MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.

1. All these three appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 5.6.2015 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases Bharatpur, District Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.65/2012 by which the accused-appellants Man Singh and Jagdish have been convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC and Tejveer @ Gulta for offence u/s.302/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, each of them was to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. They have also been convicted for offence u/s.148 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment of two years; for offence u/s.341 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment of one month; for offence u/s.323 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year. Accused-appellant Man Singh has also been convicted for offence u/s.325 IPC and accused-appellant Jagdish and Tejveer @ Gulta for offence u/s.325/149 IPC and each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.09.2010 a written report was submitted by Mukesh at Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur stating therein that at about 11.00 AM in the morning, the accused appellants and their family members were trying to take the possession of the piece of land and when they were forbade by Mohar Singh, all of them started beating Mohar Singh, who died during treatment. On the basis of this written report, FIR No.340/2010 came to be registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Charge sheet was submitted by the police in the Court against the appellants and others for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341 and 302 IPC. Charges for the offence under Sections 148, 341, 323 or 323/149, 325 and 302 IPC were framed against accused-appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case, has examined as many as 17 witnesses and got 37 documents exhibited. Thereafter, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which it was specifically stated that they have been falsely implicated. In defence, four witnesses were examined viz. Dr. R.D. Sharma (DW1), Amar Singh (DW2), Dr. Sanjay Choudhary (DW3) and Buddiram Parewa (DW4) and 12 documents were exhibited. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court recorded conviction and sentence as mentioned above. Hence these appeals.

3. Shri Anil Upman, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that there are material contradictions/improvements/omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as they have stated lie on the important points and have improved upon their original version and true facts were withheld by them. All the prosecution witnesses are close relatives of the deceased and prosecution failed to produce single independent witness in this case. Therefore, learned trial court has committed grave illegality in recording conviction on the testimony of such interested witnesses.

4. Learned counsel argued that prosecution failed to explain injuries found on the person of the accused persons. Specific questions were put to the prosecution witnesses in this regard but no answer was given by them and only ignorance was shown. The cross cases were registered at the instance of accused-appellant Man Singh with regard to injuries sustained by him vide injury report Ex.D8A, which has been proved by production of defence witness Dr. Santosh Choudhary (DW3). The x-ray report of accused-appellant Man Singh (Ex.P5A) has been proved by Dr. R.D. Sharma (DW1). Amar Singh (DW2), the Investigating Officer of the cross case has proved the filing of charge sheet. Learned counsel has produced certified copy of the judgment dated 5.6.2015 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Preventi