JUDGMENT : The appellants are arraigned as Accused Nos.3 and 4 in S.C.No.52/2013. The Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court at KGF vide judgment dated 28th November 2014, convicting the accused Nos.3 and 4 for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 447, 341, 114, 324, 307, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/each with default sentence of imprisonment for six months. The Fast Track Judge has acquitted the accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 for the said offences. Before adverting to the material evidence on record with reference to the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned SPP for state, we would like to have a brief factual matrix of this case. 2. P.W.9, one Mr.Ramachandra has given a statement in R.L.Jalappa Hospital in Kolar stating that they are residents of Malabagilu in Vijayanagara in Bangarapet along with his family members. He has got some dispute with his sister by name Jayalakshmamma (Accused No.2) with respect to Survey No.94/4, 94/5 of Kirumande village. It is stated that a civil case was pending in a Civil Court. It is stated that the complainant and his family members have been cultivating the said land and in this context, it is said that on 11.05.2012, they came to know that the accused persons were illegally ploughing the said land. Immediately, P.W.9 and his wife (deceased Lalithamma) went to the said land and saw the accused No.6 ploughing the land with the help of a tractor. At that time, the other accused persons were also present. When P.W.9 and his wife deceased Lalithamma questioned the said Srinivas not to plough the said land as they have succeeded in the civil case, in that context, it is stated that all the accused persons suddenly formed into an unlawful assembly and splashed the chilly powder on P.W.9 and his wife. At that time, the Accused No.6 provoked Accused No.1 and others to do away with the life of P.W.9 and his wife. Accordingly, the accused persons by name Nandeeshappa and Munivenkatappa caught hold P.W.9. At that time, the deceased Lalithamma came across with an intention to rescue P.W.9. At that time, the Accused No.6 provoked Accused No.1 and others to do away with the life of P.W.9 and his wife. Accordingly, the accused persons by name Nandeeshappa and Munivenkatappa caught hold P.W.9. At that time, the deceased Lalithamma came across with an intention to rescue P.W.9. In that context, it is alleged that Accused No.3Manjunath has assaulted the deceased on the head with an iron rod which was in the tractor and Accused No.4Prabhakar assaulted with the hold of a chopper on the head of the deceased. They also assaulted P.W.9 on his right cheek and he sustained some bleeding injury. Accused No.1Nandeeshappa also assaulted with a club on the head of P.W.9. Manjunath also assaulted with an iron rod on the waist of P.W.9. Due to the impact of this assault, P.W.9 and his wife fell down. At that time, other eyewitnesses Thammappa and others came and resolved the dispute. This was also informed by somebody to P.W.11 who is none other than the son of P.W.9 and in fact he came to the spot along with other relatives. At that time, it is alleged that the accused persons have assaulted the said Shivashankar with the help of a club. Thereafter, the villagers have shifted the injured persons to the hospital and in the hospital, he gave the statement as noted above and requested the Police to take appropriate action. On the basis of said complaint, the Police have registered a crime in Crime No.46/2012 for the above said offences and investigated the matter, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 3. After committal proceedings, the Court also secured the presence of the accused persons. The accused persons were actually in jail from the date of their arrest, i.e., from 18.02.2013. Other accused person were on bail and particularly all other accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court. 4. After securing the presence of the accused persons, the Court also framed charges against them for the above said offences and put the accused persons on trial. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 21 witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P1 to P24 and material objects M.Os.1 to 11. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.11, Ex.D1 was also marked. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 21 witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P1 to P24 and material objects M.Os.1 to 11. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.11, Ex.D1 was also marked. Accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. As such, the tiral Judge, after hearing the arguments on both the sides, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt for the above said offences against Accused Nos.3 and 4 who are the appellants before this Court and convicted them and sentenced them accordingly as noted supra. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends before this Court that except the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 11 coupled with the evidence of doctors and I.Os, no other material placed is available against Accused Nos.3 and 4 as all the other eyewitnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution. He further contends that the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 11 are also not credible and trustworthy for acceptance as the Investigating Officer coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 11 clearly establishes that there is suppression of material facts, genesis of the prosecution case and also the I.O has shown his partiality in investigating the matter. Therefore, he contends that when the trial Court has given benefit of doubt to Accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6, when the common object has been invoked under Sections 143 and 149, in that eventuality, the same benefit ought to have been extended to accused Nos.3 and 4 also. The learned counsel further contends that there is absolutely no medical evidence available to show that P.Ws.9 and 11 have sustained any injuries. Further, if the medical evidence is looked into in its proper perspective, it does not tally with the weapon which has been seized in connection with this particular case. The doctor’s evidence clearly discloses that such injuries could not be caused by using the weapon which has been alleged to have been used in relation to this case. Learned counsel also contended that the material object iron rod alleged to have been used by Accused No.3 is not even seized in this particular case. The doctor’s evidence clearly discloses that such injuries could not be caused by using the weapon which has been alleged to have been used in relation to this case. Learned counsel also contended that the material object iron rod alleged to have been used by Accused No.3 is not even seized in this particular case. Learned counsel also contends that the trial Court has not even ventured to discuss and given reasons in so far as this material discrepancy in the case of the prosecution. Therefore, he says before the Court that the whole case of the prosecution is lack of merit and the same is liable to be interfered by this Court by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against Accused Nos.3 and 4. 6. Per contra, learned SPP and HCGP have strenuously argued before the Court that though there are some discrepancies in the investigation and the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 11 and also in the medical evidence, those things are not sufficient to take away the entire case of the prosecution when the injured eyewitnessesP.Ws.9 and 11 have categorically stated about the overt acts of the accused. The chopper has been seized from Accused No.4 and further the doctor’s evidence shows that those injuries could be caused by using the said weapon for assault. Merely because any weapon has not been used, it will not in any manner belittle the evidence of P.W.9 in this regard. Therefore, learned HCGP submitted that the trial Court has considered the factual matrix of the case and also various decisions has arrived at a conclusion that the Accused Nos.3 and 4 have committed the offence. Therefore, there is no room to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 7. In the wake of the above said submissions of the learned senior counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader, before adverting to the material evidence on record, we would like to have a cursory look at the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court. 8. P.W.1 Venkateshappa S/o Krishnappa is the panch witness for Ex.P1 regarding seizure of clothes of the deceased which was produced by police personnel after P.M examination on 11.05.2012. This evidence has not supported the case of the prosecution. 8. P.W.1 Venkateshappa S/o Krishnappa is the panch witness for Ex.P1 regarding seizure of clothes of the deceased which was produced by police personnel after P.M examination on 11.05.2012. This evidence has not supported the case of the prosecution. Never the less there is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased and it is not disputed that those clothes which were actually seized in this case does not belong to the deceased at all. Therefore, there is no actual significance with regard to the evidence of this witness. P.Ws.2 and 4 are the eyewitnesses to the incident and also panch witness for spot mahazar. They have turned hostile to the prosecution. There is no hold to the prosecution in any manner. P.W.3 is panch witness to Ex.P2. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.5Srinivasa Murthy is the panch to inquest report marked at Ex.P6. While taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.5 coupled with the evidence of Dr.Ajay KumarP.W.13 who has conducted post mortem examination, irrespective of certain contradictions in the evidence of medical officer, but the fact remains that he has conducted the P.M. examination on the dead body and gave the information that the deceased died due to head injuries sustained by her. The inquest report also shows that the police have conducted the evidence as per Ex.P6 so far as the homicidal death is concerned in order to prove the above said offence. Even the accused persons have not denied the homicidal death of the deceased to their case is that they were not responsible for the death of the deceased. P.W.6Harish is also panch witness to inquest. P.W.7Chinnathayappa @ Chinnamuniyappa, a panch to Ex.P1mahazar regarding seizure of clothes of the deceased. P.Ws.2, 4 and 8eye witnesses are also treated as hostile. 9. P.W.9 and P.W.11 are the father and son who are the main and material witnesses in this particular case whose evidence has to be in detail required to be considered by the Court. P.W.10Hemalatha sister of the deceased is also not so relevant because according to her own evidence, she came to know about the incident, later from P.W.9. Only on the basis of such information, he wants to implicate the accused persons. She is only a hearsay witness. P.W.12Venkataramappa is the Junior Engineer who has drawn the sketch of scene of occurrence as per Ex.P8. Only on the basis of such information, he wants to implicate the accused persons. She is only a hearsay witness. P.W.12Venkataramappa is the Junior Engineer who has drawn the sketch of scene of occurrence as per Ex.P8. The place where the incident happened as per the prosecution is also not much in dispute. As such the sketch also looses its significance. P.W.13 is the doctor who conducted the P.M examination on the dead body of the deceased and also gave his opinion with regard to M.O.2 shall be stating that the injuries could be caused by using such weapon. P.W.14 – Dr.M.Govindaraju is the doctor who has treated P.W.9Ramachandra who came to the hospital with the history of assault. He is also a witness to Ex.P12 which is the medico legal information given by the doctor to I.O which we will discuss this little later. P.W.16 –Madhusudhan a police head constable who was deputed to trace the accused, but they could not be able to trace the accused, but they have given their reports as per Exs.P13 to 18. P.W.17 is also a formal witness who watched the dead body and he is present at the time of inquest. He has produced clothes of the deceased before the I.O and the same were seized under Ex.P1mahazar. P.W.18Dr.Malathi, a scientific officer examined articles M.Os.1 to 6 and gave her opinion as per Ex.D19report. P.W.19Pradeep.B, PSI has arrested the Accused Nos.5 and 6. P.W.20 is the Circle Inspector of Police who investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. P.W.21Dr.Kiran Kumar has stated about some unknown person coming to the hospital on 11.05.2012 for treatment and he was accompanied by 23 persons and he gave the statement to the Police as per Ex.P22. Later, he was ascertained as PW.9. He has given the certificate that P.W.9 was in a fit condition to give such statement before the Police. On the basis of the above said evidence, now the Court has to examine the evidence of important material witnesses. 10. As we have already narrated, except P.W.8 and 9 all other eyewitnesses have turned hostile and even the other witnesses, inquest and doctor who conducted P.M have not fully supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is a homicidal death of the deceased. 10. As we have already narrated, except P.W.8 and 9 all other eyewitnesses have turned hostile and even the other witnesses, inquest and doctor who conducted P.M have not fully supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is a homicidal death of the deceased. Now, the Court has to examine whether on the basis of the evidence available on record, it is sufficient to hold that Accused Nos.3 and 4 are responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased as already discussed above. Accused Nos.1,2,5 and 6, we will take up the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 11 in this regard and thereafter, refer their evidence with regard to the other material available on record. P.W.9Ramachandra has categorically stated that the deceased Lalithamma was his wife and he has stated that there was civil dispute between the family of P.W.9 and accused persons and the Civil Court has given judgment in favour of the deceased Lalithamma. In this background, it is stated that the accused person were ploughing the land of this witness in Survey No.94/4, 94/5 of Kirumande village. After coming to know about the same that they had been to Bandarlahalli to see the father of P.W.9, they went near the land at about 11.30 a.m. They found Accused Nos.1 to 5 were there in the said land and Accused No.6Srinivas @ Seenappa was ploughing the land. They asked the driver of the tractor Accused No.6 not to plough the land on the ground that the said land belonged to them. Suddenly all the accused persons have formed into an unlawful assembly and particularly, the accused persons have splashed the chilly powder on the complainant and others and Accused No.6Srinivas @ Seenappa instigated the other accused persons to kill P.W.9 and his wife. In pursuance of the same, the accused No.1Nandeeshappa, Accused No.6Srinivas @ Seenappa caught hold P.W.9. At that time, the deceased came across to rescue P.W.9. At that time, Accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted the deceased with an iron rod and a chopper on her head due to which she suffered injury and in fact the accused persons have also assaulted this witness of cheek and also on his waist. P.Ws.9 and his wife fell down. At that time, the deceased came across to rescue P.W.9. At that time, Accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted the deceased with an iron rod and a chopper on her head due to which she suffered injury and in fact the accused persons have also assaulted this witness of cheek and also on his waist. P.Ws.9 and his wife fell down. By that time, P.W.11, after receiving some information about the incident, brought an ambulance to the spot and all the village people have shifted the injured to the hospital. He has identified the accused persons before the Court and also a clubM.O.1 and a chopperM.O.2 which was seized in this particular case. Apart from that some other materials were also seized from the spot and also the clothes of the deceased. In the course of cross-examination, of course it is elicited that there was a civil dispute between the parties which is reiterated. Apart from that P.W.9 has also stated that a criminal case is also pending against them. Very particularly a suggestion has been made that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were also having treatment in the hospital on that particular date. This particular suggestion has been denied by this witness. Though some suggestions have been made that he has not stated so many things what he has stated before the Court, but all these suggestions have been denied. He reiterated in the cross-examination that Accused No.3 has given hit on two places and Accused No.4 has hit on three to four places on the head of the deceased and also neck which caused severe injuries on the deceased, but she died due to head injuries. He also pleaded his ignorance as to whether actually rod and choppers were thrown by the accused persons. He specifically stated that P.W.11 was in R.L.Jalappa hospital, but subsequently, he further stated that actually P.W.11 has brought the ambulance to the spot and he shifted them to the hospital. He has exaggerated the evidence in the course of cross examination that he has suffered so many injuries. But as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, no such injuries are supported by any medical evidence. No doctor has been examined who has actually treated this witness and given any certificate to that effect. It is also elicited that P.W.11 has also suffered some injury. But as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, no such injuries are supported by any medical evidence. No doctor has been examined who has actually treated this witness and given any certificate to that effect. It is also elicited that P.W.11 has also suffered some injury. Apart from that the whole suggestions have been made denying the evidence given by this witness in the examination-in-chief. But those suggestions have been denied by these witnesses. It is suggested that accused persons are not responsible for the death of the deceased. P.W.11 almost in similar fashion as if he is a eyewitness deposed before the Court though he came to the spot after the entire incident was over, even according to the evidence of P.W.9. P.W.9 has deposed that P.W.11 came to the spot after the incident when both P.W.9 and P.W.11 were already lying on the ground and accused persons were still there. But this witness states that on that particular day, he received information about the galata in the land. Therefore, he went to that particular spot and when he went there along with Nandeeshappa and Munivenkatappa told other accused persons to assault this witness also. Therefore, Munivenkatappa assaulted him on his hand and waist and thereafter, he shifted the injured to the hospital and he has also taken treatment at Puttur for the fracture sustained by him. He identified M.O.1 by which he was assaulted by Munivenkatappa. Though he is not an eyewitness, he deposed before the Court that other accused persons have also assaulted the deceased and P.W.9 which becomes redundant in view of evidence of P.W.9 and also that as per Ex.D1, this witness has stated that he received information about the incident from P.W.9 himself and thereafter, he went to R.L.Jalappa Hospital and brought the ambulance to the spot. He had admitted in the course of cross-examination that the scene of offence is at a distance of about 30 to 40 kms., from R.L.Jalappa hospital which will take 20 to 30 minutes. Therefore, there isl no suggestion of this witness coming to the spot even before the incident had happened or he witnessed the assault by the accused persons on P.W.9 and also on the deceased. Therefore, to that extent, his evidence becomes redundant. He has also stated that though he went to R.L.Jalappa hospital, he has not taken any treatment. Therefore, there isl no suggestion of this witness coming to the spot even before the incident had happened or he witnessed the assault by the accused persons on P.W.9 and also on the deceased. Therefore, to that extent, his evidence becomes redundant. He has also stated that though he went to R.L.Jalappa hospital, he has not taken any treatment. This suggested that because he has not suffered any injury, he has not taken any treatment. He has further stated that he went to Puttur along his with brother-in-law and taken treatment for his fracture. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, absolutely no material is placed before the Court in respect of any injury suffered by him and also any medical treatment taken by him either at R.L.Jalappa hospital or at Puttur to cross-examine any witness in this regard who has examined P.W.11. Therefore, looking to the above said evidence of these two witnesses, some of the witnesses have stated about the incident being taken place. How the incident has taken place has to be looked into by this Court by the surrounding circumstances. It is a suggestion made to P.W.9 that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were also taking treatment in the hospital. In this context, learned counsel contended that there is strong material filed by the I.O. He has drawn our attention to the order sheet of the committal Court dated 13.05.2012 and 14.05.2012 wherein on careful perusal of the above said orders passed by the learned Magistrate, it is specifically stated that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were respectively produced on these dates and both the accused persons have sustained injuries. Accused No.1 had sustained injury to his head, Accused No.2 had sustained injury to her hand. The Magistrate has also stated in the said order that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were produced along with other acused. The Police have also produced discharge summary of these accused persons in which the Accused Nos.1 and 2 have specifically stated that during the incident taken place on 11.05.2012, they have suffered those injuries. The Magistrate has also stated in the said order that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were produced along with other acused. The Police have also produced discharge summary of these accused persons in which the Accused Nos.1 and 2 have specifically stated that during the incident taken place on 11.05.2012, they have suffered those injuries. In spite of this particular aspect, noting the same in the remand application as well as producing the said documents pertaining to the medical examination of Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Magistrate recording the same in the order sheet, the I.O has not explained as to how the Accused Nos.1 and 2 have suffered those injuries during the course of the incident. Therefore, very peculiarly the I.O has deliberately or intentionally ignored this particular aspect from his investigation. 11. Apart from the above, the learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of the doctors, P.W.21Dr.Kiran Kumar who has stated before the Court that on 11.05.2012, an injured person has visited his hospital, i.e., R.L.Jalappa Hospital and told that about 3 to 4 persons have assaulted him. The said witness was in a position to given statement and he gave the statement as per Ex.P22. Ex.P12 is the document wherein it is categorically stated that said person after coming to the hospital, was found missing in the casualty ward. Therefore, they could not given any injury certificate so far as that particular person is concerned. Therefore, it is clear that P.W.9 went to R.L.Jalappa hospital, but he has not shown any injuries to the doctor nor taken any treatment. Therefore, no certificate was issue to show that at least p.W.9 has suffered any injury as stated by him in his examination-in-chief. Further, the doctor has stated that the said person’s statement was recorded by the police when he was in a fit state of mind. It creates a serious doubt with regard to P.W.9 sustaining any injury in the incident. 12. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.11 with regard to the alleged injuries i.e., fracture sustained by him, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, no witness has been examined to show that P.W.11 has suffered any injury. I.O has not even examined him as a witness so far as this aspect is concerned. It is also doubtful as to whether P.W.11 has suffered any injury in the incident. I.O has not even examined him as a witness so far as this aspect is concerned. It is also doubtful as to whether P.W.11 has suffered any injury in the incident. 13. In order to show that the deceased as suffered severe injuries, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.13Mr.Aajay Kumar. The doctor has conducted the P.M. examination on the dead body of the deceased. The deceased has suffered with the injuries. The main injuries are injury Nos.1 to 4 which was found on the head and on the left side of the neck. The said injuries were termed as lacerated wounds and doctor has also stated in the examination in chief that those injuries could be caused by assaulting a person with the help of M.O.2, but in the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that those injuries may be could be caused from the hind portion of M.O.2. It is also stated that the said weapon was stained with same blood. So far as this aspect is concerned, learned counsel for the accused has seriously contended that there is no evidence elicited from P.W.9 or 11 that the sharp edged portion of the weapon M.O.2 was not actually used by the accused person, but the blunt side of the weapon was used to assault the deceased. He has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 1936 (HALLU AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) wherein Apex Court has stated that normally when a witness says that when there is no witness to reiterate that blunt side of the weapon is used, it is the duty of the prosecution to ascertain whether weapon is blunt. Of course in this particular case, no such elucidation is there from the evidence of P.W.9. The Court also has to enquire into the circumstances under which the incident occurred. According to the Magistrate, P.W.9 and his wife stated that only two persons were present. At that time, accused was armed with a rod and chopper and they have indiscriminately assaulted the deceased. In such an eventuality, the Court has to meticulously observe which part of the weapon was used for assaulting the deceased. According to the Magistrate, P.W.9 and his wife stated that only two persons were present. At that time, accused was armed with a rod and chopper and they have indiscriminately assaulted the deceased. In such an eventuality, the Court has to meticulously observe which part of the weapon was used for assaulting the deceased. Even when such infirmity is there, we cannot come such a conclusion when the incident has been established by the Magistrate when actually the incident occurred between two groups, i.e., one group P.W.19 and his wife and other side, the accused persons. It is established form the above said discussion made by us that in the incident, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have told that they have also suffered injury. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no explanation whether the blunt side of the weapon was used will not go to show which infirmity is a damage to the prosecution story. Apart from that as rightly contended by the learned counsel, the injuries of Accused No.1 have not been explained by the Magistrate. In this context, learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in Lakshmi Singh and others vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1976 SC 2263 . As per this decision, for non-explanation of the injuries sustained by accused, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution case. 14. Of course, in this particular case, the injuries of Accused No.1 is probabilized that they have also suffered injuries during the course of the incident. But in the absence of any material before the Court as to how they suffered, who assaulted them, they are proper persons to explain before the Court at least to show how they have suffered injury in the incident. Never the less the fact remains that they have actually suffered injuries in the incident. Looking into overall material on record and the evidence of the above witnesses, it clearly indicates that some incident had taken place in the land bearing Survey No.14/4 and 14/5 and the Accused Nos.1 and 2 have also suffered injuries. Even though P.Ws.9 and 11 have not shown to have suffered any injury, but the deceased is done to death by means of assaulting on the head of the deceased causing severe injuries. 15. Even though P.Ws.9 and 11 have not shown to have suffered any injury, but the deceased is done to death by means of assaulting on the head of the deceased causing severe injuries. 15. The learned counsel, in the above said context, submitted that when the accused persons have also sustained injuries, perhaps it probabilizes that all the accused persons have suddenly got provoked for the purpose of defending themselves in order to defend their body or property. There must have been some scuffle between the two groups. In that context, injuries might have been suffered by the deceased. Therefore, when the Court is not in a position to ascertain on close examination who is the culprit amongst two groups, the benefit doubt should be given in favour of the accused persons. 16. We really appreciate the above said statement made by the learned counsel. But in order to ascertain who is the aggressor, there must be some evidence before the Court. As rightly contended by the learned SPP that there is no semblance of evidence in the course of cross-examiantion, but actually the scuffle has taken place or some quarrel has taken place between two groups as Accused Nos.1 and 2 have sustained injuries. In the absence of any material to arrive at a definite conclusion, in such an eventuality, the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that the incident has happened as a result of scuffle between two groups and Accused Nos.1 and 2 have sustained injuries in the same incident and deceased also sustained severe injuries to her head. Except that Court cannot draw any inference giving any benefit of doubt either to the victim or to the accused persons when the accused victims were the real aggressors at that particular time. Though it is a fact that a land dispute was there and criminal cases have also been launched against each other by both the groups. In such an eventuality, there is a chance of P.Ws.9 and 11 twisting the incident in order to implicate all the accused persons to the crime. That may be the reason that the trial Court has considered the specific overt act of the Accused Nos.3 and 4 and thereafter, other accused persons must have been acquitted. We do not find any default so far as that aspect is concerned as interfered by the trial Court. 17. That may be the reason that the trial Court has considered the specific overt act of the Accused Nos.3 and 4 and thereafter, other accused persons must have been acquitted. We do not find any default so far as that aspect is concerned as interfered by the trial Court. 17. In the above said circumstances, quarrel must have been taken place. Otherwise, the parties would not have gone to the extent of inflicting injuries against each other. In that particular aspect, using of the weapon assaulting the deceased and accused sustaining injuries play a dominant role. There is no material to show before the Court that Accused Nos.1 and 2 have suffered any grievous injuries and there is no material to show as to in what manner the injuries were suffered by him and whether they were simple injuries or grievous injuries. Though injuries were suffered by Accused Nos.1 and 2 also, compared to these injuries, the deceased has suffered a severe injury on her head. She had suffered injuries to head and neck and those injuries are said to be severe in nature and two of the injuries were bone deep injuries. Therefore, it goes without saying that the accused persons also might have suffered injuries due to the sickle or due to any quarrel or altercation of words, but they have severely attacked and assaulted the deceased on her head caused severe injuries to her. Under the above said circumstances, the Court has to examine whether the act of the accused persons fall under Section 302 exactly or under Section 304(1) or 304(II) of IPC. In order to attract Section 302, there must be an intention to cause such bodily injury and the accused persons were having sufficient knowledge that their act is definitely going to cause such bodily injuries which is sufficient to cause the death of the deceased and the act of the accused should not fall under any of the exceptions as considered under Section 300 of IPC. As per Section 304(II), the accused must have knowledge that his act may cause such bodily injuries and thereby there is likelihood of cause of death or such probabilities. Therefore, the intention of the accused persons shall be gathered from the surrounding circumstances. As per Section 304(II), the accused must have knowledge that his act may cause such bodily injuries and thereby there is likelihood of cause of death or such probabilities. Therefore, the intention of the accused persons shall be gathered from the surrounding circumstances. Looking to the above said circumstances, if the accused persons and P.W.9 and deceased have quarreled with each other and further if at all any of the injuries are caused by P.W.9 or deceased earlier to Accused Nos.1 and 2, that must have definitely enraged or that must have created such a situation to particularly Accused Nos.3 and 4 when they saw P.W.9 or deceased causing injuries to Accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, in a heat of passion or spur of movement, they might have inflicted the injury on the deceased. But nevertheless, the fact remains that the vital part of the body of the deceased has been selected and deadly weapon like chopper and rod has been used for the purpose of assaulting the deceased. Therefore, using of the deadly weapon, suffering bodily injuries and causing such severe injuries clearly indicates that at that time, the intention of the accused must be to do away with the life of the accused. As we have already stated that due to provocation or sudden act or scuffle between P.W.9 and deceased on one hand and Accused Nos.1 and 2 on the other, the incident might have happened and Accused Nos.1 and 2 might have sustained injuries. Therefore, in our opinion, it would definitely fall under Explanation No.IV of Section 300 of IPC, but not under Section 304(II) of IPC. Therefore, in our opinion, the prosecution has only established that the Accused Nos.3 and 4 have only inflicted injury on the head of the deceased with an intention to cause the death of the deceased, but that has been done only due to provocation or due to surrounding circumstances as narrated above. 18. As could be seen from the sentence passed by the Trial Court, we are afraid that Sessions Judges would pass the sentence in such manner. An omnibus sentence has been passed with reference to all the offences invoked by the prosecution and charges framed against the accused persons. It is well settled law that distinct and separate charges have to be framed whenever the allegations are made against the accused persons. An omnibus sentence has been passed with reference to all the offences invoked by the prosecution and charges framed against the accused persons. It is well settled law that distinct and separate charges have to be framed whenever the allegations are made against the accused persons. With reference to the separate charges under distinct provisions the Courts have to examine the definition of those sections and punishing sections and thereafter, the charges have to be framed independently, distinctly and separately. Even at the time of passing the judgment, the Court has to eventually distinctly arrive at a conclusion that all the separate offences are proved by the prosecution in order to sentence the accused distinctly and separately. Even at the time of sentence the accused, sentencing policy has to be understood properly by the Courts. Therefore, the Courts have to sentence the accused persons independently, distinctly and separately for each of the charges proved by the prosecution. Embellishments should not be there in sentencing. Looking to the sentence passed by the trial Court and also the conviction judgment recorded, in our opinion, it is not in accordance with law. Though we are saying that the learned Sessions Judge has omnibusly recorded the conviction sentence and omnibusly passed the sentenced on the accused persons, nevertheless, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 304(I) of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. Though we are not disturbing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court so far as Accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6, we are of the opinion that Section 149 of IPC has been invoked. The same parity cannot be extended so far as Accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned concerning their specific overt act as observed by the trial Court and as observed by us in the above said judgment. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances, the sentence to be passed against the accused Nos.3 and 4 should also be commensurate with the act done by them with reference to the surrounding circumstances. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances, the sentence to be passed against the accused Nos.3 and 4 should also be commensurate with the act done by them with reference to the surrounding circumstances. As it is argued by the learned counsel that there were absolutely no previous antecedents alleged against the accused, they are family members and all the accused persons on one hand and P.W.9 and deceased on the other, who are close relatives to each other, were having criminal and civil disputes between themselves. Always these two groups used to have vengeances against each other. Except the present unpleasant incident, there is absolutely no other scheme on the part of the accused persons due to family dispute and due to sudden provocation, the incident must have occurred. It might not be a premeditated act because after going to the land, the accused persons might have seen the deceased ploughing the land and enraged by the same, perhaps, an altercation between two groups might have taken place. The accused persons were also of young age, having family to be maintained and they are not shown to be antisocial elements. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, this Court has to take some lenient view in imposing the sentence. 19. In our opinion, as accused persons have already undergone more than seven years of imprisonment, we are of the opinion that the period already undergone by them would be sufficient to impose punishment upon them. 20. With these observations, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2014 passed by the trial Court, i.e., the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, K.G.F for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 447, 341, 114, 324, 307, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC is hereby set aside. However, Accused Nos.3 and 4 (appellants herein) are convicted for the offence under Section 304(I) of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo the period already undergone by them in the prison and they are also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/each, in default to undergo further period of S.I for a period of six months. If fine amount is already deposited, the appellants shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. If fine amount is already deposited, the appellants shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. If the fine amount is not deposited, they shall be released on deposit of the fine amount. Further, the appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court within one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. If fine amount is deposited, the entire amount has to be paid as compensation to P.W.9. As the matter is disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2015 filed by the learned counsel for the appellants under Section 391 Cr.P.C., does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed. Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of this judgment to the concerned jail authorities for release of the appellants forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.