JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellants herein, namely, Jagga S/o Daula Garasiya, Daula S/o Jeeva Garasiya and Kokiya S/o Kheta Garasiya, have been convicted and sentenced by the additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur vide judgment dated 25.02.2019 passed in Sessions Case No.130/2016 in the following terms :- Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded, fine imposed and default sentence Section 302/34 IPC Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment Section 307/34 IPC 10 years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment Section 324/34 IPC 3 years' simple imprisonment 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and the sentences awarded to them by the trial court, the appellants have filed the instant appeal under Section 374 CrPC. 3. The facts in nutshell are as below :- Roopa Ram Garasiya (P.W.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Bekariya, District Udaipur on 04.06.2011 alleging inter alia that on that very day at about 06.30 a.m., he and his brothers Megha and Lala were all present at their respective residences. Daula S/o Jeeva, Jagga S/o Daula, Chena S/o Daula, Hansa S/o Daula, Madhu S/o Daula, Meema S/o Khema, Mana S/o Raja, Natha S/o Dhula, Kheta S/o Rata, Husa S/o Kheta, Kokiya s/o Kheta, araja S/o Kheta, in all 12 persons, residents of Bekariya, armed with axes, swords, bows and arrows and lathis, launched a concerted assault on the house of Megha. They threw stones towards Megha's house, on which, Megha and Lala fled away fearing for their lives. They reached the water channel near the field of Lala Garasiya, where Harama S/o Mama, Saka S/o Kana, Roopa S/o Gula, Hona S/o Bhera, Kala S/o Bhera, Gula S/o Jagga, Dhana S/o Eesa, Hariya S/o Eesa, Harama S/o Gula Garasiya, residents of Goras, were standing armed with lathis, axes, bows and arrows and swords. The assailants hailed from the same family and were raising exhortations saying that both should be killed. Saying so, Daula gave an axe blow on the head of Megha. Jagga shot an arrow. Chena gave blow from the reverse side of the axe. Hansa inflicted an axe injury. Madhu and Meema inflicted lathi blows. Mana gave an axe blow. Natha, Kheta and Husa shot arrows. Saying so, Daula gave an axe blow on the head of Megha. Jagga shot an arrow. Chena gave blow from the reverse side of the axe. Hansa inflicted an axe injury. Madhu and Meema inflicted lathi blows. Mana gave an axe blow. Natha, Kheta and Husa shot arrows. as a result thereof, Megha collpased and expired at the spot. Lala shouted, on which Kokiya gave a sword blow on his neck. Harja gave him lathi blow and Jagga shot an arrow, which got embedded in his neck. Roopa and Hona inflicted axe blows. Gula, Dhana, Harma and Hariya all gave lathi and axe blows. The informant, alongwith Homi W/o Megha, Haldi D/o Roopa, Samiya D/o Megha, Bhatki D/o Megha rushed to the spot and intervened to save Lala, on which, Homi was given a lathi blow on her hip by Kheta. a land dispute was going on and that is why the assailants had launched the concerned assault, in which, Megha was killed and an attempt was made to kill Lala. 4. On the basis of this written report, an FIR No.43/2011 (Ex.P/21) came to be registered at the Police Station Bekariya for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 323 IPC. Investigation was assigned to Police Inspector Roshan Lal (P.W.20), the then SHO, Police Station Bekariya. He proceeded to the crime scene and prepared the following documents :- (1) Site inspection plan (Ex.P/2) (2) Panchnama Lash Megha (Ex.P/3) (3) Supurdginama Lash Megha (Ex.P/4) (4) Requisition for conducting postmortem (Ex.P/18) (5) Seizure memo of four arrow heads from the place of incident (Ex.P/7) (6) Seizure memo of blood stained clothes of Megha (Ex.P/8) (7) Seizure memo of blood stained and control soil from the place of incident (Ex.P/9) 5. The dead body of Megha was subjected to postmortem at the hands of a Medical Board and postmortem report (Ex.P/18) was received. The injury reports of Lala (Ex.P/17) and Homi (Ex.P/16) were also procured. The Investigating Officer Roshan Lal arrested accused Mana, Jagga, Hameera, Daula, Hariya, Gularam and Rooparam and effected the recoveries as usual. after investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against accused Mana, Daula, Jagga, Hariya and Hameera in the court of the concerned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 148, 149, 307, 324, 326 IPC and Section 4/25 of the arms act. after investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against accused Mana, Daula, Jagga, Hariya and Hameera in the court of the concerned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 148, 149, 307, 324, 326 IPC and Section 4/25 of the arms act. The investigation qua the remaining accused was kept pending under Section 178 (8) of the CrPC. The Investigating Officer also submitted supplementary charge-sheet against Gula and Roopa. 6. Further investigation of the case was conducted by Mr. Sunil Sharma (P.W.24), who was posted as SHO, Police Station Bekariya as on 29.04.2016, and arrested Bheema @ Meema and filed supplementary charge-sheet against him. 7. Sawai Singh (P.W.25), who was posted as SHO, Police Station Bekariya as on 22.03.2013, also conducted a part of investigation and arrested accused arjaram and Kokiya and filed a subsequent charge-sheet against these two accused persons. 8. The details of the arrests of these 10 accused, the informations provided by them under Section 27 of the Evidence act and the recoveries effected from them/verification of place of incident done by them are described hereinbelow in a chat form : S.No. Name of the arrested accused arrest memo Memo of information under Section 27 of the Evidence act Recovered articles and seizure memo 1 Mana Ex.P/27 Ex.P/31 Ex.P/32 axe (Ex.P/10) Verification of place of incident by accused (Ex.P/12) 2 Jagga Ex.P/28 Ex.P/29 Ex.P/30 Iron sword (Ex.P/11) Verification of place from where sword was got recovered by accused (Ex.P/13) 3 Hameera Ex.P/33 Ex.P/34 Verification of place of incident (Ex.P/14) 4 Daula Ex.P/35 Ex.P/36 Lathi (Ex.P/5) 5 Hariya Ex.P/37 Ex.P/38 Verification of place of incident by accused (Ex.P/15) 6 Gularam Ex.P/39 Ex.P/41 Ex.P/42 Bamboo Lath (Ex.P/43) Verification of place of incident by accused (Ex.P/45) 7 Roopa Ram Ex.P/40 Ex.P/46 Ex.P/47 arrow (Ex.P/48) and bow 8 Bheema @ Meema Ex.P/53 Ex.P/54 Verification of place of incident by accused (Ex.P/55) 9 arjaram Ex.P/56 - 10 Kokiya Ex.P/57 - 9. The cases of all the charge-sheeted accused were committed and then transferred to the Court of the additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur. all these charge-sheets were clubbed together for trial after committal. 10. The cases of all the charge-sheeted accused were committed and then transferred to the Court of the additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur. all these charge-sheets were clubbed together for trial after committal. 10. Charges were framed against the accused persons in the following terms :- Name of the accused Offence for which charges framed Jagga Sections 148, 324/149, 326/149, 307/149, 302/149 IPC and Section 4/25 of the arms act Roopa, Hariya @ Hara, Daula, Hameera @ Sameera, Mana, Gula, ajraram and Kokiya Sections 148, 324/149, 326/149, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC Bheema Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149, 326/149, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC 10. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 25 witnesses and exhibited 57 documents to prove its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC and upon being confronted with the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution case, they denied the same and claimed to be innocent. 9 documents were exhibited, but no oral evidence was led in support of defence. 11. after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict the three accused appellants Jagga, Daula and Kokiya as above, whereas the remaining seven accused, namely, Roopa, Hariya, Hameera, Mana, Gula, Harja and Bheema, were acquitted of the charges by extending benefit of doubt. The judgment dated 25.02.2019 convicting and sentencing the three accused appellants is assailed in this appeal. 12. Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. as per the FIR (Ex.P/21), the first informant Roopa did not see the incident actually happening because the quarrel took place near a water channel in the filed of Leela Garasiya, which is at a significant distance from the house of Roopa. Out of 10 charge-sheeted accused persons, 7 accused who were charged and tried on the same evidence have been acquitted by the trial court and as such, the distinction drawn by the trial court while convicting the appellants herein on the basis of the same evidence is absolutely unjustified. The evidence of material prosecution witnesses Roopa Garasiya (P.W.1), Homi (P.W.9), Lala (P.W.10), Bhatki (P.W.11) and Lasma (P.W.12) is highly vacillating and their testimony is thoroughly contradicted by the medical evidence. The evidence of material prosecution witnesses Roopa Garasiya (P.W.1), Homi (P.W.9), Lala (P.W.10), Bhatki (P.W.11) and Lasma (P.W.12) is highly vacillating and their testimony is thoroughly contradicted by the medical evidence. The Investigating Officer did not prove the informations recorded at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence act in a legal manner and thus, the recoveries cannot be read against the accused. The prosecution gave no evidence whatsoever regarding safekeeping of the recovered weapons etc. and thus, also the recoveries have been rendered redundant. Learned counsel further submitted that as many as 21 persons were named by the first informant in the FIR. The incident took place in two parts. as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in the first part, 12 accused persons allegedly launched an assault on the house of Megha. However, the Investigating Officer did not find 6 of these accused involved in the offence and a negative final report was submitted qua them. In the second part of the incident, which took place near the water channel in the field of Leela Garasiya, 9 assailants allegedly accosted the victims, but of these 9 persons, charge-sheet was filed only against 3. He, thus, urged that there is wholesome over-implication of the accused by the prosecution witnesses and it is not possible to distinguish the case of the accused appellants from that of those accused, who were not found involved in the offences and hence, on parity, the accused appellants are entitled to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. On these grounds, Mr. Shambhoo Singh vehemently implored the court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellants. 13. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel and urged that the prosecution witnesses hail from a Tribal background and are illiterate people and thus, minor and trivial contradictions are bound to appear in the evidence of such witnesses. The trial court has adopted a thorough and balanced approach while analysing the evidence while recording guilt of the accused appellants to the exclusion of the left out and acquitted accused. The statements of the material prosecution witnesses and eye-witnesses have been properly sifted and an unimpeachable conclusion has been drawn therefrom regarding active participation of the accused appellants in the incident. The statements of the material prosecution witnesses and eye-witnesses have been properly sifted and an unimpeachable conclusion has been drawn therefrom regarding active participation of the accused appellants in the incident. He further urged that from the evidence of the Medical Jurist Dr. Dau Lal (P.W.14), who proved the injury reports of Lala (Ex.P/17) and Homi (Ex.P/16) and the postmortem report of Megha (Ex.P/18), the fact regarding large number of injuries, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Megha and life threatening injuries having been caused to the injured Lala, is well-established. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that evidence of Lala (P.W.10), who is an injured witness, is in itself sufficient to affirm the conviction of the appellants because his testimony, establishes actual participation of the accused appellants in the incident and the witness could not be shaken from his stance despite prolonged cross-examination. On these grounds, learned Public Prosecutor implored the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the trial court. 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. 15. The prosecution case is based primarily on direct evidence. Though the Investigating Officer claims to have effected recoveries from the accused persons, but prima facie after going through the evidence of the three Investigating Officers, Roshan Lal (P.W.20), Sunil Sharma (P.W.24) and Sawai Singh (P.W.25), we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to lead proper evidence to satisfy the court regarding the sanctity of the recovery proceedings and thus, the recoveries have to be rejected. 16. Now we proceed to discuss the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses. The first informant Roopa (P.W.1) virtually repeated the allegations set out in the written report (Ex.P/1) and the FIR (Ex.P/21) and alleged that the incident took place in two parts. In the first part of the incident, which took place at the house of Megha, 12 assailants were named. In the second part, which took place near the water channel, 9 persons were named as offenders. However, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet only against 10 persons, of which also, 7 have been acquitted by the trial court. In the first part of the incident, which took place at the house of Megha, 12 assailants were named. In the second part, which took place near the water channel, 9 persons were named as offenders. However, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet only against 10 persons, of which also, 7 have been acquitted by the trial court. In cross-examination, the witness Roopa (P.W.1) was confronted with certain omissions and contradictions, vis-a-vis the First Information Report and his police statement Ex.D/1. However, the contradictions so pointed out are trivial and inconsequential. Otherwise also, Roopa mainly saw the first part of the incident, wherein the accused persons threw brickbats towards the house of Megha. In cross-examination, the witness stated that after the stones were hurled towards their house, Megha and Lala ran away and the accused pursued them. The second part of the incident took place in the field of Leela Garasiya. after perusal of whole of the statement of Roopa, we are of the firm view that no significant contradictions/infirmities were pointed out by the defence counsel in his statement, which can persuade us to doubt his testimony. 17. Homi (P.W.9), being the wife of Megha, named 17 assailants, who gathered outside her house and threw stones. She stated that Lala and Megha ran away from the house. Daula gave an axe blow on the head of Megha. Jagga was armed with a bow and arrow and also a sword. Hasiya and Madho were armed with lathis. Kokiya was armed with a sword. Reshma and Hameera were having guns. Harma was armed with a lathi. The others were having stones in their hands. She attributed specific role in the incident to some of the accused persons. She was confronted with her police statement (Ex.D/3), wherein certain contradictions were pointed out, but the same do not appear to be very significant. 18. The most important witness of the prosecution was none other than Lala (P.W.10), who himself was seriously injured in the incident. In his statement, Lala alleged that 5 accused, namely Daula, Jagga, Madhu, Chena and Jagga S/o Daula came to their house and started throwing stones etc. The time was 06.30 in the morning. Then the assailants surrounded him and Megha near the water channel. Daula gave an axe blow on the head of Megha. Jagga shot an arrow on the witness. Gula inflicted an axe blow to Megha. The time was 06.30 in the morning. Then the assailants surrounded him and Megha near the water channel. Daula gave an axe blow on the head of Megha. Jagga shot an arrow on the witness. Gula inflicted an axe blow to Megha. Hansa and Chena also inflicted axe blows upon him. Madhu gave a lathi blow. Roopa and Mana inflicted axe blows to Megha. The witness alleged that Kokiya inflicted a sword blow on his neck and Jagga shot an arrow on his chest. Meema and Natha inflicted lathi blows. Hamira landed a lath blow upon Megha. He stated that his sister Bhatki, mother Homi and uncle Roopa also saw the incident. His mother Homi tried to intervene, on which, she too was beaten by Gula, Jagga, Daula, Hona and Lala. He fell down unconscious after the attack and was hospitalized, where he came to know that his father had passed away. He pertinently alleged that the assailants had launched the assault with the intention of taking possession of their land. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he and his father Megha were sleeping when stones were thrown towards their house. They abruptly woke up and ran towards the water channel in an attempt to escape. 20 to 25 assailants accosted them. He and his father were both beaten at the same time. He became unconscious after receiving injuries on his head and the arrow injury. During cross-examination, the witness was confronted with his 161 CrPC statement (Ex.D/4), wherein there is some discrepancy regarding the names of the assailants and the specific role attributed to them. The witness was recalled on 26.10.2016 and during his cross-examination on that day, he refuted the defence suggestion that he had fallen down on the ground and became unconscious and did not see the incident. 19. Bhatki (P.W.11) also gave evidence implicating some of the assailants in the incident. Nothing significant was elicited in her cross-examination as well. 20. Dr. Daulal (P.W.14), the Medical Jurist, examined Homi and prepared the injury report Ex.P/16 taking note of two bruises on her hip and on her back. Thus, presence of injuries on the person of Homi affirm her presence at the place of incident. Nothing significant was elicited in her cross-examination as well. 20. Dr. Daulal (P.W.14), the Medical Jurist, examined Homi and prepared the injury report Ex.P/16 taking note of two bruises on her hip and on her back. Thus, presence of injuries on the person of Homi affirm her presence at the place of incident. The Medical Jurist also examined Lala and prepared the injury report Ex.P/17 taking note of four injuries, namely, a cut wound on the left side of neck, a punctured wound on the sternal notch with a foreign body embedded therein, a lacerated wound present on the right side of head and a cut wound on the right side of chest. The witness also conducted postmortem upon the body of Megha and took note of 3 injuries, being a lacerated wound on the front side of head and two bruises, one on the chest and another on the jaw. Frontal bone and underlying part of the brain were crushed. Spinal cord and brain membrane were damaged. The neck bone was also fractured. The left jaw was broken. Vague suggestions were given to the witness that the injuries caused to the injured persons could have been received upon a fall. However, these suggestions are absolutely conjectural and cannot be considered sufficient to impeach the testimony of the Medical Jurist. 21. Dr. Vinay Naithani (P.W.19) carried out surgery upon Lala and took out the arrow head. The doctor proved the operative notes (Ex.P/20). 22. For the sake of repetition, it may be mentioned here that the Investigating Officer gave absolutely perfunctory evidence regarding the informations provided by the accused and the recoveries effected in pursuance thereof and hence, the recoveries cannot be relied upon. 23. The trial court appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and after sifting chaff from the grain, found the accused appellants Jagga, Daula and Kokiya guilty for the above offences, whereas the accused Roopa, Hariya, Hameera, Mana, Gula, Harja and Bheema were acquitted of the charges. On a threadbare perusal and evaluation of the testimony of the material witnesses referred to supra, it is apparent that the trial court carried out a thorough exercise of identifying the particular accused persons, who were responsible for causing injuries to the injured persons and the deceased. as many as 19 assailants were named in the FIR and in the testimony of the first informant Roopa Ram. as many as 19 assailants were named in the FIR and in the testimony of the first informant Roopa Ram. Looking to the lesser number of injuries, the trial court was absolutely justified in undertaking this process of filtering the names of the accused persons, who were attributed specific allegations of inflicting injuries to the victims. The mere fact that some of the accused persons named in the FIR have not been charge-sheeted and few of the charge-sheeted accused have been acquitted by the trial court would not give any advantage to the accused appellants because it is well-settled in the Criminal Jurisprudence prevailing in the Indian justice delivery system that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound principle. 24. as a consequence of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court is based on thorough and apropos appreciation of evidence available on record. The impugned judgment dated 25.02.2019 passed by the additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur vide in Sessions Case No.130/2016 does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference by this court. 25. Thus, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.