Heeralal and Others vs State of M.P.

Rakesh Saksena, J.

Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment date 26.7.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1994 by Sessions Judge, Sehore, convicting the appellants u/s 302 read with section 34, 304 Part I read with section 34 and section 324 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, rigorous imprisonments for 10 years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively on each count.

In brief, the prosecution case is that complainant of the present case, Jagannath, accused Heeralal and P.W.2 Ramcharan are real brothers, who have their enclosures (Badas) adjacent to each other. On 18.12.1993 at about 8.30 A.M. Ganpat informed Jagannath that accused Heerlal, Prahlad, Ramgopal and Parmanand were beating his sons Moolchand, Sitaram and Radheshyam by Lathi and Farsa. Jagannath went at the enclosure (Bada) and saw that accused persons named aforesaid were assaulting Moolchand, Sitaram and Radheshyam by Farsa, Tangiya and Ballam. They had suffered injuries on their head and were smeared with blood. Ramcharan and Mangilal were trying to save them. As soon as Jagannath reached there, the accused persons ran away from the spot. Thereafter Jagannath took his injured sons for lodging the report. On way Moolchand succumbed to injuries. Accused persons had assaulted the injured persons when they had opposed them from damaging their cow dung cakes kept in the enclosure. Jagannath went to the police Station Ichhawar and lodged the report (Ex.P/1). Police sent the dead body of Moolchand for postmortem examination and referred Sitaram and Radheshyam for medical examination to hospital. Dr. A.K. Juneja (P.W.8) performed the postmortem examination of Moolchand and found following injuries :-

Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left parietal region.

Incised wound on forehead 5 cm x 2 cm.

Incised wound on forehead over left eyebrow 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm.

Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm on forehead left side.

Incised wound left side of cheek 10 cm x 4 cm x bone deep obliquely placed maxilla bone cut extending from preauricular region to lip left side.

Incised wound at right shoulder above 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.

Incised wound on right thigh 5cm x 2 cm x 1 cm

Incised wound on right forearm 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.

Incised wound right hand dorsal side at first metacarpal region 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.

Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep left side of back of chest.

Incised wound 2 cm x 4 cm x bone deep at right poppiliteal fossa of leg, lower parts of femur cut.

On internal examination clotted blood was found inside the skull with muscle bruising. Left parietal bone was found fractured. Maxila bone on left side of face, parietal bone of the skull and femur bone of the right leg were found fractured. The injury No. 1 was dangerous to life. Injuries No. 5 and 11 were grievous in nature. According to him, the injuries No. 1 to 11 were caused by hard and sharp weapon. In his opinion, the death of Moolchand was caused due to coma resulted by head injuries. The postmortem report is Ex.P/15.

On medical examination of injuries or Radheshyam Dr. A.K. Juneja (P.W.8) found the following injuries:-

Incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm on backside of chest, referred for X-ray examination.

Abrasion 4 cm x 1 cm on middle of chest on sternum region.

Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x.5cm on little finger of right hand. The injury report is Ex.P/13.

On the same day Dr. A.K. Juneja (P.W.8) examined the injuries of Sitaram and found:

Incised wound 12 cm x 3 cm x scalp deep on the left parietal region of the skull.

Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm on right thigh.

The injury report is Ex. P/14. Sitaram was also referred for X-ray examination for knowing the nature of the injuries.

Sitaram was admitted in Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal for the treatment. He was treated by Dr. S.N. Ayangar, Lecturer, Neuro Surgery in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal (P.W.13). Dr. Ayanger found the condition of Sitaram critical. Right bone of his skull was fractured. He performed the operation of the head. Ultimately, on 11.5.1994 Sitaram expired. Dr. Krishna Kumar Bhargava (P.W. 11) performed his postmortem examination and found stitches on the parietal lobe of the brain. According to him, the cause of death of Sitaram was chronic subdural haemotoma due to the injury on left parietal region of the skull. According to him, the injury found on the skull of Sitaram was sufficient to cause his death. Postmortem report is Ex.P/18. During investigation the police seized Lathi, Farsa and Tangiya on the information furnished by the accused persons. Prepared the spot map and sent the seized articles to F.S.L. For chemical examination. As per F.S.L. Report (Ex.P/32), though, blood was found on the weapons seized from the accused persons, however, blood was found disintegrated on it, therefore, the origin of the blood could not be determined. After completing the requisite investigation police filed charge sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sehore and thereafter the case was committed for the trial. During trial the learned trial Court framed the charges under sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 302/149 of I.P.C. Accused Parmanand beling juvenile was sent to the Juvenile Court for the trial.

Accused abjured the guilt. Their defence being that at the time of the incident when Heeralal and Prahlad were correcting the hedge of their enclosure, Moolchand, Sitaram and Radheshyam attacked them. On hearing their hue and cry when Resham Bai reached there, she was also assaulted. According to them, accused Ramgopal was not present at the place of occurrence. When he came to know that his parents were assaulted by Moolchand, Sitaram and Radhesyam then he had gone to hospital to see them. It was also said that in the same incident they had also suffered injuries and on their report the police had registered a case u/s 307/34 of I.P.C. against complainant party at Crime No. 187/94 and the case was also put up for trial.

In support of its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses namely:

Jagannath (PW1), Ramcharan (PW2), Ganpat (PW3), Radheshyam (PW4), Ganpat (PW5), Putal Bai (PW6), Dr R.K. Shirvastava (PW7), Dr. A.K. Juneja (PW8), Gabu Singh (PW9), Bheru Singh (PW10), Dr. Krishna Kumar Bhargava (PW11), S.S. Raghuvanshi (PW12), Dr. S.N. Ayanger (PW13) and B.B. Sharma (PW14).

As eye-witnesses, P.W.1 Jagannath, P.W.2 Ramcharan, P.W 4 Radheshyam, P.W.5 Ganpat and P.W. 6 Putal Bai were examined. According to Radheshyam (PW4), on 18.12.1993 at about 8-9 A.M. he was at his home and Sitaram was in the enclosure (Bada). Santosh shouted that Prahlad was damaging their cow dung cakes whereupon Moolchand saying that he will make him understand went there. After some time he also went there. Accused Prahlad had started assaulting Sitaram by Farsi. Heeralal, Ramgopal, Parmanand and Resham Bai were also present there. Heeralal had a stick with a spear head fixed on it, Prahlad had a Farsi, Ramgopal and Parmanand had Axe and Tangiya. When Sitaram was being assaulted, his brother Moolchand tried to intervene then all the accused persons also assaulted him by their respective weapons. When Radheshyam tried to save Moolchand then they assaulted him also causing injuries on his chest and back. He stated that Ramcharan, Putal Bai and Mangilal had also come there and had tried to save them but they did not yield to their request then Jagnnath also came there and intervened.

Witnesses viz., Ramcharan (PW2), Putal Bai (PW6), Jagannath and Ganpat (PW5) have also deposed similarly before the trial Court.

In defence number of documents were produced by the accused persons and it was highlighted that in the same incident accused Heeralal, Prahlad and Resham Bai had also sustained injuries at the hands of the complainant par :y. The injuries were examined by Dr. A.K. Juneja (PW8). On Medical examination Dr. A.K. Juneja had found five injuries on the body of accused Heeralal, which are:

Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on back of the head.

Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the back of the head.

Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm on left side of face muscle deep

Swelling on the left hand.

Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm x left front side of face of head.

As per the medical examination report (Ex. D10/C), these injuries were possible by hard and blunt object.

Dr. A.K. Juneja (PW 8) examined Resham Bai and found two injuries one injury being lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on back of skull and another abrasion on nose, both caused by hard and blunt object. Medical examination report is Ex. D-12/C. He also examined the injuries of accused Prahlad and found two lacerated wound on left temporal region measuring 7 cm x 1 cm and 6 cm x 1 cm, bone deep in size and one abrasion on left thumb vide injury report Ex. D-14/C. These injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.

Referring to these injuries it was said that the deceased and prosecution witnesses were the aggressors. Report (Ex. D-16/C) was also lodged at the police station by accused Heeralal, whereupon a case u/s 307 read with section 34 of I.P.C. was registered against Moolchand, Radheshyam and Sitaram. It was also said that since the injuries found on the body of accused persons were not explained by the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution story was not true and the witnesses were not reliable.

After due appreciation of evidence led on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence the learned trial Court held the appellants guilty as aforesaid and convicted them accordingly. However, co-accused Resham Bai was acquitted of all the charges. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, learned counsel for the appellants hag submitted that the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries of the accused persons, the injuries found on the person of accused were not superficial and the injuries were caused to them in the same incident. According to him, the complainant party was aggressor and had suppressed the genesis of the incident. He submitted that accused Heeralal had given the true account of the incident in the first information report (Ex.D-16/C), which was lodged by him immediately after the incident with the police. He further submitted that the accused persons were in the possession of the disputed enclosure (Bada). At the time when Heeralal and Prahlad were repairing his Bada Moolchand, Radheshyam and Sitaram and come there and had objected for its repairing by theme Sitaram had assaulted Heeralal by an Axe and Radheshyam and Sitaram had also assaulted his son Prahlad. When Resham Bai reached there, Moolchand also assaulted her. He further submitted that independent witnesses of the occurrence had hot been examined. The witnesses name in the first information report viz., Mangilal and Ramkaran were not examined. The witnesses examined by the prosecution were relative and interested witnesses and since they did not give the correct and true account of the incident, their evidence was not worthy of reliance. He further submitted that in the circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the appellants had intended to cause the death of the deceased persons and that since the incident had occurred suddenly, offence punishable u/s 302 of I.P.C. was not made out and prayed that the conviction of the appellants u/s 302 and 304 Part-I of the I.P.C. be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the testimony of Radheshyam (PW4), who is an injured witness, is reliable, it corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 Jagannath, P.W.2 Ramcharan, P.W.5 Ganpat and (P.W.6) Putal Bai. The evidence of the aforesaid eye-witnesses is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8 Dr. A.K. Juneja, who examined the injuries of Radheshyam and Sitaram and performed the postmortem examination of deceased Moolchand. The serious nature of injuries of Sitaram was also proved by the evidence of Dr. S.N. Ayanger, Neuro Surgeon of Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal (P.W.13), Dr. B.B. Sharma, R.S.O. Surgery, Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal (P.W.12) and Dr. Krishna Kumar Bhargava (P.W.11), who performed the postmortem examination of the dead body of Sitaram. "Learned counsel contended that the place of incident "Bada" has been proved to be in the possession of complainant party and from the evidence on record it has also been proved that the accused persons were the aggressors. Evidence of eye-witness Radheshyam (PW 4), Jagannath (PW 1) and Ramcharan (PW 2) has proved that the "Bada" was in their possession and it were the appellants, who had come and attacked them. He submitted that the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence-prope(sic), and in right perspective, hence, the finding of conviction of appellants does not call for any interference.

We have heard the learned counsel of the parties at length. For appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel we deem it necessary to further discuss the evidence adduced by both the sides in the case. The main grievance advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the injuries received on the body of accused persons were not explained by the prosecution, therefore, the prosecution story was doubtful and that the complainant party itself was the aggressor and, therefore, the accused had right to defend their person and property. For appreciating the above contention we have to first look at the evidence on record with respect to the possession of the enclosure (Bada), which is said to be the place of the incident. It is also relevant to point out that complainant Jagannath (PW 1), Ramcharan (PW 2) and appellant Heeralal are real brothers being the sons of Bhagirath. Acquitted accused Resham Bail happened to be the wife of accused Heeralal. Appellants Ramgopal and Prahlad are sons of Heeralal whereas deceased Moolchand, deceased Sitaram and injured Radheshyam (PW 4) are the sons of P.W.1 Jagannath. In para 14 Jagannath (PW 1) has said that the Bada, where his injured sons were lying was in his possession. The hut and Bada of accused Heeralal is situated at some distance. He has categorically stated that between his "Bada" and the "Bada" of accused, Heeralal there lies the "Bada" of Ramcharan. He said that it was incorrect to say that the place where his sons were lying, was adjacent to hedge of Heeralal, his sons were lying injured at his place. In para 18 this witness has denied that the accused were in possession of the above place and his sons wanted to dispossess them. P.W2 Ramcharan has said that the "Bada" where the incident had occurred belonged to Jagannath. It was the place where the accused persons had assaulted Sitaram, Radheshyam and Moolchand. In para 8 and 9 of his statement this witness has said that his "Badi" and that of his two brothers are situated nearby. His "Badi" lies interjacent between the "Badis" of Jagannath and Heeralal and the borthers have erected thorny hedge for separating their "Badis" from each other. According to'' Ramcharan (PW 2), his "Badi" separates the "Badis" of Jagannath and Heeralal. In para 10 he has categorically stated that accused persons had never been in possession of any part of the "Bada" of complainant Jagannath. Putal Bai (PW 6), who is wife of deceased Moolchand, has staged that her "Bada" lies adjacent to the "Bada" of Ramcharan and thereafter the "Bada" of Heeralal is situated, meaning thereby that the "Bada" of Ramcharan lies between the "Badas" of Jagannath and accused Heeralal. P.W.4 Radheshyam in para 7 of his statement has said that accused persons had never dispossessed them on their "Bada" and in fact, at the time of the incident they were trying to dispossess them (complainant).

In cross-examination, Radheshyam was confronted with his pervious statement recorded as dying-declaration (Ex. D/5) by Tahsildar, wherein it was mentioned that "our Badiya" was snatched, which, when we demanded back, we were assaulted." This witness stated that at the time when this statement is said to have been recorded, he was in serious condition, therefore, he did not know about any such statement made by him. Yet another important aspect is that the said Tahsildar, who is said to have recorded such statement, was not examined in the Court whereby such statement could have been proved. Even otherwise, in the light of the evidence of other witnesses this stray piece of statement cannot be given much weight.

The prosecution has though examined Gabu Singh, Patwari of village Nimaniya (PW 9), who had prepared the spot map of the place of the occurrence (ExP/16) but this witness was unable to say anything about the actual possession of the place of the occurrence as according to him, no such information was recorded in the revenue papers.

No evidence has been produced by the accused persons in defence to show that at the time of alleged occurrence the "Bada" where the incident occurred was in their possession. Despite the detailed cross-examination on the statements of prosecution witnesses nothing could be elicited out whereby it could have been inferred that they were in possession of the place where the occurrence took place. Even on reappreciating the evidence, we are of the opinion that it is amply established that Jagannath and his sons were in possession of the place where they had suffered the injuries.

Another important question for decision is as to who happened to be the aggressor in the incident. An important witness, who also suffered injuries in the incident, is P.W. 4 Radheshyam. In his evidence, he has stated that on the day of the incident at about 8-9 A.M. when Sitaram was in the "Bada", Santosh shouted that Prahlad was damaging their cow dung cakes. His brother Moolchand saying that the will look into the matter went to Bada, when he reached near the Imli tree, Prahlad started assaulting Sitaram by Farsi. Heeralal, Ramgopal, Parmanand and Resham Bai were also present there. Heeralal was armed with a stick fixed with spear head on it, Prahlad had a Farsi and Ramgopal and Parmanand had axe and all the persons started assaulting Sitaram. When Moolchand tried to intervene then all of them assaulted him also. He has explained that Tangiya and Axe are one and the same thing. He further said that Prahlad had assaulted him also. Sitaram and Moolchand had suffered number of injuries. At the time of the assault Heeralal was saying that they should be killed otherwise they will again quarrel. Moolchand had succumbed to injuries while he was being taken to the doctor. Sitram was sent to Bhopal for the treatment but he died later on while at home. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to para 8 of the cross-examination of Radheshyam (PW 4) wherein he has been confronted by Ex.D/6, the statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C., which is to the effect that "When we three were going, boy Santosh came and said", for showing that Sitaram was not present in the "Bada". At the initial stage Radheshyam has categorically stated that Sitaram was in the "Bada" when Santosh had called them. Radheshyam disowning the aforesaid "A to A" part of Ex. D/6, has said that Sitaram had gone towards "Bada" but hearing what was said by Santosh he had gone towards the Imli tree. The inconsistency pointed out by the learned counsel does not appear to be material in view of overall statement of the witness. It clearly transpires that Sitaram was at the "Bada" when the accused persons had gone there. His statement that the accused persons first launched attack; on Sitaram and when Moolchand went there to rescue him, he was assaulted and later on when Radheshyam himself reached there, he was also beaten, appears to reliable.

The version given by Radheshyam (PW 4) is corroborated by the evidence of Jagannath (PW 1) and Ramcharan (PW 2). Jagannath has stated that Ganpat (PW S) had come running and had informed him that Heeralal, Prahlad, Ramgopal, Parmanand and Resham Bai were assaulting Radheshyam, Sitaram and Moolchand. When he reached there, he saw that Radheshyam, Sitaram and Moolchand were lying on the ground and all the five assailants were beating them. He has categorically stated that Heeralal had a tick with spear mounted on it, Prahlad had Farsi, Ramgopal had axe and Parmanand had Tangiya. He stated that when he reached at the spot, accused persons ran away. He had seen the injuries on the body of Moolchand and Sitaram. He has also said that Ramcharan (PW 2) and Maggu were trying to intervene. When he was taking the injured persons to Police Station in the bullock-cart, Moolchand expired on way. This witness had lodged the first information report (Ex. P/1) at Police Station Ichhawar. Jagannath is real brother of accused Heeralal. Nothing has come in his cross-examination from which it could have been inferred that he had any dispute or ill-will against the accused persons, who also belonged to same family He has denied the suggestion that the place of "Bada", where the incident had occurred was in the possession of accused persons and his sons wanted to dispossess them. He has also denied that the accused persons were repairing their thorny hedge and his sons had attacked then by lathi, farsi. Similar statement has been made by P.W. 2 Ramcharan, who has categorically stated that when he was sitting at the door of his house, he heard the hue and cry hearing which he went to "Bada" of Jagannath where he saw that Heera, Prahlad, Ramgopal, Parmanand and Resham Bai were assaulting Sitaram, Radheshyam and Moolchand. Heera was armed with a stick having spear head, Prahlad with Farsi, Parmanand with axe, Ramgopal with axe and Resham Bai was armed with a stick. He had seen the injuries on the bodies of injured Sitaram, Moolchand and Radheshyam. He has said that the incident had occurred in the "Badi" of Jagannath. In para 12 he said that when he reached at the spot, he saw Moolchand, Sitaram and Radheshyam lying on the ground and being assaulted by accused persons. He said that the accused persons were showering the blows, hence, it was not possible for him to count as to how many blows were inflicted. On some points this witness has been confronted by his statement (Ex. D/3) recorded u/s 161, Cr.P.C. On going through there contradictions we find them to be merely the matters of details and of no much significance. He has been confronted by his statement (Ex. D/3) wherein it was not mentioned that witness Jagannath had come at the spot. Merely by non mentioning the name of Jagannath in the police statement it will not effect the credibility of Jagannath as well as this witness.

Statements of the witnesses have been further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 Ganpat, who has categorically stated that on hearing hue and cry he had gone at the place of the occurrence and had seen accused persons assaulting injured Sitaram, Moolchand and Radheshyam. He has further stated that he had immediately gone to inform Jagannath to whom he had found going towards the place of occurrence. Ganpat (PW 5) could not say about the possession of "Bada" where the incident had occurred as to whether it was in the possession of accused or it was in the possession of complainant.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the accused had also suffered injuries in the same incident. Injuries found on the body of accused persons were not explained by the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon or at least their evidence should be disbelieved on the point of genesis of the occurrence. For appreciating the contention of learned counsel we will have to examine the legal position which has been settled by the Apex Court. It is relevant to refer here the ratio of the case Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and Others, ]:

The first question which arises for consideration is what is the effect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused persons. In Rajender Singh v. State of Bihar, Ram Sunder Yadav v. State of Bihar and Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., all three - Judge Bench decisions, the view taken consistently is that is cannot be held as a matter of law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved. Before non explanation of the injuries on the persons of the accused persons by the prosecution witnesses may affect the prosecution case, the court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions: (i) that the injury on the person of the accused was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. Non-explanation of injuries assumes greater significance when the evidence consists of interested of partisan witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries on the side of the accused persons are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently the whole of the prosecution case.

In view of the above settled position while examining the present case it is apparent that the injuries sustained by accused persons as discussed in para 9 and 10 of this judgment are not serious injuries rather they are minor injuries. In the light of the evidence of prosecution witnesses including the evidence of Radheshyam (PW 4) who happened to have suffered injuries in the same incident, it cannot be said that the non-explanation of injuries was of much significance. The incident had occurred between the members of one family. There is no whisper in the evidence that there was any dispute or ill-will between the prosecution witnesses Jagannath (PW 1) and Ramcharan (PW 2) and accused Heeralal. It cannot be assumed that they will speak untrue. Their evidence is clear and creditworthy.

Learned counsel for the appellants has also challenged the conviction on the ground of non-examination of independent witnesses. It is true that one Mangilal, who is said to have been present at the time of the occurrence, has not been examined during the trial, but Mangilal could not be said to be a witness, who would have unfolded the genesis of the incident or any other part of the prosecution case. Therefore, his non-examination will not render the prosecution case unreliable.

Though, there is specific defence version propounded by the first information report (Ex. D/16-C), lodged by accused Heeralal, with the police, but, in the light of reliable and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses it does not appear to be truthful version of the occurrence.

Another point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the accused Heeralal was said to be armed with a stick with the spear head mounted on it, but, no piercing or stab injury was found on the body of deceased persons or injured Radheshyam, therefore, his participation in the incident is doubtful. It has also been pointed out that there are omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses about the fact that he was armed with spear head stick. Learned counsel also referred to para 11 of the statement of P.W. 4 Radheshyam wherein Radheshyam was confronted with his Police Statement (Ex. D/6), for demonstrating that the name of Heeralal was not in the said statement as an assailant. On looking at Ex. D/6 it is quite apparent that the name of Heeralal is very well mentioned therein, though he is said to have been armed with a stick. P.W. 2 Ramchar in has also made omission in saying that Heeralal was armed with the spear head stick. In view of the aforesaid contradictions about the weapon wielded by accused Heeralal it becomes doubtful that Heeralal was armed with a stick mounted with spear head, but, at the same time the presence and participation of Heeralal in the occurrence cannot be doubted in any manner. His presence is further reinforced by the fact that he was found to have suffered injuries in the occurrence.

On minutely scrutinizing the evidence and the material available on the record we are of definite opinion that the "Bada" where the incident is said to have occurred was at the relevant time in possession of complainant party and the accused persons had tried to interfere into their possession and had caused injuries on the body of Moolchand and Sitaram, which proved fatal. It is also proved that the injuries were caused to injured Radheshyam (PW 4) in the same incident. In view of the evidence of Radheshyam (PW 4) that Heeralal had exhorted to kill victims, coupled with other evidence on record it is apparent that the appellants were aggressors and had acted in furtherance of common intention of all and were thus liable vicariously for the commission of the offences.

27: In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and reached to the finding of guilt of the appellants which cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse in any manner. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The finding of conviction and sentences awarded by the learned trial Court are hereby affirmed.