Dilip Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Ashok Kumar Joshi, J.

Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. isto the conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, District

Bhind vide judgment dated 23.10.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 25/2002, whereby appellant No. 1 â€" Dilip Singh has been convicted and

sentenced under Section 302 of IPC for causing murder of Kunwar Pal Singh to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.250/- and under Section

302/34 of IPC in relation to murder of Dara Singh to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.250/- with default stipulation and appellant No. 2 â€

Banwari has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of IPC for causing murder of Dara Singh to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of

Rs.250/- and under Section 302/34 of IPC in relation to murder of Kunwar Pal Singh to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.250/- with default

stipulation.

(2) Undisputedly, by the same impugned judgment each appellant was acquitted by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 25 and 27 of

the Arms Act and by the same judgment, third tried accused Faujdar Singh was acquitted from the charge of Section 303 of IPC.

(3) Prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 29.09.2001 at about 05:00 PM, complainant Sonu Singh (PW-1) with his father Kunwar Pal Singh and field

neighbours Sardar Singh (PW-10) and Ajmer Singh (PW-11) were returning by a tractor to complainant's village Rasnol and when they reached

Kori's Mohalla, then appellant Dilip having a mouser gun, appellant Banwari having a stick in his hand and Faujdar and Pankaj (juvenile delinquent)

suddenly came there and stopped the tractor. Thereafter, Faujdar Singh asked to Kunwar Pal that why he is behaving differently, whereas all Thakurs

are in his favour. Kunwar Pal replied that he will visit all relatives. Banwari assaulted by his stick over shoulder of Kunwar Pal, thereafter, Faujdar

pulled Kunwar Pal from tractor and threw him on the ground, thereafter, Dilip fired a shot by his mouser gun, which caused injury over abdomen of

Kunwar Pal, thereafter, Kunwar Pal tried to run, but as the doors of Bhure Kori's house were closed, Kunwar Pal could not enter into Bhure's house,

thereafter, Dilip fired second shot from his gun, which caused injury over chin of Kunwar Pal and he fell down on the cot which was kept in the house

of Bhure Kori, thereafter, complainant Sonu Singh after running towards his house and after reaching there, intimated his brother Dara Singh and elder

brother of his father Surat Singh (PW-2) that his father has been murdered by Dilip Singh, then Dara Singh, Surat Singh (PW-2) and complainant's

sister Bhuta Bai (PW-5) proceeded towards the scene of occurrence and in the way Dara Singh was ahead, then Banwari fired a shot from his

country made pistol on Dara Singh, which caused injury on the chest of Banwari. Dara Singh also started running to save himself but he fell down in

front of door of Lajjaram's house. Thereafter, due to fear, complainant Sonu Singh, Surat Singh and others ran away to save themselves and hide in

their houses by bolting their doors from inside the house and remained in their houses for about two hours. Thereafter, Sardar Singh and Ajmer Singh

came to their house and intimated them that all the four accused persons have gone, thereafter, complainant Sonu Singh (PW-1) with Surat Singh

(PW-2) and Ajmer Singh (PW- 11) reached police station Mau and lodged the FIR (Ex. P-1) at21:20 hours which was inscribed by SHO Rajendra

Singh Raghuvanshi.

(4) Investigator Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi on 30.09.2001 prepared spot map (Ex. P-2) and after issuing different safina forms (Ex. P-5 and P-6) in

presence of panch-witnesses inspected the dead bodies of both the deceased. Inquest memo (Ex. P-3) was prepared in relation to dead body of Dara

Singh and inquest memo (Ex. P-4) was prepared in relation to dead body of Kunwar Pal Singh, thereafter both the dead bodies were sent for

postmortem. On 30.09.2001 at 09:00 AM from the house of Bhura Singh Kori, where dead body of Kunwar Pal was lying, blood stained soil,

separately simple soil and the crust of wall of the relating house where the pieces of the shot fired from the gun had struck were seized vide seizure

memo Ex. P-15. Dr. R.K. Rajoriya posted at Mau hospital on 30.09.2001 at 08:00 AM started postmortem of the deceased Kunwar Pal Singh and

after completing it, recorded postmortem report (Ex. P-24) and on the same date at 09:30 AM, he started postmortem of Dara Singh and after

completing it, recorded postmortem report (Ex. P-22).

(5) During the investigation, appellant Banwari was arrested on 14.10.2001 at 14:20 hours when Banwari produced a 315 bore country made pistol

(Adhiya) after lifting it from the standing crop in the field and it was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-9) by Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi. During the

investigation, a country made gun of 0.315 bore was seized from appellant Dilip Singh after his arrest. It was also found during the investigation that

Faujdar Singh was previously convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment in an another sessions trial. During investigation, after arrest of appellant

Dilip Singh, on his disclosure statement, a country made 0.315 bore gun was seized on 25.10.2001 by Investigator Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi by a

seizure memo. Seized country made gun and country made pistol and other materials were sent for examination to FSL, Sagar. After completing the

investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of ACJM, Gohad, who committed the arisen criminal case to the Sessions Court. It was mentioned in

the charge-sheet that accused Pankaj was a juvenile delinquent and his charge-sheet will be filed before the competent juvenile justice Board.

(6) The above-mentioned charges were denied by the relating appellants and the charge under Section 303 of IPC was denied by third tried accused

Faujdar Singh. Before trial Court, eighteen prosecution witnesses were examined. It was the defence of the appellants that they have been falsely

implicated and the deceased Kunwar Pal was a supplier of illegal firearms to the dacoits gangs operating in Chambal area and he was having so many

enemies. Defence Witness No. 1 - Ramveer S/o Faujdar Singh proved some certified copies of his father's pending criminal appeal before this Court

relating to another sessions trial and Defence Witness No. 2 - Jagdish resident of Rasnol deposed that after hearing the sounds of firing, he proceeded

towards the house of Kunwar Pal and, after reaching there, he had seen the dead bodies of both the deceased lying at the door of the house of

deceased Kunwar Pal.

(7) The trial Court after appreciating the evidence acquitted Faujdar Singh from the charge of Section 303 of IPC and acquitted present each appellant

from the charge of Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, but the trial Court has convicted and sentenced each appellant as aforesaid.

(8) Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that complainant Sonu Singh (PW-1) deposed that his brother Dara Singh was shot by

appellant Banwari, whereas Baramati (PW-4) wife of the deceased Dara Singh deposed that her husband was shot dead by Pankaj (juvenile

delinquent). It was further argued that according to evidence of the complainant, after his reaching to the police station Mau, his report wasrecorded

after an hour and both alleged independent eyewitnesses Sardar Singh (PW-10) and Ajmer Singh (PW-11), who were travelling in the same tractor,

have not supported the prosecution's case and complainant Sonu (PW-1) himself shown his ignorance relating to both inquest memos despite he was a

panch-witness of it and the trial Court itself has disbelieved the evidence of complainant Sonu Singh regarding role of acquitted accused Faujdar Singh.

As the Investigator Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi could not be examined before the trial Court by the prosecution, appellants were adversely affected

and prejudiced during the trial. It was also argued that no FSL report and ballistic expert's report were proved before the trial Court by the

prosecution. It was also argued that according to evidence of complainant Sonu Singh, his brother Dara Singh has suddenly reached from his house to

the place of occurrence and only Banwari had fired a shot on him. Hence, the trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing

appellant No. 1 - Dilip Singh under Section 302/34 of IPC in relation to murder of Dara Singh. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the

appellants be allowed and each of them be acquitted.

(9) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent, have supported the impugned judgment and contended that

the trial Court has properly and legally analyzed the evidence available on record and had not erred in convicting and sentencing each appellant for the

above-mentioned offences.

(10) According to evidence of Dr. R.K. Rajoriya (PW-18) and his postmortem report (Ex. P-24), in the morning of 30.09.2001 at the time of starting

the postmortem of dead body of deceased Kunwar Pal Singh, he found following injuries:-

(i) An entrance wound of 1 ½ cm diameter oval shape situated over left side of chest 1'' lateral to left nipple in 6th inter-coastal, having space

margins inverted, blackening was present over this entry wound and this entry wound's direction was towards downwards, it has punctured muscles

and left pleura and left lung.

(ii) An exit wound of 2 ½ cm diameter over left side of back just below to inferior angle of left scapula, oozing of blood present, margins everted and

irregular and this wound was internally connected to wound No. 1 injuring to skin, muscle, 6th rib, pleura and lung. Same sized hole was present over

Kurta and anteriorly over left front pocket.

(iii) An abrasion of size 3cmx2cm over left elbow, red in color.

(iv) An abrasion of size 2cmx2cm over left side of chin, red in color.

(11) According to evidence of Dr. Rajoriya, on dissection of dead body of deceased Kunwar Pal Singh, sixth rib was found broken on left side and left

lung and pleura were injured and all these injuries were ante-mortem in nature and above-mentioned entry and exit wounds were caused by firearm

and other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and all injuries were caused within 24 hours and the clothes found on the dead body were

sealed in a packet and sent to relating police station and in his opinion, Kunwar Pal had died due to syncope arising out of excessive bleeding and

injuries to the vital organs and Kunwar Pal's death was homicidal in nature, caused within 4 to 24 hours from starting of the postmortem and above-

mentioned entry and exit wounds, who were caused by firearm, were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.

(12) According to evidence of Dr. R.K. Rajoriya (PW-18) and his another postmortem report (Ex. P-22) in the morning of same date, i.e., 30.09.2001

on starting postmortem of dead body of the deceased Dara Singh, he found following injuries:-

(i) An entrance wound of size 1 ½ cm x 1½ cm oval in shape situated over left side of abdomen just below to left coastal cartilage 1 ½'' lateral to

mid-line at level of T-11 vertebra and its margins were inverted and blackening around it was present, it has punctured peritoneum to the small

intestine and large intestine and relating muscles.

(ii) A swelling of size 3cm x 3cm over just right side of mid-line of back at the level of T-12 vertebra and under subcutaneously a metallic piece of

bullet was present which was taken out and sealed in a packet and this wound was internally in connection with wound No. 1.

(13) According to evidence of Dr. Rajoriya, on dissection of the dead body of the deceased Dara Singh, small and large intestines were found injured

and peritoneum cavity was filled with blood and all the injuries found on the dead body were ante-mortem in nature caused by firearm within 24 hours

from the postmortem and he opined that Dara Singh had died due to syncope arising out of excessive bleeding within 4 to 24 hours from starting of his

postmortem and Dara Singh's death was also homicidal in nature and the above-mentioned injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to

cause death.

(14) Homicidal death of both the deceased persons Kunwar Pal and Dara Singh has not been challenged by the appellants and it was defence of the

accused persons before the trial Court that both the deceased were murdered by firearm by unknown persons in the night. Hence, it was proved

beyond reasonable doubt that Kunwar Pal Singh and Dara Singh weremurdered by firearms.

(15) According to prosecution's case and evidence of the complainant Sonu Singh (PW-1), at the time of incident, at 05:00 PM, complainant was

returning by tractor from his field with his father Kunwar Pal and field neighbours Sardar Singh (PW-10) and Ajmer Singh (PW-11) and when tractor

reached the lane of Kori's, then both appellants with two other persons stopped tractor but alleged eyewitnesses Sardar Singh (PW-10) and Ajmer

Singh (PW-11), by their evidence has not supported the prosecution's case and complainant's evidence, hence, both of them were declared hostile by

the prosecution. Complainant Sonu Singh (PW-1) deposed that after firing a shot from gun by appellant Dilip Singh on his father, he ran towards his

house and intimated uncle Surat Singh (PW-2), his brother Dara Singh and sister Bhuta Bai (PW-5) and thereafter immediately Dara Singh, Surat

Singh and Bhuta Bai ran towards the scene of occurrence, then appellant Banwari fired a shot by his country made mouser (Adhiya) on his brother

Dara Singh. According to evidence of Jasvir Singh (PW-3), another son of the deceased Kunwar Pal Singh, at the time of incident, he was in the field,

wherefrom his father and complainant were returning back to the village and after hearing sounds of firing shots by firearm, he returned to the village,

then he was intimated regarding murders of his father and brother by complainant and others. Widowed wife of Dara Singh, Baramati (PW-4) and

Rajkumari (PW-8) another sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the complainant are also only hearsay witnesses, who were intimated by others regarding

incident. Other examined witnesses Lajjaram (PW-6), Mohan Singh (PW-12), Bhogiram (PW-13), Gayaram (PW-15), Janved (PW-16) and Gyan

Singh (PW-17) were also declared hostile by the prosecution, as they have not supported the prosecution's case. Jagat Singh (PW-9) is a panch-

witness of safina forms (Ex. P-5 and P-6) and inquest memos (Ex. P-3 and P-4).

(16) Complainant Sonu Singh (PW-1) deposed that Dilip Singh fired two shots by his mouser gun over his father Kunwar Pal and one shot injured his

father's abdomen, whereas another shot injured his father's neck. But according to medical evidence and postmortem report recorded by Dr. Rajoriya,

no any injury was found by Dr. Rajoriya on neck of the deceased Kunwar Pal.

(17) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that complainant's evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence. Complainant

Sonu Singh deposed that after firing on his father by appellant Dilip Singh, he left the tractor and ran towards his house and intimated his elder brother

Dara Singh and elder brother of his father, Surat Singh about his father's murder, then they ran towards the scene of occurrence and at that time,

appellant Banwari fired a shot by his firearm over abdomen of Dara Singh, who immediately fell down and died and, thereafter, he himself and his

elder uncle Surat Singh (PW-2) remained hidden in their house after bolting the doors of the house from inside and at that time, both dead bodies were

lying on the spot and at that time, in their house, his elder sister-in-law (Bhabhi), Baramati (PW-4) and his little sister-in-law Rajkumari (PW-8) were

present. Surat Singh (PW-2) and Bhuta Bai (PW-5) have supported the evidence of complainant that after reaching to their house, puzzled Sonu Singh

had intimated them that Kunwar Pal had been shot dead by Dilip Singh. Surat Singh (PW-2) and Bhuta Bai (PW-5) both have deposed that from their

houses with Dara Singh, they have ran towards the scene of occurrence in the lane of Kori's. Surat Singh (PW-2) had clearly deposed that in front the

house of Lajjaram, Dara Singh was injured by firearm, and thereafter Dara Singh fell down in front of Lajjaram's house, thereafter, he with others also

fled away and save themselves in their houses but Surat Singh (PW-2) has deposed that Pankaj has assaulted Dara Singh by a stick, thereafter, Dara

Singh had fell down and Surat Singh had not deposed that who had fired on Dara Singh.

(18) It is clear from the evidence of Surat Singh (PW-2) that he was jointly living in the same house with his younger brother Kunwar Pal and his

family. He also deposed that 10 or 15 days prior to the incident, a cow of a barber was killed by the family members of the appellants and, thereafter,

Brahmin and Jat people of village have boycotted the family of appellants and, their family was also boycotting the appellants, it was the reason of the

incident. The same reason has also been mentioned by the complainant in his FIR. It is significant to mention here that complainant Sonu Singh (PW-

1) and his elder uncle Surat Singh were partially declared hostile by the prosecution as complainant Sonu Singh (PW-1) showed his ignorance about

the inquest memos prepared by police, though relating safina forms and inquest memos were bearing his thumb impression. FIR (Ex. P-1) is also

bearing the thumb impression of the complainant. Hence, such little deviation of complainant was not material. But complainant's elder uncle Surat

Singh (PW-2) was declared hostile by the prosecution relating to arrest memo, disclosure memo and seizure memo of appellant Banwari, though

according to the prosecution's case Surat Singh was a panch-witness of appellant Banwari's arrest memo (Ex. P-7), his disclosure memo (Ex. P-8)

and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) relating to country made pistol (Adhiya). Surat Singh clearly denied the suggestions given by prosecution relating to arrest

of Banwari in his presence, interrogation of Banwari by police in his presence and seizure of a country made pistol at instance of Banwari in his

presence. Ex. P-7 and P-8 are bearing thumb impression of Surat Singh. Another panch-witness of all these three exhibits, Constable Brajendra Singh

and SHO Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi, who prepared these documents could not be examined before the trial Court for the prosecution. Hence,

above-mentioned partial deviation of Surat Singh (PW-2) has resulted in acquittal of Banwari from the charge of Section 25 and Section 27 of Arms

Act.

(19) Contrary to the evidence of complainant, widowed wife of his elder brother Dara Singh, Baramati (PW-4) had deposed that after receiving the

intimation from the complainant at their house regarding incident, she had also ran towards the scene of occurrence with complainant and his husband

Dara Singh, but she was behind the others and in the way itself, returning complainant Sonu Singh intimated her that Dara Singh had been shot dead

by Pankaj (juvenile delinquent), thereafter she returned to her house from the midway and had not reached on spot. Sister of the complainant and

Dara Singh, Bhuta Bai (PW-5) had not deposed that Baramati had also ran with them towards the scene of occurrence and no any other witness

including complainant and Surat Singh has deposed that Baramati has also ran towards the scene of occurrence, hence, it appears that Baramati's

above-mentioned statement is an exaggeration, which could not influence the evidence of complainant and other eyewitnesses. Bhuta Bai (PW-5)

deposed that after receiving the intimation, she had also ran behind Dara Singh and tau (uncle) Surat Singh and complainant and his brother Dara

Singh were ahead from her and she saw that appellant Banwari fired a shot on his elder brother Dara Singh causing injury on his chest. Surat Singh

(PW-2) had also deposed that from their houses with him, complainant, Dara Singh and Bhuta Bai had also ran towards the scene of occurrence.

Another sister-in-law of the complainant (Bhabhi) Rajkumari (PW-8) had also deposed that after receiving the intimation from complainant Sonu, from

their house, Dara Singh, complainant Sonu and his sister-in-law Bhuta Bai proceeded towards the scene of occurrence. Hence, Bhuta Bai's evidence

on this point is supported by evidence of other witnesses also.

(20) Turning of some prosecution witnesses hostile in criminal cases is not an uncommon or abnormal phenomena. It appears from the evidence of

alleged eyewitnesses Sardar Singh (PW-10) and Ajmer Singh (PW-11) that both of them are mutually real brothers and are residents of village Saura

and complainant Sonu Singh and his elder uncle Surat Singh have clearly deposed that about two hours after the incident, both of them come to their

house and, thereafter they have proceeded towards the police station Mau for lodging the report. Presence of Ajmer Singh (PW-11) at the time of

lodging of report is also indicating in FIR itself. Hostile declared prosecution witnesses Sardar Singh (PW-10) has clearly admitted his signatures on

both safina forms (Ex. P-5 and P-6) and has also admitted his signature on inquest memos (Ex. P-3 and P-4). These safina forms and inquest memos

are also bearing the thumb impression of Ajmer Singh (PW-11).

(21) In all these facts and circumstances, it is clear that ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses complainant Sonu Singh (PW-1), Surat Singh (PW-2) and

Bhuta Bai (PW-5) could not be discarded only on the ground that alleged other eyewitnesses Sardar Singh (PW-10) and Ajmer Singh (PW-11) have

not supported the prosecution's case. Jagat Singh (PW-9) has clearly deposed before the trial Court that safina forms (Ex. P-5 and P-6) were signed

by him and police have inspected both the dead bodies in his presence and prepared inquest memos (Ex. P-3 and P-4), which were also signed by him.

(22) In our considered opinion, the trial Court has properly appreciated and analyzed the evidence available on record and it reveals that trial Court had

not erred in holding that the deceased Kunwar Pal was shot dead by the appellant Dilip Singh and deceased Dara Singh was shot dead by appellant

Banwari.

(23) In reference to argument advanced by the appellants learned counsel, now next point for consideration arises that whether murder of each

deceased was caused in furtherance of common intention of both the appellants.

(24) According to prosecution's case, the tractor, by which the complainant Sonu Singh (PW-1) and his father Kunwar Pal were returning from the

field to their village was stopped by appellants at the scene of occurrence and, thereafter, Dilip fired a shot on Kunwar Pal. At that time, Kunwar

Pal's son, complainant Sonu Singh was also on spot and according to evidence of complainant and Surat Singh, complainant was driving the tractor but

no any appellant tried to cause any injury to complainant Sonu Singh (PW-1), hence, it is clear that both the appellants were not having common

intention of causing murder of son of Kunwarpal and they were having common intention to cause murder of Kunwar Pal only. As at the time of

murder of Kunwar Pal Singh, each appellant was present on the scene of occurrence having a separate firearm. It clearly establishes that both the

appellants were having a common intention for causing murder of the deceased Kunwar Pal Singh. Hence, the trial Court did not commit any error in

convicting and sentencing each appellant in reference to the murder of deceased Kunwar Pal.

(25) But so far as question of common intention to cause the murder of Dara Singh is concerned, it is clear from the evidence of eyewitnesses

supporting prosecution case that Dara Singh had suddenly reached spot after running with his some other relatives on scene of occurrence, just-after

receiving intimation about receiving firearm injury by her father, it is clear from the evidence that only appellant Banwari had fired on Dara Singh and

no any other injury was found on dead body of Dara Singh. No any eyewitness has deposed that even appellant Dilip Singh tried to cause any injury to

deceased Dara Singh. It is clear from the prosecution case and evidence of eyewitnesses that Dara Singh had reached on the spot suddenly and

unexpectedly and as both the appellants have not tried to cause any injury to complainant Sonu Singh though he was with his father Kunwar Pal from

the beginning of incident, it is clear from all these facts and circumstances, it could not be inferred that Dara Singh was murdered in furtherance of

common intention of both the appellants, though it was proved that Dara Singh was murdered by Banwari.

(26) Hence, in our considered opinion, the learned trial Court had erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant No. 1 - Dilip Singh under Section

302/34 of IPC in reference to the murder of Dara Singh. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this appeal is worthy of partial acceptance only in

reference to conviction and sentence of the appellant No. 1 â€" Dilip Singh only regarding his conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of IPC in

relation to the murder of Dara Singh by appellant Banwari. But appellant No. 1 - Dilip Singh's conviction and sentence under Section 302 of IPC for

causing murder of Kunwar Pal Singh appears to be totally legal and justified and similarly the appellant Banwari's conviction under Section 302 of IPC

for causing murder of Dara Singh and under Section 302/34 of IPC in relation to causing murder of Kunwar Pal Singh in furtherance of common

intention of both the appellants appears to be justified.

(27) Consequently, this appeal is partially dismissed in relation to conviction and sentence of appellant No. 2 - Banwari in reference to his conviction

and sentence under Section 302 and 302/34 of IPC in reference to deceased Dara Singh and Kunwar Pal Singh respectively and appellant No. 1 -

Dilip Singh's appeal is partially dismissed in reference to his conviction and sentence under Section 302 of IPC for causing murder of Kunwar Pal

Singh but his appeal partially allowed in reference to appellant No. 1 - Dilip Singh's conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of IPC in reference

to murder of Dara Singh and Dilip Singh's conviction and sentence under section 302/34 of IPC is set aside in relation to deceased Dara Singh and

appellant No. 1 - Dilip Singh is acquitted from the charge of Section 302/34 of IPC in reference to the murder of deceased Dara Singh.

(28) It is observed in the case of Bhimashankar Vs. State of Karnataka 2004 Cr.L.J. (NOC) 33 (Karnataka) that where the order does not specify as

to whether sentence should run concurrently or consecutively, the order is erroneous. It is held in the case of Ammavasai Vs. Inspector of Police,

Valliyanur, 2000 Cr.L.J. 4662 (SC) that in multiple murder case, direction that the sentences of life imprisonment shall run concurrently shall be

appropriate. Therefore, in the light of case of Mohammed Akhtar Hussain Vs. Assistant Collector,Customs, AIR 1988 SC 2143 and above mentioned

other cases, it is directed that both the sentences of life imprisonment awarded to appellant No.2 Banwari shall run concurrently.

(29) Both the appellants are serving their jail sentences in the concerned jail. Each of the appellant be separately intimated with the result of their

appeal through the concerned Jail Superintendent. The order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the seized property is confirmed. Record of the

trial Court be immediately sent back to the trial Court.