JUDGMENT : Krishna Pratap Singh, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed against judgment of conviction dated 13.5.1985 and order of sentence dated 14.5.1985 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Sessions Trial No. 312 of 1984 whereby learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC for the murder of Ram Suresh and Sugwanti. The appellants were further convicted and sentenced to one year's RI under section 147 IPC and seven years' RI under Sections 307/149 IPC. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. As appellants Nos. 6 and 7 namely Lalji Singh and Ram Naresh Singh are dead, the appeal filed on their behalf abated vide order dated 08.7.2016. 3. In short compass, the facts of the case are that an oral information was given by the informant Mahendra Singh at the police station Karma, district Mirzapur to the effect that his sister-in-law Jhunni had gone to fetch water from river, where accused Tej Singh teased her. Jhunni returned home and narrated the incident to her mother-in-law Sugwanti. At about 9.30 AM, Sugwanti and Jhunni came to Ram Suresh, who was working at the fields along with PW1, Jamwant, Nagendra, Manik, Mohan, narrated the incident to him and his sons. At about 10.00 AM accused Lalji, Ram Narain, Ram Naresh, Prakash Murli, Punni Ram, Jokhan, Dharamraj, Tej Singh, Bhushan and Budhiram arrived at the said fields. Lalji, Jokhan and Murli were armed with lathi, whereas other accused had lohbanda(iron ring fitted lathi). All the accused surrounded them, abused and started assaulting Ram Suresh and Sugwanti. Sugwanti took out a spade lying in the field, plied it in self defence, which caused some injuries to Tej Singh. Due to injuries inflicted by accused-appellants, Ram Suresh and Sugwanti succumbed to the injuries and Jamwant seriously injured. However, Nagendra and Manik escaped unhurt and on their alarm, Sadafal, Siddharth, Sunder, Hegchi, Khaderu and others rushed to the spot, witnessed the incident, but due to fear of accused, no one dared to come forward. It was also alleged that father of Tej Pal Singh was murdered 12-13 years ago in which informant's father was named and due to enmity, accused committed the murder of Sugwanti and Ram Suresh. 4. It was also alleged that father of Tej Pal Singh was murdered 12-13 years ago in which informant's father was named and due to enmity, accused committed the murder of Sugwanti and Ram Suresh. 4. On the basis of aforesaid information given by PW-2, Mahendra Singh, PW-6, Head Constable Shyam Bihari Singh prepared FIR as case crime No. 57 of 1983, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 at police station Karma, district Mirzapur on 14.8.1983 at 3.30 PM and made necessary entries in the GD. 5. After registration of the case, investigation was entrusted to PW-8, SI Bhola Prasad Yadav, who rushed to the spot at 8.05 PM where Constables Kamla Prasad Yadav and Ram Baraf were guarding the dead bodies of deceased Ram Suresh and Sugwanti. The field where dead body of Sugwanti lay, injured Jamwant also lay there. He recorded the statement of injured Jamwant and sent him for medical examination. Injured had received several injuries and was unable to move. Investigating officer also recorded the statements of first informant Mahendra and witnesses of first information report Sadafal and Nagendra. In the morning of 15.8.1983, he inspected the place of occurrence and on the pointing out of Sadafal prepared site plan (Ext. Ka11). He also conducted inquest of the cadaver of Ram Suresh (Ext. Ka-12) and prepared necessary documents. Thereafter, he conducted inquest of cadaver of Sugwanti (Ext. Ka-16) and also prepared necessary documents relating thereto. The investigating officer collected bloodstained and plain earth from the places where deceased Ram Suresh and Sugwanti lay dead and after keeping in separate containers prepared their memos (Ext. Ka-5 to 8). After recording the statements of witnesses and completing the investigation, investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, police station Karma, district Mirzapur. 6. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as ST No. 312 of 1983 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur vide order dated 09.11.1983 framed charges against the appellants under Sections 147, 302/149, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. 7. To bring home guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, out of whom PW-1, Jamwant was injured witness, PW-2 Mahendra Singh was the first informant, PW 3 Sadafal was the eyewitness of the occurrence and remaining were formal. 8. PW-1, Jamwant deposed that deceased Ram Suresh was his father, deceased Sugwanti his mother. Accused-appellants Lalji, Ram Adhar and Ram Naresh are his uncle, Ram Narain, Jokhan, Dharm Raj, Tej Singh and Bhushan are cousins and Budhiram a servant of Tej Singh. Ram Adhar (father of appellants No. 1 to 4 ) was murdered 12-13 years ago, in which the deceased Ram Suresh was an accused. On account of this enmity the appellants committed the murder of the deceased. On the date of incident his mother Sugwanti (deceased) and sister-in-law Jhunni came to the fields abusing Tej Singh. His mother told Ram Suresh (deceased) as well as her sons present at the fields about the incident of teasing by Tej Singh. At about 10 AM accused Lalji, Ram Narain, Ram Naresh, Prakash, Murli, Punni Ram, Jokhan, Dharmraj, Tej Singh, Bhushan Singh and Budhi Ram came armed with Lathi and Lohbanda at the fields and surrounded them. Ram Naresh and Jokhan assaulted his father Ram Suresh (deceased) with Lohbanda,who ran and fell down at the fields of Ram Naresh. Accused Ram Narain, Dharam Raj and Tej Singh assaulted Sugwanti (deceased) with their respective Lohbanda. Deceased Sugwanti took out a spade, lying in the field, plied it in her self defence, which caused some injuries to Tej Singh and Dharamraj Singh. He further deposed that injuries to him was caused by Budhi Ram and Bhusan. He also deposed that he plied Painain self defence, which caused injuries to Dharm Raj and Tej Singh, who also fell down. On having noticed that Ram Suresh and Sugwanti died, they left towards their house. Meanwhile, Ram Suresh (deceased) raised his head to ascertain the departure of accused, thereupon, on the exhortation of Tej Singh that Ram Suresh (deceased) is alive, accused Budhi Ram, Punni Ram and Murli again assaulted Ram Suresh (deceased) by Lohbandaand lathikilling him at the spot. Lalji, Ram Narain and Jokhan again assaulted his mother Sugwanti to death. Ram Narain crushed the eyes of her mother by Lohbanda. Lalji, Ram Narain and Jokhan again assaulted his mother Sugwanti to death. Ram Narain crushed the eyes of her mother by Lohbanda. He further deposed that he also received injuries, when accused again assaulted him, but on a challenge made by Dharm Raj Mishra, the Pradhan, accused fled. In addition to him, the incident was also witnessed by Sunder, Sadafal and Tegchu. However, Malik, Nagendra and Mohan escaped unhurt. 9. PW-2, Mahendra is youngest son of deceased and first informant of the case. He reiterated the versions given in the FIR. He further deposed that report was lodged by constable on his dictation. 10. PW-3, Sadafal deposed that on the date of incident at about 9.30 AM Sugwanti (deceased) and Jhunni, wife of Malik came to fields. Sugwanti while conversing with her husband and sons took the name of Tej Singh. At 10.00 AM, Jokhan, Tej Singh, Dharm Raj Singh, Ram Naresh, Om Prakah, Murli, Punni Ram, Budhi Ram, Lalji, Ram Narain and Bhushan came to the fields. Lalji, Bhushan and Murli were having lathi and rest were armed with Lohbanda. After arrival, accused Naresh and Jokhan started assaulting Ram Suresh, who ran towards east was chased and beaten by them. Ram Suresh fell down in the field of Ram Naresh. Thereupon accused assaulted Sugwanti, who plied spade in her defence as a result thereof Tej Singh received injuries. Jamwant was assaulted by Budhi Ram and Bhushan. 11. PW-4, Dr. Taufiq Ahmad on 15.8.1983 at 2.30 AM medically examined Jamwant Singh, aged about 18 years, son of Ram Suresh, who was brought unconscious by Constable Ram Baran Singh of police station Karma, district Mirzapur. He found the following injuries on his person: “1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 4 cm x 0.6 cm on the scalp about 7 cm above the upper part of pinna of the right ear. 2. Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1 cm x 0.3 cm on the scalp about 11.5 cm above the upper part of pinna of left ear. 3. Lacerated wound 3.5 cm x 0.5 x 2 cm on the scalp about 8.5 cm above the upper part of pinna of the left ear. 4. Lacerated wound 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.1 cm on just below the left eye. 5. Lacerate wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm about 2.5 cm behind the left ear. 6. 4. Lacerated wound 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.1 cm on just below the left eye. 5. Lacerate wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm about 2.5 cm behind the left ear. 6. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.6 cm x 0.3 cm just behind the left ear. 7. Contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on the lateral aspect of the left upper arm about 10.5 cm above the left elbow joint. 8. Abraded contusion 9.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the back about 2 cm below the left elbow joint.” 12. Injuries No. 1 to 3 were kept under observation, whereas injuries No. 4 to 8 were simple in nature. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were caused by a blunt object. 13. PW-5, Dr. V. Singh conducted autopsy on the cadaver of Sugwanti on 16.8.1983 at 12.00 noon and found the following injuries: “1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right side of fact 2 cm below eye. Fracture of maxilla bone. 2. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right side of face 1 cm below injury No. 1. Fracture of maxila bone. 3. Lacerated wound 3 x 1 cm x bone deep on the right of face 2 cm below the eye. 4. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep in middle of chin. Fracture of mandible. 5. Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 cm x bone deep on right side of chin. Fracture of mandible. 6. Lacerated wound 3 x 1 x bone deep on left side of fore-head 5 cm. Above eye brow. Fracture of frontal bone. 7. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the left side of head 10 cm above ear. 8. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the right side of head 5 cm above ear. Fracture of parietal bone. 9. Contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on outer side of right arm. Fracture of humerus. 10. Contusion 6 x 2 cm on the back side on right forearm 8 cm below elbow. 11. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm x 1 cm deep in right palm in between thumb and index finger. 12. Contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on outer side of left elbow. 13. Fracture of humerus. 10. Contusion 6 x 2 cm on the back side on right forearm 8 cm below elbow. 11. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm x 1 cm deep in right palm in between thumb and index finger. 12. Contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on outer side of left elbow. 13. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm deep in left palm in between thumb and index finger. 14. On internal examination, Dr. V. Singh found multiple fracture of parietal, frontal, right maxilla and mandible bones. Membranes congested. Massive subdural haemorrhage present. In thorax there was fracture of 4th to 6th ribs of right side and 4th to 7th ribs on left side. Pleura ruptured on both sides, blood present in thoracic cavity. Right lung lacerated in an area of 3 cm x 2 cm, whereas left lung in an area of 4 cm x 2 cm. Multiple fracture of right maxilla and mandible bone. 15. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury and laceration of lungs. 16. PW-6, Shyam Bihari Singh deposed that on 14.08.1983, he was posted as Constable in police Station Karma, district Mirzapur. On that date at about 3.30 PM, he prepared check report on the dictation of first informant Mahendra and made necessary GD entries. 17. PW-7, Constable Kamla Yadav took cadavers of both the deceased for conducting autopsy along with Constable Alnaram. 18. PW-8, SI Bhola Prasad Yadav, was the investigating officer, who conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants. His evidence in detail has already been discussed above. 19. PW-9, Dr. R.A. Mishra, deposed that on 16.8.1983, he was posted at Primary Health Centre, Robertsganj as Medical Officer. On that date he conducted the autopsy on the cadaver of Ram Suresh and found the following ante-mortem injuries: “1. Lacerated wound 5 x 2 cm bone deep in front of head, 10 cm above the root of nose. Underlying bone depressed. 2. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 x ½ cm over chin left side mandible. 3. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 x ½ on the lower lip of mouth right side. 4. Lacerated wound 3 x 1x ¼ cm in front of forehead 3 cm above right eye brow. 5. Underlying bone depressed. 2. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 x ½ cm over chin left side mandible. 3. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 x ½ on the lower lip of mouth right side. 4. Lacerated wound 3 x 1x ¼ cm in front of forehead 3 cm above right eye brow. 5. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 x ¼ cm on left eye brow. 6. Lacerated wound 5 x 3 cm x bone deep on right leg 12 cm below knee joint. Underlying bone is fractured and part of it protruding. 7. Lacerated wound ½ x ½ x ¼ cm on right middle finger.” 20. On internal examination, he found fracture of frontal bone under injury no. 1 in an area of 4 cm in length. There was extra dural haemorrhage. There was clotting of blood on surface of brain in an area of 10 cm x 6 cm. 21. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was coma due to head injury. 22. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the occurrence and claimed false implication. 23. Accused-appellant Dharam Raj and Tej Singh in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that incident of teasing is absolutely false. They further stated that dispute arose between the parties in respect of field, in which deceased Ram Suresh and his sons armed with lathi and Gaddasa assaulted them and in self defence they also caused injuries to them. 24. Accused-appellants Bhushan and Jokhan stated that they had falsely been implicated in this case being the brothers of Dharamraj and Tej Singh and that they were not present at the place of occurrence. 25. Accused-appellant Ram Narain stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case as he is a son of Lalji and that he was not present at the place of occurrence. 26. Accused-appellants Lalji and Ram Naresh stated that they were not present at the place of occurrence and they had been implicated in this case as they were witnesses to the murder of Ram Adhar, in which deceased Ram Suresh was also an accused. 27. Accused-appellants, Prakash and Punni Ram and Murali Singh stated that they have been implicated being sons of Ram Naresh and that they were not present at the scene of occurrence. 28. 27. Accused-appellants, Prakash and Punni Ram and Murali Singh stated that they have been implicated being sons of Ram Naresh and that they were not present at the scene of occurrence. 28. Accused-appellant Budhi Ram stated that he was neither servant of Tej Singh and Dharm Raj nor was present at the place of occurrence. 29. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur after hearing learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. 30. Hence, this appeal. 31. Heard Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Brijesh Sahai/ Shri Saurabh Singh, Advocate. We also heard Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned amicus earlier appointed by us and Shri A.N. Mulla, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case. 32. Learned counsel's challenged the FIR on the ground that informant PW-2, Mahendra Singh was a kid aged ten years on the date of occurrence cannot lodge such a detailed report after covering a distance of 14 kms. on foot. It was further submitted that learned Trial Court erred in law in not accepting the plea of private defence taken by appellants, Dharam Raj Singh alias Sipahi and Tej Singh alias Daroga. It was also submitted that Trial Court erred in law in not accepting the plea of alibi taken by the other appellants. 33. It was next submitted that accused/appellant No. 2 was assaulted with a sharp edged weapon and a lathi , suffered injuries on vital parts as such he had a right of private defence to save himself. It was lastly submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in correct perspective and has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants on surmises and conjectures. 34. Per contra Shri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA has submitted that in this case prompt FIR has been lodged and prosecution witnesses are found to be wholly reliable. It was further submitted that it is a case of double murder in broad day light and prosecution has succeeded to offer plausible explanation for the injuries sustained by appellant No. 2. It was also submitted that date, time and place of occurrence are not disputed between the parties. It was further submitted that it is a case of double murder in broad day light and prosecution has succeeded to offer plausible explanation for the injuries sustained by appellant No. 2. It was also submitted that date, time and place of occurrence are not disputed between the parties. Accused persons who were eleven in number attacked unarmed deceased persons with lathi and Lohbandaand killed them, were fully aware about the consequences of their acts, which negates their right of private defence. Lastly, it was submitted that judgment of trial court is well reasoned, calls for no interference. 35. Informant, PW-2 Mahendra Singh, is the son of deceased Ram Suresh/Sugwanti. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 14.08.1983 at around 10.00 AM. Statement of PW-2, Mahendra Singh was recorded by trial court on 09.10.1984 and 10.10.1984 i.e. after one year of the incident. He deposed that it was a Sunday. At the time of occurrence, he was aged about 10 years, a student of class-IV. He saw the occurrence from beginning to end. His father and mother were done to death by the appellants. His brother PW-1, Jamwant lay injured unconscious at the place of occurrence. His brothers Malik Ram and Nagendra fled from the spot seeing their parents and brother being beaten mercilessly by appellants. Learned trial court had examined him before recording his statement to test his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation. His testimony shows that he was able to grasp the happenings and was also able to reproduce it. A ghastly crime committed in presence of a son in which his parents lost their lives stands registered in one's mind very effectively. In these circumstances, it can be said that he was able to state about the occurrence before the police personnel at police station. He also deposed that report was lodged by constable on his dictation. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for appellants that informant a kid of ten years, itself may not be sufficient to rebut the prosecution case. 36. PW-1, Jamwant is an injured witness. He also deposed that report was lodged by constable on his dictation. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for appellants that informant a kid of ten years, itself may not be sufficient to rebut the prosecution case. 36. PW-1, Jamwant is an injured witness. He deposed that on the date of incident when he was present at the fields along with his father Ram Suresh, mother Sugwanti, sister-in-law/Jhunni and others, accused Lalji, Ram Narain, Ram Naresh, Prakash, Murli, Punni Ram, Jokhan, Dharmraj, Tej Singh, Bhushan Singh and Budhi Ram came there armed with Lathi and Lohbanda and surrounded them. Ram Naresh and Jokhan assaulted his father Ram Suresh (deceased) with Lohbanda, who ran and fell down in the field of Ram Naresh. Accused Ram Narain, Dharam Raj and Tej Singh assaulted Sugwanti (deceased) with their respective Lohbanda. Deceased, Sugwanti took out spade, which was lying in the field and plied it in her self defence, which caused some injuries to Tej Singh and Dharamraj Singh. He further deposed that injuries to him was caused by Budhi Ram and Bhusan. He also deposed that he plied Paina in self defence, which caused injuries to Dharm Raj and Tej Singh, who also fell down. On being noticed by the accused that Ram Suresh and Sugwanti died, they left towards their house. In the meantime, Ram Suresh (deceased) raised his head to ascertain the departure of accused, thereupon, on the exhortation of Tej Singh that Ram Suresh (deceased) is alive, accused Budhi Ram, Punni Ram and Murli again assaulted Ram Suresh (deceased) by Lohbanda and lathi killing him. Lalji, Ram Narain and Jokhan again assaulted his mother Sugwanti to death. Ram Narain crushed the eyes of her mother by Lohbanda. 37. He underwent long cross examination, but nothing material could be elicited from his cross examination to raise any doubt on his credibility. He has also denied the suggestion of defence that he has given false statement due to enmity. Testimony of an injured witness is entitled to great weight. His presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted. It is not disputed that he had received injuries in the same occurrence, therefore, his testimony cannot be discarded. 38. Sadaphal Singh, PW-3 is an eyewitness of the occurrence. He fully and completely supported the case of prosecution. He depicted vivid description of the incident. His presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted. It is not disputed that he had received injuries in the same occurrence, therefore, his testimony cannot be discarded. 38. Sadaphal Singh, PW-3 is an eyewitness of the occurrence. He fully and completely supported the case of prosecution. He depicted vivid description of the incident. His presence at the place of incident also cannot be denied. Post-mortem reports and injury report of PW-1, Jamwant also corroborate the time of occurrence and also the manner of assault. Having gone through the entire evidence on record as well as facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that PW-1, Jamwant, PW-2, Mahendra Singh and PW-3 Sadaphal, are trustworthy witnesses and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimonies. 39. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that prosecution has succeeded to prove that appellants have caused injuries to deceased Ram Suresh and Sugwanti as well as to PW-1, Jamwant in furtherance of their common object. 40. Appellants No. 1 and 2, namely Dharam Raj Singh alias Sipahi and Tej Singh alias Daroga took the plea of private defence. To claim private defence extending to voluntarily causing of the death, the accused persons must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to them. The burden is on the appellants to show that they had a right of private defence to the extent of causing death. The evidence shows that deceased Ram Suresh, Sugwanti and injured Jamwant were not armed with fatal weapons at the time of incident, other persons from informant side too were not armed with any fatal weapons. Evidence does not show that appellants No. 1 and 2 were under any reasonable apprehension that their lives on limbs were in danger or at the risk of grievous hurt. The apprehension must be reasonable and the violence inflicted must not be greater than reasonably necessary for self defence. PW-1, Jamwant deposed that when his father Ram Suresh after receiving injuries fell down, appellants left towards their house. The apprehension must be reasonable and the violence inflicted must not be greater than reasonably necessary for self defence. PW-1, Jamwant deposed that when his father Ram Suresh after receiving injuries fell down, appellants left towards their house. In the meantime, Ram Suresh raised his head to ascertain the departure of appellants, thereupon, on the exhortation of appellant Tej Singh that Ram Suresh is alive, accused Budhi Ram, Punni Ram and Murli again assaulted Ram Suresh by Lohbandaand lathikilling him at the spot. He also deposed that at the time of incident, his mother deceased Sugwanti took out a spade lying at the fields and plied it in self defence, which caused some injuries to appellants Dharma Raj Singh and Tej Singh. PW-1 also plied a painain self defence, which caused injuries to Dharam Raj Singh and Tej Singh. PW-2, Mahendra Singh and PW-3, Sadaphal corroborated the testimony of PW-1. Evidence on record clearly proves that accused-appellants went to paddy fields of the deceased armed with Lohbandas and Lathis and assaulted the deceased Ram Suresh, Sugwanti and injured Jamwant (PW-1). 41. We are convinced that in the light of evidence on record appellants were aggressors and none of the appellants can claim any right of private defence. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that appellants failed to establish their right of private defence. 42. Appellants No. 3 to 11 have stated in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. that at the time of incident, they were not present at the place of occurrence. Copy of G.D. entry Ext. Kha-3 shows that appellant No. 8 Prakash, appellant No. 7 Ram Naresh, appellant No. 5 Ram Narain and appellant No. 11 Budhi Ram had blunt object injuries. The presence of injuries on the person of aforesaid appellants proves that at the time of incident they were present at the place of occurrence and had actively participated in the commission of crime. So far as the other appellants are concerned, prosecution has proved that all of them were present at the scene and had participated in the crime. Appellants have not adduced any evidence to prove alibi. It was incumbent upon them to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of their presence at the scene. There is no counter evidence to the effect that appellants No. 3 to 11 were present elsewhere when the occurrence happened. Appellants have not adduced any evidence to prove alibi. It was incumbent upon them to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of their presence at the scene. There is no counter evidence to the effect that appellants No. 3 to 11 were present elsewhere when the occurrence happened. Strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi, but aforesaid appellants failed to establish the same. It is noteworthy that father of appellants No. 1 to 4 Ram Adhar Singh, appellant No. 6, Lalji Singh, appellant No. 7 Ram Naresh Singh and deceased Ram Suresh are real brothers. Appellant No. 5 Ram Narain Singh is the son of appellant No. 6, Lalji Singh and appellants No. 8, 9 and 10 namely, Prakash, Punni Ram and Murli are sons of appellant No. 7 Ram Naresh Singh. Neither the evidence on record nor the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. would show that appellants had any repentance for the ghastly act. 43. In view of what has been indicated above, we are of the view that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against all the accused-appellants. 44. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. 45. The appellants are on bail. They shall surrender before the Trial Court within 45 days for serving out the sentence, failing which Trial Court shall ensure their arrest and shall send them to jail for serving out the sentence in accordance with law. 46. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance and compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months. 47. Registrar General is directed to ensure a payment of Rs. 15000/- to Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned Amicus for services rendered.