S.N. Saxena, J. - (1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 18.11.1978 of Shri Ikramul Bari, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Non-Metropolitian Area, Kanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 313 of 1977, State v. Ranjit and 4 others - whereby he convicted and sentenced them for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, the details of which were as follows:- Appellant Ajai Pal was convicted of the charges under Sections 302, 380/114/148 and 452 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Appellant Ranjit was convicted for the charges under Sections 302/149, 380/114, 452, 147 and 411 Indian Penal Code. Appellant Gorey Lal and Moti Lal were convicted for the charges under Sections 302/149, 380/114, 147 and 452 Indian Penal Code. Appellant Manni Lal was convicted for the charges under Sections 302/149, 380, 147 and 452 Indian Penal Code. Each of the appellants Ranjit, Gorey Lal, Moti Lal and Manni Lal were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each or to undergo R.I. for six months in case of default for the charge under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code. Each of the five appellants including Ajai Pal was sentenced to two years' R.I. for the offence under Section 452 Indian Penal Code. Appellant Manni Lal was sentenced to undergo two years' R.I. for the offence under Section 380 Indian Penal Code. Each of the appellants Ajai Pal, Ranjit, Moti Lal and Gorey Lal was sentenced to two years' R.I. for the offences under Sections 380/114 Indian Penal Code. Each of the appellants Ranjit, Moti Lal, Gorey Lal and Manni Lal was sentenced to one year R.I. for the offence under Section 147 Indian Penal Code. Appellant Ajai Pal was sentenced to two years' R.I. for the offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code. Appellant Ranjit was sentenced to one year's R.I. for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code. The learned lower court directed that the sentences awarded to each of the appellants shall run concurrently. The learned lower court also directed that the revolver Ext. II and cartridges Exts. III to VII would be returned to Manni Lal, father of Vidya Sagar, provided he held a valid licence therefor otherwise the revolver would be at the disposal of the District Magistrate, Kanpur and the cartridges would be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal. The occurrence, which had given rise to the above mentioned Sessions Trial, had taken place on 14.7.1977 at about 1.00 P.M. at the room of Manni Lal father of the deceased Vidya Sagar, in village Jagdishpur within Police Station Ghatampur of District Kanpur, which was about six miles from Kotwali, Kanpur, where the F.I.R. of the incident was handed over by complainant Ganga Sagar to the Police the same day at 15.45 hours. The prosecution story was as follows:- Manni Lal had got a house in village Jagdishpur named above and had also got constructed a residential house in the outer part of the village. Some time ago, he had constructed a room near the field of appellants Ajai Pal, Gorey Lal and Moti Lal. Rain water from the roof of the said room used to flow in the eastern direction. The water first flew upon a vacant piece of land of appellant Munni Lal and, thereafter, into the field of the above named appellants. Vidya Sagar, at the time of this incident had been studying at Kanpur. He was married to Smt. Sarla Devi and had got a child also. Vidya Sagar alongwith his family, used to live in the aforesaid house located at the outskirt of the village. During holidays,Vidya Sagar used to stay at home in the village. he otherwise also sometime used to visit his family in the village. His father Manni Lal was not present in the village on the date of this incident as he was employed as an organiser in P.R.D. and was posted in Fatehpur. Vidya Sagar was a student of LL.B. II year. Ganga Sagar P.W.2, who had lodged the F.I.R. of this incident with the Police, was the cousin of the deceased. Ganga Sagar used to tie his cattle in the Sehan of the house of Manni Lal, as he had got no other place for the said purpose. Ram Kishore PW.3 was the real brother of Manni Lal: He had got a room belonging to his nephew Ram Deo on the back of the residential house of Manni Lal. Ganga Sagar and Ram Kishore lived in the ancestral house which was situate in the middle of the village 'Abadi'. The story further goes that at about 8.00 A.M. on 14.7.1977, all the five appellants went to the room of Vidya Sagar, which was at the outskirt of the village and towards the west of the field of appellants Ajai Pal, Gorey Lal and Moti Lal. Informant Ganga Sagar also was behind them. All the five appellants entered into altercation with deceased Vidya Sagar, who was sitting in the aforesaid room. They objected to the flow of water into the field of appellants Ajai Pal and others. Vidya Sagar expressed helplessness by stating that the water used to fall first on his ownland and, thereafter, flowed towards the field in an unchanalised manner upon which he had no control. He also expressed his inability to do anything during rainy season and further remarked that if the appellants were not satisfied, they could go to court of law. The appellants whereupon went away hurling abuses to Vidya Sagar. They also declared that they would decide the matter on the spot. The same day at about 1.00 P.M. the appellants again reached the room of Vidya Sagar, who was sitting inside the room. Appellants Ajai Pal was armed with an axe and the remaining four appellants were carrying lathis. Ganga Sagar also at the same time had gone to feed his bullock who had been tied near the room of Vidya Sagar. He had taken grass for the bullock. Ganga Sagar heard the alarm of Vidya Sagar who was crying for help and shouting that he was being killed. He proceeded towards the room of Vidya Sagar and saw that the five appellants had been dragging him out from inside the room. They dragged him in the sehan outside the room and assaulted him with the weapons which they were carrying. Ram Kishore, who was uncle of Vidya Sagar, and Visya Sagar's wife as well as informant Ganga Sagar rushed towards the deceased in order to save him but were threatened by the appellants with dire consequences due to which they could not intervene in the matter. The appellants had assaulted Vidya Sagar even after he had fallen on the ground. The witnesses, however, continued to raise alarm. The companions of Manni Lal appellant exhorted him to take away revolver of the deceased which had been kept in the aforesaid room. Manni Lal then entered the room and took out the revolver. All the appellants, thereafter, ran away in the southern direction alongwith their weapons and the revolver which belonged to Vidya Sagar's father Manni Lal. The witnesses, thereafter, went to Vidya Sagar, who was lying on the ground and blood had been flowing from his body. They found his condition serious, arranged for a bullock-cart and took him in the same to Patara Hospital. The Doctor at Patara Hospital had examined Vidya Sagar and advised Ganga Sagar and others that they should take him to Kanpur, as itwas not possible for him to be of any help. Ganga Sagar and others then took Vidya Sagar to U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur where the Doctors tried to save him but Vidya Sagar succumbed to his injuries at about 7 P.M Ganga Sagar, thereafter, drafted F.I.R. Ext. Ka.2 of the incident and handed over the same at Kotwali, Kanpur at 9.45 P.M. the same day as already mentioned above. After the registration of the case at the Police Station, the investigation followed as usual. Necessary formalities were completed by the Police in respect of the dead body of Vidya Sagar which was taken into custody by the Police and sent for postmortem examination to the mortuary. The postmortem examination was done at 3.30 P.M. on 15.7.1977 by Dr. S.P. Pandey, who prepared the postmortem examination report Ext. Ka-1. He was examined also as PW.1 by the prosecution during the trial. Vidya Sagar on 14.7.1977 at 4.10 P.M. when he was alive, was examined by Dr. Nafisul Hasan, who had prepared the injury report Ext. Ka-11. Dr. Nafisul Hasan in his injury report Ext. Ka-11 had disclosed that Vidya Sagar was unconscious and his pupils had dilated. he had found the following injuries upon his person- 1. Patient unconscious, Pupils dilated. 2. Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 2.5 cm., bone deep on the left partial region, 5 cm. from left ear. He had adivsed X-ray of this injury. 3. Contusion 9 cm. x 6 cm. on left partial region, just above left ear. X-ray of this injury also was advised. 4. Abrasion 6 cm. x 4 cm. on the left forehead. 5. Traumatic swelling and bony deformity on the right thigh. X-ray of this injury also was advised. 6. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the inner side of the left knee joint. The injuries were found fresh by the Doctor and had been caused by hard blunt object. Injuries Nos. 2,3 and 5 were kept under observation for X-ray. The rest of the injuries, however, were simple. Dr. S.P. Pandey, who had performed the postmortem examination on the dead body of Vidya Sagar, was examined as PW.1. He had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body:- 1. Stitched wound 41/2 cm. with five stitches on the left partial region 71/2 cm. above left ear. 2. Contusion 71/2 cm. x 31/2 cm. on the left temporal region. 3. Abraded contusions 5 cm. x 3 cm. on the outer part of the left forehead. 4. Contusion 6 cm. x 4 cm. on the lower part of the outer thigh with deformity of right thigh along with fracture of the femur bone underneath. 5. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the inner side of the left knee. On internal examination, the Doctor had found the commuted fracture on left temporal partial occipital bones extending towards occupatal and fracture of right partial bone under injuries Nos. 1,2 and 3. The membranes of the brain were irregularly lacerated under the fractured bone. The Doctor had found the brain lacerated on the left cerebral under the factored bone and the left occipital bone. Clotted blood was present in the posterior and in the lacerated portion of the brain. Both the lungs were found congested and both the chambers of the heart were found empty. In his opinion, Vidya Sagar had died as a result of shock and haemorrhage caused by injuries on his head and the thigh. Further, he stated that injuries Nos. 1,2 and 3 each separately as well as taken together were sufficient to cause death. In respect of injury No.4 he stated that it could be inflicted from the reverse side of the blade of an axe and the other injuries could be inflicted by lathi or the back side of the blade of the axe and the death of Vidya Sagar could have taken place at about 7.00 P.M. on 14.7.1977. The defence of the appellants consisted of the denial of guilt. Appellant Ranjit in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code admitted that the deceased Vidya Sagar had got constructed a new room on the eastern side of the village, the water of which used to flow in the field of Ajai Pal. He expressed ignorance about the incident as a result of which Vidya Sagar had died and further stated that Ganga Sagar earlier had set fire to his house about which he had lodged an F.I.R. against him with the Police at P.S. Ghatampur. He, thus, tried to show that Ganga Sagar was inimical towards him but regarding prosecution witness Smt. Sarla Devi he stated that he had nothing to say about her. He also stated that prosecution witness Shyam Sunder was a relation of Manni Lal. He denied the recovery of revolver of Manni Lal from his possession in the morning of 17.7.1977 when he was going along with appellant Gorey Lal on Nahar Patri in village Dharampur. Appellant Gorey Lal also expressed ignorance about the incident and denied the prosecution version that he had inflicted blow from the back side of an axe upon Vidya Sagar and the other appellants had assaulted him with lathis. The theft of revolver was also denied by him. Regarding Ganga Sagar, he stated that he had deposed against him due to enmity and Smt. Sarla Devi was at her father's place on the date of this incident. Regarding Ram Kishore also he stated that he was related to the deceased. Appellants Ajai Pal, Moti Lal and Manni Lal also gave similar statements as given by the above named other appellants. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused persons examined ten witnesses and also relied upon a number of documents. The statement of P.W.1, Dr. S.p. Dubey, already has been mentioned above PW.2, Ganga Sagar, was the informant and the role played by him also has been disclosed while narrating the facts of the case. PW.3, Ram Kishore was uncle of deceased Vidya Sagar. He stated that his brother Manni Lal i.e. the father of the deceased on the date of this incident was in Fatehpur. He supported the prosecution story on all material points. He was at the Gher of Ram Deo when this incident had taken place which was situated adjacent to the house of Vidya Sagar towards east thereof. This witness when he was putting mud upon a wall of the Gher of Ram Deo heard the noise and the cries upon which he went towards the place of occurrence. He found that Vidya Sagar, his wife and Ganga Sagar with folded hands were requesting the accused person not to assault Vidya Sagar. He too joined the request but the accused persons paid no heed and committed the crime as already mentioned above. He stated that earlier in the day, at about 10 or 11 A.M. he had met Vidya Sagar, who had narrated the incident in which the appellants had threatened him with serious consequences. In his cross examination this witness stated that he had told Vidya Sagar that he would have a talk with the accused persons and try to pacify the dispute. He admitted that he did not advise Vidya Sagar to lodge report with the Police about the threat given to him by accused persons. PW.6, Smt. Sarla Devi was the widow of the deceased. She supported the prosecution version on all material points and denied the suggestion of the defence that on the date of this incident, she was not present at her house. In her cross examination, she further stated that it had rained very heavily in the evening on the day of the incident due to which the blood which was lying at the place of the occurrence was washed away. She denied the suggestion that she was tutored to state falsely about the washing away of the blood. PW.8, Shyam Sunder, deposed about the recovery of the revolver and the cartridges by the police in his presence from the possession of accused Ranjit, who was accompanied by accused Gorey Lal. He stated about the formalities which were completed by the Police after the recovery. He belonged to village Sanchitpur within Police Station, Ghatampur and was sitting near the place of the recovery after attending the call of nature. The Police Inspector who was accompanied by Constables also asked him to remain with him, as they had to arrest the miscreants. In his cross examination, he admitted that he belonged to the community of (Mishras). He denied the suggestion of the defence that his sister was married to brother-in-law of Manni Lal Sukla. Regarding her cousin sister also, he stated that she was not married in village Jagdishpur and but her Sasural was in village Patara. When further cross examined, he stated that Ganga Sagar, Manni Lal and Ram Kishore were not known to him from before nor he was related to them. He was cross examined at length by the accused persons, but nothing material could be pointed out on the basis of which his testimony could be effectively attacked. PW.4, Ram Shanker Shukla, on 15.7.1977 was posted as Head Moharrir at P.S. Ghatampur. He stated about the registration of the case at serial No. 22 in the general diary on the basis of the 'chick' report which was handed over to him at the Police Station at 13.00 hours on 15.7.1977. He was not cross-examined by the defence. PW.5, Ram Narain Yadav, S.I. P.S. Ghatampur on 15.7.1977 was posted in the Kotwali as Sub-Inspector. He had gone to U.H.M. Hospital along with two Constables and completed the necessary formalities in respect of the dead body of Vidya Sagar which, thereafter, was sent by him for postmortem examination along with the relevant documents. PW.7, Dr. Nafeesul Hasan, as already mentioned above,had examined the injuries on the person of Vidya Sagar when he was alive. PW.9, S.I. Ram Das Rawat, had started the investigation of this case on 15.7.1977 after the papers of this case had been received at P.S. Ghatampur from the Kotwali. He was present at the Police Station when the case was registered there. He stated about the same and proved the documents prepared by him including the site plan. On 17.7.1977, he had recovered the revolver and cartridges from the possession of accused Ranjit and arrested him and Gorey Lal. On the same day i.e. 17.7.1977 he came to know that accused Ajai Pal, Moti Lal and Manni Lal were present in village Barnao. He left to village Barnao along with Police force and arrested the said three co-accused persons at a culvert in village Dharampur. He stated that he had not found blood at the place of occurrence and it had rained very heavily in the night between 14/15.7.1977. PW.10, Mohd. Farman C.No. 1318 in the year 1973-84 was posted at Police Station, Govind Nagar. He stated that constable Moharrir Devi Prasad Dubey also was posted there and he was familiar with his writing. He proved 'chick' report Ext. Ka-16 by stating that it had been drafted and signed by Devi Prasad Dubey. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely. The accused persons did not adduce any evidence in defence. Learned lower court after considering the entire evidence on the record, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, they preferred this appeal. For the appellants, it was contended that the eye-witness account consisted of interested witnesses who were closely related with each other and therefore reliance could not safely be placed upon their statements. For the State, however, it was argued that the eye witness account consisted of the witnesses whose presence could not be doubted; that they were the natural witnesses and had got no reason to depose falsely against the accused persons and that the learned lower court had rightly placed reliance upon their statements. After carefully considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the record, we are of the opinion that there were no reasons at all to disbelieve the eye witness account. Mere fact that the witnesses were related to each other was not sufficient to disbelieve the eye witness account. The inter-se relationship of the witnesses required this Court to scrutinise the eye witness account very closely and carefully and the same could be relied upon, if found, to be trustworthy. We, therefore, scrutinised the statements of the aforesaid eye witnesses carefully, but nothing could be pointed out on the basis of which the same could be disbelieved. Accused Ranjit stated that informant Ganga Sagar was inimically deposed towards him due to an incident of arson, but he failed to substantiate the same. At page 10 of his statement in cross examination, this witness denied the suggestion of the defence that his relations with the accused persons were strained from before this incident. Attention of this court was drawn to the minor omissions in the statement of informant Ganga Sagar, which however were of little significance. As a matter of fact, these omissions should not have been allowed by the learned lower court during the cross examination of the witness as the same were not material omissions amounting to contradiction. At page 10 of his statement, he stated that he had forgotten to mention in the F.I.R. that he always used to tie his bullocks near the room of Vidya Sagar and further stated that the Investigating Officer also had not enquired about it from him. He gave the details of the assault in his cross examination at page 11 which appeared to be truthful. No reason could be pointed out the basis of which any doubt could be entertained regarding the assault by the accused persons upon Vidya Sagar. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution had made material variation in its story, in as much as the witnesses had stated that the blow from axe was inflicted from its other side. In our opinion, however, it is not a variation on the basis of which the eye witness account could be disbelieved. The other side of the blade of the axe generally is very heavy and there was, therefore, nothing improbable if the blow was inflicted from the other side. All the above named three witnesses consistently stated on this point and due to the aforesaid variation only the eye witness account could not be disbelieved. The statement of PW.3, Ram Kishore, also was attacked on the ground that he was uncle of the deceased. This contention has already been discussed by us and we are not inclined to disbelieve the testimony of this witness due to his relationship with the deceased. His presence at the Gher of Ram Deo which adjoined the room of the deceased and the account of the incident given by him appeared to be convincing and truthful. He had got no animus to depose falsely against either of the appellants. An attempt was made to show that appellant Moti Lal had got some disability due to which he was uncle to walk freely. This witness truthfully stated that accused Moti Lal while walking used to give a jerk to his waist. He, however, stated that Moti Lal was capable of running and also of participating effectively in an incident of the like nature. He denied the suggestion that the case had been fabricated after Munni Lal, who was father of the deceased, had returned home from Fatehpur. he also denied the suggestion that cattle trough was not there near the room of the deceased or that Ganga Sagar did not use to tie his cattle there. The presence of PW.6, Smt. Sarla Devi, at the time of this incident could not be doubted, as she was the wife of the deceased. It has already been observed above, while narrating the facts of the case and the evidence on the record, that the suggestion of the accused persons that she actually was at the house of her father that day was denied by the witnesses and the accused persons made no attempt to substantiate the same. her statement, therefore, carried considerable weight and we do not find any good reasons to disbelieve the same. The incident had taken place in broad daylight and the accused persons were known to the deceased and the prosecution witnesses very well from before this incident. Nothing material could be pointed out on the basis of which the testimony of Smt. Sarla Devi could be doubted. The learned lower court had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and he had placed reliance upon the statements. We too are of the opinion that the eye witness account had been rightly believed by the learned lower court. The factum of the theft of the revolver and the cartridges and its recovery was successfully proved by the prosecution with the help of the eye witness account already discussed above and the statements of PW.8, Shyam Sunder, and the Investigating Officer PW.9, Ram Das Rawat. As a matter of fact, their testimony on this point could not be attacked on behalf of the appellants and we do not find any reason to take a view different from that taken by the learned lower Court. An attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellants to show that no case punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was made out and at the most, it was a case under Section 304 Indian Penal Code. The submission, however, did not carry force. It is evident from the he statement of Dr. S.P. Dubey, that each of the three injuries Nos. 1,2 and 3 was separately sufficient to cause death. It could, therefore, reasonably be said that the blows upon the head of deceased Vidya Sagar were inflicted with considerable force as a result of which the injuries Nos. 1,2 and 3 had resulted in the region of the head and each by itself was sufficient for causing death. The intention to cause death, thus, was borne out from injuries Nos. 1,2 and 3 and, therefore, it was not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that it was not a case punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. All the accused persons assaulted the deceased with the help of their weapons and the appellants, therefore, were rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Ajai Pal also was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the convictions and sentences of the appellants are confirmed. The material exhibits shall be dealt with in accordance with the order passed by the learned lower court. No material exhibit shall be sent to the Hon'ble Supreme Court unless specifically called for and the same shall be preserved till the decision of the appeal, if any, by the apex court. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. They shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded by the learned lower court.;