Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1422 (ALL)

Deoraj v. State of U. P.

2019-05-24

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, RAMESH SINHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the five appellants namely Deoraj, Bachcha, Chunna, Gaya and Balbir against the judgment and order dated 30.8.1983 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Banda in S.T. No.479 of 1980 convicting the appellants u/s 302 r/w Section 149 IPC and sentencing them for life imprisonment u/s 302 and further sentencing them rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months u/s 147 IPC. All the sentences directed to run concurrently. 2. Out of aforesaid five accused-appellants, appellant no.2 Bachcha S/o Sukhdeo and appellant no.4 Gaya, S/o Chunna have died during the pendency of the appeal and their appeals have been ordered to be abated by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.4.2012 and 2.2.2016 respectively. Hence the present appeal survives on behalf of appellant nos.1, 3 and 5 namely Deoraj, Chunna and Balbir. 3. According to the prosecution case, an oral report was lodged by the informant Lallu of village Bilgaon in Police Station Bisenda at 2.15 a.m. on 16.11.1978 with an allegation that his father Matola and sister Sohaniya had gone in village Marwahar for cultivating and sowing the field which had been given to him by one Swaram Thakur to the deceased in-lieu of 'Halwahi'. His grand-mother Smt. Soniya had gone to that field at about mid-day carrying the prepared food for them. After cultivating and sowing the said field, deceased Matola along with his mother Soniya and daughter Sohaniya were returning back to their house before sunset. When they reached on the service road of a canal near the field of Mauwa Kachhi, all the accused who were lying in wait for his father behind the back of neighbouring temple, suddenly came out and started assaulting him with lathi. Smt. Soniya and Sohaniya rushed to the house crying informing the informant about the accused assaulting Matola. The complainant and his uncle Sewaka rushed to the spot and found Matola lying dead on receiving the injuries. The incident of maarpeet has been witnessed by Hulasiya and other villagers. It was further stated that Matola had once assaulted and insulted by accused Bachcha and the revenge of which had been taken by his father and because of which the accused Bachcha and others bore enmity with his father. The incident of maarpeet has been witnessed by Hulasiya and other villagers. It was further stated that Matola had once assaulted and insulted by accused Bachcha and the revenge of which had been taken by his father and because of which the accused Bachcha and others bore enmity with his father. The deceased Matola had molested the wife of accused Deoraj at about 15 days before the incident in the fields of which she complained to her family members in the village. The accused on account of the said enmity, namely Deoraj, Bachcha, Chunna, Gaya and Balbir have assaulted the deceased Matola due to which he received injuries and died. Matola received injuries on his head and back with lathis. The informant along with his uncle Sewaka went to the police station Bisenda to lodge a report about the incident and the Head Moharrir Sardar Singh prepared the chik report Ext.Ka-1 and made an entry in respect of it in G.D, extract of which is marked as Ext.Ka-6. A case u/s 147, 304 IPC was registered against the accused persons. 4. The investigation of the case was taken out by the Station Officer Prem Shankar Shukla (P.W.5) in whose presence the report had been lodged. The Investigating Officer reached the spot and conducted the Panchayatnama on the dead-body of the deceased. He further collected the blood-stain and simple soil in two different containers under the memo Ext.Ka-7. A kurta and a towel were taken off from the body under the memo Ext.Ka-9. He prepared the inquest memo Ext.Ka-3 and other papers concerning post-mortem examination Ext.Ka-4 and Ka-5. The dead-body of the deceased was sealed and was sent to the mortuary for post-mortem examination through Constable Abdul Aziz and village Chaukidar Munna. The Investigating Officer further interrogated the witnesses and prepared the site-plan of the place of occurrence Ext.Ka-8 and after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused persons Ext.Ka.10 before the competent court. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and trial court framed charges against the accused persons under Section 147, 302 IPC read with 149 IPC on 29.6.1982 who denied the prosecution case and sought their trial. 5. The prosecution in support of it's case has examined as many as five witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused i.e. P.W.1 Lallu, P.W.2 Smt. Soniya, P.W.3 Smt. Sohaniya, P.W.4 Dr. 5. The prosecution in support of it's case has examined as many as five witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused i.e. P.W.1 Lallu, P.W.2 Smt. Soniya, P.W.3 Smt. Sohaniya, P.W.4 Dr. D.S. Rana and P.W.5 Prem Shankar Shukla. 6. The accused in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have denied the prosecution case and stated that the complainant because of enmity with them has falsely implicated. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. 7. P.W.1 Lallu who is the informant of the case has deposed before the trial court that he knew the accused Deoraj, Bachcha, Chunna, Gaya and Balbir. Deoraj and Balbir are real brothers. Accused Chunna is their cousin brother and Gaya is the son of Chunna. The accused are inter-se-related clannish to each other. On the day of the incident, the witness was at the house of Sheoram Singh. His grand-mother Smt. Soniya and sister Sohaniya came to him crying and told him that Deoraj, Bachcha, Chunna, Gaya and Balbir have assaulted his father Matola near the field of Mauwa Kachhi. He along with his uncle Sewaka went there and saw that his father lying dead and he was bleeding. He took the dead-body and brought it near the house of Raja Kumhar and thereafter he along with his uncle Sewaka had gone to the police station where they lodged a report to the Head Moharrir about the incident. The Head Moharrir had written the report what he had dictated to him and the said report was read over to him and he after hearing the same had put his thumb. The report was read over to the witness who proved the same as Ext.Ka-1. The witness further stated that he worked in the field of Sheoraj Thakur as halwah as he had given 4 Bigha of land (2 bigha in Marwahar and 2 bigha in Panduahar). His father went to cultivate and sow the field along with Sohaniya to village Marwahar. His grand-mother had gone in the afternoon to the field carrying the food for them and when his father, grand-mother and sister were coming back from the field, then the incident had taken place. Prior to 9-10 years ago, the accused Bachcha had assaulted his father. Prior to 6-7 years of the incident, his father had beaten to accused Bachcha. His grand-mother had gone in the afternoon to the field carrying the food for them and when his father, grand-mother and sister were coming back from the field, then the incident had taken place. Prior to 9-10 years ago, the accused Bachcha had assaulted his father. Prior to 6-7 years of the incident, his father had beaten to accused Bachcha. He came to know that 15-16 days prior to the incident, his father had molested the wife of accused Deoraj and this news spread in the village. The witness Hulsia has colluded with the accused and he is not ready to state the correct facts. 8. In cross-examination, the witness has deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the incident of molestation by his father of the wife of accused Deoraj. The dispute which was told by him, no other dispute had taken place. He had gone to police station on foot. At the police station along with him and his uncle, no other person had gone. It took three hours for him to reach the police station from his village. After reaching the police station, he immediately lodged the FIR. The chaukidar Munnu had not gone along with him. On the day of the incident, he had no conversation or talk with the chaukidar Munnu. Hulsia is his uncle and his father's name is Jaukhiva. The name of the father of Matola was Naram Jauhariya. Jauhariya and Jaukhiva were the real brothers and they were sons of Mangaliya. He had denied the suggestion that the accused are not his relatives. It is correct that he had not mentioned about his relationship in the FIR nor had stated the same to the Investigating Officer. Near the village Marwahar, he has no fields. Marwahar is at a distance of 1.5 miles. His village is at a distance of 1 mile from the service road which is the place of incident and it is at a short distance from the straight way. From the place of occurrence, the dead-body was brought on a cot. He denied that his father was not cultivating and sowing the field of Sheoraj. The Investigating Officer was not shown the field of Sheoraj and he had gone to police station to lodge an FIR, and on the next day the Investigating Officer had interrogated him. From the place of occurrence, the dead-body was brought on a cot. He denied that his father was not cultivating and sowing the field of Sheoraj. The Investigating Officer was not shown the field of Sheoraj and he had gone to police station to lodge an FIR, and on the next day the Investigating Officer had interrogated him. The deceased had started cultivating the field one day prior to the incident and the day on which the incident had taken place, he was sowing the field. The witness stated that his father did not have his Ox and he had buffalo. The field was used to be cultivated by the buffalo. On the day of the incident, his father had gone for sowing of the field before sun-rise and when he reached the place of occurrence an hour before the sun-set and when he reached there was no one present. He denied that his father was done to death in the dark hours. He further denied that he lodged FIR on account of suspicion. Mauja Pudai is near police station Banda. His father also had agricultural field in village Mauja Pudai and there was litigation going on on the said field which had ended prior to the present incident. The matter was compromised. The litigation was going on with Babu Lal. His father sold the land to Babu Lal. The people belonging to Kumhar caste had objected it and given Rs.1,000/- to Babu Lal and taken the agricultural field. He denied that because of the said fact, the Kumhar people were bore ill-will with his father. The accused Bachcha had filed a complaint against Jauhariya, Matola, Sewaka and Moti Lal prior to 9-10 years of the incident in which they were acquitted. He denied the suggestion that the FIR was lodged on the next day with the consultation of the police. 9. P.W.2 Smt. Soniya who is the grand-mother of P.W.1 and mother of the deceased Matola identified the accused in the court and disclosed their names Deoraj, Balbir, Chunna, Bachcha and Gaya. She stated that deceased Matola was her son and the accused committed murder of her son. The incident taken place before the two hours before sun-set. They were returning from the field from Marwahar along with her son Matola and grand-daughter Sohaniya. She had gone to the agricultural field carrying food for them. She stated that deceased Matola was her son and the accused committed murder of her son. The incident taken place before the two hours before sun-set. They were returning from the field from Marwahar along with her son Matola and grand-daughter Sohaniya. She had gone to the agricultural field carrying food for them. She along with her son and grand-daughter were returning from the field by the side of canal and when they reached the field of Mauwa Kachhi, the accused who were sitting at the temple came with lathis and seeing the deceased, they rushed and started assaulting him with lathis. When they tried to object them, then they did not pay any heed to the request and killed the deceased Matola. The witness and her grand-daughter Sohaniya raised alarm but no one turned up and when they went to the house, they informed Lallu who was the son of the deceased and narrated him about the incident. Lallu had met her in the house and on the said day, Lallu had not gone with Sheoraj and he was present in the house since morning. The real brother of Lallu namely Munni Lal was also in the house. Hulsiya, Munni Lal and Sewaka along with Lallu had gone to lift the dead-body. They had brought the dead-body of the deceased Matola at the house on a cott. When they brought the dead-body, then it was sun-set. After bringing the dead-body, Lallu and Sewaka had gone to the police station for lodging an FIR and it was dark and there was no light. They had gone to the police station after a short time after the dead-body was brought to the house. The Station Officer had come on the next day in the morning. The Investigating Officer did not interrogated her and when he had come, she was unconscious. Her family members had told her about coming of the Investigating Officer. She has not seen the Investigating Officer with her own eyes. Her age is 65 years and because of her old age, she stays at the house. Some part of the field was sown one day and some part was sown on the second day when the deceased was murdered. The agricultural field was cultivated prior to 8-10 days of the incident. Her age is 65 years and because of her old age, she stays at the house. Some part of the field was sown one day and some part was sown on the second day when the deceased was murdered. The agricultural field was cultivated prior to 8-10 days of the incident. She denied the suggestion that on the date of the incident the field was not sown and son was murdered in the dark. She further denied that she had not gone to the field carrying the food nor she was returning with Matola. 10. P.W.3 Smt. Sohaniya in her deposition before the trial court has stated that she is the daughter of the deceased. She had gone along with her father to the agricultural field of Marwahar for sawing. The mother of the deceased Soniya had gone in the afternoon carrying the food for them. One hour before the sun-set, she along with her father and grand-mother were coming by the side of the canal and when they reached the field of Mauwa Kachhi then Deoraj, Bachcha, Chunna, Gaya and Balbir came out from the temple of Shiva and they were carrying lathi with them and she identified them in the court also. After coming out from the temple, they had started assaulting her father. She raised alarm. She along with her grand-mother raising alarm reached the village and informed her brother Lallu about the incident who was at the house of Sheoram. They returned to the place of occurrence along with her brother Lallu and her father had died who was bleeding. 11. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her brother on the day of the incident had gone at the field of Sheoram Singh for cultivation. She denied that Lallu was on agricultural field. When they came to the spot, her father was lying died. The constable and the Sub Inspector of police outpost Bhagwandeen met them at the doors of Buddhiram and they also went along with them. The police personnel lifted the dead-body and brought to the door of their house and kept there. There were two constables. Her brother and uncle along with two police personnel had gone to the police station for lodging an FIR. The police personnel lifted the dead-body and brought to the door of their house and kept there. There were two constables. Her brother and uncle along with two police personnel had gone to the police station for lodging an FIR. The Station Officer had come on the next day at 7 a.m. and along with him her brother Lallu, uncle Sewaka along with two police constables had also come. She had not gone on the agricultural field on the first day. On the first day, there was no cultivation or sowing. Gram and Wheat were sown and the same was tied in a cloth and 250 gm. of 'Inseed' (Alsi) was also left and she was carrying the cloth in which 'Alsi' was tied. She had not shown the field to Investigating Officer as he had immediately gone to the police station. After bringing the dead-body from the place of occurrence, he had immediately gone to the police station. She could not tell how much time it took for her to reach the village and Lallu along with her had come to the place of occurrence and the dead-body was thereafter carried to the doors of the house. It took about one hour. She denied that the deceased had not gone to Marwahar. She further denied that she was not present at the place of occurrence and also denied that Matola was done to death in the dark hours of the night. The Investigating Officer after returning from the police station had conducted the Panchayatnama proceedings and has interrogated her. 12. P.W.4 Dr. D.S. Rana in his deposition before the trial court has stated that on 17.11.1978, he was posted as Medical Officer of District Hospital, Banda. On that day at 1.30 hours in the afternoon, he had conducted post-mortem on the dead-body of the deceased Matola who was brought by constable 393 Abdul Aziz and village chaukidar Munna of police station Bisenda and identified the same. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead-body of the deceased:- 1. Lacerated wound on the right side of skull 8 cm x 1.5 cm. x cranial cavity deep. Brain matters were visible through the wound, 5 cm. above the right ear and 9.5 cm. above the right eyebrow. 2. Lacerated wound on the right side of skull 2 cm. X 1 cm. x bone deep, 0.5 cm. Lacerated wound on the right side of skull 8 cm x 1.5 cm. x cranial cavity deep. Brain matters were visible through the wound, 5 cm. above the right ear and 9.5 cm. above the right eyebrow. 2. Lacerated wound on the right side of skull 2 cm. X 1 cm. x bone deep, 0.5 cm. above the injury no.1 and 2.5 cm. above choti. 3. Lacerated wound on the right side of skull 2 cm. X 1 cm. x bone deep, 4 cms. behind the right ear and 6.5 cm. Below injury no.1. 4. Lacerated wound on the right side of skull 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. x bone deep, 5 cm. below injury no.1 and 0.5 cm above the Pinna of right ear. On explaining the above injuries there was found a multiple fracture of right parietal bone and right temporal bone with laceration and congestion of brain in right side. 5. Lacerated wound on the pinna of right ear on upper part 2.5 cm. X 0.2 x through and through (thickness of pinna). Cartilage is cut 0.5 cm. above the traggus of right ear. 6. Lacerated wound on the mid of right pinna 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. x cartilage deep, 1 cm. below injury no.5. 7. Contusion on the right side face and forehead 9 cm. X 4 cm. mid way between the right eye and right ear. 8. Abraded contusion on the back of left fore arm 5 cm. X 1 cm., 6.5 cm. Below the upper and of left ulna. 9. Multiple contusions on both the sides of back and midline in an area of 24 cm. X 22 cm. Extending above 5 cm. Below the back of neck root and below, 25 cm. Above the deep of cacay vertibra. 13. Multiple fractures were found on the parietal and temporal bones. The brain was lacerated and congested. Mud was found smearing the scalp, face, both hands and lower extremities. The food had digested. Gall Bladder was empty and faecal matters were found in both the intestines. In the opinion of Dr. Rana, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of ante-mortem injuries. 14. He has proved the post-mortem report as Ext.Ka.2. The doctor has opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage on account of ante-mortem injuries. Duration of death is two days. In the opinion of Dr. Rana, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of ante-mortem injuries. 14. He has proved the post-mortem report as Ext.Ka.2. The doctor has opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage on account of ante-mortem injuries. Duration of death is two days. He recovered one dhoti which was blood-stained from the dead-body of the deceased and sealed the same and handed-over to the constable who has brought the dead-body from the police station Bisenda. The death could have occurred on 15.11.1978 at about 4/4.30 p.m. and the injuries received to the deceased could be caused by lathies. 15. P.W.5 Prem Shankar Shukla in his deposition before the trial court has stated that on 16.11.1978 at 2.15 a.m. in the night, in his presence, the FIR of the case was registered while he was posted at the Station Officer of Police Station Bisenda. He has proved the FIR as Ext.Ka-1 and the investigation of the case was conducted by him. He has conducted the inquest proceedings on the dead-body of the deceased and proved the same as Ext.Ka-3 and send the dead-body for post-portem after preparing photo nash Ext.Ka-4 and challan nash as Ext.Ka-5 which was in his handwriting. He has also proved the G.D. No.2 dated 16.11.1978 at 2.15 p.m on which there is signatures of Head Moharrir Sardar Singh and proved the same as Ext.Ka.6 as he was acquainted with his handwriting and signatures. He has recovered blood-stained and plain soil and kept in separate boxes and prepared recovery memo in the presence of the witness in his handwriting and proved the same as Ext.Ka-7. He further prepared the site-plan of the place of occurrence as Ext.Ka-8. The recovery memo of the cloth of the deceased were marked as Ext.Ka-9 and after completing the investigation, he has submitted charge sheet on 15.1.1979 in his handwriting and signatures as Ext.Ka-10. 16. In cross-examination, he has admitted that in the night at 2.15 hours he had proceeded from the police station when the FIR was registered. A question was put to him that some time could have been taken for registering the FIR and then he would have proceeded thereafter and he answered that to the said question stating when the FIR of the incident was registered, he immediately proceeded thereafter. A question was put to him that some time could have been taken for registering the FIR and then he would have proceeded thereafter and he answered that to the said question stating when the FIR of the incident was registered, he immediately proceeded thereafter. He had not taken the statement of the informant at the police station. It took about 1 - hours to reach the village Bilgaon from the police station. He had gone by a bicycle. The informant had come on foot and he did not go with him. He had reached the village at 4 a.m. in the morning. He was not carrying the case diary and could not tell where it is. He had remained in district till 15.8.1980 and thereafter he was transferred and from 12.3.1983 he has again posted at the said district. He could not tell the distance of the place of occurrence from the house of the informant as he has not seen the house of the informant. He had conducted the Panchayatnama of the deceased at the place of occurrence. Along with informant, village chaukidar Munnu had also come to the police station to lodge an FIR. He denied that after seeing the place of occurrence an FIR was lodged. He denied the suggestion that the informant reached the place of occurrence after he had made spot inspection of the same. A query made from the Court, he has stated that on 23.5.1983, he was not on casual leave and he had not done any official work. 17. The trial court after recording and considering the prosecution evidence and the defence version found the appellants acquitted of the murder of the deceased Matola and sentenced them for the offence in question. 18. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant nos.3, Sri Shree Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant nos.1 and 5 and Sri Pawan Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned judgement and trial court record. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that admittedly P.W.1 Lallu is not an eye-witness of the occurrence who is the son of the deceased. He had lodged an FIR of the incident on the information given by his grand-mother P.W.2 Smt. Soniya and sister P.W.3 Smt. Sohaniya who were accompanying the deceased when he was at the house of Sheoraj Singh. He had lodged an FIR of the incident on the information given by his grand-mother P.W.2 Smt. Soniya and sister P.W.3 Smt. Sohaniya who were accompanying the deceased when he was at the house of Sheoraj Singh. He pointed out that from the evidence of P.W.2 Smt. Soniya and P.W.3 Smt. Sohaniya, it is apparent that the P.W.1 was present at the house when they informed him about the murder of the deceased Matola. There appears to be a contradictory statement between P.W.1 and P.W.3 on one hand and P.W.2 on the other hand as P.W.1 and P.W.3 have stated that on the day of the incident, the informant was at the house of Sheoram though P.W.2 had stated that on the day of the incident, the informant was at his house. He next argued that from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are the mother and daughter of the deceased, it is apparent that they were not present at the place of occurrence. The deceased was done to death in some other manner in the dark hours of the night by some unknown miscreants and the FIR of the incident was lodged after due consultation and deliberation with the police against the appellants only on account of suspicion. As there was some previous animosity of the accused with the deceased who has molested the wife of Deoraj 15-16 days before the incident as it appears from the evidence of P.W.1 and the FIR. He further argued that as the deceased was done to death and his dead-body was found on the service road of a canal near the field of Mauwa Kachhi and when P.W.1 Lallu came to know about the murder of his father, then his dead-body was brought from the said place and kept at the doors of the house of P.W.1 which further goes to show that none has witnessed the incident. P.W.2 Smt. Soniya who is the mother of the deceased aged about 65 years, it has come in her evidence that she used to remain in the house as she was an old lady. There was no occasion for her to go to the field to carry the food for her son who is the deceased, when the two sons of the deceased were present in the house i.e. P.W.1 Lallu and Munni Lal. There was no occasion for her to go to the field to carry the food for her son who is the deceased, when the two sons of the deceased were present in the house i.e. P.W.1 Lallu and Munni Lal. So far as P.W.3 Sohaniya is concerned, it is also stated that her presence at the place of occurrence also appears to be doubtful as she being a lady was stated to be assisting her father in the cultivation and sowing the field at Marwahar when her two brothers were in the house and it appears to be quite unnatural that she would leave along with the deceased in the early hours of the morning for cultivation and sowing of the field. From the cross-examination of P.W.3 Smt. Sohaniya, it is evident that the constable and S.I of the police outpost had met at the door of Bhagwandeen and Buddhiram and they also helped in bringing the dead-body of the deceased along with them to the doors of the house where they kept it and there were two constables. Her uncle and brother thereafter had gone along with the said two constables to lodge an FIR. Learned counsel for the appellants has further drawn attention of the court towards the statement of the Investigating Officer that he had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased at the place of occurrence whereas the dead-body of the deceased was brought at the doors of the house of P.W.1 from the place of occurrence. The panchayatnama was conducted there. There appears to be a major contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 regarding the said fact. He has further drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of P.W.5 who has stated that along with the informant, the village chaukidar Munnu had come to the police station for lodging the FIR whereas P.W.1 has only stated that it was he who along with his uncle Sewaka had gone to the police station to lodge FIR which goes to show that the FIR of the case is an ante-timed document as the same was lodged after due consultation and deliberation with the police. Thus the conviction of the appellants by the trial court is against the evidence on record and is liable to be set-aside by this Court. 20. Thus the conviction of the appellants by the trial court is against the evidence on record and is liable to be set-aside by this Court. 20. The learned AGA on the other hand argued that there are two eye-witnesses of the occurrence i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are the mother and daughter of the deceased. Their ocular testimony fully corroborates the prosecution case as the deceased died because of ante-mortem injuries which can be caused by lathis as has been deposed by the said two witnesses and the presence of the said two eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence is quite natural and there is no ambiguity in their evidence. Hence trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 21. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgement and order and trial court record. It is true that P.W.1 Lallu who is the informant of the case and son of the deceased is not an eye-witness of the occurrence and he has lodged the FIR on the information given by his grand-mother P.W.2 Smt. Soniya and his sister P.W.3 Smt. Sohaniya who were accompanying the deceased on the way back from the agricultural field with him and have stated that the deceased was assaulted by all the accused persons including the appellants who came out from a temple carrying lathis when they reached near the canal field of Mauwa Kachhi and assaulted the deceased who died on account of the injuries sustained by lathis. The two witnesses i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3 rushed raising an alarm to the P.W.1 Lallu and informed him about the incident who along with his uncle and other villagers reached the place of occurrence along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 who came back with the said witness and villagers and found his father lying dead who was bleeding. It is apparent that the incident had taken place one hour prior to the sunset on 15.11.1978 and apprehending that the dead-body of the deceased may not be safe to be left at the place of occurrence, was lifted from there by P.W.1 Lallu and his uncle Sewaka to the doors of the house and thereafter they went to lodge FIR of the incident at the police station Bisenda which was registered at 2.15 a.m. in the night. P.W.2 Smt. Soniya who is the mother of the deceased and is an eye-witness of the occurrence, who had gone to the field carrying food for the deceased and P.W.3 who is the daughter of the deceased and while she was returning along with them after the agricultural work, the deceased was assaulted near the field of Mauwa Kachhi by the accused persons. Her presence at the place of occurrence appears to be quite natural though she is an old lady aged about 65 years but simply because in her cross-examination she has stated that she being old remained in house and two sons of the deceased were also present and it was hardly any occasion for her to go to the field with the food for the deceased and P.W.2 could not be an unnatural circumstance to doubt her presence at the place of occurrence as has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant. She has narrated the incident as has happened and the same is corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence her presence at the place of occurrence is well established. So far as P.W.3 Smt. Sohaniya who is the daughter of the deceased is concerned, her evidence also corroborates the prosecution case but in her cross-examination she has stated that the police constables and the Sub-Inspector have met at the doors of Bhagwandeen and Buddhiram and it was further stated that he also assisted P.W.1 in lifting the dead-body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the doors of the house cannot be an adverse circumstance to show that the police had arrived at the place of occurrence and the informant along with his uncle and the two constables went to the police station to lodge an FIR and to attribute that the FIR of the incident was lodged in due consultation and deliberation is not acceptable as it was 2.15 a.m. in the night when P.W.1 along with his uncle had gone with the two constables to lodge an FIR and the same was lodged against the accused persons which goes to show that the FIR was also lodged promptly about the incident against the accused persons as there was no fear in the mind of P.W.1 to go to the police station in the night to lodge FIR because the two constables had come while they were on patrolling duty. There appears to be no material on record to show that the FIR is ante-timed document as has been tried to be argued by learned counsel for the appellants which has no basis. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that there was contradiction in the statement of P.W.1 that he was present at the house of Sheoram when P.W.2 and P.W.3 had come to inform him about the incident. As it has come in the evidence of P.W.2 Smt. Soniya that she was present at his house is hardly of any significance as it is not a such major contradiction between the two witnesses that the prosecution case may be doubted on that count. Moreover, P.W.3 Smt. Sohaniya has stated that P.W.1 Lallu was present at the house of Sheoram when she went along with P.W.2 Smt. Soniya to inform about the incident to P.W.1. The deceased has received as many as nine injuries on his person and all the injuries which have been caused to him by lathies, six were lacerated wound which were found on his head and there was multiple fracture found on parietal and temporal bone and other injuries were also found on his vital part of the body, thus the participation of the appellants who were five in number cannot be ruled out. There was previous animosity between the parties as is apparent from the FIR as well as from the evidence of P.W.1 and Deoraj felt insulted as the deceased had molested his wife 15-16 days prior to the incident, hence he along with other accused persons who were distantly related to each other have participated in the incident of murder of the deceased. Thus the prosecution has proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. Hence the conviction and sentence by the trial court does not require any interference by this Court. 22. In view of the foregoing discussions, the participation of the accused is well established by the prosecution evidence and the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences of which they have been charged with and there appears to be no infirmity or illegality in it's judgment, hence the conviction and sentence of the appellants by the trial court is hereby upheld. 23. The appellant nos.1 Deoraj and 3 Chunna are on bail. 23. The appellant nos.1 Deoraj and 3 Chunna are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court. Their bail bonds and sureties are cancelled. 24. The appellant no.5 Balbir is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court. 25. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.