand are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants Hanuman Sahai, Ram Gopal @ Gopal, Nanchu Ram, Bhag Chand and Bhagwan Sahai are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.