ORDER :

1. In all these appeals, the appellant is the informant, namely PW-1. The private respondents were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307, 324, 325, 504 read with Section 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, the IPC) along with the provisions of Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT , 1951.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the complainant along with 7 others were playing cricket on 29.10.2008 - date of occurrence. The accused persons came and made an attempt to play on the very same ground. There was an altercation that ensued, as they were prevented from doing so by the deceased due to paucity of adequate space. Under rage, the accused persons, namely the private respondents before us came to the place of occurrence and allegedly committed the offence which led to the death of the informant's cousin and injuries suffered by others. In total, there are about 35 accused persons. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, was pleased to acquit 19 of them and convicted 16 persons.

3. Appeals have been filed before the High Court by both sides, including the State. The High Court, by an elaborate judgment, after reassessing the evidence available on record was pleased to dismiss the appeals filed against the acquittal and allowed the appeals filed against the conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Aggrieved, the appellant, who is the informant, has filed the present appeals.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there are injured eye-witnesses whose evidence ought to have been placed by the High Court at a higher pedestal. The High Court has committed an error in disbelieving the recovery. The motive for the crime has been proved, as there was a prior dispute. Merely because the witnesses who have been examined are related to the deceased, is not a reason to disbelieve their testimony. The mere delay in recording the statement or reading the complaint per se cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution's version of events. Between the existence of ocular evidence and medical evidence, the former will have to be given preference. Both the Courts have not considered the evidence in its correct perspective, as there are ample materials available on record to implicate all the private respondents.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that there are material discrepancies between the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which have rightly been taken note of by the High Court in its judgment. Apart from the same, the oral evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses do not concur with the nature of the alleged injuries suffered by them, as revealed by the medical report. The High Court has rightly disbelieved the recovery, particularly, in light of the witnesses turning hostile and the recoveries having been made from the open spaces. Motorcycles which were present in the scene of occurrence have not been seized and the owners have not been identified by the Investigating Officer. The weapons allegedly used to commit the offence do not tally with the nature of injuries suffered, as revealed by the medical evidence. The injuries suffered do not correspond with the statement made by the eye-witnesses. Hence, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of the eye-witnesses, especially, in the light of apparent discrepancies in the same. In such view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

6. We are dealing with a case involving Section 149 of the IPC. While convicting a person charged with the aforesaid provision, which creates a vicarious liability, the Courts will have to be extra cautions. In the instant case, abo