MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by eight accused-appellants namely; assailing the judgement dated 5.3.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur, District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.21/2011 (47/2013), who thereby convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the following manner:

“Offence under Section 148 IPC – two years simple imprisonment.

Offence under Section 323/149 – one year simple imprisonment.

Offence under Section 325/149 – five years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default one months simple imprisonment.

Offence under Section 447/149 – three months simple imprisonment

Offence under Section 302/149 – life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each; in default six months simple imprisonment.”

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Facts of the case are that a written report was submitted by complainant Laxman Son of Bhura in Police Station Narena on 28.11.2010 stating that at about 8.00 in the morning his brother Laduram, Baluram and Nathuram went to their agricultural field for sowing seeds. Suddenly, accused-appellants came armed with ‘lathis’, ‘farsas’ in two tractors and attacked them with the intention to kill. It was stated that one tractor was of DI Jaishree, which was driven by Ramratan. Complainant’s brothers rushed to save their life but the accused appellants hit them with tractor and inflicted injuries. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR No.140/10 was lodged in Police Station Narena. Out of the injured persons Nathulal died during the pendency of the investigation. Challan for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 447, 307 and 302 IPC was filed in the competent court, which committed the same to the Court of Additional District and Session Judge, Sanbharlake. District Jaipur. Charges for the offence under Section 302/149, 307/149, 148, 323, 325, 447/149 IPC were framed against the accused appellants. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case, examined 40 witnesses and exhibited 91 documents. In its statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused appellants denied all the allegations, which have been made against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the matter. Defence examined 1 witness and exhibited 17 documents in support of its case. After hearing the prosecution and defence, the learned trial court vide its judgment and order dated 05.03.2016 convicted the accused appellants in the manner as stated above. Hence this appeal.

3. Shri Vijay Choudhary, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that the learned trial court has erred in convicting the accused-appellants for the alleged offences even though the evidence of the prosecution does not prove the charges against the appellants on different counts beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence of the prosecution has thus been misread. The learned trial court failed to appreciate that all the prosecution witnesses namely; Devkaran (PW1), Dayal @ Ramdayal (PW4), Bhanwar Lal (PW6), Ladu (PW32) and Madan Lal (PW36), who have been believed to be eye witnesses are not the eye witnesses except Ladu (PW32), who himself was injured. The testimony of all these witnesses, who are interested, has wrongly been relied by the learned trial court. Their statements are full of contradictions and do not corroborate one another. The witnesses have given parrot like statement where they have generally alleged that Ram Ratan and Girdhari were both driving the tractor. It is alleged that Girdhari hit Ladu Ram from the tractor and when he fell on the ground the tractor was ran over his body and thereafter Ram Ratan hit Balu Ram by his tractor and when Balu Ram fell on the ground, Ram Ratan ran the tractor over Balu Ram’s body. Thereafter, the witnesses again stated that Girdhari ran the tractor over the body of Balu Ram. Learned counsel therefore submitted that most of the witnesses have alleged with rega