JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. These four appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 13.07.2009 and another order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar (for short 'the trial court') whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the manner indicated below : Name of Accused appellant Section Sentence Balwan Singh 148 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment. 323-323/149 IPC One years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. 324 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment. 307 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years additional simple imprisonment. 302 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years additional simple imprisonment. 4/25 Arms Act One years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment. Malkhan 148 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment. 323-323/149 IPC One years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. 324/149 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment. 307/149 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years additional simple imprisonment. 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years additional simple imprisonment. Dhanni Ram @ DhannoBanwari Lal 148 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment. 323-323/149 IPC One years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. Dhanni Ram @ DhannoBanwari Lal 148 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment. 323-323/149 IPC One years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. 324/149 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment. 307/149 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years additional simple imprisonment. 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years additional simple imprisonment. 148 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment. 323-323/149 IPC One years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. 324/149 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment. 307/149 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years additional simple imprisonment. 302/149 Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ram Khiladi (P.W.5) submitted a written report at Police Station, Rajgarh, District Alwar (Exhibit P-7) on 22.07.2007 alleging therein that on 21.07.2007, his close relatives viz. Rakesh Kumar Meena and Manish were assaulted by Balwan, Banwari, Malkhan, Vicky, Ashu, Ravi, Kamlesh, Dhanni Ram, Shriram Meena, Khilli Meena and 5-7 other persons. He further alleged that due to the injuries, Rakesh had lost his life on the same day. On the basis of aforesaid written report, FIR No. 221/2007 (Exhibit P-8) was registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar for offence under Sections 143, 324, 307 and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the police recorded statements of witnesses, prepared site plan, got injured Manish medically examined. On the basis of aforesaid written report, FIR No. 221/2007 (Exhibit P-8) was registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar for offence under Sections 143, 324, 307 and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the police recorded statements of witnesses, prepared site plan, got injured Manish medically examined. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh only against Shriram, Dhaniram @ Dhanno, Banwari Lal @ Gandhi and Balwan Singh. Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet was submitted against accused Malkhan before the court concerned. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, wherefrom it was made over to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar, which framed the charges against accused Shriram; accused appellants Dhanni Ram @ Dhanno; Banwari Lal @ Gandhi and Malkhan for offence under Sections 148, 323-323/149, 324/149, 307/149, 302/149 IPC and against accused-appellant Balwan Singh for offence under Sections 148, 323-323/149, 324, 307, 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of Indian Arms Act. The accused Shriram and accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, to secure conviction of the accused appellants, produced 18 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they alleged false implication. In defence, no witness was produced, but nine documents were exhibited. On conclusion of trial, the trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2009, while acquitting accused Shriram of the charges framed against him, convicted the accused-appellants, but passed the order of sentence only against accused-appellants Balwan Singh; Malkhan; Dhanni Ram, in the manner indicated above. Since the accused-appellant Banwari Lal was not present before the trial court on the aforesaid date, order of his sentence was passed by the trial court on 16.02.2010, when he was produced before the trial court. He has also been sentenced in the manner indicated above. Hence, these appeals. 3. Mr. Rajesh Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Balwan Singh argued that impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court is bad in eye of law, against the material and evidence available on record. He has also been sentenced in the manner indicated above. Hence, these appeals. 3. Mr. Rajesh Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Balwan Singh argued that impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court is bad in eye of law, against the material and evidence available on record. The trial court while convicting the accused-appellant ignored the principle of criminal jurisprudence and failed to consider that the author of the first information report, i.e. Ram Khiladi (P.W.5) is not a trustworthy witness because he mentioned names of number of persons as accused of the crime but the police after completion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet only against five or six persons, which proves malafide intention of the complainant. The trial court without considering this important aspect of the matter has wrongly convicted the accused-appellant. It is argued that the trial court has not considered an important aspect of the case that even though a detailed report was submitted by the star witness of the prosecution Ram Khiladi (P.W.5), there was no specific allegation levelled against the present appellant at the initial stage in the first information report (Exhibit P-7). After that the allegations were levelled against the present appellant with ulterior motive, which shows the complete collusion in between the parties. 4. It is argued that the trial court has committed a legal error while convicting the accused-appellant despite the fact that on the same set of evidence, one co-accused had already been acquitted by the same order. This shows that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because during the course of trial, the witnesses produced by the prosecution deposed in contrary manner. In such type of the situation, judgment of conviction has no legal sanctity and the same is liable to be set aside. The trial court has failed to consider the fact that entire prosecution case is based upon the statements of interested witnesses. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution story because Abhishek (P.W.3) and Nitin Kumar (P.W.4) have turned hostile, which shows that the story narrated by the prosecution is having many loopholes. The trial court has committed a legal error while deciding the matter only on the basis of statement of star witness of the prosecution i.e. Manish (P.W.2). There are many major contradictions in the statement of Manish. The trial court has committed a legal error while deciding the matter only on the basis of statement of star witness of the prosecution i.e. Manish (P.W.2). There are many major contradictions in the statement of Manish. He cannot be treated as a trustworthy witness because he developed his version during the course of trial. This fact is also evident from the impugned judgment also wherein the learned court below has categorically mentioned about the development in the statement of Manish. There are major contradictions between what he stated in the Court and in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The trial court wrongly convicted the accused appellant by relying on the singular testimony of the injured eye witness viz. Manish. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Banwari Lal @ Gandhi argued that present case has been manipulated inasmuch as the FIR was registered 3 hours after the incident whereas distance of the police station from the place of incident was hardly about a furlong. The trail court was wholly unjustified in brushing aside this important aspect of the matter. It is argued that FIR in the present case was lodged against ten persons whereas Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet only against six persons. This clearly shows that attempt of the complainant party was to falsely implicate as many persons as possible. Statements of prosecution witnesses Kishan Lal (P.W.1) ; Manish (P.W.2) are wholly unreliable and the same suffer from various inconsistencies and contradictions. Learned counsel argued that learned trial court erred in law in not acquitting accused-appellant Banwari Lal @ Gandhi whereas on the same set of evidence, it had acquitted co-accused Shri Ram, who too had blood stains on his pants by holding that since his own blood group could not be ascertained, it could not be ruled out that blood found on his pants would not be his own blood. Learned counsel argued that same analogy ought to have been applied on the blood stained knife allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant. 6. Learned counsel argued that same analogy ought to have been applied on the blood stained knife allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant. 6. It is argued that even according to trial court, as is evident from findings recorded in para 59 of the judgment, motive of the incident has not been established inasmuch as genesis of the occurrence has been completely suppressed from the Court, in the absence of which adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for withholding truth from the Court, particularly when all the witnesses in their statements have denied that accused had any previous enmity with the deceased Rakesh and injured Manish and also denied that Rakesh had slapped Khilli and forbidden him from eve teasing the girls. Statement of Manish (P.W.2), injured eye witness in this respect is also full of contradictions. Learned counsel referred to statement of Dr. G.P. Meena (P.W.12) wherein this witness stated that all injuries are such which could have been caused by one single knife recovered vide memo Exhibit P-14. It is argued that most of the witnesses, who have been produced as eye witnesses, are not actually eye witnesses and are planted witnesses. When their statements were recorded by the police, there was no such allegation against the accused-appellant. But, they have falsely implicated accused appellant Banwari Lal subsequently during their court statements by way of improvement. In fact, Manish (P.W.2) is not an eye witness because he admitted that when he reached the place of incident, substantial part of scuffle has already ended. He had gone to the extent of admitting that Balwan and Banwari had knife, Malknan had belt, Mahendra had iron rod but he did not say so to the police in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-1) and did not even tell anyone about this incident prior to recording of his statement before the Court. He admitted that by the time he reached the place of occurrence, only one injury of knife was sustained by Rakesh, rest of the injuries were caused to him in his presence. When he reached, accused were beating the deceased and Manish by kicks and fists. When a suggestion was given to this witness that he was eve teasing the girls and owing to this, he had a quarrel with Khilliram, he denied such suggestion. When he reached, accused were beating the deceased and Manish by kicks and fists. When a suggestion was given to this witness that he was eve teasing the girls and owing to this, he had a quarrel with Khilliram, he denied such suggestion. Even this witness admitted that Shri Ram was caught on the spot. 7. It is argued that Ram Khiladi (P.W.5), informant is not a reliable witness. In his statement, he has made material omissions because he had stated that he did not enquire from Rakesh and Manish, as to who caused injuries to them, but in the very next sentence he stated that he enquired from Rakesh as to how he sustained injuries and Rakesh thereupon named the accused Balwan and Banwari for causing injuries to him by knife. In written report (Exhibit P-7) however he did not mention this fact and did not even state so in his police statement (Exhibit D-3). Vijay Kumar Meena (P.W.8) has also stated that they caught Shri Ram then and there in 'mela' but he could not say as to what was the reason for the incident. This witness in his cross-examination stated that he saw a belt in the hands of Malkhan, but he did not say so in his police statement (Exhibit D-5). He mentioned this fact to the police that Banwari inflicted a knife blow to Rakesh, but he could not explain why the police had not stated so in Exhibit D-5. In fact, Investigating Officer, Sunita Meena (P.W.-15) stated that during investigation, none of the witnesses told her as to who inflicted knife blow to the deceased. No recovery was made from the accused-appellant during investigation conducted by her. Second Investigating Officer, Amar Chand (P.W.18) has also stated that it was not mentioned in FIR as to which of the accused caused injuries to Rakesh and Manish by knife and who was having knife. He also admitted that in the inquest report names of all the accused were not mentioned. It was also not mentioned as to which accused was having knife and who caused injuries by knife to the deceased. 8. He also admitted that in the inquest report names of all the accused were not mentioned. It was also not mentioned as to which accused was having knife and who caused injuries by knife to the deceased. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the accused-appellant has filed an application under Section 311 read with Section 391 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to recall Manish (P.W.2) to confront him with his police statement (Exhibit D-1) wherein he stated that he saw Balwan inflicting knife blow to Rakesh. Thereupon he kicked Balwan as a result of which he fell and then Balwan inflicted knife blow to this witness. But in the Court statement, when he was confronted with that part of his statement given to the police, as to whether appellant Banwari inflicted any injury by knife to the deceased or not, he could not give any explanation. No prejudice would be cause to the prosecution if the aforesaid witness is recalled for his cross-examination. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India & Another, (1991) Supp1 SCC 271; Anil Sharma & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 5 SCC 679 ; Natasha Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741 and judgment of this Court in Nisar Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 963/2012 decided on 18.02.2015). 9. Mr. Anoop Dhand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Malkhan argued that Amar Chand (P.W.18), S.H.O. in his statement admitted that he received information about the incident on phone from Radhavallabh, A.S.I. but while making entry in the Rojnamcha (Exhibit P-1) name of the accused Malkhan was not mentioned. FIR (Exhibit P-8) is a concocted document and was belatedly lodged on 22.07.2007 at about 1.30 P.M. Thus, there was substantial delay in lodging of FIR. While occurrence took place at about 8.30-9.00 P.M. on 21.07.2007, FIR was lodged at about 1.30 P.M. on 22.07.2007, i.e. with delay of 17 hours. Distance between the court and police station was negligible. Even then, the FIR was sent by the police station to the Magistrate concerned at 10.30 A.M. on 23.07.2007, i.e. with 37 hours' delay. Delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate creates doubt that the prosecution has certainly manipulated FIR and falsely implicated the accused-appellant. Distance between the court and police station was negligible. Even then, the FIR was sent by the police station to the Magistrate concerned at 10.30 A.M. on 23.07.2007, i.e. with 37 hours' delay. Delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate creates doubt that the prosecution has certainly manipulated FIR and falsely implicated the accused-appellant. This is lapse on the part of Investigating Officer, creates serious doubt about genuineness and identity of the accused. It is argued that conduct of the eye witnesses being abnormal, their testimony cannot be relied. Statement of Manish (P.W.2), injured eye witness (Exhibit D-1) was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 27.07.2007 and statement of Ram Khiladi (P.W.5) (Exhibit D-3) was recorded by the Police on 22.07.2007. Manish in his statement admitted that he was medically examined in Rajgarh Hospital on 21.07.2007, which clearly proves that his MLR (Exhibit P-4) dated 21.07.2007 prepared at Alwar is false and fabricated. Sintu (P.W.6) and Jagram (P.W.7) did not disclose anything to anybody including the police in their police statements, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied. 10. It is argued that Manish (P.W.2) stated that Malkhan inflicted a blow by belt on his body from behind, but he in his court statement did not name Malkhan on such specific allegation. Sintu (P.W.6) is not an eyewitness as his police statement (Exhibit D-2) was recorded on 24.07.2007. Statement of Jagram was recorded by the Police (Exhibit D-4) on 29.07.2007, i.e. 8 days after the incident. When he was confronted with his police statement, he stated that he told the police that accused Malkhan had belt in his hands but why it was not mentioned in Exhibit D-4, he could not say. Even statement of Vijay Kumar Meena (P.W.8) is wholly unreliable because his police statement (Exhibit D-5) was recorded five days after the incident i.e. on 26.07.2007. Statement of Kanta (P.W.9), who allegedly was with the deceased at the time of incident, but had gone inside the temple and returned on hearing hue and cry, also cannot be relied because her police statement (Exhibit D-6) was recorded after 18 days of the incident, i.e. on 08.08.2007. Chhote Lal @ Chuttan (P.W.10) also cannot be relied as eyewitness because his police statement (Exhibit D-7) was also recorded 18 days after the incident, i.e. on 08.08.2007. Besides, he was not named as eyewitness in the written report. Chhote Lal @ Chuttan (P.W.10) also cannot be relied as eyewitness because his police statement (Exhibit D-7) was also recorded 18 days after the incident, i.e. on 08.08.2007. Besides, he was not named as eyewitness in the written report. Mahendra Kumar Meena (P.W.11) also cannot be considered as reliable eyewitness because his police statement (Exhibit D-8) was recorded after eight days of the incident i.e. on 29.07.2007. Even in Court, he has not made any specific allegation against the accused-appellant. Recovery of belt at the instance of accused-appellant vide memo Exhibit P-22 is result of fabrication and police padding. Attesting witnesses to this recovery Sukhram and Ram Singh have not been produced and this recovery has been shown seven months after the incident from open place which cannot be relied. No blood stains on belt were found. Learned counsel referred to FSL Report (Exhibit P27) and argued that belt was not sent to FSL. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balaka Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab, (1975) AIR(Supreme Court) 1962; State of Orissa Vs. Brahmananda Nanda, (1976) AIR(Supreme Court) 2488; Manzoor Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) Criminal Law Reporter 134; Dhanna etc. Vs. State of Mahdya Pradesh, (1996) CriLJ 3516; Habeeb Mohammad Vs. State of Hyderabad, (1954) AIR(Supreme Court) 51; Hem Raj & Others Vs. State of Haryana, (2005) AIR(Supreme Court) 2110; judgments of this Court in Pooran & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1993) Criminal Law Reporter 390; Harbhan Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1987) Criminal Law Reporter 407; Mukund Bihari & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1979 Criminal Law Reporter 576; Bhanwar Lal & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1989) Criminal Law Reporter 140; Kulvendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 2 RCD 605 (Raj.); Dolia & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1995) Criminal Law Reporter 185; Babu Maulana & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1986) RajLR 573; State of Rajasthan Vs. Mool Chand, 1990 RajCriC 191; Mohammad Ishaq Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2007) Criminal Law Reporter 379; Keshav Das & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 1976 decided on 09.08.1979); Dharm Singh Ram Charan, Atiroop & Maharaj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1990) Criminal Law Reporter 111; State Vs. Motia, (1953) RajLW 640; judgment of Gauhati High Court in Ramlal Lohar Vs. State of Assam, (1981) CriLJ 1734. 11. Mr. State of Rajasthan, (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 1976 decided on 09.08.1979); Dharm Singh Ram Charan, Atiroop & Maharaj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1990) Criminal Law Reporter 111; State Vs. Motia, (1953) RajLW 640; judgment of Gauhati High Court in Ramlal Lohar Vs. State of Assam, (1981) CriLJ 1734. 11. Mr. Om Prakash Kharra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Dhanni Ram @ Dhanno, in addition to adopting arguments advanced by learned counsel for other accused-appellants, argued that there are lot of contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses as to the role assigned to present accused-appellant. Some of the witnesses are saying that he caused injuries to Manish by belt while some others are saying that he gave them beating by hockey. However, none of the aforesaid weapon has been recovered at the instance of accused appellant. None of witnesses in their statements given to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. alleged that Dhanni Ram @ Dhanno inflicted any injury by hockey. Even Sunita Meena (P.W.15), first Investigating Officer admitted that her investigation did not prove that Dhanni Ram @ Dhanno had any hockey. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals and supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully examined the material on record. 14. Earliest version that was given to the police in the written report by Ram Khiladi (P.W.5) is entirely different version that accused Balwan Meena, Dhamred, Banwari Meena, Babeli, Malkhan Gurjar, Vikky, Ashu and his brother Ravi, Kamlesh, Dhaniram Meena, Shriram, Khilli Meena and 5-7 other persons attacked Rakesh and Manish and caused injuries by knife to them. Jagram Meena, Mahendra, Vijay, Omprakash, and certain other persons of the family were accompanying Rakesh and Manish in the mela. This witness claimed that the injuries were caused to Manish and Rakesh by accused in his presence and the incident had taken place inside mela campus. However, when this witness appeared in the Court, he had an improved version to make. He has substantially improved upon his earlier version by saying that on hearing hue and cry, when he came out of the mela campus, he saw Balwan and Banwari inflicting knife blows to Rakesh. Dhani Ram had hockey, Balwan and Banwari had knife, Malkhan had belt, Deshbandu had hockey and Mahendra had iron rod. He has substantially improved upon his earlier version by saying that on hearing hue and cry, when he came out of the mela campus, he saw Balwan and Banwari inflicting knife blows to Rakesh. Dhani Ram had hockey, Balwan and Banwari had knife, Malkhan had belt, Deshbandu had hockey and Mahendra had iron rod. Balwan also inflicted knife blows to Manish. Chhuttan, Ram Khiladi and 5-7 other persons intervened to save them. In cross-examination, he alleged that Mahendra inflicted blow by iron rod to Rakesh and Malkhan caused injuries by belt on his head and Dhanniram inflicted hockey blow. This witness was extensively confronted with written report (Exhibit P-7) and also his police statement (Exhibit D-3) but in none of these two documents he had made specific allegation against the accused. His police statement (Exhbit D-3) was recorded on 22.07.2007 wherein he alleged that Balwan Meena, Dhamred, Banwari Meena, Malkhan Gurjar, Vickky, Ashu, Ravi, Kamlesh, Kailash, Dhaniram and 5-7 other persons inflicted knife blows to Rakesh and Manish. In cross-examination when a question was put to this witness whether he enquired from Rakesh and Manish as to how they sustained injuries, this witness flatly denied having asked any such question to either of them. But in the next sentence by way of second thought when a subsequent question was put to him, he admitted that he did not mention in the written report (Exhibit P-7) that on his askance, Rakesh told him that Banwari and Balwan caused injuries to him by knife and that he did not mention this fact in his police statement (Exhibit D-3). This witness by his conduct and the improvement that he had made from stage to stage had made himself unreliable. Case of the prosecution now would have to be therefore examined on the basis of what has been stated by only injured eyewitness, Manish (P.W.2). 15. Manish (P.W.2) in the Court stated that he was accompanying Sandeep, his bhabhi Kanta and nephew Ashu to Jagannath Temple in Rajgarh. While his bhabhi went inside the temple to offer the prayer along with Ashu, Sandeep was standing with him outside the temple. Bhabhi Kanta returned back and they started for home. While they were coming home, Kanta asked him to wait for some time as she wanted to make certain purchases from the market. Suddenly, he heard the sound of hue and cry. Bhabhi Kanta returned back and they started for home. While they were coming home, Kanta asked him to wait for some time as she wanted to make certain purchases from the market. Suddenly, he heard the sound of hue and cry. Rakesh, Jagram, Mahendra, Vijay Kumar, Yogesh, Namonarain etc. were also present there. He saw Balwan and Banwari inflicting knife blows to Rakesh. In order to save him, he hit Balwan by a kick as a result of which he fell on the ground but he immediately stood up. Then, Balwan inflicted a knife blow to him, i.e. Manish. Then, he alleged that Malkhan inflicted a blow on him by belt from behind. Dhaniram inflicted a hockey blow to Rakesh. Dehsbandhu also inflicted hockey blow to Rakesh. He then became unconscious. This witness has been less than candid to the Court when he stated that the reason why the accused caused injuries to them was not known to him but at the same time also admitted that they did not have any enmity. Obviously this witness has deliberately withheld the genesis of the incident and the reason why the quarrel between two groups started. In cross-examination, when he was confronted with his police statement (Exhibit D-1), he admitted that he did not mention so in his police statement. It may be significant to note at this stage that police statement of this witness was recorded on 27.07.2007, i.e. six days after the incident. In cross-examination when he was confronted with his police statement (Exhibit D-1), he admitted that he did not narrate to the police that he saw hockey in the hands of Dhaniram, knife in the hand of Balwan and Banwari, belt in the hands of Malkhan, hockey in the hands of Deshbandhu, iron rod in the hands of Mahendra. In fact, he did not narrate this fact to anyone before making such disclosure in the Court. But in further cross-examination, he admitted that he did not accompany Rakesh, but reached at the place of incident after quarrel has already started. He reached there two minutes after starting of quarrel. He went rushing there in full speed, but then he took care to state that when he reached there, only head injury was caused to Rakesh and rest of the injuries were received by him after his arrival. He reached there two minutes after starting of quarrel. He went rushing there in full speed, but then he took care to state that when he reached there, only head injury was caused to Rakesh and rest of the injuries were received by him after his arrival. He had narrated to the police that Malkhan had inflicted a belt blow on his back, but why the police did not mention so in his police statement (Exhibit D-1), he could not say. But in later part of cross-examination, he stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, accused were beating Rakesh, Jagram, Mahendra and Vijay by their fists and kicks. Besides, Yogesh @ Lali and Namonarain were also beaten by the accused. When a suggestion was put to him that the quarrel took place because they were caught by the members of accused party eve teasing the girls and when Khilliram forbade him from doing so, then a quarrel took place between him and Khilli, he denied the same. He also denied having given part of his police statement (Exhibit D-1) marked as A to B where it was stated that he and his companions were having enmity with Khilli, who had threatened to get them killed some day and he told this to his brother Jagram, Rakesh etc. and due to this enmity they have attacked Rakesh. To this, Manish, in his cross-examination stated that he never gave any such statement to police. Obviously, this witness is trying to withhold the genesis and concealing true facts from the Court that as to why entire incident took place. Besides, police statement of this witness was recorded six days after the incident. 16. Sintu (P.W.6) has also been produced to make similar statement that Balwan and Banwari had knife, Malkhan had belt and others had hockey. While Balwan and Banwari inflicted Rakesh by knife, Manish came from the side of temple and hit Balwan with his kick, as a result of which, he fell on the ground and again stood up to cause injuries of knife to Manish. Dhaniram inflicted injuries to Manish by belt. While Balwan and Banwari inflicted Rakesh by knife, Manish came from the side of temple and hit Balwan with his kick, as a result of which, he fell on the ground and again stood up to cause injuries of knife to Manish. Dhaniram inflicted injuries to Manish by belt. Even this witness was confronted with his police statement (Exhibit D-2) extensively which was recorded on 24.07.2007, three days after the incident, in which from A to B part he stated that Balwan caused injuries to Rakesh by knife and then Manish came there and hit him by kick, as a result of which he fell on the ground, but then bounced back to cause injury by knife to Manish. He denied having given statement to police that Malkhan caused injuries to him by belt, but then tried to explain what he said in the police statement was that not just Balwan, but Balwan and Banwari both caused injury to Rakesh by knife and Dhanni Ram also caused injuries to Manish by belt, but why this was not mentioned in his police statement (Exhibit D-2), he could not explain. He admitted in the cross-examination that incident had already started five minutes before his arrival at the place of occurrence and that Shri Ram was caught by the people then and there. 17. Jagram (P.W.7) has also been cited as eyewitness. He has stated that Banwari and Balwan had knife, Malkhan had belt, Mahendra had iron rod and others had hockey. Balwan and Banwari caught hold of Rakesh and attacked him. Quarrel took place for about 5-6 minutes. When Manish tried to save Rakesh, he hit Balwan by kick as a result of which he fell on the ground. Then, Balwan stood back and caused knife injuries to Manish. In cross-examination, he stated that he did tell the police that Malkhan had belt in his hands but he could not explain why the police did not mention this fact in his police statement (Exhibit D4). It is thus obvious that when statement of Ram Khiladi (P.W.5) was recorded by the police on 22.07.2007, Balwan Meena was mentioned as principal assailants with all others including Banwari Meena with omnibus allegation of causing injuries to deceased Rakesh and injured Manish. It is thus obvious that when statement of Ram Khiladi (P.W.5) was recorded by the police on 22.07.2007, Balwan Meena was mentioned as principal assailants with all others including Banwari Meena with omnibus allegation of causing injuries to deceased Rakesh and injured Manish. But when statements of Sintu and Jagram were recorded by the police on 24.07.2007 and 29.07.2007 respectively, their focus was on Balwan alleging that it was Balwan, who inflicted knife injuries to Rakesh and then Manish hit Balwan by kick as a result of which he fell on the ground and bounced back to attack him by knife also. Statement of Jagram was recorded by the police on 29.07.2007 in which too, he maintained that Balwan caused injury to Rakesh by knife. Manish and Sandeep then reached there. Manish hit Balwan by kick as a result of which he fell on the ground. Thereafter, Balwan turned back to cause injury in the stomach of Manish by knife. 18. Vijay Kumar Meena (P.W.8) has stated that Balwan and Banwari started inflicting injuries to Rakesh by knife and also caused injuries to Manish. Others started causing injuries by belt and hockey. After sometime, Manish came to save him and hit Balwan by kick, as a result of which he fell on the ground. Thereafter, Balwan stood up again and caused injuries to Manish by knife in his stomach. When this witness was confronted with his police statement (Exhibit D-5), in which he alleged that Balwan started beating Rakesh and caused injuries to him by knife, he could not explain the discrepancy. Kanta (P.W.9), bhabhi of Manish has stated that she saw Balwan causing knife injuries to Rakesh and Balwan also caused knife injuries to Manish. She could not say as to which accused caused injuries by which weapon. This witness was confronted with her police statement (Exhibit D-6) wherein she also alleged that Balwan caused knife injuries to Rakesh and thereafter, he caused injuries to Manish but she failed to give any explanation. Chote Lal @ Chhuttan (P.W.10) in the court statement stated that Mahendra inflicted iron rod blow on the body of Rakesh from behind. Malkhan caused injuries by belt. Dhanni Ram inflicted hockey blow and Balwan and Banwari inflicted knife blows. Chote Lal @ Chhuttan (P.W.10) in the court statement stated that Mahendra inflicted iron rod blow on the body of Rakesh from behind. Malkhan caused injuries by belt. Dhanni Ram inflicted hockey blow and Balwan and Banwari inflicted knife blows. Even this witness was subjected to intensive cross-examination wherein when he was confronted with his police statement (Exhibit D-7) which was recorded belatedly on 08.08.2007 wherein he alleged that Balwan inflicted knife blow to Rakesh and Manish and did not make such allegation against Banwari but he could not explain the discrepancy. Mahendra Kumar Meena (P.W.11) in court statement alleged that accused caught hold of Rakesh and started causing injuries to him by knife and hockey. Banwari and Balwan both caused injuries to Rakesh by knife. When he was confronted with his police statement (Exhibit D-8), he failed to explain discrepancy therein. 19. In fact, all the prosecution cited as eye witnesses were confronted with their police statements before the trial court, but they failed to explain discrepancies as to why at later stage they sought to also implicate Banwari on allegation of causing injuries to the deceased Rakesh and injured Manish by knife. 20. Analysis of aforesaid evidence makes it clear that quarrel started between youths of two groups, who were in their late teens on the dispute that deceased was eve teasing the girls in a mela which the accused party did not like and a sudden scuffle took place wherein common object of the accused party was to give good threshing to Rakesh. Unlawful assembly, if at all there was any, its common object at the maximum was to give severe beating to Rakesh. In that process, one of the accused namely Balwan suddenly exceeded that common object and took out knife and caused injuries to Rakesh and also Manish, who arrived at the place of occurrence subsequently and intervened to save Rakesh. In that process, Rakesh sustained fatal injuries, which led to his unfortunate death inasmuch as Manish also sustained injuries. Post Mortem Report of Rakesh (Exhibit P-12) has been proved by Dr. G.P. Meena (P.W.12), according to whom he sustained six injuries. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that injury no. 1 to 5 could have been caused by Article7, i.e. knife that was recovered at the instance of accused appellant Balwan. Post Mortem Report of Rakesh (Exhibit P-12) has been proved by Dr. G.P. Meena (P.W.12), according to whom he sustained six injuries. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that injury no. 1 to 5 could have been caused by Article7, i.e. knife that was recovered at the instance of accused appellant Balwan. Similarly, injury report of Manish (Exhibit P-4) was also proved by this witness, according to which all other injuries were simple in nature except injury no.1, which was incised would in the size of 2.1 cm x 1.0 cm x 0.9 cm at right side of chest. In cross-examination when knife (Article 7) was shown to this witness, his response was that injury no. 1 to 5 of the deceased and injury no. 1 of injured Manish could have been caused by this single knife. Therefore, accused-appellant Balwan, in our considered opinion, would be individually responsible for exceeding common object of unlawful assembly, whose common object was to give severe beating to the deceased Rakesh and to teach him a good lesson rather than kill him. Therefore, accused appellant Balwan would be individually responsible for causing his death. However, in the facts of the present case, since the incident had taken place at a spur of moment in a sudden fight in heat of passion over the dispute of eve teasing, his case would fall in the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, thus making Balwan guilty of causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC. However, accused-appellants can at the maximum be held responsible for causing other injuries to the deceased Rakesh and injured Manish. 21. In view of above discussion, present appeals deserve to succeed in part and are partly allowed and resultantly the impugned judgment stands modified in the following terms: (i) Conviction of accused-appellant Balwan Singh for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment awarded on that count is set aside and instead he is convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 50, 000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo additional simple imprisonment of two years. (ii) Conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Balwan Singh for offence under Section 307 IPC is maintained, however, fine of Rs. 50, 000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo additional simple imprisonment of two years. (ii) Conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Balwan Singh for offence under Section 307 IPC is maintained, however, fine of Rs. 3,000/- imposed by the trial court upon him on that count is enhanced to Rs. 10, 000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment of one year. (iii) Conviction and sentence awarded to accused-appellant Balwan Singh under Sections 148, 323-323/149, 324, IPC and Section 4/25 Arms Act is maintained. (iv) All the sentences awarded to accused-appellant Balwan Singh shall run concurrently. (v) Accused-appellant Balwan Singh is in jail and if he has served out sentences now awarded to him and deposited the fine, as aforesaid, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. (vi) Accused-appellants Malkhan, Dhanni Ram @ Dhanno and Banwari Lal @ Gandhi are acquitted of the charges for offence under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC. However, their conviction for offences under Sections 148, 323-323/149 and 324/149 IPC is maintained, but they are sentenced to a period of imprisonment already undergone by them. (vii) Accused-appellants Malkhan and Dhanni Ram @ Dhanno are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. Accused-appellant Banwari Lal @ Gandhi is in jail and he be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. (viii) Upon deposit of amount of fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed under Section 304 part-I IPC by the accused-appellant Balwan Singh, as directed above, the same shall be paid to victim, i.e. father of the deceased Rakesh and amount of fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed under Section 307 IPC shall be paid to injured Manish. (ix) Amount of fine to be deposited by all the accused-appellants on other counts, if deposited, shall be paid to father of victim and Manish in equal proportion. 22. 10,000/- imposed under Section 307 IPC shall be paid to injured Manish. (ix) Amount of fine to be deposited by all the accused-appellants on other counts, if deposited, shall be paid to father of victim and Manish in equal proportion. 22. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellants Balwan Singh, Malkhan, Dhanni Ram @ Dhanno and Banwari Lal @ Gandhi are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, 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. 23. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of each connected appeal.