Ganesh Ram and Others vs State of M.P.

P.C. Agarwal, J.

Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, in Sessions trial No. 131/82 (State of M.P. Vs. Ganeshram and 22 others) has found these appellants guilty under sections 302/149, 307/149, 324/149 and 223/149 of the Indian Penal Code (Code for short) and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment, 7 years'' rigorous imprisonment, 2 years'' rigorous imprisonment, and 6 months'' rigorous imprisonment with a direction that these sentences are to run concurrently. Geneshram (A 1), Laxman Singh (A3) were also found guilty u/s 148 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years more, which was to be executed concurrently. Aggrieved appellants have preferred this appeal.

As per prosecution, the complainant party, i.e. Kamal Singh (PW 1), his father Gorelal (PW 5), mother Saraswasti Bai (PW 8), brother Roop Singh (PW 6) and son Prakash (since deceased) were cutting the crop of wheat and gram from Bagicha field. On 5.3.1982, at about 9.00 or 10.00 A.M. Ganeshram (A1) armed with farsa, Kashiram (A4) with a lathi, Laxman Singh (A3) with an axe, Pratap Singh (A5) with a lathi, Munna (A2) with a lathi came to the field with other companions Hari Singh (since deceased) Singh, Bharat Singh, Munsaf Khan, Ballu Khan, Preetam Singh and women-folk. These companions were also armed with lathis, however, women-folk were unarmed (all these were co-accused in trial, but are acquitted). The appellants and their companions checked the complainant party Kamal Singh (PW 1) and others from cutting the crop. Kamal Singh (PW 1) insisted that they would cut the crop as field belongs to them, whereupon all the appellants and co-accused started belaboring them causing injuries to Gorelal (PW 5), Saraswati Bai (PW 8), Roop Singh (PW 6), Beni Bai (PW 7) and Rajaram (PW 11), Deceased Prakash had also sustained serious injury on his head which proved fatal later. Pratap Singh (A5) gave a violent blow of stick on head of deceased Prakash, a eight year old son of Kamal Singh (PW 1) Narayan Singh (PW 2), Nawal Singh (PW 3), Gorelal (PW 5) and Chowkidar had also come on spot. FIR was lodged by Kamal Singh (PW 1), in the same night at about 9.00 P.M. at Police Station Kurwai. All the injured persons were taken to the Police Station by bullock-carts.

Shri K.S. Kushwah (PW 12), S.O. Kurwai scribed the FIR (Ex P/1). He proceeded to the spot on 9.3.1982 and prepared spot map (Ex. P/2). He seized plain and blood stained earth from spot vide (Ex. P/3). He sent the injured persons to primary Health Centre, Kurwai, where Dr. Santosh Kumar Pandey (PW 10) examined the injured persons and found following 9 injuries on the person of Roop Singh (PW 6) vide Ex. P/5 :-

(i) One incised wound at the right temporal region, oblique direction of skull 1-1/2 x 1/2 x scalp deep, regular clean cut margins, blood clots present caused by sharp edged object;

(ii) One incised wound at the mid-temporal region of skull 3/4 " x 1/4" x scalp deep, regular and clean cut margin, blood clots present caused by sharp object vertical in direction;

(iii) One incised wound at the right occipital parietal region, vertical in direction 2-1/2" x 1/2" x scalp deep, blood clots present, margin regular clean cut by sharp edged object;

(iv) Incised wound transverse, upper occipetal region 3/4" x 1/4 x scalp deep, margins regular clean cut, blood clots present caused by sharp edged object;

(v) One incised wound at the right occipetal parietal region, oblique in direction, 2-1/2" x 1/2" x scalp deep, clean cut, regular margins, blood clots present, caused by sharp edged object;

(vi) One contusion at the right scapular region extending obliquely upwards, 4" x 2" bluish red discoloration. Swelling and severe tenderness present caused by solid and hard object;

(vii) One contusion post aspect of the right shoulder joint 1-1/2" x 1'' swelling and severe tenderness and restricted painful wounds present caused by solid hard and blunt object bluish red discoloration;

(viii) One contusion at the half of the upper of the back 2" x 1" vertical in direction bluish red disection, swelling present caused by hard solid and blunt object;

(ix) One contusion at the right middle of the leg 1-1/2" x 1" reddish blue discoloration, swelling present caused by solid hard and blunt object.

However, on X'' ray photographs being taken no bony injury was noticed. Dr. Santosh Kumar Pandey (PW 10) noted following injuries on the person of Saraswati Bai (PW 8) vide Ex. P/6 :-

(i) One abrasion at the right 1/4" above the middle region of the right eyebrow 1/4" x 1/4", blood clot present caused by hard rough solid object;

(ii) Swelling present over both the libs, reddish blue discoloration, right frontal tooth upper jaw slightly shaking, caused by solid and blunt object

(iii) One abrasion at the right side of the knee joint 1/2" x 1/4" blood clots present by hard solid rough object;

(iv) One contusion at the of the neck posteriorly 1" x 1" reddish blue discolouration swelling present by solid and blunt object.

(v) One contusion at the lateral dorsum of palm at that root of it thumb and index finger 1-1/2" x 1" swelling and reddish blue discolouration present caused by solid and blunt object.

(vi) One contusion at the Rt. mid scapular region 2" x 2" reddish blue discolouration, swelling present caused by hard solid blunt object.

(vii) One contusion at the it middle scapular region 1-1/2" x 1-1/2" reddish blue discolouration caused by solid hard blunt object.

Doctor noted four injuries on the person of Gorelal (PW-5) vide (Ex. P-7).

(i) One incised wound Rt. Temporal region oblique indirection 4" x 1-1/2" scalp deep margins clean-cut, regular, bloodless present caused by sharp edged object.

(ii) One incised wound at the upper occipital region 1-1/2" x 1/2" x scalp deep margins clean cut blood clots present caused by sharp edged object;

(iii) One incised wound at the junction of, at the root of the upper pinna joint and the scalp 1" x 1/4" x skin deep, sharp clear cut regular margins caused by sharp edged object.

(iv) One contusion at the middle of the thigh 2" x 2" reddish blue discolouration, swelling present caused by hard solid and blunt object.

Dr. noted following one injury on the person of deceased Prakash son of Kamal Singh vide Ex P/8:

(i) One contusion at the lower occipital region 1" x 1" reddish blue discolouration (Haemmatoma Present 3" x 3") caused by hard solid blunt object.

General condition: Patient is unconscious, pupils BERL responding to deep sup a orbital stumuli

On X-ray photograph being taken fracture of right parietal and occipetal bone was seen vide Ex. P/31 report and Ex. P/32 X-ray Plate.

Dr. noted following two injuries on the person of Bcni Bai (PW 7) vide Ex. P/9:

(i) Complaint of pain at the right ant of the knee joint. No external marks of injury seen.

(ii) Complaint of pain at the upper right scapular region, no marks of external injury seen.

Dr. noted complaint of pain at the right lower scapular region but no signs of external injury seen on the person of Raj Bai wife of Kamal Singh vide Ex. P/10.

Initially, the offence was registered u/s 307/34, 148 and 149 of the Code, however, deceased Prakash succumbed to his injury in hospital on 9.3.1982. Then section 302/34 of the code was added. His autopsy was done by Dr. S.G.S. Khare (PW 13), who noted following injuries vide Ex. P/30:-

Contusion with haemmatoma diameter 2-1/2" on occipetal region of scalp little towards the right. Skull was fractured, vertebrae healthy liaemorrhagic and pierced at right parietal region. Chambers of heart were empty. Stomach contained liquid food. Small intestine contained semi-digested food. Large intestine contained Parcal matter. Right parietal and occipital bones of skull were found fractured, resulted from forcible blow by hard and blunt object on right occipetal region of his scalp. Cause of death was shock and syncope due to head injury and fracture of skull, which caused contusion and intercapillary haemorrhage within the brain substance and meanings. Death was within 24 hours of the post-mortem examination.

Shri K.S. Kushwah (PW 12) had arrested these appellants and co-accused Hari Singh (since deceased) and Bharat Singh on 8.3.1982 vide Ex. P/25; On information vide Ex. P/18, a farsa was seized from the house of Ganeshram (A-1) vide Ex. P/11. On information vide Ex. P/19 by Munna (A-2), a lathi was seized vide Ex. P/17. On information vide Ex. P/20 by Kashiram (A-4), a lathi was seized from his house vide Ex. P/16. On information vide Ex. P/23 by Laxman Singh (A-3), an axe was seized from his house vide Ex. P/12. On information vide Ex, P/24, a lathi was seized from the house of Pratap Singh (A-5) vide Ex. P/14. Lathis were seized from Hari Singh (since deceased) and Bharat Singh also (acquitted co-accused). The axe seized from Laxman Singh (A-3), farsa seized from Ganeshram (A-1), lathi seized from Pratap Singh (A-5), lathi seized from Munna (A-2) had blood stains as per report Ex. P/29 of FSL Shri K.S. Kushwah (PW 12) had seized the crops of wheat, gram and masoor from Gangaram and had given in supurdgi of Kamal Singh (PW 1). After due investigation, a charge sheet u/s 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the Code was filed against these appellants and 18 others; out of whom three absconding.

The appellants pleaded not guilty. They claim ownership on disputed bagicha field. They claim to have purchased the same from Sacchidanand. They claim that they were in possession of the field and had sown the crop in such field. According to them complainant party was harvesting the crop sown by them. On such information, these appellants had gone to the field to check the complainant party from harvesting their crops. However, Ganeshram (A-1) and Laxman Singh (A-3) were beaten by the complainant party. It is claimed that Hari Singh (since deceased) had wielded his farsa in defence, which might have caused injuries on the persons of complainant party. It is claimed that deceased Prakash had fallen down on a stone in the brawl. They accuse that co-accused Hari Singh (since deceased) has been murdered by Roop Singh (PW 6) and his companions. According to them false civil case was instituted by Gorelal (PW 5) against the appellants, but such suit was dismissed and the appellants succeeded. It is claimed that all the prosecution witnesses being relatives had falsely implicated these appellants.

As already seen, the trial Court has found the prosecution story proved and convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

Homicidal death of Prakash due to fatal injury on his head is proved by his father Kamal Singh (PW 1), grandfather Gorelal (PW 5), uncle Roop Singh (PW 6), grandmother Smt. Saraswati Bai (PW 8). Their statements stand corroborated by FIR (Ex. P/1) promptly lodged by Kamal Singh (PW 1) on the date of occurrence itself. Of "course, Dr. Santosh Kumar Pandey (PW 10), who examined deceased Prakash when he was alive, had noted a contusion on his lower occipetal region with haemotoma and had found him unconscious. Obviously, Praksh had died in hospital. Dr. S.G.S. Khare (PW 13) conducted autopsy on his dead body and noted a contusion with haemmatoma on occipetal region of scalp On ''X'' ray photographs being taken, he noted fracture of right parietal and occipetal bone vide Ex. P/31 X'' ray report and Ex. P./32 X'' ray plate. According to him. cause of death was shock and syncope. As such death of deceased Prakash was homicidal and was caused as a consequence of injury on his head. The appellants have merely denied the allegations, which is of no avail to them. Thus, the finding of the trial Court that the death of deceased Prakash was unnatural and homicidal, is hereby confirmed.

From the statement of Dr. Santosh Kumar Pandey (PW 10), as has already been seen in para 3 of this judgment, it is proved that Roop Singh (PW 6) had 9 injuries on his person, Saraswasti Bai (PW 8) had 7 injuries on her person, Gorelal (PW 5) had 4 injuries on his person, deceased Prakash had a single injury on his head, Beni Bai (PW 7) had 2 injuries on her person while Rajbai wife of Kamal Singh also had head injury on her person. Obviously, such injuries were not self-inflicted and were caused in the incident in question as has been claimed by these witnesses. However, none of these injuries were either grievous or dangerous to life.

Now, we turn as to main incident. Injured witnesses Gorelal (PW 5), Roop Singh (PW 6). Smt. Beni Bai (PW 7) and Smt. Saraswati Bai (PW 8) have supported the prosecution case in to. Kamal Singh (PW 1), who happens to be the father of deceased Prakash and has lodged the FIR (Ex. P/1). has also supported the case of prosecution. Narayan Singh (PW 2), Nawal Singh (PW 3)" villagers who are neighbors claim to be present on spot, and have also supported the prosecution in such a case. Presence of injured witnesses on spot is ensured. See, Majju and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , Jangir Singh v. State of Punjab with Chet Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 10 SCC 261 . Though of course they are related to each other, but relationship in itself is not a ground for discarding their evidence. Only caution and circumspection is necessary in appreciation of the evidence. See State of Rajasthan -vs- Hanuman : (2001) ISCC 337, Kamal kishore -vs- State of H.P.: (2000) 4 SCC 504 and Hukam Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, . As the dispute was about harvesting of bagicha field, presence of these witnesses, who had gone for harvesting the crop in the filed, has been most natural. Besides, they have been named in FIR (Ex. P/1) also as witnesses. Due weight has to be given to the statements of natural witnesses. Lokeman Sahu-vs-State of Bnegal : (2002) 5 SCC 235 and Ramji Singh and Another Vs. State of Bihar, .

Prosecution story is duly corroborated by medical evidence. As seen in Para 9 of this judgment, extensisve injuries were there on persons of Roop Singh (P.W. 6), Smt Saraswati Bai (P.W. 8), Gorelal (P.W. 5), Smt. Benibai (P.W. 7) and Rajbai W/o Kamla Singh which fully corroborate such story.

11-A. Promptly lodged F.I.R. (Ex. P/1) within 12 hours of occurrence taken the prosecution case very far. At least six persons were badly injured. Their carriage to police station and to hospital had to be arranged for. Distance of police station was about 3 kms. There was no opportunity for either concoction or fabrication. In such FIR. names of appellants as assailants and major prosecution witnesses find place.

11-B. Seizure of Farsa from Ganeshram (A-1) and axe from Laman Singh (A-3) and Lathis from other appellants and finding of blood on Farsa seized from Ganeshram (A-1), axe seized from Laxman Singh (A-3) and lathis seized from Pratap Singh (A-5) and Munna (A-2) by F.S.L. vide report (Ex. P/29) also give strength to the prosecution case.

Kamal Singh (P.W I), his father Gorelal (P.W. 5), mother Smt. Saraswati Bai (P.W. 8), brother Roop Singh (P.W. 6) his wife Beni bai (P.W. 7) and paternal uncle Nawal Singh (P.W. 3) and Narayan Singh (P.W. 2) had given very natural and consistent statements giving out required details. Learned Senior Advocate has taken us through the evidence of these witnesses. These witnesses have been cross-examined at length and there has been no reason to discard their evidence and as such the finding of the trail Court that the prosecution version is substantially true is unassailable.

However, 20 accused were put to trial. There were absconding. Twelve were specifically named in F.I.R. (Ex. P/1). However, prosecution witnesses have not name in trial seventeen persons out of these. Kamal Singh (P.W. 1), Nawal Singh (P.W. 3), Gorelal (P.W. 5). Smt. Benibai (P.W. 7) and Smt. Saraswatibai (P.W. 8) have named only these five appellants and Hari Singh (who died during pendency of trial on 6th or 7th May 1984) Narayan Singh (P.W. 2) named only Ganeshram (A-1), Hari Singh (Since deceased), Pratap Singh (A-5) and Laxman Singh (A-3). While Roop Singh (P.W 6) did not name Kashiram (A-4) though he named all these appellants and Hari Singh (Since deceased) as assailants. The learned trial Court has convicted all these five appellants who were unanimously named by at least five eye-witnesses and has extended benefit of doubt to those acquitted co-accused who were not named by these witnesses. It is true that these witnesses have not been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, yet, the method adopted by the trial Court below in accepting their statements in part in respect of convicted appellants has not been incorrect and finds support from Krishnegowda and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, .

13-A The learned Sr. advocate of appellant has vehemently argued that these witnesses have to be disbelived as they have resorted to pick and choose method. However, it is well settled that falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound principle in India for appreciation of evidence. Trial Court has always a right, nay a duty to separate the grain from the chaff, to accept the truth and reject the falsehood. The Court can certainly rely on the statements of such partly reliable witnesses if the same are corroborated by other cogent evidence and can reject the rest of the evidence. In our considered opinion, the learned trial Court has been alive to this principle and has been cautious and circumspect while relying on a part of evidence of these prosecution witnesses. Certainly, it is not a case where the prosecution witnesses have improved upon the story of the prosecution and have added a few more names of assailants than named earlier. It is a case where they have not named certain persons which were named by them earlier and on this ground alone neither these witnesses can be disbelieved nor their evidence against other convicted appellants can be rejected against whom they have deposed.

Of course, there is some discrepancy on the point as to which appellant gave fatal blow to deceased Prakash. Roop Singh (P.W. 6) clearly claimed that Pratap singh (A-5) had hit his lathi on back of neck of deceased Prakash. Smt. Beni Bai (P.W. 7) and Smt. Saraswati Bai (P.W. 8) also specifically named Pratap Singh (A-5) for the fatal blow. However, each of them also claimed that Ganeshram (A-1) had hit deceased Prakash on his chest. However, they had not told the 1.0. that Ganeshram (A-1) had also caused injury to deceased Prakash. No injury is noted on chest of deceased Prakash. FIR. also named only Pratap Singh (A-5) for such fatal injury. Kamal Singh (P.W. 1) has not been specific. Nawal Singh (P.W. 3) claimed that Pratap Singh had a Farsa in his hand. Narayan Singh (P.W. 2) and Nawal Singh (P.W. 3) were not specific. Gorelal (P.W. 5) claimed that Ganeshram (A-1) and Hari Singh (Since deceased) had hit deceased Prakash. The learned trial Court has held Pratap Singh (A-5) guilty u/s 302/149 of the Code. Obviously, on such evidence, his finding is not incorrect. Where several persons attacked the complainant party, out of whom at least six persons were badly injured, specific statement is not to be expected from witnesses. Actually such a discrepancy goes to merely show that these prosecution witnesses were not tutored and they have given their natural versions as they remembered on the date of evidence before the Court. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lekh Raj and Another, , Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, ; Joseph Poulo Vs. State of Kerala, and Sukhdev Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar, provides sufficient guidelines for appreciation of evidence in such cases.

Both Gorelal (P.W. 5) in Para 9 and his wife Saraswatibai (P.W. 8) in Para 5 admitted that Bagicha field belonged to Sachidanand. This field Khasra No. 128/ 2 of 8 Bighas = 1.673 hectares was entered in the name of Sachidanand S/o Chandrika Prasad in revenue papers. It seems that Sachidanand executed a sale deed in favor of Ganesharam (A-1) and Laxman Singh (A-3), both sons of Kaluram Lodhi. Though evidence on this point is not consistent. Gorelal (P.W. 5) had filed a civil suit against Sachidanand and Ganeshram (A-1) which was pending in Civil Court on the date of occurrence. Though, of course, this civil suit was dismissed later on by civil Court on 19.2.83. It is noteworthy that such sale deed has not been produced on record by appellants. No record of Civil Suit was also filed. However, all of the prosecution witnesses are unanimous on the point that complainant party'' was in possession of this field and. had sown Wheat, Gram and Masoor crop in the same. Despite cross-examination on the point none of the prosecution witnesses has admitted that either Ganeshram (A-1) or Laxman Singh (A-3) had sown crop in this field. Appellants have not led any defence evidence that either Ganeshram (A-1) or Laxman Singh (A-3) were in possession of this field or had sown any crop in the same. Complainant party was harvesting the crop for last two days. Roop Singh (P.W. 6) has admitted that appellants had taken some harvested crop even a day before the occurrence. He admitted that on the date of occurrence also appellants have taken away four carts full of Gram crop, three carts full of Masoor Crop (Please see paras 2 and 6 of P.W. 6). It is also noteworthy that Shri K.S. Kushwaha (P.W. 12) I.O. had seized substantial quantity of Wheat, Gram and Masoor crop from Gangaram and had entrusted the same to Kamal Singh (P.W. 1) vide Ex. P/4. Lal Singh (P.W. 9) had also supported this part of story.

15-A. Kamal Singh (P.W. 1) in B to B part of FIR. (Ex. P/1) had admitted that appellants have checked the complainant party from harvesting the crop. While complainant party was insisting that field belonged to them and they would harvest the crop. Prosecution witnesses Gorelal (P.W. 5), Roop Singh (P.W. 6), Smt. Saraswatibai (P.W. 8) have admitted in their statement recorded by Shri K.S. Kushwaha, 1.0. (P.W. 12) that dispute was on the harvesting the crop and insistence of the complainant party to harvest the same. However, on evidence on record finding recorded by the trial Court that the complainant party was in possession of the Bagicha filed and had sown the crop and was harvesting the same is unassailable. Obviously, appellants had no right or business to take the law into their own hands and check the complainant party from harvesting the crop or taking away harvested crop.

15-B. Obviously burden to prove the defence that appellants undertook to assail the complainant party in exercise of their right of private defence u/s 105 of the Evidence Act clearly lies on the appellants. See Shivalingappa Kalayanappa Vs. State of Karnatka ( AIR. 1995 SCC 254), Gurmit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, . Mere vague allegation is not sufficient. State of Rajasthan Vs. Rambharose ( 1998 SC Cri. 3016 and State of U.P. Vs. Laeeq (1999 (2) SCC. Cri. 13). In the instant case none of the complainant party was found armed. There had been no injury on person of any of the appellants or Late Hari Singh. None has been medically examined. No report to police was lodged by any of them. Defence story that Late Hari Singh had used his Farsa in self defence is not admitted by any prosecution witness. Injuries on persons of complainant party are not explained by the said theory. Thus the learned trial Judge has not erred in discarding this defence of exercise of right of private defence.

The trial Court has convicted all the appellants u/s 302/149, 307/ 149, 324/149 and 323/149 of the Code. Ganeshram (A-1) and Laxman Singh (A-3) are further held guilty u/s 148 of the Code also. In the instant case formation of unlawful assembly was amply proved-Appellants had come together armed with an Axe, Farsa and Lathis. Common object was to check the complainant party from harvesting the crop and taking away such crop by use of force. Appellants in prosecution of such common object have caused injuries to Roop Singh (P.W. 6), Gorelal (P.W. 5), Saraswatibai (P.W. 8), Smt. Benibai (P.W. 7) and Smt. Rajbai. One of them Pratap Singh (A-5) gave a blow of Lathi on head of deceased Prakash a child of about 8 yrs. which proved fatal as both occipetal and parietal bones were broken. He died due to shock and internal hemorrhage.

It is noteworthy that no bony injury was found on persons of Roop Singh (P.W. 6) or any other injured than deceased Prakash. Doctor has not opined that any injury on person of Roop Singh (P.W. 6) or any other member of complainant party other than deceased Prakash was either dangerous to life or could prove fatal. Obviously none of the appellants could be convicted u/s 307/149. However, they could be convicted only u/s 324/149 and 323/149 for causing injuries by Axe and Farsa to Roop Singh (P.W. 6) and Gorelal (P.W. 5) and for voluntarily causing simple hurt to all of the injured persons.

Now, the question arises did Pratap Singh (A-5) intend to cause death of minor deceased Praksh. Sr. Advocate of the appellants has drawn our attention to Gurdeep Singh Vs. Jaswant Singh and others, , Tholan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, , K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala, and Naib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and has argued that intention to cause death of minor deceased Praksh cannot be attributed to Pratap Singh (A-5).

Obviously, it is a case where only one blow of Lathi-a hard and blunt object was given on head of deceased Prakash which had proved fatal. Obviously, no second blow was given.

It is pertinent to note that Dr. Khare (P.W. 13) did not depose that the injury on head of deceased Prakash was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. No such question or suggestion was put to him by the prosecution in his statement. Of course, deceased Prakash had survived for three days after the occurrence and had died the fourth day in the hospital. Pratap Singh (A-5) had no animus or grudge against deceased Prakash. Of course, it was not a case of prosecution that the appellants object was extermination of the whole progeny though Smt. Saraswatibai (P.W. 8) has tried to put such a case in Para 2 of her statement yet, this was merely an improvement as she did not tell this fact to I.O. in Ex. D/7. Otherwise, also injuries to Gorelal (P.W. 5), Roop Singh (P.W. 6) are not proved to be dangerous to life whereby any such object could be inferred.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the only inference can be that Pratap Singh (A-5) had given a Lathi blow on the head of deceased Prakash, a minor of eight years, with the knowledge that such blow is likely to cause death of deceased Prakash.

Obviously, when five or six persons armed with Farsa, Axe and Lathis conjointly assault the prosecution witness and cause them several injuries on different parts of body and death of one is caused thereby, it can easily by inferred that they were knowing that death of some one is the likely result of such assault. Thus, conviction of Pratap Singh (A-5) and other appellants u/s 302/149 of the Code cannot be upheld. Instead, Pratap Singh (A-5) is held guilty u/s 304 (Part-II) while other appellants are held guilty u/s 304 (part-II)/149 of the Code. Their conviction u/ s 307/149 is liable to be set aside. However, their conviction u/s 324/149 and section 323/149 of the Code arc upheld. From evidence on record, it is well proved that Ganeshram (A-1) was armed with Farsa while Laxman Singh (A-3) was armed with Axe at the time of offence. Both are dangerous weapons and could prove deadly and thus their conviction u/s 148 of the Code is also upheld.

Now. as to sentences, offence was committed on 5/3/82. More than twenty years have elapsed. Trial Court had convicted the appellants on 25/2/86. In our considered opinion Pratap Singh (A-5) should be sentenced to R.I. for 7 years u/s 304 (Part-II) while other appellants should be sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years each u/s 304 (Part-II)/149 of the Code. The trial Court had sentenced the appellants for R.I. for 2 years u/s 324/149 and R.I. for 6 months u/s 323/149 of the Code. Such sentences can be maintained as they are. The trial Court has sentenced Ganeshram (A-1) and Laxman Singh (A-3) to undergo R.I for two years u/s 148 of the Code. Such sentence can also be upheld. The direction of the learned trial Court for concurrent execution of such sentences is also maintained. The period of detention before impugned judgment and period of imprisonment after such judgment shall be set off in such sentences. Such sentences shall be substituted for sentences awarded by the trial Court. Direction as to disposal of case property given by the trial Court is also confirmed. Appellants are on bail. They shall surrender before C.J.M. Vidisha within 15 days from the date of this judgment. Otherwise, non-bailable warrants shall be issued against them. Appellants shall be sent to Jail to serve out their remaining sentence.

Thus, appeal is partly allowed. Convictions u/s 302/149 and 307/149 of the Code are set aside. Instead Pratap Singh (A-5) is convicted u/s 304 (Part II) while other appellants are convicted u/s 304/149 of the Code. Their sentence is reduced. Convictions for other offences and sentences therefore are maintained.