ORDER : Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J. 1. These three appeals; Criminal Appeal (DB) no. 661 of 2012 on behalf of Ramchandra Sahu and Amardeep Sahu, Criminal Appeal (DB) no. 756 of 2012 on behalf of Prakash Sahu @ Prakash Sahu Sao and Criminal Appeal (DB) no. 829 of 2012 by Jagat Sahu & Ram Naresh Sahu, arise from a common judgment of conviction of the appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code passed in Sessions Trial no. 355 of 2008/Sessions Trial no. 99 of 2009. These appellants have been sentenced to R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and one year simple imprisonment under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, the learned counsel appears for the appellants, namely, Ram Chandra Sahu and Amardeep Sahu in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) no. 661 of 2012 and Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appears for the appellant, namely, Prakash Sahu @ Prakash Sahu Sao in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 756 of 2012 and the appellants, namely, Jagat Sahu and Ram Naresh Sahu in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 829 of 2012. 3. The learned counsels appearing for the appellants have submitted that: (i) Registration of the First Information Report is doubtful, (ii) The fardbeyan of the informant at best can be his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. or Section 162 Cr.P.C., (iii) the prosecution has failed to explain the injury on Jagat Sahu which makes the prosecution’s case doubtful, (iv) Leelawati Devi-PW-5 has imputed assault upon Puran Sahu, her husband, only by Ramchandra Sahu, (v) the prosecution witnesses have contradicted each other on the material aspects of the case, and (vi) conviction of all the appellants with the aid of Section 34 IPC without establishing the role played by them in the occurrence is bad in law. 4. On the above grounds, the learned counsels for the appellants have assailed the judgment of conviction of the appellants under section 302/34 IPC, under section 323/34 IPC and the punishment inflicted upon them for the said offences. 5. The prosecution’s case is disclosed in the fardbeyan of Sanjeet Sahu, the son of the deceased. 4. On the above grounds, the learned counsels for the appellants have assailed the judgment of conviction of the appellants under section 302/34 IPC, under section 323/34 IPC and the punishment inflicted upon them for the said offences. 5. The prosecution’s case is disclosed in the fardbeyan of Sanjeet Sahu, the son of the deceased. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that in the morning of 20.3.2008, at about 6:45 a.m., Ramchandra Sahu and his sons Amardeep Sahu and Avni Sahu along with Jagat Sahu and his sons Ram Naresh Sahu and Prakash Sahu came to his house and asked for partition of the land. At that time Jitwahan Sahu, Kalinder Sahu and Pesar Mohar Sahu were also with them. When the informant said that he would partition the land after Holi, the accused persons insisted for partition on that day itself. The informant says that when he asked for two hours’ time to arrange Panchas, the accused persons did not listen and they dragged his father outside the house and took him to Tongri (hillock) and started assaulting him. Ramchandra Sahu assaulted his father with Dauli, Amardeep Sahu, Avni Sahu and Jagat Sahu with knife and lathi, Ram Naresh Sahu with sword, Prakash Sahu with Dauli and Jitwahan Sahu as well as Kalinder Sahu with lathi. Due to assault on him, his father fell on the ground and then Ram Naresh Sahu, Avni Sahu and Ramchandra Sahu inflicted knife blows on the neck of his father, due to which his father died on the spot. The informant, his brothers Ranjeet Sahu and Pritam Sahu, his sister Anita Kumari and mother Leelawati Devi when tried to intervene the accused persons mounted a murderous attack on them also. The informant has stated that Ramchandra Sahu has assaulted him with Dauli on his head. His brother Ranjeet Sahu was assaulted by Ram Naresh Sahu and Avni Sahu on his neck and right forearm and Prakash Sahu assaulted his mother with lathi. When several persons from the neighbourhood assembled there, the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. According to the informant, the reason for the occurrence was demand for partition of the land and house. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sanjeet Sahu, Ratu P.S. Case No. 55 of 2008 was registered against eight accused persons under sections 302, 323, 324 and 307 read with section 34 IPC. According to the informant, the reason for the occurrence was demand for partition of the land and house. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sanjeet Sahu, Ratu P.S. Case No. 55 of 2008 was registered against eight accused persons under sections 302, 323, 324 and 307 read with section 34 IPC. 6. After the investigation, the appellant, namely, Ram Chandra Sahu was sent up for trial keeping investigation pending against the other accused persons. Charges against Ram Chandra Sahu were framed under sections 302/34 IPC, 307/34 IPC, 324/34 IPC and 323/34 in Sessions Trial No. 355 of 2008. Thereafter, charge-sheet against the appellants, namely, Ram Naresh Sahu, Jagat Sahu, Prakash Sahu and Amardeep Sahu were filed and against them charges were framed under sections 302/34 IPC, 307/34 IPC and 324/34 of the IPC, in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2009. 7. During the trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses and Dr. Anita Sundi who had conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Puran Sahu has been examined as a court witness. The prosecution has tendered in evidence the fardbeyan, the inquest report, the formal FIR, and the post-mortem report. 8. The accused-appellants have filed discharge certificate of Jagat Sahu issued on 25.3.2008 by Dr. C.B.Sahay, RIMS, Ranchi, certified copy of the Complaint Case no. 1424 of 2008 and the order dated 5.2.2010 by which processes have been issued against the prosecution witnesses. In the Complaint Case, Pritam Sahu, Puran Sahu, Leelawati Devi, Monika, Ranjeet Sahu and Sanjeet Sahu were arrayed as the accused persons. The defence set up by the appellants is that the above-named persons have assaulted Jagat Sahu on account of which he has sustained serious injuries and he was admitted in RIMS, Ranchi from where he was discharged after five days. 9. Before entering into the evidences led by the prosecution during the trial, we propose to examine the plea raised on behalf of the appellants on the effect of non-explanation of injury on Jagat Sahu by the prosecution. It has come on record through the evidence of the Investigating Officer that he had the knowledge that Jagat Sahu had sustained injuries at the hands of the sons of Puran Sahu. The appellants have produced the discharge certificate and a copy of the complaint case. It has come on record through the evidence of the Investigating Officer that he had the knowledge that Jagat Sahu had sustained injuries at the hands of the sons of Puran Sahu. The appellants have produced the discharge certificate and a copy of the complaint case. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected this plea on the ground that the appellants have failed to explain the delay why the Complaint Case No. 1424 of 2008 was filed on 25.6.2008 whereas the incident had taken place on 20.3.2008. We find that the appellants have failed to examine the doctor who has treated Jagat Sahu at RIMS, Ranchi. They have also failed to lead any evidence which they themselves could have led by examining themselves under section 315 Cr.P.C. Besides the above, the law on the subject is well-settled by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijayee Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1990) 3 SCC 190 , wherein it has been held that where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence and consequently the whole case. The discussions in the following paragraphs would show that the prosecution has led trustworthy and credible evidences. 10. Much has been argued by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the appellants on registration of the First Information Report which according to him was lodged after due deliberation, falsely implicating the appellants in the case and the fardbeyan of the informant is hit by section 162 Cr.P.C. This contention is primarily founded on these facts: (i) The fardbeyan was recorded in the village, (ii) It has been signed by Ranjeet Sahu and Sanjeet Sahu, however, Ranjeet Sahu in his evidence says that after sustaining injuries he became unconscious. He has also said that he has signed the fardbeyan at Ratu hospital, (iii) The informant has said that from the place of occurrence they had gone to the police station where a report was lodged. 11. The prosecution has projected Ranjeet Sahu-PW-1, Anita Kumari-PW-4, Leelawati Devi-PW-5 and Sanjeet Sahu-PW-7 as the eye witnesses. 12. Ranjeet Sahu-PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 20.3.2008, at about 6:45 a.m., he was at home. 11. The prosecution has projected Ranjeet Sahu-PW-1, Anita Kumari-PW-4, Leelawati Devi-PW-5 and Sanjeet Sahu-PW-7 as the eye witnesses. 12. Ranjeet Sahu-PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 20.3.2008, at about 6:45 a.m., he was at home. At that time his father, brother and sister were picking potatoes in the backyard for cold storage and his mother was cooking rice. He has deposed that the appellants along with Jitwahan Sahu, Arbind Sahu and Kalinder Sahu came there and asked for partition on which his father asked for two hours’ time for arranging the Panchas, however, they did not listen to him and dragged his father about 100 feet outside the house and started assaulting him. On his father raising hulla, he and the other family members went there and saw that Ramchandra Sahu with Dauli, Arbind Sahu with knife and Ram Naresh Sahu with knife were assaulting his father on his neck. PW-1 further says that his brother, sister and mother were also assaulted by the accused persons. He has made allegations of knife blows by Amardeep Sahu on his neck and armpit and Ramchandra Sahu has assaulted Sanjeet Sahu with Dauli. In his cross-examination, he says that the police reached the place of occurrence after about half an hour. His father was taken to the police station on a tempo and at the time when his father was taken to the police station he was unconscious. However, in paragraph 12 of his cross-examination he says that other family members had regained consciousness before he became conscious. He says that he has signed the fardbeyan at about 8 a.m. in the morning. 13. This witness was recalled and examined again when charge was framed in S.T. Case No. 99 of 2009. This time also, PW-1 has stated a similar story about the incident. He says that Ram Chandra Sahu has given 2-3 blows with Dauli on the head of his father and Arbind Sahu, Ram Naresh Sahu as well as Ramchandra Sahu assaulted on the neck of his father with Dauli, sword and knife. He has made specific allegation of assault against Prakash Sahu on leg and other parts of the body of his father. He says that Arvind Sahu had a knife, Ram Naresh Sahu a sword, Amardeep a knife and Ramchandra Sahu and Prakash Sahu were holding Dauli. He has made specific allegation of assault against Prakash Sahu on leg and other parts of the body of his father. He says that Arvind Sahu had a knife, Ram Naresh Sahu a sword, Amardeep a knife and Ramchandra Sahu and Prakash Sahu were holding Dauli. His father was assaulted by Jagat Sahu with knife and lathi and Jitwahan Sahu as well as Kalinder Sahu have also assaulted his father with lathi. He has spoken about the assault on his sister, his mother and on himself by the appellants. In his cross-examination, he says that after sustaining injuries he became unconscious but intermittently he had regained consciousness. ( bl chp eSa dHkh gks'k rFkk dHkh csgks'k gks tkrk FkkA ). 14. The prosecution witness, namely, Anita Kumari-PW-4 has also made allegation of assault upon her father by the appellants. She has made specific allegation of assault by Ram Chandra Sahu with Dauli on the head of her father and Ram Naresh Sahu with sword on the neck of her of father. She says that Amardeep Sahu, Arbind Sahu and Jagat Sahu have also assaulted her father with knife; Jagat Sahu has assaulted with knife as well as lathi. The wife of the deceased, namely, Leelawati Devi who has been examined as PW-5 has narrated the incident which has happened in the morning of 20.3.2008 in a similar manner as has been described by her son, and daughter. She has stated about the appellants and others coming to her house, dragging her husband outside the house and assault on her husband by the accused persons. She says that Ram Chandra Sahu with Dauli, Amardeep Sahu with knife, Jagat Sahu with knife and lathi, Ram Naresh Sahu with sword and Prakash Sahu with Dauli have inflicted injuries on head, neck and thigh of her husband. She has stated that Kalinder Sahu and Jitwahan Sahu have also assaulted her husband with lathi. She has also stated about the assault upon her son, her daughter and on herself. 15. The informant has been examined as PW-7. He has described the incident as narrated by him in the fardbeyan. He says about arrival of the accused persons variously armed with deadly weapons, demanding partition, his father seeking 2 to 4 hours’ time for arranging Panchas, the accused persons not listening to his father and dragging of his father to Tongri. The informant has been examined as PW-7. He has described the incident as narrated by him in the fardbeyan. He says about arrival of the accused persons variously armed with deadly weapons, demanding partition, his father seeking 2 to 4 hours’ time for arranging Panchas, the accused persons not listening to his father and dragging of his father to Tongri. He has made specific allegations of assault on his father’s head and thigh by Ram Chandra Sahu and on head and neck by Ram Naresh Sahu. He has stated about assault by Prakash Sahu with Dauli on the thigh and head of his father and alleged that Arvind Sahu and Jagat Sahu have assaulted his father with knife; Jagat Sahu has assaulted with knife as well as with lathi, and Jitwahan Sahu with lathi. 16. These witnesses are natural witnesses. Their presence in their house in the morning of 20.3.2008 is natural. In fact, during their cross-examination the defence has not seriously challenged their presence in the house at the time of the occurrence. From the trend of cross-examination, we find that all that the defence has tried to elicit was that Amardeep Sahu was not in the village on the day of occurrence. The death of Puran Sahu is not disputed and the eye witness account of PW-1, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 is corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. Anita Sundi, who has conducted the post-mortem examination, has found the following injuries on Puran Sahu: “Abrasion: 2 cm x 1 cm and 1cm x 1cm on left knee front 2 cm x 1 cm x 7 cm on left thing medial side cutting the soft tissues and blood vessels. Lacerated Wound: (i) 6 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue of back of neck lower part cutting the soft tissues and blood vessels. (ii) Linear cut 7 cm long. 9 cm. long and 7 cm long all skin deep on left shoulder top and adjoining left scapular region. Incised Wound: 8 cm x3 cmx bone deep on left occipital region of head with chipping of occipital bone. 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep of left frontal region of head with chipping of occipital bone. Cutting the underlying bone and brain matter. Incised Wound: 8 cm x3 cmx bone deep on left occipital region of head with chipping of occipital bone. 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep of left frontal region of head with chipping of occipital bone. Cutting the underlying bone and brain matter. 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on front part of neck cutting the soft tissue, blood vessels, trachea, esophagus, cutting 5th and 6th cervical vertebral completely and spinal cord.” 17. According to the doctor, the injuries on Puran Sahu were ante-mortem in nature, caused by knife, heavy sharp cutting weapon and hard and blunt substance. In the opinion of the doctor, the death had occurred between two to twelve hours. It is of some relevance to record here that according to prosecution, the incident has occurred at about 6:45 a.m. on 20.3.2008, fardbeyan of Sanjeet Sahu was recorded at about 8 a.m. on 20.3.2008 and the post-mortem examination has been conducted at 10:30 a.m. on 20.3.2008. The short span of time within which all this has happened eliminates any possibility of deliberation for falsely implicating the appellants in this case. During the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-7, on which emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the appellants, all that could be elicited by the defence was that PW-1 became unconscious and they have given different places of signing of the fardbeyan. But then, the minor discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, PW-1 and PW-7 would not shake the foundation of the prosecution’s case. PW-1 says that he regained consciousness intermittently and the controversy on signing of the fardbeyan in view of the consistent evidence of the witnesses does not go to the root of the veracity of the fardbeyan. The prosecution has firmly established presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence and at the time of occurrence. Their participation in the occurrence is also well proved. 18. The evidence against the appellant Ram Chandra Sahu in Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 661 of 2012 and Ram Naresh Sahu in Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 829 of 2012 is consistent and the injuries caused by them are on the vital parts of the body of Puran Sahu. 19. The appellants, namely, Ramchandra Sahu and Ram Naresh Sahu have assaulted Puran Sahu on his head and neck. They were holding Dauli and sword. 19. The appellants, namely, Ramchandra Sahu and Ram Naresh Sahu have assaulted Puran Sahu on his head and neck. They were holding Dauli and sword. There are as many as four incised wounds of different dimensions; injury no. (v)- 8cm x 3 cm (bone deep), injury no. (vi) - 8 cm x 2 cm ( bone deep), injury no. (vii) 7 cm x 2 cm (bone deep) and injury no. (viii)- 3 cm x 1 cm, around the occipital reason and the neck of Puran Sahu. There were three linear cuts on the left shoulder and scapular reason, skin deep, on the deceased. These injuries are also attributable to the appellants Ramchandra Sahu and Ram Naresh Sahu. The number of injuries, mostly deep-cut, would reflect the intention of these appellants to cause death of Puran Sahu. On the basis of the evidences laid by the prosecution through P.W. 1, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 and the court witness C.W.-1, we concluded that the prosecution has proved the charge under section 302/34 IPC against them. 20. Sri Satish Kumar Keshri, the learned APP referring to the decision in “Sucha Singh and another Versus State of Punjab” reported in (2003)7 SCC 643 , submits that evidence of a related witness cannot be discarded if his testimony is reliable and trustworthy. The learned APP further submits that if the ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence, minor inconsistencies in the prosecution's case would not affect the foundation of its case. To fortify his contention, the learned APP has relied on the decision in “Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan” reported in (2008) 13 SCC 515 . 21. We have carefully scrutinized the evidences laid by the prosecution against them but find no error in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge for conviction of the appellants, namely, Ramchandra Sahu and Ram Naresh Sahu under section 302/34 and under section 323 IPC. Their conviction is upheld. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 661 of 2012 qua the appellant no. 1, namely, Ramchandra Sahu and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 829 of 2012 qua the appellant no. 2, namely, Ram Naresh Sahu are dismissed. 22. But, the case of the other appellants stand on a different footing. P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 have not attributed any assault by Amardeep Sahu on the deceased. 1, namely, Ramchandra Sahu and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 829 of 2012 qua the appellant no. 2, namely, Ram Naresh Sahu are dismissed. 22. But, the case of the other appellants stand on a different footing. P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 have not attributed any assault by Amardeep Sahu on the deceased. Similarly against the appellant, namely, Jagat Sahu P.W. 1 has not made any specific allegation of assault on Puran Sahu. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 have made allegations of knife blow on Puran Sahu by Amardeep Sahu but he has failed to specify the part of the body of Puran Sahu on which Amardeep Sahu has inflicted injury. Against Prakash Sahu, P.W.1 and P.W. 7 have made allegations of assault on leg and body of the deceased. However, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 have not specified where the Dauli blow of him has landed on the body of Puran Sahu. 23. The appellants, namely, Jagat Sahu, Prakash Sahu and Amardeep Sahu have been convicted under section 302/34 IPC. 24. Section 34 IPC embodies constructive liability of all the accused persons. It is not a substantive offence but it makes other persons vicariously liable for the act of one or the other. In “Bharwad Mepa Dana and Anr. v. The State of Bombay” reported in AIR 1960 SC 289 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Section 34 IPC is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish the acts of individual members of a party who acted in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. It has been observed that the principle which Section 34 IPC embodies is participation in action with the common intention of committing a crime and once such participation is established, Section 34 is at once attracted. But then, to rope in an accused with the aid of section 34 IPC the prosecution must prove that the death has been caused in furtherance of common object of all. From the prosecution's evidence, it is found that Ramchandra Sahu and Ram Naresh Sahu were the persons who have assaulted Puran Sahu first. They have inflicted fatal injuries on the vital parts of the body of Puran Sahu. It is not the prosecution's case that all the appellants have started assaulting Puran Sahu simultaneously. From the prosecution's evidence, it is found that Ramchandra Sahu and Ram Naresh Sahu were the persons who have assaulted Puran Sahu first. They have inflicted fatal injuries on the vital parts of the body of Puran Sahu. It is not the prosecution's case that all the appellants have started assaulting Puran Sahu simultaneously. In fact, P.W. 1 has made specific allegation of assault on Puran Sahu only by Ramchandra Sahu and Ram Naresh Sahu, besides Arbind Sahu who was not sent up for trial. At this juncture, when Ramchandra Sahu and Ram Naresh Sahu have assaulted Puran Sahu, no doubt the other appellants, namely, Jagat Sahu, Prakash Sahu and Amardeep Sahu were present at the place of occurrence but from the nature of assault by them on Puran Sahu it cannot be inferred that they have also shared common intention with Ramchandra Sahu and Ram Naresh Sahu to cause death of Puran Sahu. C.W.-1 has found one lacerated wound of the extent of 6 cm x 1 cm on the back of the neck of Puran Sahu which is attributable to Jagat Sahu. The doctor has also found one stab wound of the size of 2 cm x 1 cm x 7 cm on the left thigh of the deceased. There is an allegation of Prakash Sahu inflicting a Dauli blow on the thigh of Puran Sahu. Participation of Amardeep Sahu in the occurrence is also established and there is allegation against him of inflicting knife blows on Puran Sahu and the prosecution witnesses, however, which injury found on Puran Sahu can be attributable to him cannot be said with certainty. 25. In the above crime scene, which has been described by the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence through C.W.-1, we are of the opinion that the appellants, namely, Jagat Sahu, Prakash Sahu and Amardeep Sahu intended to cause grievous injury to Puran Sahu. They were holding deadly weapon and several other grievous injuries have been found on the body of Puran Sahu and, therefore, they are liable to be convicted under section 326 IPC. 26. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants, namely, Jagat Sahu in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 829 of 2012, Amardeep Sahu who is appellant in Cr. Appeal(DB) No. 661 of 2012 and Prakash Sahu @ Prakash Sahu Sao who is appellant in Cr. 26. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants, namely, Jagat Sahu in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 829 of 2012, Amardeep Sahu who is appellant in Cr. Appeal(DB) No. 661 of 2012 and Prakash Sahu @ Prakash Sahu Sao who is appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 756 of 2012 under section 302/34 IPC are set- aside. They are convicted under section 326/34 IPC. On the question of sentence, we are of the opinion that they are liable to be inflicted with sentence of R.I. for 10 years. 27. In the result, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 829 of 2012 qua appellant no. 1, namely, Jagat Sahu, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 661 of 2012 qua appellant no. 2, namely, Amardeep Sahu and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 756 of 2012 are partly allowed. 28. The appellant, namely, Prakash Sahu @ Prakash Sahu Sao in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 756 of 2012 is on bail. Accordingly, bail bonds furnished by him is cancelled. He shall surrender before the court below to serve the remaining sentence. 29. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through 'Fax'. 30. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. Appeal partly allowed.