RAM PRASANNA SHARMA, J.

1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 14.01.2009 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh (CG) in Session Trial No.96/2007 wherein the said Court convicted all the six appellants for commission of offence under Sections 307 read with 149, 148, 323 read with 149 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of 500/- each; RI for two years; RI for one year; RI for three years with default stipulation.

2. As per the version of the prosecution, on 15.5.2007 at about 9.00 pm, victim Jainul Haq was working in the beetal shop where other victims namely Guddu @ Rizwan Ahmad was standing nearby and another witness Mohd. Arif was also present there. It is alleged that all the appellants came on the spot carrying club and sword assaulted Guddu @ Rizwan and when the complainant and Arif interfered, the appellants assaulted them also. The matter was reported and the appellants were charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under:

(i) There is no cogent evidence to connect the appellants with the crime in question and the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and came to a wrong conclusion.

(ii) There is serious discrepancies in the First Information Report, statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and their deposition before the trial Court, therefore, case of the prosecution is under cloud.

(iii) The origin of the story is the misbehaviour with the daughter of the victim Rizwan, therefore, there is no motive of the appellants for commission of offence.

(iv) The trial Court has overlooked the facts that memorandum witnesses have clearly stated that the authorities have taken their signature in blank papers. Therefore, finding of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the finding of the trial Court is based on proper marshaling of the evidence and the same is not liable to be interfered while invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Court below.

6. Jaffir Ahmed (PW-2), Anul Haq (PW-5), Rizwan @ Guddu (PW-6), Mohd. Arif (PW-7), Jainul Haq (PW-8) are the eyewitnesses account of the incident. As per the version of Rizwan, appellant Sirajuddin @ Chhotku and appellant Bora @ Manmohanm were having sword while other appellants were having club and rod and they assaulted him after altercation and when Jainul Haq interfered they assaulted him also. Version of all these witnesses is supported by version of other witnesses. All the witnesses have been subjected to searching cross-examination but nothing could be elicited in favour of the defence and the material point of the incident is unshaken. Dr. PS Kurre (PW-4) examined Rizwan on 15.5.2007 at Community Health Centre, Manendragarh and noticed following injuries:

(1) Right leg - (a) Incised wound with old clotted blood with reddish colour at anterior aspect of middle of right leg - 1.0"x0.3"x0.4".

(b) Incised wound 1 inch below the first injury anteriors of size 0.3"x0.2"x0.3".

(c) Swelling with pain at right ankle-joint with bluish colour.

(d) Incised wound of 0.3"x0.2"x0.3" on the right thigh with reddish colour.

(2) Left leg- incised wound of 0.3"x0.2"x0.3" on the anterior of middle part.

(3) Left forearm - abrasion with reddish colour posterior of 2.0"x0.4".

(4) Right hand - swelling of 0.4"x0.3"x0.3" on the right anterior part.

(5) Back - Right side (scapular) region - contusion, mark with reddish colour of 5.0"x1.0".

(6) Head - (a) Lacerated wound with red colour bleed at vertex region of head scalp with reddish colour of 1.0"x0.3"x upto skull.

(b) contusion mark at back of right pear region of skull of 2.0"x1.0" with bluish colour.

(c) Incised wound on the frontal region scalp of 1.3"x0.3" upto skull margin.

(d) Incised