JUDGMENT Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J. - This judgment shall govern the disposal of both the Criminal Appeals. 2. Both the Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 14.9.2000 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge Ashoknagar, Distt. Guna, in S.T.No.99/1990 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/149, 147, 148 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/149 of IPC and one year's RI under Section 148 of IPC with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that on 24.7.1989 at about 7 am Vrindawan and Lakhan along with their brother Ramgopal residents of village Janoda were going towards Ashoknagar for attending the Court. As soon as they reached near pond of Bamuriya, accused persons, who were hiding themselves in the heap of soil nearby, came out and tried to surround them. Thereafter they tried to run away towards village Bijauli, but after some distance accused persons caught hold of them and asked Vrindawan and Lakhan to run away if they want to save themselves. Vrindawan requested the accused persons to leave Ramgopal, then accused Rajkumar slapped him. Thereafter Vrindawan and Lakhan stood up after some distance and accused persons started beating Ramgopal by means of Ballam, Luhangi and Lathi. The accused persons caused various injuries to Ramgopal and also broke his hands and legs, as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter they threw him on the road and ran away. Then Vrindawan and Lakhan went near to his brother Ramgopal and found that he was breathing, but unable to speak. At that juncture, they saw that accused persons are returning and accused Adhar Singh asked others to check whether he is still alive and thereafter they ran away towards village Bamuriya. Vrindawan thereafter by leaving Lakhan near Ramgopal, went to village Bijauli and brought some bedding, but in between Ramgopal died. 4. Vrindawan then went to village Janoda and informed Raghuvir Kalar and then after bringing the tractor of Sangram Singh took the dead-body of deceased Ramgopal to police Station, Ashoknagar and lodged the report, on which case was registered at crime No.211/1989. It is the case of the prosecution that his brother deceased Ramgopal had contested Panchayat election against accused Rajkumar, and therefore, there was enmity and on account of this enmity, the accused persons have killed the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that his brother deceased Ramgopal had contested Panchayat election against accused Rajkumar, and therefore, there was enmity and on account of this enmity, the accused persons have killed the deceased. Thereafter, Lash Panchayatnama was prepared and dead-body was sent for postmortem. Spot map was prepared, plain and blood stained soil were seized, statements of the witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested and weapons used in the commission of offence were seized. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 5. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the trial Court for trial. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined twelve witnesses and appellants in their defence examined five witnesses. The trial Court after marshalling the evidence came on record, convicted the appellants as aforesaid and acquitted accused Gaya and Puran. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned trial Court has based its findings on conjectures and surmises. Both the eye-witnesses Vrindawan and Lakhan have stated that accused Shayam Kumar by means of axe inflicted several blows to the deceased, but as per the postmortem report, deceased Ramgopal did not receive even a single incised wound on his body. It is further submitted that as per the statements of the eye-witnesses all the accused caused injuries to the deceased by means of Ballam, Luhangi and Lathi, but as per the postmortem report only four injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. In such circumstances, it is submitted that presence of aforesaid eye-witnesses at the place of incident is doubtful. It is further submitted that as per the statement of Sangram Singh (PW-1) when he was sitting at the shop of Vrindawan, Jankilal came and informed that somebody has killed Ramgopal and thereafter Vrindawan asked for tractor from this witness (Sangram Singh) and then he along with Vrindawan went to the place of incident and brought the dead-body of deceased Ramgopal. It is submitted that from the aforesaid statement of Sangram Singh, it appears that Vrindawan and Lakhan reached the spot after the incident and they are not the eye-witnesses of the incident. It is further submitted that Sangram Singh has not been declared hostile by the prosecution, and therefore, his evidence is binding upon the prosecution. It is submitted that from the aforesaid statement of Sangram Singh, it appears that Vrindawan and Lakhan reached the spot after the incident and they are not the eye-witnesses of the incident. It is further submitted that Sangram Singh has not been declared hostile by the prosecution, and therefore, his evidence is binding upon the prosecution. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellants prayed for allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Present case is based on the evidence of two eye-witnesses Vrindawan (PW-8) and Lakhan (PW-9), who are brothers of the deceased. Therefore, we shall firstly examine the evidence of these two eye-witnesses one by one. 11. Vrindawan (PW-8) has stated that he knows the accused persons. Before 7-8 years from the date of recording of his statement, this witness along with his brothers Ramgopal and Lakhanlal was going towards Ashoknagar from village Janoda to attend the Court. At about 7 am when they reached near Bamuriya pond, accused persons, who were hiding near the pond, came out and after catching hold of his brother Ramgopal started beating him. Accused Chandrabhan inflicted Ballam blow and accused Shaym inflicted axe blow on the leg of his brother Ramgopal. When he requested accused Rajkumar to leave his brother, then he slapped him and told to run away. Thereafter, he along with his brother Lakhan stood up nearby. The accused persons then by means of Lathi and Luhangi beat his brother, due to which bones of his hands and legs were broken into pieces. After beating deceased Ramgopal, accused persons ran away. When this witness was thinking to go near his brother (deceased), then he saw that accused persons were returning and accused Adharsingh asked others to check whether he is still alive and if he is saved, then he will give statement against us. Thereafter the accused persons went away towards village Baheriya. This witness then went close to the deceased and found that deceased was unable to talk and was sobbing. 12. Thereafter the accused persons went away towards village Baheriya. This witness then went close to the deceased and found that deceased was unable to talk and was sobbing. 12. This witness (PW-8) then after leaving his brother Lakhan there, went to village Bijauli and brought some bedding and thereafter he went to village Janoda and came back along with Sangram Singh by taking his tractor. After keeping deceased Ramgopal in the tractor as soon as they went ahead 2-4 steps, the deceased died. At about 4 pm report was lodged at police Station, Ashoknagar. His brother had contested Panchayat election against accused Rajkumar, and therefore, accused persons quarreled with his brother. He admitted the contents of the FIR. He further stated that spot map was prepared in front of him and police also seized plain and blood stained soil from the place of incident. His brother had won Panchayat election of Panch against accused Rajkumar. During cross-examination, this witness stated that accused Raja Bhaiya, Kailash, Ashok and Shyam are persons of party of Rajkumar, but he does not know as to whether they campaigned in favour of Rajkumar or not. There was enmity between deceased Ramgopal and these accused persons as previously also on account of election rivalry they committed Marpeet of deceased Ramgopal. All the accused persons were hidden together. He did not have any talk with the accused persons during the incident. He was standing at a distance of 5-6 steps from the deceased. He along with his brother Lakhan tried to save the deceased. Firstly accused Rajabhaiya, Ashok, Shyam and Kailash gave beating to the deceased. Accused Shyam inflicted several blows of axe on the deceased and other three accused also gave several blows of Lathi. He admitted that he could not mention in the FIR and his police statement the fact that firstly these accused caught hold and gave beating to the deceased, as at that time, he was not in his senses because of murder of his brother. He denied that he did not see aforesaid accused persons causing injuries to the deceased, and therefore, in his FIR and police statement he did not mention such facts. He mentioned correctly in his report (Ex.P/2) that Shyam was carrying Lohangi, but the fact of causing injury by axe is also correct. Again he stated that fact of Lohangi mentioned in the report is correct. He mentioned correctly in his report (Ex.P/2) that Shyam was carrying Lohangi, but the fact of causing injury by axe is also correct. Again he stated that fact of Lohangi mentioned in the report is correct. Here it appears that this witness is slightly confused about axe and Lohangi. 13. This witness (PW-8) further stated that Shyam inflicted axe blow in the leg of his brother, but he cannot tell the exact place where such injury was caused. He mentioned the said fact in his police report, but if the said fact is not mentioned in his report, he cannot say anything. The police took his statement after two days of the incident at his house. He also mentioned the fact that accused Shyam inflicted axe blow at the time of recording of his police statement, but he cannot say as to why such fact is missing in his police statement. Thereafter he stated that in his police statement he mentioned the fact of inflicting Lohangi blow by accused Shyam, but why it is not clearly mentioned in his police statement, he cannot say. He denied that these four accused did not cause any Marpeet with the deceased and he is giving false evidence against them. 14. During cross-examination on behalf of remaining accused, Vrindawan (PW-8) has stated that he has five brother out of which one has died. His native place is Malhargarh. He denied that there is any dispute between the brothers regarding land at Malhargarh. He also denied that in a case registered for murder of his mother, his brothers Krishna and Shankar were accused. He does not know that at the time of this incident Adhar Singh was Sarpanch of village Baheriya. He admitted that his brother Lakhan, his wife Vidyabai and wife of his brother Sugan, namely Daulti Bai are accused in the case registered in relation to murder of his wife. He denied that no partition took place between him and his brothers Shankar and Lakhan. He denied that any case was registered against him and his brothers in regard to attempt of murder of Panjabiyo of village Khurda. He further denied that any case in regard to causing Marpeet with villagers & others was registered against him and his brothers. On the date of incident a date was fixed in Tahsil Court, and they were going to attend the Tahsil Court. He further denied that any case in regard to causing Marpeet with villagers & others was registered against him and his brothers. On the date of incident a date was fixed in Tahsil Court, and they were going to attend the Tahsil Court. On the date of incident, he went from their home at about 6 am and reached at the place of incident in an hour. He did not see the accused from the distance. As soon as they reached near heap of soil, the accused persons who were hiding behind the heap of soil, came out. He specifically stated that he did not mention in his report that accused persons were sitting by the side of pond. All the accused persons committed Marpeet with the deceased. He cannot say as to why accused persons did not cause injury to him. Accused Chandrabhan caused Ballam blow on the leg of deceased Ramgopal and he mentioned the said fact in his report and police statement, but why this fact is not clearly mentioned in his report and police statement he cannot say. He specifically mentioned that Chandrabhan of village Janoda was carrying Lohangi and Chandrabhan of village Baheriya was carrying Ballam. He was cross-examined at length, but defence could not bring out any material discrepancy so as to dent the case of the prosecution. 15. Lakhanlal (PW9) also stated on the same line supporting the statement of his brother. No material discrepancy in his crossexamination could be brought out by the defence. 16. Now we shall examine the evidence of the doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and investigating officer. 17. Dr.A.K.Jain (PW-10) has stated that on 25.7.1989 he was posted as Assistant Surgeon in civil hospital, Ashoknagar. On the said date, he conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Ramgopal and found following injuries:- '1.One stab wound of size 4x3x1.5 cm over upper part of leg. Clotted blood was present. 2. Stab wound of size 6x2x5 cm over middle of right leg. Clotted blood was present. 3. There were multiple contusions over back side of right leg. There were also multiple fractures on tibia and fibula bone. 4. In the lower part of left leg there was fracture on tibia and fibula bone and clotted blood was present around the fracture. Stab wound of size 6x2x5 cm over middle of right leg. Clotted blood was present. 3. There were multiple contusions over back side of right leg. There were also multiple fractures on tibia and fibula bone. 4. In the lower part of left leg there was fracture on tibia and fibula bone and clotted blood was present around the fracture. According to the doctor, the death was caused due to shock as a result of excessive bleeding from the multiple injuries. Death was caused within 36 hours of the postmortem. Nothing material came out from his cross-examination which could be used in favour of the defence. 18. J.P.Chaturvedi (PW-11) has stated that on 10.8.1989 he was posted at police Station Ashoknagar as Senior Sub-Inspector. Investigation of crime No.211/1989 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 of IPC was conducted by him on 10.8.1989. He arrested the accused Kailashnarayan, Ashokkumar, Shyamsundar and Rajabhaiyal at 9.45 pm on that day. He also prepared memorandum of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. From the possession of Kailshnarayan one Lathi, Ashok one Lathi, Shyamsunder one axe and Rajabhaiya one Lathi were seized. He knows the handwriting of the then SHO Shri Arjun Singh and stated that FIR (Ex.P/2) at 'A' to 'A' part bears his signatures. During cross-examination, he stated that he arrested the accused from Balaji temple, Ashoknagar. Thereafter the accused persons were brought to police Station and interrogated and then their memorandum was prepared. The information was supplied by the accused before the witnesses. He admitted that there was no special sign on seized Lathi and axe. He denied that he got any information that deceased Ramgopal is of criminal tendency. He had taken departmental training in regard to handwriting and also obtained a diploma in this regard. He has worked with Arjun Singh for two years and he is familiar with his signatures. 19. Harcharan Sahu (PW-12) has stated that on 24.7.1989 he was posted as Sub-Inspector at police Station, Ashoknagar. Investigation of crime No.211/1989 was entrusted to him. He prepared Lash Panchayatnama, sent the dead-body of the deceased for postmortem and took the statements of witnesses Vrindawan and Lakhanlal. On 25.7.1989 he prepared the spot map and seized plain and blood stained soil from the spot in front of the witnesses. On 31.7.1989 he took statements of Sugan and Sangram Kalar as stated by them. He prepared Lash Panchayatnama, sent the dead-body of the deceased for postmortem and took the statements of witnesses Vrindawan and Lakhanlal. On 25.7.1989 he prepared the spot map and seized plain and blood stained soil from the spot in front of the witnesses. On 31.7.1989 he took statements of Sugan and Sangram Kalar as stated by them. On the information, he arrested the accused Rajkumar, Chandrabhan, Kaptan, Chandrabhan son of Maharal Singh, Rumal singh, Vikramsingh, Puran Sahu and Gaya Sahu from Ishagarh Chunginaka at 11.5 hours. After ten minutes, he took the memorandum of the accused and obtained police remand from the Court. On 8.8.1989 in front of witnesses from the possession of Rumal Singh, Chandrabhan Yadav, Vikram Singh Yadav, Puran Sahu and Gaya Sahu weapons of assault were seized in accordance with their memorandum vide seizure memo Ex.P/4 to Ex.P/8. On the same date from the possession of accused Rajkumar, Kaptan Singh and Chandrabhan Yadav of village Baheriya weapons of assault were seized in accordance with their memorandum vide seizure memo Ex.P/9 to Ex.P/11. 20. During cross-examination, this witness (PW-12) stated that he took statement of Lakhan in the hospital and Lakhan did not state that accused Shyam was carrying axe and he inflicted axe blow to the deceased. Shaym had told to witness the incident from one Farlong and not from the distance of 8-10 steps. He further stated that this witness Lakhan had stated that all the accused persons assaulted with Lathi, Ballam and axe, but he did not specifically mention that accused Shyam inflicted axe blow. He further stated that Lakhan also did not specifically mention that accused Shyam inflicted Lohangi blow, but he mentioned that all the accused persons caused injuries. The place of incident is 159 steps away from the pond and he seized blood stained soil from the place marked as 1 in the spot map. The heap of soil is shown in the spot map as place 6. He admitted that this heap of soil was not situated across the pond. He told that witnesses had stated that accused persons were hiding at place 6 and not across the pond. 21. He admitted that he did not show the place in the spot map from where witnesses Lakhan and Vrindawan had seen the incident. He admitted that this heap of soil was not situated across the pond. He told that witnesses had stated that accused persons were hiding at place 6 and not across the pond. 21. He admitted that he did not show the place in the spot map from where witnesses Lakhan and Vrindawan had seen the incident. Witness Lakhan had told him that accused persons were hiding in heap of soil and not across the pond. This witness also did not inform him that firstly Chandrabhan inflicted Ballam blow and thereafter all the accused persons by surrounding the deceased started causing injury, but he stated that all the accused persons together caused injuries. This witness also told him that before causing injuries to the deceased Ramgopal, accused persons asked him 'to run away if wanted to save yourself' and thereafter slapped Vrindawan, then he and Vridawan run away and stood up at a distance of one Farlong. Witness Lakhanlal did not tell him that which accused was carrying which weapon, but he stated that all the accused were carrying Lathi, axe, Ballam. This witness in his statement Ex.D/3 did not mention that after keeping the deceased in the tractor when they went for some distance, then deceased Ramgopal died. 22. Harcharan Sahu (PW-12) in his cross-examination has stated that witness Vrindawan had not mentioned that accused were hiding across the pond. Vrindawan had told that during incident he along with Lakhan was standing at a distance of one Farlong. What he (Vrindawan) stated, has been written by him. Vrindawan did not tell that he was slapped at the time of beating of deceased, but when he was caught hold by the accused, then he was slapped and asked to run away. He denied that accused persons did not gave any memorandum statement and no seizure was made from them. 23. Now only prosecution witness who states a different story is Sangram Singh (PW-1). Rest of the prosecution witnesses are either declared hostile or not very material for the present controversy. 24. Sangram Singh (PW-1) has stated that he knows the accused persons. Before 5-7 years he was sitting at the shop of Vrindawan where Jankilal came and informed that somebody has killed Ramgopal. Then Vrindawan asked for tractor from this witness and then they went to the place where body of deceased Ramgopal was lying. 24. Sangram Singh (PW-1) has stated that he knows the accused persons. Before 5-7 years he was sitting at the shop of Vrindawan where Jankilal came and informed that somebody has killed Ramgopal. Then Vrindawan asked for tractor from this witness and then they went to the place where body of deceased Ramgopal was lying. They brought the body of the deceased to Ashoknagar on tractor. In the hospital, this witness signed on Panchayatnama Lash. During cross-examination, he stated that he was sitting at the shop along with Vrindawan. But when we peruse the case diary statement of this witness (Sangram son of Biharilal) at page No.58 of the paper-book, then it is gathered that on 24.7.1989 this witness was at his home. At 11-12 in the day Vrindawan came in a state of panic and told him that Ramgopal has been murdered near Bamuriya. Thereafter they went at the place of incident and returned to Ashoknagar at about 4 pm and report was lodged by Vrindawan. Here it is pertinent to mention that time of lodging the report is 4.30 pm on 24.7.1989 and as per the statement of Inspector Haracharan Sahu (PW-12) para 3, statement of Sangram was taken on 31.7.1989. Therefore, it is clear that immediately after seven days of the incident when his police statement was recorded, he narrated a complete different story which corroborates with the time of lodging of the FIR. In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the Court statement of this witness (PW-1) does not inspire confidence. 25. Now we shall examine the defence evidence. Bhagwanlal (DW-1) has stated that he is residing near the house of the deceased. One day before the incident in the evening, a wordy quarrel took place between deceased Ramgopal and Vrindawan and this witness went there and made them understand. On the next day at 8 am when he was sitting in the shop of Vrindawan, Jankilal came and informed that his brother is lying dead near Bamuriya. At that time, Sangram, Imrat and Ramesh were present there. Thereafter Vrindawan along with Sangram went to bring dead-body of the deceased. During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not went along with Vrindawan to bring dead-body of the deceased. He stated that on hearing the news of death of Ramgopal he got panicked and therefore he did not went along with Vrindawan. Thereafter Vrindawan along with Sangram went to bring dead-body of the deceased. During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not went along with Vrindawan to bring dead-body of the deceased. He stated that on hearing the news of death of Ramgopal he got panicked and therefore he did not went along with Vrindawan. He admitted that he does not know the date when quarrel between Vrindawan and Ramgopal took place. He further admitted that he knows the accused and has terms with them. 26. Ramesh (DW-2) is also a neighbour of the deceased and his evidence is almost similar to the evidence of Bhagwanlal (PW-1). He also did not go along with Vrindawan to bring the dead-body of the deceased. 27. Bhagwandas (DW-3) has brought another angle in the story. He stated that before 10-11 years ago at about 9 Lakhan came at his house at Malhargarh and told that his brother is lying dead and requested this witness to come along with him and assist him in bringing the dead-body of his brother, but this witness has denied as he had to attend a date in the Court at Mungwali in regard to a case under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. 28. Ganpatsingh (DW-4) has been examined in support of plea of alibi of accused Rajkumar, but this witness in his examinationin-chief itself has stated that he cannot say that on the date of incident accused Rajkumar has come to him or not. 29. Jankilal (DW-5) has stated that before 11 years he was going to Ashoknagar from Janoda and as soon as he reached near Bamuriya pond, he found deceased Ramgopal was lying dead near pond. He then went back to Janoda and informed Vrindawan. At that time, Ramesh and Bhagwandas also present there. He told to go at the place of incident by taking tractor of Sangram Singh. Thereafter he went to his home. Earlier he used to go to the house of the accused. 30. The defence of the accused that Jankilal informed Vrindawan when he was sitting in his shop along with others in regard to murder of his brother (deceased Ramgopal) does not appear reliable as Vrindawan (PW-8) in his cross-examination para 35 has specifically stated that neither at the time of incident he was running any shop of Bidi Bindal nor Jankilal informed him that dead-body of Ramgopal was lying near pond. He stated that there is nobody in village Janoda by the name of Jankilal. Further Sangram in his case diary statement recorded on 31.7.1989 immediately after the incident did not state that when he was sitting at the shop of Vrindawan along with others, Jankilal came and informed about the death of Ramgopal. Thus, it appears to be a subsequently developed story of the defence. Further none of the defence witnesses accompanied Vrindawan for his assistance to bring the dead-body of his brother. This conduct of the defence witnesses also appears to be very unnatural. 31. The evidence of Bhagwandas (DW-3) also does not appear to be believable because he stated that Lakhan came to his house at Malhargarh at about 9 am and he admitted that in village Janoda there was no phone connection at the time of incident and distance between village Janoda and Malhargarh is about 15-16 Kos (see evidence of DW-2 Ramesh) which is about 50 kms, and therefore, as per the case of defence when Jankilal informed Vrindawan at about 8 am, then it is not possible for Lakhan to reach Malhargarh from village Janoda by covering distance of about 50 kms and asked Bhagwandas to come along with him for his assistance in bringing the dead-body of his brother. 32. In cases where there are a large number of assailants, it can be difficult for a witness to identify each assailant and attribute a specific role to him. In Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202 the Apex Court has held as under :- '15 Where a crowd of assailants who are members of an unlawful assembly proceeds to commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of the assailants. Besides, if a large crowd of persons armed with weapons assaults the intended victims, it may not be necessary that all of them have to take part in the actual assault. In the present case, for instance, several weapons were carried by different members of the unlawful assembly, but it appears that the guns were used and that was enough to kill 5 persons. In the present case, for instance, several weapons were carried by different members of the unlawful assembly, but it appears that the guns were used and that was enough to kill 5 persons. In such a case, it would be unreasonable to contend that because the other weapons carried by the members of the unlawful assembly were not used, the story in regard to the said weapons itself should be rejected. Appreciation of evidence in such complex case is no doubt a difficult task; but criminal courts have to do their best in dealing with such cases and it is their duty to sift the evidence carefully and decide which part of it is true and which is not.' 33. A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Kallu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2006) 10 SCC 313 and Viji v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 15 SCC 786 observing that in such a case it is not possible that all the witnesses may specifically refer to the acts of each assailants. 34. In Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) 7 SCC 712 , while dealing with a similar contention, Apex Court observed: 'It is a general handicap attached to all eyewitnesses, if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if they speak to all the events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed from broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case an eyewitness may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvas of his mind in the sequence in which it occurred. He may be a person whose capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what he witnessed was not something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If he reproduces it in the same sequence as it registered in his mind the testimony cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone.' 35. It should be remembered that what he witnessed was not something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If he reproduces it in the same sequence as it registered in his mind the testimony cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone.' 35. After examining the overall evidence available on record, it came out that prompt FIR has been lodged by complainant Vrindawan. The statement of complainant Vrindawan (PW-8) is corroborated by Lakhanlal (PW-9). Despite lengthy cross- examination, they remained firm on their version. Only minor contradictions and omissions are there in their statements from their initial police statements. Overall both the eye-witnesses have corroborated their initial police statement. As per the statement of Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-10) deceased sustained multiple contusions and fractures on leg which is corroborated from the evidence of these witnesses as they have stated that several blows were caused to the deceased, however, there are some omissions in their statements with regard to the weapons with which accused assaulted the deceased, but here it is to be taken note of that both the eye-witnesses are rustic villagers and there were 14 accused in the case and in such a situation, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, such omissions are not very material so as to change the fate of the case. 36. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302/149 & 148 of IPC is affirmed. Except appellant Adhar Singh, who has died during pendency of appeal, all appellants are on bail, they are directed to surrender before the trial Court to undergo their remaining jail sentence on or before 18.2.2022, failing which the trial Court shall be at liberty to issue arrest warrant against them.