DAHARI & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

                   [2012) 8 S.C.R. 1219


                      DAHARI & ORS.                               A
                             v.
                      STATE OF U.P.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1253 of 2008)

                    OCTOBER 11, 2012
                                                                  B
     [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
               IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.)

     Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Murder - Prosecution
of 7 accused uls. 3021149 - Eye-witnesses to the incident - C
FIR lodged within time - Enmity between complaint and
accused party - Conviction by trial court - High Court
confirming conviction of 4 accused while acquitting 3 accused
- On appeal held: In the facts of the case, conviction of
appellants-accused and acquittal of 3 accused correct - o
However, since the total number of accuse_d was reduced to
Jess than 5, on acquittal of the 3 accused, c.onviction with the
aid of s. 149 not correct - Conviction altered to uls. 304134.

     Witness - Related witness - Reliance on - Held: Where
the evidence of related witness has a ring of truth, is cogent,   E
credible and trustworthy, it can be relied upon.

     The 4 appellants-accused, alongwith 3 other accused
were prosecuted for having caused death of one person.
The prosecution case was that the deceased, on a motor- F
cycle, with the pillion rider, was going to attend court
proceedings. He was followed by his brothers PWs 1 and
2 on a moped. The accused persons, armed with country-
made pistol, came and fired at the deceased resulting in
instantaneous death. PWs 3 and 5 were eye-witnesses to G
the incident. Trial court convicted all the 7 accused u/ss.
302 r/w s. 149 and 148 IPC. High Court acquitted 3
accused and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the
appellants-accused.
                             1219                                 H
    1220    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2012) 8 S.C.R.


A        In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that
    prosecution case is not reliable as it withheld its most
    material witness i.e. the pillion rider; that absence of
    injuries on the pillion rider makes the prosecution case
    doubtful; that PWs 1 and 2 being related to the deceased,
8   their evidence was not reliable; that in view of acquittal
    of 3 accused, conviction of appellants not justified; and
    that after acquittal of 3 accused, the number of accused
    remained only 4 and hence the provisions of s. 149 IPC
    are not attracted.

C       Dismissing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1. The appeal is devoid of any merit. The
  medical evidence i.e. the deposition of PW.6 corroborates
  the ocular version of events as has been given by the eye-
D witnesses. It was also stated that the deceased had fallen
  down and was then surrounded by the accused persons,
  who shot at him repeatedly. Thus, there is no
  incompatibility in the oral evidence and the medical
  evidence, on record. [Paras 20 and 7) [1227-G; 1232-G]
E     1.2. The FIR was lodged within a period of one hour,
  at a police station which was at a distance of 12 kms.
  from the place of. occurrence, and this goes to prove that
  PW.1 and PW.2 were in fact, present at the place of
  occurrence and were in a position to see the accused
F from close quarters. They all were also known to the
  witnesses. The reason that they happened to be
  accompanying the deceased was because they were all
  going to the court in relation to a criminal case, in which
  son of PW.2 was the accused. There is nothing in the
G cross-examination of the eye-witnesses to cast a doubt
  upon the veracity of their testimony or to discredit it in
  anyway. [Para 8) [1227-H; 1228-A-C]

        1.3. The evidence of closely related witnesses is
H   required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated
         DAHARI & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P.             1221


before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding A
the convict/accused in a given case. In case the evidence
has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy, it can, ahd certainly should, be relied upon.
PW.1 and PW.2 undoubtedly, are the real brothers of the
deceased. They, at the time of the incident, were following 8
the deceased on their 'Moped'. They have supported the
case of the prosecution to the fullest extent, and even
though they were thoroughly questioned by the defence
in the course of cross-examination, they did not elicit
anything which coul~ shake their testimony. Thus, there
is no reason to discard their testimonies. [Paras 9 and 10] C
 [1228-D-G]
    Himanshu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 2 SCC 36:
2011 (1) SCR 48: Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 2011 SC
255: 2010 (14) SCR 133; Onkar and Anr. v. State of Uttar D
Pradesh (2012) 2 SCC 273- relied on.
      1.4. So far as the non-production of the witness
(pillion rider on the bike of the deceased) is concerned
during the cross-examination of the 1.0. (PW.4), none of
the accused raised any apprehension regarding the non- E
examination of the said witness. In such a situation, the
appellants cannot be permitted to advance an argument
stating that since the most material witness was withheld
by the prosecution therefore, adverse inference should
be drawn against them. [Para 11] [1228-G-H; 1229-A-B]     F
     1.5. As regards the pillion rider not receiving even a
single injury, both the courts below have come to the
reasoned conclusion that the pillion rider must have ran
away to save his life and hence, escaped uninjured. The
evidence on record is to the extent that the deceased had G
fallen down and that he was then surrounded by the
accused and fired upon. Thus, nothing turns in favour of
the appellants based on this point raised by them. [Para
12] [1229-C-D]
                                                            H
    1222    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012) 8 S.C.R.


A     1.6. In the instant case, there was prior ill-will existing
  between the parties, as criminal cases were pending
  between them and son of PW.2 was still in jail in
  connection with the same. Hence, there was sufficient
  motive for the appellants to kill the deceased. [Para 13]
B [1229-E]
       2. A conviction cannot be made with the aid of
  Section 149 IPC, when, upon the acquittal of some of the
  accused, the total number of accused stands reduced to
  less than 5, and it is not the case of the prosecution that
c there are in fact, some other accused who have not yet
  been put to trial. However, it is also a settled legal
  proposition that in such a fact-situation, the High Court
  could most certainly have convicted the appellants,
  under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. [Para 18] [1231-D-
D E]
       Amar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 826;
  Nagamalleswara Rao (K.) and Ors. v. State of Andhra
  Pradesh AIR 1991 SC 1075: 1991 (1) SCR 875; Mohammed
  Ankoos and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
E Pradesh, Hyderabad AIR 2010 SC 566: 2009 (15) SCR 616
  - relied on.
       Nethala Pothuraju and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
  AIR 1991 SC2214: 1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 4; Jivan Lal and
  Ors. v. State of M.P.(1997) 9 sec 119: 1996 (9) Suppl.
F SCR 537 ; Hamlet @ Sasi and Ors. v. State of Kera/a AIR
  2003 SC 682; Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. AIR
  1956 SC 116: 1955 SCR 1140; Fakhruddin v. State of
  Madhya Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 1326; Gurpreet Singh v. State
  of Punjab AIR 2006 SC 191: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 90;
G Sanichar Sahni-v. State of Bihar AIR 2010 SC 3786: 2009
  (10) SCR 112; S. Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman and Ors.
  (2011) 2 SCC 83: 2011 (1) SCR 27; Darbara Singh v. State
  of Punjab JT 2012 (8) SC 530 - referred to.
       3. It is not probable that the real brothers of the
          DAHARI & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P.               1223


deceased who had been the eye-witnesses would                   A
implicate the appellants falsely sparing the real assailants,
though false implication of some of the persons may not
be ruled out. The High Court was justified in acquitting
some of the convicts as they did not belong to the family
of the appellants/assailants. [Para 20] [1232-F]                B
                     Case Law Reference:
    2011 (1) SCR 48             Relied on           Para 9
    2010 (14) SCR 133           Relied on           Para 9
                                                                c
    (2012) 2 sec 213            Relied on           Para 9
    AIR 1987 SC 826             Relied on           Para 15
    1991 (1) SCR 875            Relied on           Para 16
    2009 (15) SCR 616           Relied on           Para 17     D

     1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 4      Relied on           Para 19
     1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 537 Relied on              Para 19
     AIR 2003 SC 682            Relied on           Para 19
                                                                E
     1955 SCR 1140              Referred to         Para 19
     AIR 1967 SC 1326           Referre:I to        Para 19
     2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 90     Referred to         Para 19
     2009 (10) SCR 112          Referred to         Para 19     F

     2011 (1) SCR 27            Referred to         Para 19
     JT 2012 (8) SC 530         Referred to         Para 19

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal           G
No. 1253 of 2008.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 27.4.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 3990
of 2005.
                                                                H
     1224    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A       S.R. Singh, Ashok Kumar Sharma. Ram Shiromani Yadav,
    Avinash Kr. Jain for the Appellants.

        Pramod Swarup, Pareena Swarup, Anuvrat Sharma, Alka
    Sinha for the Respodent.
B        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred
    against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2007 in Criminal
    Appeal No. 3990 of 2005 passed by the High Court of
c   Judicature at Allahabad, partly allowing the appeal against the
    judgment and order dated 7.9.2005 passed by the Sessions
    Court, Azamgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 215of1991, convicting
    the appellants and the co-accused under Sections 302, 149 and
    148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the
0   'IPC') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment
    for life, and also one year RI, un~r Section 148 IPC
    respectively and further, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- on each
    count, and in default of such payment, to further undergo a term
    of four months RI.

E        2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal
    are as follows:

        A. On 7.9.1990, Tej Bahadur (deceased) was travelling on
  a motor bike alongwith his friend Ashok at 9.00 a.m. and while
F doing so, he was followed by his two brothers, namely, Man
  Bahadur and Raj Bahadur who were both on a moped in the
  village of Kiratpur, district Azamgarh. The deceased was riding
  the motor cycle, while Ashok was the pillion rider. When they
  left the village, they saw the appellants and the other accused
G come out of a sugarcane field, armed with country made pistols
  with which they fired at the deceased, killing him
  instantaneously. After this, they immediately ran away.

       B. The incident was witnessed by one Rajesh Singh
  (PW.3) and also Shashi Bhushan (PW.5), alongwith some other
H persons. Man Bahadur (PW.1) and Raj Bahadur (PW.2) shifted
           DAHARI & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P.                   1225
               [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

the dead body of the deceased and laid it near a Mango grove,        A
beside the road.

     C. Man Bahadur (PW.1) then lodged an FIR at 10.05 a.m.
at a police station which was at a distance of about 12 K.M.
from the place of occurrence of the incident. Mr. Sarvdev Singh
                                                                     B
(PW.4), 1.0. thereafter began investigation. He came to the said
spot, recovered the dead body, the cartridges and pellets, blood
stained earth etc. from the aforementioned place of occurrence
and prepared the panchnama. The 1.0. then also recorded the
statement of witnesses and after concluding the said
investigation, submitted a charge sheet against 7 accused            C
persons.

    D. The learned trial Court, after holding trial, vide judgment
and order dated 7.9.2005 convicted and sentenced all the
seven accused persons, as has been stated hereinabove.               D
     E. Aggrieved, all seven accused persons preferred
Criminal Appeal No. 3990 of 2005 before the High Court, and
by impugned judgment and order of the High Court, dated
27.4.2007, the conviction and sentence of the appellants was
                                                                     E
maintained. However, three of the convicts namely, Bane,
Patiram and Phool Chand were acquitted of all charges.

     Hence, this appeal.

      3. Shri S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for       F
the appellants submitted that the High Court committed an error
by convicting the appellants under Sections 302, 149 and 148
IPC, as after the acquittal of three persons among the accused,
the total number of accused in the said case, are only four.
Therefore, the provisions of Section 149 IPC would no longer         G
be attracted. Moreover, the prosecution withheld its most
material witness, that is, Ashok, the pillion rider of the
motorcycle ridden by the deceased, Tej Bahadur and no
explanation whatsoever was furnished, by the prosecution for
 his non-examination. Furthermore, it was not possible to inflict
                                                                     H
    1226     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A upon the deceased, the said gun shot injuries in the presence
  of a pillion rider on the motor bike. Shashi Bhushan (PW.5), a
  prime witness to the incident, turned hostile and did not support
  the case of the prosecution. Man Bahadur (PW.1) and Raj
  Bahadur (PW.2) are the real brothers of the deceased and
B therefore, their testimony should not be believed, as they are
  no doubt, interested witnesses. The evidence on record is
  insufficient to convict the said appellants. In view of the fact that
  the High Court acquitted three among the accused persons, dis-
  believing the testimony of the witnesses, there is no justification
c for the Court to convict the said appellants herein. Thus, the
  appeal deserves to be allowed.

       4. On the contrary, Shri Pramod Swarup, learned senior
  counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the
  appeal, contending that the law does not require one to discard
D the testimony of witnesses who are closely related to the
  deceased/victim. Their evidence must in fact, be examined with
  due care and caution. The appellants must not be allowed to
  take the benefit of any technicalities. In case the High Court
  acquitted the three accused, it ought to have convicted the said
E appellants with Hie aid of Section 34 IPC. The appeal therefore,
  lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

         5. We have considered the rival submissions made by
    learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
F       6. In the post-mortem report, the following injuries were
    found on the person of the deceased.

         EXTERNAL: -

        1. Gun shot wound of entry half cm x half cm x chest cavity
G
        deep irregular margin situated on left pectoral area five cm
        below left nipple.

        2. Gun shot wound of exit Three cm x two cm x through
        eight cm lateral to thoracic-3, communicating to injury no
H       one directing backward horizontally.
          DAHARI & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P.                   1227
              [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

    3. Gun shot wound of entry 2.4 cm x cavity deep situated         A
    over lateral part of back fourteen cm below and in line to
    left shoulder joint with irregular margin.

    4. Gun shot wound of Exit 4 cm x 3 cm Through on right
    pectoral area eight cm above RT nipple at Ten O'clock
                                                                     8
    position communicating to injury number three.

    5. Gun shot wound of entry one cm x one cm x cavity deep
    with irregular margin situated on back at throaic-5.

    6. Gun shot wound of Exit Two cm x one cm x through, ten         c
    cm lateral to left nipple communicating to injury number
    five.

    7. Gun shot wound of entry one cm x one cm x bony deep
    irregular margin with multiple abrasion on right half of face
    and neck and fracture of scapula and humerus bone was            D
    found.

    8. Gun shot wound of Entry one cm x one cm x muscle
    deep irregular margin, five cm left lateral to L4 spine.
                                                                     E
    9. Gun shot wound of Exit two cm x two cm x muscle deep
    situated on middle of Right Glutal area communicating to
    injury number eight.

         The doctor opined the cause of death due to shock
    and haemorrhage as a result of ante- mortem injuries.            F

    7. The medical evidence i.e. the deposition of Dr. A.K.
Pandey (PW.6) corroborates the ocular version of events as
has been given by the eye-witnesses, from which it can be
understood that there were a total of five gun shot injuries. It     G
was also stated that the deceased had fallen down and was
then surrounded by the accused persons, who shot at him
repeatedly. Thus, there is no incompatibility in the oral evidence
and the medical evidence, on record.
                                                                     H.
     8. In the instant case, the FIR was lodged within a period
    1228     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A   of one hour, at a police station which was at a distance of 12
    kms. from the place of occurrence, and this goes to prove that
    Man Bahadur (PW.1) and Raj Bahadur (PW.2) were in fact,
    present at the place of occurrence and were in a position to
    see the accused from close quarters. They were also all known
B   to the witnesses. The reason that they happened to be
    accompanying the deceased was because they were all going
    to the Azamgarh Court in relation to a criminal case, relating
    to the murder of one Gharbharan, in which Raghu Prakash, son
    of Raj Bahadur (PW.2), was the accused. There is nothing in
C   the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses to cast a doubt
    upon the veracity of their testimony or to discredit it in anyway.

          9. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of
    closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised
    and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon
D   it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. In case the
    evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and
    trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (Vide:
    Himanshu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 2 SCC 36; Ranjit
    Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 2011 SC 255; and Onkar & Anr.
E   v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 273).

         10. Man Bahadur (PW.1) and Raj Bahadur (PW.2)
    undoubtedly, are the real brothers of the deceased. They, at the
    time of the incident, were following the deceased on their
F   'Moped'. They have supported the case of the prosecution to
    the fullest extent, and even though they were thoroughly
    questioned by the defence in the course of cross~examination,
    they did not elicit anything which could shake their testimony.
    Thus, we do not see any reason to discard their testimonies.

G        11. So far as the non-production of Ashok, the most
    material witness to the case is concerned, it is evident from the
    record that during the cross-examination of Sarvdev Singh, 1.0.
    (PW.4), none of the said accused voiced their concerns or
    raised any apprehension regarding the non-examination of
H
           DAHARI & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P.                    1229
               [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Ashok. He was the only competent witness who would have                A
been fully capable of explaining correctly, the factual situation.
In such a situation, the appellants cannot be permitted to
advance an argument stating that since the most material
witness was withheld by the prosecution therefore, adverse
inference should be drawn against them.                                B

     12. It has also been canvassed on behalf of the appellants
that it seems rather improbable, that despite the fact that
several injuries were caused to the deceased, the pillion rider
did not receive a single injury, and therefore, the veracity of the    C
entire case of the prosecution is doubtful. This very issue has
been considered at length, by both the courts below. They have
come to the reasoned conclusion that the pillion rider must have
run away to save his life and hence, escaped injury. The
evidence on record is to the extent that the deceased had fallen
down and that he was then surrounded by the accused and fired          D
upon. Thus, nothing turns in favour of the appellants based on
this point raised by them.

     13. In the instant case, there was undisputedly, prior ill-will
existing between the parties, as criminal cases were pending           E
between them and Ravi Prakash, son of Raj Bahadur (PW.2)
was still in jail in connection with the same. Hence, there was
sufficient motive for the appellants to kill the deceased.

     14. Another question worth consideration is whether the
appellants can be convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 149          F
IPC in the event that the High Court has acquitted three persons
among the accused and the number of convicts has thus,
remained at a number that is less than 5, which is in fact,
necessary to form an unlawful assembly as described under
Section 141 IPC.                                                       G

    15. This Court in Amar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987
SC 826, held as under:

     "As the appellants were only four in number, there was no
                                                                       H
    1230     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A        question of their forming an unlawful assembly within the
         meaning of Section 141 IPC. It is not the prosecution case
         that apart from the said seven accused persons, there
         were other persons who were involved in the crime.
         Therefore, on the acquittal of three accused persons, the
B        remaining four accused, that is, the appellants, cannot be
         convicted under Section 148 or Section 149 IPC for any
         offence, for, the first condition to be fulfilled in designating
         an assembly an "unlawful assembly" is that such assembly
         must be of five or more persons. as required under Section
c        141 IPC. In our opinion, the convictions of the appellants
         under Sections 148 and 149 IPC cannot be sustained."
         (Emphasis added)

         16. Similarly, in Nagamalleswara Rao (K.) & Ors. v. State
    of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1075, this Court observed:
0
        "8. However, the learned Judges overlooked that since the
  accused who are convicted were only four in number and the
  prosecution has not proved the involvement of other persons
  and the courts below have acquitted all the other accused of
E all the offences, Section 149 cannot be invoked for convicting
  the four appellants herein .... It is not the prosecution case that
  apart from the said 15 persons there were other persons who
  were involved in the crime. When the 11 other accused were
  acquitted it means that their involvement in the offence had not
F been proved. It would not also be permissible to assume or
  conclude that others named or unnamed acted conjointly with
  the charged accused in the case unless the charge itself
  specifically said so and there was evidence to conclude that
  some others also were involved in the commission of the
G offence conjointly with the charged accused in furtherance of a
  common object.

                                                   (Emphasis added)
H       17. Similarly, this Court in Mohammed Ankoos & Ors. v.
           DAHARI & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P.                    1231
               [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,            A
AIR 2010 SC 566, held as under:

    "35. Section 148 !PC creates liability on persons armed
    with deadly weapons and is a distinct offence and there
    is no requirement in law that members of unlawful
                                                                       B
    assembly have also to be charged under Section 148 !PC
    for legally recording their conviction under Section 302
    read with Section 149 !PC. However, where an accused
    is charged under Section 148 !PC and acquitted,
    conviction of such accused under Section 302 read with
    Section 149 !PC could not be legally recorded. We find             C
    support from a four-Judge Bench decision of this Court in
    Mahadev Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 302 ... ":

       18. Undoubtedly, this Court has categorically held that in
such a situation, a conviction cannot be made with the aid of          D
Section 149 IPC, particularly when, upon the acquittal of some
of the accused, the total number of accused stands reduced
to less than 5, and it is not the case of the prosecution that there
are in fact, some other accused who have not yet been put to
trial. However, it is also a settled legal proposition that in such    E
a fact-situation, the High Court could most certainly have
convicted the appellants, under Section 302 r/w Section 34 !PC.

     19. In Netha/a Pothuraju & Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 2214, this Court while considering a
similar case, held that the non-applicability of Section 149 !PC       F
is no bar for the purpose of convicting the accused under
Section 302 r/w Section 34 !PC, if the evidence discloses the
commission of an offence, in furtherance of the common
intention of such accused. This is because, both, Sections 149
and 34 !PC deal with a group pf persons who become liable              G
to be punished as sharers in the commission of an offence.
Thus, in a case where the prosecution fails to prove that the
number of members of an unlawful assembly are 5 or more,
the court can i.;imply convict the guilty persons with the aid of
 Section 34 !PC, provided that there is adequate evidence on           H
    1232     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012) 8 S.C.R.


A   record to show that such accused shared a common intention
    to commit the crime in question.

         A similar view has been re-iterated in Jivan Lal & Ors. v.
    State of M.P., (1997) 9 SCC 119; and Hamlet@ Sasi & Ors.
B   v. State of Kera/a, AIR 2003 SC 682.

  (See also: Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P., AIR 1956
  SC 116; Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967
  SC 1326; Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2006 SC
  191; Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 SC 3786; S.
C Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman & Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 83;
  and Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, JT 2012 (8) SC 530).

         In view of the above, we do not find any force in the
    aforementioned submissions of the appellants and the same
o   are not worth acceptance.

       20. It is a broad day light murder at 9.00 a.m. on the main
  road. The eye-witnesses had been following the deceased on
  the 'Moped' as they had to attend the court's proceedings at
  Azamgarh. The enmity between the parties stood fully
E established as criminal cases were pending between them. The
  case of the prosecution stood fully corroborated by the medical
  evidence and the ocular evidence. It is not probable that the
  real brothers of the deceased who had been the eye-witnesses
  would implicate the appellants falsely sparing the real
F assailants, though false implication of some of the persons may
  not be ruled out. Thus, the High Court was justified in acquitting
  some of the convicts as they did not belong to the family of the
  appellants/assailants.

G       The appeal is hence, devoid of any merit and is therefore,
    accordingly dismissed.

    K.K.T.                                     Appeal dismissed.