1. - Kana Ram s/o Nathuram, alongwith his four sons, namely Ram Dayal, Ram Chandra, Sanwarmal, and Balram along with Samander s/o Onkar and Chuna Ram @ Harphool s/o Samander, were tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar, in a case arising out of FIR No. 129/05 registered at Police Station Khandela, for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 452 and 504 IPC.

2. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 27.11.2010, had acquitted Samander and his son Chuna Ram @ Harphool. Kana Ram along with his four sons, namely Ram Dayal, Ram Chandra, Sanwarmal and Balram were held guilty of offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149, 452, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, the accused-appellants were sentenced as under:-

U/s 148 IPC- to undergo one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's R.I.

U/s 323/149 IPC- to undergo six months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's R.I.

U/s 324/149 IPC- to undergo one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's R.I.

U/s 452 IPC- to undergo two years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's R.I.

U/s 307/149 IPC- to undergo ten years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' R.I.

U/s 302/149 IPC- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I.

3. Aggrieved against the same, all the five convicted accused filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 890/2010. Mali Ram, the complainant, aggrieved against the acquittal of Samander and Chuna Ram @ Harphool has instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 965/2011.

4. The criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/2) submitted by Mali Ram Saini (P.W.2). In the occurrence, Bheeva Ram brother of Mali Ram had died. Mali Ram, the complainant, his wife Mishri Devi, Aanchi Devi w/o Bheeva Ram, Bhagli Devi, mother of the deceased and Hemraj son of the deceased had suffered injuries.

5. It is submitted before us that in the occurrence, accused appellant Ram Chandra, Kana Ram and Ram Dayal had also suffered injuries. It is contended that in the Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/2) recorded by SHO Police Station Khandela, Maliram, the complainant (P.W.2) has stated nothing regarding injuries caused to three accused.

6. It has been vehemently urged before us that for non-explanation of injuries in the FIR, on the person of accused is fatal to the prosecution, as the complainant party has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence.

7. Before we advert to the arguments raised, it will be pertinent to mention that Dr. N.L. Disania (P/13) had conducted Post-Mortem on the dead body of Bheeva Ram. As per Post- Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/34), four injuries had been found on his person.

8. Dr. S.P. Buradia (P.W.12) on 20.7.2005, had examined Hemraj s/o of Bheeva Ram and as per injury report (Exhibit-P/35) he had found two injuries on his person which were simple in nature.

9. As per injury report (Exhibit-P/37) proved by Dr. S.P. Buradia (P.W.12), Mishri Devi had suffered two injuries.

10. As per injury report (Exhibit-P/38) Aanchi Devi w/o Bheeva Ram, the deceased had suffered one lacerated injury on the head.

11. As per injury report (Exhibit-P/39) Bhagli Devi, mother of the deceased had suffered three injuries.

12. In the injury report (Exhibit-P/40) of Bheeva Ram, doctor had found five injuries on his person. However, we have already referred to the Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/34) of the deceased, Bheeva Ram.

13. What is material for us is the injuries on the person of accused. Dr. S.P. Buradia (P.W.12), as per injury report (Exhibit-D/5) had found two injuries on the person of