JUDGMENT

 This is an appeal filed under S. 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with S. 2(a) of the SC (Enlargement of the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. There are four appellants. They were tried for offences punishable under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC and S. 307 read with S. 34, IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar. They are alleged to have caused the death of Najbhai Nagbhai by inflicting injuries and also caused injuries to Shardul Merambhai. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the two eye-witnesses P.W. 1 and another P.W. 2 Mavji Magan. P.W. 2 was treated hostile. Therefore, the prosecution was left with the evidence of P.W. 1. The trial Court acquitted all the four accused holding that P.W. 1 is a highly interested witness and his version is in conflict with the medical evidence and there was inordinate delay in giving the report. The trial Court has also pointed out certain other discrepancies in his evidence. The trial Court further observed that it is unsafe to rely on the testimony of P.W. 1 to convict the accused. The State preferred an appeal against acquittal and the High Court accepted the evidence by explaining the various inconsistencies with reference to the medical evidence and also partly relied on the evidence of P.W. 2, the hostile witness, to the extent that he has seen four accused running away from the fields. Thus the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the four appellants under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and also under S. 326 read with S. 34, IPC. for causing the injuries to P.W. 1 and each of them was sentenced to five years Rigorous Imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. In this appeal Shri T. U. Mehta learned counsel for the appellants submits that the sole testimony of P.W. 1 suffers from many infirmities and the very fact that he has given a version which is in conflict with the medical evidence and when he has gone to the extent of implicating four accused as having dealt blows and when that version is found to be incorrect it is highly unsafe to rely on the P.W. 1s sole testimony particularly when, admittedly, he is an interested witness and when there was inordinate delay in giving the report. Mr. R. P. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand, submits that the presence of P.W. 1 at the scene of the occurrence is not disputed inasmuch as he is an injured witness and the inconsistencies in his evidence with reference to the medical evidence can be explained and the fact that the delay in giving the report has also been sufficiently explained.

3. According to the prosecution the deceased was involved in an earlier murder case. P.W. 1 is no other than his nephew. The further case of the prosecution is that there was an enmity between the accused persons and the deceased and his relatives with regard to some disputes. On 5-6-77 P.W. 1 and the deceased had gone to take a round in their fields and were looking after the supply of water. Thereafter they returned at about 1.30 p.m. and when they reached the fields of Haribhai and Shivabhai Soni they saw the four accused armed with weapons like dharies, axes and sticks. The accused are alleged to have intercepted the deceased party and there was exchange of hot words as regards taking of the water from the canal. During the said quarrel, it is alleged that A-1 gave a dharia blow on the head of the deceased and A-2 gave an axe blow also on the head. As P.W. 1 intervened A-1 gave him an axe blow and A-4 gave a dharia blow. It is further alleged that all the accused dealt blows on the deceased and P.W. 1 jointly. When P.W. 1 raised cries the accused ran away along with their arms from the fields. The injured was taken in a cart to the hospital. Likewise also P.W. 1 was also taken. They were taken to the doctor. Doctor on examination of the deceased found one contused lacerated wo