Balwan Singh and others vs State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J.—Appellants Balwan Singh, Jai singh and Inder Singh real brothers were tried with their co-accused Rakesh Kumar under Sections 302, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas their co-accused Rakesh Kumar was acquitted of the charge framed against him, appellants herein having been held guilty u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. They have also been held guilty for an offence u/s 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal code and sentenced to R.I. for six months each as also were burdened with Rs. 10,000/- each which if realised was to be paid to Om Pati widow of deceased as compensation. The orders to the effect aforesaid were passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat on 21st and 22nd of March, 1997. It is against these orders of conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed.

The prosecution story was unfolded by Virender Singh son of Ram Chander deceased. According to his version, whereas Ram Chander was done to death by the appellants and another, he and one Tek Ram suffered injuries on 23-5-1992 at 7.30 p.m. in village Nadipur Majra also known as Mahboobpur which is at a distance of 16 KMs from Police Station Ganaur. The statement of Virender Singh came to be record on 25-5-1992 at 12.15 a.m. (mid-night) at Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi which was recorded by Mohan Singh Head Constable PW-14. On the basis of statement made by Mr. Virender Singh PW-5, formal F.I.R. Ex. P2 initially came to be recorded under sections 323, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but was converted to Sections 323, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 25-5-1992 after the death of Ram chander. Virender Singh stated before Head Constable Mohan Singh that he was serving in AIR Force and had come on 40 days leave. On 23-5-1992 he had gone to village Juan in the marriage of Suresh his neighbour. Balwan and Jai Singh Sons of Parhlad Singh of his locality had also gone to village Juan in the same marriage and two brothers were going on a motor cycle. He asked Balwan to take the bridegroom from Vida to Chopal on motorcycle. At this Jai Singh accused abused and slapped him and stated as to who he was to order them. At altercation ensued between him and Jai Singh. Balwan and Jai Singh returned to their village and while starting the motor cycle Balwan told him that they would see him and his father after returning home. Later on, the came to the village with marriage party and when he was going towards his house, he saw that Balwan, Jai Singh and Inder sons of Parhlad Singh and Rakesh son of Jai Singh had laid down his father Ram Chander. All the four persons were armed with Jelli and lathis and they were inflicting injuries to his father with their respective weapons. His mother Om Pati and Tek Ram son of Hari Singh were trying to rescue his father from their clutches. In the meantime he also ran to rescue his father. Balwan tried to give him Jelli blow on his back, but as he bent low, the pointed ends of Jelli struck him slightly on the back right side of his shoulder. Inder Singh struck end of the lathi below his left eye and gave another lathi blow on his right shoulder. Rakesh gave blow of Jelli lathiwise on the wrist of his left hand. When Tek Ram tried to intervene, Jai Singh gave a lathi blow on his head. When they raised alarm, then all the four assailants, thinking that his father was dead, fled away from the spot. They launched attack on them due to grudge of an altercation in the marriage. The assailants made good their escape. Jai Bhagwan also reached the spot. Then, he along with his mother and Jai Bhagwan took his father who was bleeding profusely from the head, abdomen, hand and foot to Civil Hospital, Ganaur in a vehicle. They sent them to civil hospital, Sonepat. Thereafter, the doctors there referred his father to M.C.H. Rohtak. After consulting each other, they brought his father to AIMS Delhi but the doctor sent them to Safdarjang Hospital. The doctors again seeing his critical condition advised them to take Ram Chander to Ganga Ram Hospital. Finally his father was brought to Ganga Ram Hospital and admitted there. The occurrence had taken place at 7.30 p.m.

In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the appellants and his co-accused Rakesh Kumar, the prosecution examined Dr. Krishan Kumar, Medical Officer, PHC, Ahar, Distt. Panipat as PW-1. He stated that while working as Medical Officer in PHC, Ganaur, he examined Tek Ram and found the following injuries on his person -

"1. There was a scabbed would of dark black colour Y shape 2 cm x 2 cm and 1.5 x 0.2 cm present on the scalp, just behind the top, 12.5 cm from the left ear pinna and 12.5 cm above the nape of neck. There was no bleeding and no foreign body.

The patient complained of pain in the right thigh but there was no external injury mark visible.

The nature of injury was simple and probable duration was 48 hours. In his cross-examination he stated that injury could be caused within 48 hours.

Dr. S. P. Singal from Singal Nursing Home, Gannaur, who was examined as PW-2 stated that Ex. PB is the prescription slip issued by him vide which patient Tek Ram was medically examined. In cross-examination he stated that as per the said slip, there was nothing to indicate that he was having any head injury at time when he was examined by him.

Dr. Subodh Kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sonepat, who had medico-legally examined Inder son of Pehlad Singh was examined as PW-6. He had examined the patient on 23-5-1992 at 11.07 p.m. and found following injuries on his person :-

"1. Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1 cm bone deep in left front to parietal region, fresh bleeding present. Advised X-ray skull, A.P. and lateral views.

Lacerated wound 7 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep situated 2.5 cm posterior to injury No. 1. Fresh bleeding present. Advised-ray skull A.P. and lateral views.

Lacerated wound 6.5 cm x 1 cm bone deep situated 2 cm posterior to injury No. 2. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray skull A.P. and lateral views.

Lacerated wound 6 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep situated in right frontal region, fresh bleeding present and advised X-ray skull A.P. and lateral views.

Diffuse swelling left hand. Advised X-ray left hand A.P. and lateral view and orthopaedic Surgeon''s opinion.

Complaining of pain in lower thoracis spine, tenderness present. Advised X-ray T6 to T12 spines A.P. and lateral views and Orthopaedic Surgeon''s opinion.

Lacerated wound 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm over the dorsum of proximal inter phalynogeal joint of right index finger, skin deep. Fresh bleeding was present."

Injuries 1 to 6 were advised X-ray whereas injury No. 7 was declared simple in nature. The probable duration of injuries was within six hours. The weapon used in the opinion of the doctor was blunt for all the injuries. On the same day this witness had examined Balwan Singh and found the following injuries on his person :-

Lacerated would 3 cm x 1 cm bone deep in frontal region. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray skull A.P. and lateral views and observation.

Right black eye present. Advised X-ray skull A.P. and lateral views.

Diffused swelling over right zygometic prominence. Advised X-ray face A.P. and lateral view and Orthopaedic Surgeon''s opinion.

Abrasion 2.5 cm x 1 cm over lateral aspect of right arm at the junction of upper and middle third. Movements normal. Fresh bleeding was present.

Diffuse swelling right fore-arm. Advised X-ray right fore-arm A.P. and lateral views and orthopaedic Surgeon''s Opinion.

He advised X-ray for injuries 1, 2, 3 and 5. Injury No. 4 was found to be simple in nature. The probable duration of the injuries was within six hours. It was a case of use of blunt weapon. The same very witness medico-legally examined Jai Singh and found the following four injuries on his person :-

"1 Lacerated would 3.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over occipital region. Advised X-ray skull A.P. and lateral view. Fresh bleeding was present.

Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over frontal region. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray skull A.P. and lateral views.

Diffused swelling of right fore-arm. Advised X-ray right fore-arm A.P. and lateral views and Orthopaedic Surgeon''s opinion.

Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm over left acronion process. Complaining of paid left index finger. No external mark of injury seen.

Complaining of pain left index finger. No external mark of injury seen.

He advised X-ray for injuries 1 and 2. Whereas injury No. 3 was to be opined after X-ray and Orthopaedic Surgeon''s opinion, injuries Nos. 1 and 2 was found to be simple in nature. Probable duration of injuries in the opinion of the doctor was six hours and the weapon used for all the injuries was blunt. In his cross-examination he stated that Inder Singh, Jai Singh and Balwan Singh had remained admitted in Civil Hospital, Sonepat on 23-5-1992. According to endorsement on the M.L.R. of Inder Singh and after having gone through the X-ray report he stated that there was fracture of 4th and 5th metacarpal bones on left side. Prosecution examined Dr. A. A. H. Zaidi, C.M.O. Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi as PW-9. He stated that on 24-5-1992 he was posted as C.M.O. in Ganga Ram Hospital. Summary report of the patient Ram Chander was prepared by him. Patient was unconscious at the time of examination. Patient was thereafter admitted in the intensive care unit of the hospital. Dr. S. C. Sharma who was examined as PW-10 stated that on 4-5-1992 he was posted as S.M.O. in Intensive Care Unit of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Police had moved application Ex. PO vide which they had sought his opinion with regard to the fitness of Ram Chander. He vide his opinion Ex. PO/1 opined that the patient was critically ill. He was unconscious and was unfit to make any statement. He had also opined that injury was dangerous to life.

Dr. Ashok Chaudhary who medico-legally examined Virender Singh, the first informant was examined as PW-11. He had examined Virender Singh on 25-5-1992 and found the following injuries on his person :-

"1. Abrasion of size 3 cm x 0.25 cm present on left side of nose placed obliquely, from tip of nose to inner angle of left eye. Scab present.

Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm present on left side of face, just lateral to left nostril. Scab present.

Contusion of size 7 x 2.5 cm present on upper aspect of right shoulder. No swelling, no tenderness were observed. Movements of right shoulder were normal.

Abrasion of size 1 cm x 2.5 cm present on right shoulder, 4 cm from tip of right shoulder. Scab was present.

Two abrasions of size 8 x 0.25 cm and 9 x 0.25 cm present on right scapular region, 14 cm below the right shoulder joint. Scab was present.

Contusion of size 11 cm x 2.25 cm present on left scapular region. 3.5 cm below the left shoulder joint.

Abrasion of size 1 x 0.25 cm on left arm, 8 cm above the left wrist joint on posterior surface. Scab was present.

Abrasion of size 4 x 0.25 cm present on posterior surface of left arm, 3 cm below the injury No. 7. Scab was present.

In his cross-examination he stated that the injuries which he had found on the person of Varinder Singh were not of within one day''s duration. The injuries could not be beyond this duration. Dr. T. B. S. Bakshi PW 12 stated that on 24-5-1992 he had radiologically examined and scanned the skull of Ram Chander. His report regarding scanning was Ex. PR which was signed by him and was correct. Dr. V. S. Madan who was examined as PW-15 stated that he had operated Ram Chander on 24-5-1992. He continued to check the patient even after the operation and best medical treatment was given to him. Dr. L. T. Ramani PW-16 had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Ram Ch Chander. He found the following injuries on the deadbody of Ram Chander.

"1. One U shaped stitched would 9-1/2 long extending from left zygoma/temple region to the frontal area and posteriorily up to left parietal region.

Stitched wound 1" long on the left parietal eminence.

Stitched wound 4-1/2 long placed vertically from right zygoma to right tempro-parietal region.

Stitched wound 1-1/2 long on the outer part of right eye-brow.

Bruise of 3" diameter on the tip of the right shoulder.

Bruise 3" x 2" on the tip of right shoulder.

Bruise 1" x 1" on the left zygoms region.

Prominent teeth bite mark on the left shoulder in the form of intermittently placed abrasions arranged in an oval manner with bruised in central area of 2-1/2 x 1-1/4.

An abrasion 1-3/4 x 1/4" on the left costal margin.

Abrasion 1" x 3/4" on the left knee.

In the opinion of the doctor injuries were ante-mortem and caused by blunt weapon. Injuries to the skull were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death was due to coma, resulting from head injury. He could not give the probable time which might have elapsed between injuries and death as the patient was hospitalised.

Besides the medical evidence as have been fully detailed above, the prosecution also relied upon the statement of PW-3 Rajinder Kumar who had prepared the site scaled site plan Ex. PC which was made at the instance of Om Pati widow of Ram Chander. PW-4 Piara Singh, Medical Record Officer of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital only stated that he had brought the summoned record i.e. bed-head ticket and file pertaining to Ram Chander.

Virender Singh son of the deceased who was examined as PW-5 deposed in tune with the F.I.R. lodged by him. Testimony of Virender Singh was corroborated in all its material particular by PW-7 Om Pati and PW-8 Tek Ram. Head Constable Ram Singh who was examined as PW-11 stated that he has brought the summoned record. On 24-5-1992, at about 4.25 a.m. an information regarding admission of Ram Chander in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital was received telephonically. He recorded D.D. report No. 4, copy Ex. PS and deputed Umresh Chander S.I. for necessary action. On 29-5-1992 another telephonic message was received regarding the death of Ram Chander. He again recorded D.D. Report No. 25, copy Ex. PT and sent the same to S.I. Umresh Chander. Head Constable Mohan Singh Pw-14 stated that on 25-5-1992, he was posted at Police Station, Gannaur. He recorded the statement of Virender Singh on 25-5-1992. He moved application Ex. PO to the Medical Officer, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi as to whether Ram Chander injured was fit to make a statement. The doctor vide Ex. PO-1 opined that he was unfit to make a statement. ACI Umresh Chander PW-17 and ASI Ram Chander PW-18 detailed the steps that they had taken while investigating the case.

When examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant Jai Singh stated that he was innocent and had been involved in a false case. Similar is the statement of Inder Singh. Balwan Singh appellant, however, stated that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. Virender son of Ram Chander along with Jagbir, Rampat, Pardeep and Ram Chander used to tease the children of Mehar Singh their brother and on 23-5-1992 at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. when Jai Singh was in front of his house, Ram Chander started abusing daughters of Mehar Singh on which Jai Singh remonstrated with Ram Chander and requested him not to abuse the girls, upon which there ensued an altercation between Jai Singh and Ram Chander. Virender, Narinder, Jagbir Tek Ram and others came armed with Jallis and Lathis for helping Ram Chander and started assaulting Jai Singh who raised an alarm which attracted Balwan and Inder to save Jai Singh. They were assaulted by the above-mentioned persons and they caused injuries to Ram Chander, Virender and Tek Ram in their self defence. The appellant led no evidence in their defence.

Mr. R. S. Cheema learned Counsel representing the appellants contends that the genesis of the occurrence leading to the death of Ram Chander and injuries to others as also the appellants is shrouded in mystery. In fact, the prosecution, has failed in its endeavour to prove that Ram Chander was done to death by the appellants and their co-accused when Ram Chander was confronted before his house as has been suggested by the prosecution. No explanation of the injuries suffered by the appellants have been given by the prosecution, and the eye-witnesses have concealed their own role. He further contends that a clear attempt has been (made) by the prosecution to shift the place of occurrence and also that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. He further contends that attitude of the police has been partisan and also that the motive as suggested by the prosecution was not strong enough that the appellants might have been actuated to cause death of Ram Chander and cause injuries to others. While elaborating his first point with regard to the genesis of the occurrence and that the prosecution is unable to prove its case on that count, Mr. Cheema contends that in so far as PWs Virender and Tek Ram are concerned, they were not present at the time when the fight had started. They were attracted to the scene of occurrence later in point of time. In so far as Om Pati is concerned, her version cannot be believed as not only that her statement was recorded after 45 days of the occurrence but she also stated certain things in her cross-examination that make her presence doubtful at the scene of occurrence.

Before we might proceed to comment on the contentions of the learned Counsel noted above, we would like to mention that Virender PW-5, Tek Ram PW-8 are injured witnesses. True, there is lot of criticism with regard to injuries suffered by Tek Ram whose presence is admitted by the appellants as would be evident from Ex. DD statement by appellant Jai Singh to the police on 24-5-1992 at 9.30 p.m. In so far as PW Virender is concerned, as mentioned above, he is an injured witness and it is proved that in the same occurrence he received as many as 8 injuries. Whereas injury No. 1 is on the left side of nose, injury No. 2 is on the left side of face. This witness also had two abrasions of the size of 1 cm x 0.25 cm and 8 x 0.25 cm and 9 x 0.25 cm on right scapular region. He had also contusion, of size 11 cm x 2.25 cm on the left scapular region. But it is being argued by Mr. Cheema that Virender and Tek Ram were attracted to the place of occurrence later in point of time and therefore, they were not expected to state as to how the altercation had ensued leading the parties to take to arms. Whereas it is true that these two witnesses were not present from the very beginning and were attracted to the scene of occurrence when the appellants and their acquitted accused were giving injuries on the person of Ram Chander, but the same, however, cannot be said with regard to Om Pati. Om Pati is none other than widow of Ram Chander. As per prosecution version, on the eventful day at 7.30 p.m., she along with her husband was present in the house when the appellants and others came to their house. As per her version appellant Jai Singh had raised an alarm and asked them to get their son Virender out of the house as he had insulted them in the marriage party. Thereafter her husband told them that Virender was not present in the house. Her husband came out of the house and came in the street where the appellants were standing. The appellants were standing in front of the gate of their house whereas her husband was standing in the street. She also came out of the house and saw them exchanging blows and gave lathi to her husband for his self defence. The appellants were giving blows on the person of her husband Ram Chander who went on saving himself. In that process her husband and the accused reached in front of the house of Chander Bhan Mahajan. There Jai Singh appellant raised an alarm and proclaimed that they would see Virender later on but they would see her husband first. Thereupon, Rakesh gave a straight Jelli blow in the abdomen of his husband Ram Chander. Her husband Ram Chander also gave 1-2 blows of lathi to Rakesh in his self defence. Again said in fact her husband had given blows to one or two accused in his self defence. Balwan appellant gave a Jelli blow hitting near the eye on the right parietal of her husband Ram Chander, whereas Inder and Jai Singh appellants gave lathi blows on the head of her husband Ram Chander deceased from behind. Thereafter her husband fell on the ground. She raised an alarm to save her husband which attracted Tek Ram PW. She and Tek Ram made requests to the appellants to spare her husband but the appellants turned deaf ear to their requests. Appellant Balwan gave a lathwise Jelli blow on the left parietal of her husband while he was lying on the ground. Jai Singh appellant gave two lathi blows on the person of her husband hitting him on the right shoulder and on the chest. Appellant Inder then gave another lathi blow hitting on the left knee of her husband while he was lying down. Rakesh acquitted accused gave tooth bite to her husband on his left shoulder. In the meanwhile, her son Virender PW also came there. He also tried to save her husband along with them. The appellants then gave blows to them also. Thereafter the appellants fled away from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons thinking that her husband Ram Chander had died. The statement of this witness u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 30-5-1992. Whereas we do not find anything unusual in police recording her statement a few days after the occurrence as there (was) no hurry in doing so inasmuch as the First Information had already been lodged and that too by an injured witness, We, however, find something in her examination from where it would appear that this witness is not telling all the truth about the way and manner in which the occurrence took place in which her husband died and two others were injured whereas the appellants also suffered some injuries. In her cross-examination she stated that she had told the police that the appellants were standing in front of the gate of their house while her husband was standing in the street. She was confronted with her statement Ex. DB wherein it was not so stated and instead in portion A to A it was mentioned that the appellants came to the house of the witness and enquired about Virender and her husband told them that he was not there and thereafter they came out of their house. She further stated that she had told the police that she gave a lathi to her husband when she came out of her house and saw exchange of blow. She was also confronted with her stated Ex. DB wherein it was not so mentioned that the witness had given lathi blow to her husband, so that the quarrel may not take place. She further stated that she had told the police that altercation including, exchange of blows had started in front of their house. She was once again confronted with her statement Ex. DB wherein it was not so recorded regarding the exchange of blows having started in front of the house of the witness. She further stated in her cross-examination that there was one house in between their house and the house of Jiwan and thereafter the street enters in the main street. The house of Jiwan is in on the corner of the two streets. Thereafter in the main street is the house of Sohan and thereafter is the house of Chander Bhan Mahajan in the main street. She had stated before the police that the exchange of blows had also started along with altercation in front of their house. She was confronted with her statement Ex. DB portion ''C'' to ''C'' wherein there was reference only to the altercation and there was no mention of exchange of blows in front of the house of the witness. She further stated that she had not stated before the police that the accused had assaulted her husband for the first time in front of the house of Chander Bhan Mahajan. She was once again confronted with portion ''D'' to ''D'' of her statement wherein it was so recorded. At this juncture it is necessary to refer to the site plan Ex. PC. In the site plan Ex. PC the fight is stated to have taken place at point ''A'', whereas point ''B'' is from where the witnesses had seen the occurrence. The distance between mark ''A'' to ''B'' is 49 feet. Mark ''C'' is point where there was electric pole. The distance given between mark ''B'' and ''C'' is stated to be 60 feet. From this main street another small street is towards northern side in the site plan Ex. PC. Even though the length of this street has not been depicted in plan Ex. PC which has scale of 1" = 24 feet, it appears that this street would be at least of 70 feet from the pole aforesaid. The house of Ram Chander and Om Pati is on the western side. There is a distance of about 130 to 140 feet between mark ''A and house of Ram Chander deceased. In order of reach mark ''A'' from the house of Ram Chander and Om Pati one has to cover the entire street which is towards northern side from the main street where electric pole is located. After crossing this street one is again to go to a distance of 60 feet to reach mark ''A''. The prosecution had not lifted any blood-stained earth from in front of the house of Ram Chander. If the prosecution story is to be believed, then perhaps it is to be held that even though fight had started in front of the house of Ram Chander, the parties in the scuffle had gone at a distance of about 140 feet which does not appear to be probable. It is also not the prosecution case that Ram Chander had run to save his life and the appellants had followed him up to point ''B''. Even though such is the position, Om Pati could still have reached point ''A'' on coming to know from some one that her husband was being belaboured by the appellants. It could not have taken Om Pati more than 3-4 minutes to reach the place of occurrence. The present is, thus, a case where even though prosecution has not come up with all the truth with regard to genesis of the occurrence leading to death of Ram Chander and injuries to others, yet it is also not a case where the appellants also might have had the right of self defence. True PWs Virender and Tek Ram were not present at the time when the fight started but were attracted to the place of occurrence later in point of time as also that so far as Om Pati is concerned, she is not telling the whole truth, yet the fact that Ram Chander was done to death on account of injuries given to him by the appellants cannot possibly be doubted in view of the statements made by the injured witnesses whose presence at the scene of occurrence even though later in point of time could not possibly be disputed. From the evidence that has been led by the prosecution in this case, it appears that Ram Chander was confronted by the appellants in the main street as indicted in the site plan and its only there that wordy dual started between the appellants and Ram Chander. So far as PWs are concerned, it appears that they were attracted to the scene of occurrence after the fight had already ensued. The witnesses who were attracted to the scene naturally endeavoured to save Ram Chander and in the process it appears that the appellants also received some injuries mention whereof has been made above. The only blemish that appears in the prosecution version is that an attempt has been made to show that the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of Ram Chander whereas it appears to this Court that Ram Chander was confronted in the main street as mentioned above and there only after exchange of hot words the parties started resorting to giving injuries to each other. Ram Chander again appears to us was alone when confronted by the appellants and was joined by his companions i.e. the witnesses later in point of time. In our view, therefore, it is a case where an altercation between the parties i.e. appellants and Ram Chander in all probability on account of marriage incident as referred to above had taken place. There was a wordy dual followed by free fight between the parties. In the circumstances that have been fully detailed above, we hold that in so far the prosecution version with regard to incident having started in front of house of Ram Chander is concerned, the same has to be rejected. Rest of the prosecution story cannot be disbelieved but in the event of the failure of the prosecution version to show occurrence in front of the house of Ram Chander, it has to be held that it was a case of free fight and that being so each accused has to be held liable for his individual acts. During the course of arguments it was not disputed that the fatal injuries were also given by Balwan appellant. There is no need to go into the list of injuries sustained by Ram Chander as given by the doctor and to pin point which injury was sufficient to cause death inasmuch, as referred to above, the learned Counsel representing the appellant stated that the fatal injury was given by Balwan and this fact has not been disputed by Mr. Varinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Balwan, thus, has to be convicted under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life u/s 302, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo R.I. for three months. He is also sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months u/S. 323, IPC. Others cannot certainly be said to have shared the common intention to cause death of Ram Chander. They have, thus, to be acquitted of the charge framed against them u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The other accused have to be held guilty u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the ends of justice will be met if Jai Singh appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. So far as Inder Singh appellant is concerned, he is released on probation for a period of six months to keep peace and be of good behaviour. As regards payment of compensation, the order passed by the Sessions Judge is maintained.

This appeal is, thus, partly allowed.

Appeal partly allowed.