1. - This Appeal has been filed by accused-appellants, (1) Mohabbat Singh, (2) Chhagan Singh, and (3) Khet Singh, all by caste Rawna Rajpoot, residents of Village-Odd, District-Sirohi (Rajasthan) against the Judgment dated 28.4.2005 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 2/2005 (44/2004) by which that Court had convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as follows:-

2. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that Shaitan Singh was returning in a car with his distant cousin Hanuman Singh at 9.30 A.M. on 12.11.2004 to his village and when they reached bus stand Odd, then they met Mohabbat Singh who started badly abusing to Hanuman Singh and then accused Chhagan Singh and accused Khet Singh caught hold of Hanuman Singh from back side and then Khet Singh told Mohabbat Singh (ekj lkys dks vius ihNs iM+ x;k gS) then Mohabbat Singh picked out a knife from his pocket and stabbed repeatedly in the left side of stomach of Hanuman Singh. Hanuman Singh died before reaching District Hospital, Sirohi because at village Javal and at village Barloot, no medical facility was available.

3. The arguments of the accused-appellants are as follows :

(1) that the prosecution has not proved its story beyond reasonable doubt and so that benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused-appellants.

(2) that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses and so the parrot-like statements of the witnesses should have been discarded by the Trial Court.

(3) that the telephonic information given from Barloot Hospital to the S.H.O. by the complainant should be treated as F.I.R. and since that information does not discloses the names of the accused, so the prosecution story should not have been accepted.

(4) that F.I.R. Ex. P-8 reached the concerned Magistrate Court on the next date, i.e. 13.11.2004 at 8.00 P.M. in the night and no explanation for the delay has been given by the prosecution, so on this count also, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellants.

(5) that the prosecution had relied upon all the interested witnesses who were of the same caste and so conviction cannot be sustained.

(6) that no blood was found on the clothes of PW-3 Shaitan Singh, PW-7 Om Singh and PW-9 Doongar Singh, though they have stated that they had put the body of the deceased in the car after the occurrence. On this count also, the benefit of doubt is claimed by the accused-appellants.

(7) that no person from the locality of the bus stand have turned up as a witness, causing suspicion in the prosecution story.

(8) that the recovery of knife made from the accused is from an open place and further more, the knife was not shown to the doctor to ascertain that injuries caused in the present case was from that weapon or not.

(9) that the defence story has wrongly been discarded by the Trial Court.

(10) that no role to the two other accused-persons has been assigned by any of the witnesses and so Khet Singh and Chhagan Singh have also wrongly been convicted by the Trial Court.

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and we have heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor also.

5. This is an admitted fact in the case