Jaganath Singh and Another vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—The above two connected appeals have been filed by co-accused persons in S.T. No. 540 of 1980, State v. Sompal Singh and others,decided by I Ind Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, vide his impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.1980 and hence both the appeals have been clubbed together and are being decided by this common judgment.

The two Appellants Jagan Nath Singh and Sabab Singh (in Criminal Appeal No. 2687 of 1982) and the three Appellants Sompal Singh, Kunwar Pal Singh and Meharban Singh (in Criminal Appeal No. 2681 of 1982) have been convicted under Sections 302/149, 324/149 and 323/149, I.P.C. and they were sentenced to life imprisonment on the first count, one year R.I. on the second count and six months R.I. on the third count. Appellant Meharban Singh has been convicted u/s 147, I.P.C. with six months R.I. and rest of the Appellants have also been convicted u/s 148, I.P.C. with one year R.I. All the Appellants in the two appeals have questioned the correctness of their conviction and the aforesaid sentences.

Prosecution version in thumb nail description against the Appellants are that Shankar Singh was a resident of village Baripur, P.S. Wazirganj. On 21.5.1980 at 2 p.m. Appellants, Sompal Singh, Kunwar Pal Singh, Sahab Singh, Jagan Nath Singh and Meharban Singh assaulted him with kanta, bhala, ballam and lathi in front of his house. The alarm raised by him attracted his brother informant Mukhu Singh, Bhoop Singh (P.W. 2) and nephew Pooran Singh (P.W. 3) on the spot. The aforesaid persons accosted the accused persons on which the assailants started belabouring them as well. The motive for the marpit was the earlier incident regarding drinking of water by the cattles from the water wheel (rahat). The accused persons also nurtured a grudge against the informant because he had purchased the house of Thakur Dular Singh which the accused persons wanted to purchase. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that Kunwar Pal Singh armed with kanta had assaulted Shankar Singh, Sompal Singh armed with bhala assaulted Mukhu Singh, Jagan Nath Singh assaulted Bhoop Singh with ballam. Sahab Singh from his kanta had assaulted all and Meharban Singh had assaulted Pooran Singh injured with lathi.

Informant got the F.I.R. scribed through Rajvir Singh and after covering a distance of 8 km. North lodged it at police station Wazirganj, district Budaun on 21.5.1980 at 7 p.m. Vidya Ram Sharma, P.W. 6 head moharir prepared the chik F.I.R. exhibit Ka-9 and the G.D. entry exhibit Ka-10. All the injured Shankar Singh, Mukhu Singh, Bhoop Singh and Pooran Singh were sent for their medical examination after preparation of their chitthi mazroobi, which P.W. 6 has proved as Exts. Ka-11 to Ka-14. Investigation of the crime was entrusted to S.I. Harihar Singh Chandel P.W. 10. He commenced the investigation on 22.5.1980 recorded the statement of head constable Vidya Ram Sharma and thereafter proceeded for the hospital where he recorded the statement of the informant injured Shankar Singh at 12.25 p.m. He had proved the said statement as exhibit Ka-19 since the aforesaid statement was in the nature of dying declaration of Shankar Singh. In the hospital itself he recorded the statement of the injured Bhoop Singh, Pooran Singh and Mukhu Singh and of the witness Rajvir Singh. From the hospital he came to the spot and searched for the accused but could not find them. He reached at the spot, recorded the statement of Ram Gulam Singh, Ganga Ram Singh and Bahadur Singh and at their pointing out conducted the spot inspection and prepared the site plan which he had proved as exhibit Ka-20. On 26.5.1980, he received the information regarding the death of Shankar Singh and copy of his post-mortem examination report, which was conducted on 25.5.1980 at 4.30 p.m. He copied the said information and the post-mortem examination report and then converted the offence into Section 304, I.P.C. He thereafter recorded the statement of witness Hakim Singh on 30.5.1980. Concluding the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons on 9.6.1980, which he proved as exhibit Ka-21.

The medical examination report of Shankar Singh was conducted on 21.5.1980 at 10 p.m. and the doctor found following injuries on his body:

Incised wound 9 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on the right skull, 7 cm. from the right year.

Incised wound 7 cm. x 1 cm. x bond deep on the mid line of skull, 8 cm. away from injury No. 1.

Contusion 6 cm. x 2 cm. on the left anterior chest below the left nipple.

Contusion on 8 cm. x 2 cm. middle of right thigh.

Contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. on the left back of shoulder.

Mukhu Singh was medically examined on the same day at 10.10 p.m. and his medical examination report indicates following injuries to have been sustained by him on his person:

Incised wound 9 cm. x 1 cm. on the top of skull, 11 cm. above and port to right ear.

Incised wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep placed transversely to the port of injury No. 1.

Penetrating wound 2 cm. x .5 cm. x 1 cm. on the right port of hand 3 cm. proximal to the ring finger knuckle. Advised X-ray.

Penetrating wound 2 cm. x .5 cm. x bone deep on the left dorsum of hand, 1 cm. proximal to knuckle of ring finger.

Contusion on 10 cm. x 4 cm. on the middle of right thigh.

Incised wound 5 cm. x 1 cm. x bone doep, 4 cm. below injury No. 2.

Bhoop Singh injured had following injuries on his body:

Abrasion 1 cm. x .5 cm. x .5 cm. on the dorsum of left hand of nail of index finger.

Contusion 6 cm. x 4 cm. on the port and top of left shoulder.

Contusion 6 cm. x 2 cm. on the left back.

Contusion 5 cm. x 2 cm. on the left side of face.

Pooran Singh injured was examined the same day at 10.20 p.m. and he had sustained following injuries:

Contusion 4 cm. x 4 cm. on the left port shoulder.

Linear abrasion 3 cm. x 2 cm. x skin on the left of upper third fore arm.

Contusion 6 cm. x 4 cm. on the middle of port of left fore arm.

Complain of pain in right thigh.

The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased who had expired on 24.5.1980 at 8.45 p.m. in District Hospital, Budaun, was performed on 25.5.1980 at 4.30 p.m. The doctor found that the right side of heart was filled with blood and the left side contained clotted blood. Rigor mortis was present in the lower limbs of the body and decomposition had not yet started. There was a clotted blood below the skin on neck and his right parietal bone and frontal bone were broken, his membranes were ruptured. Following injuries were found on his person:

Stitched wound 7 cm. long oblique, across right side of skull anterior and 6.5 cm. above right ear.

Stitched wound 9 cm. long along mid line of scalp 10.5 cm. above middle of brows port ends of both injuries 1 cm. apart.

Multiple contusions in the area on 17 cm. x 8 cm. on outer side of left arm and back of left shoulder.

Contusion 6 cm. x 2 cm. on left side of chest just below the nipple.

Contusion 9.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. across front of right thigh bone below anterior superior iliac spine.

After the charge-sheet was laid against the accused persons, they were summoned by the C.J.M., Budaun and committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, framed charges against them on 29.7.1981 for offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149 and 323/149, I.P.C., which were denied by them and they claimed to be tried.

In order to bring home the guilt of the Appellants, prosecution relied upon the testimony of 10 witnesses produced by it during the trial. Out of them Rajvir Singh P.W. 1 (scribed the F.I.R.), Bhoop Singh P.W. 2 (injured witness), Pooran Singh P.W. 3 (injured witness), Bahadur Singh P.W. 8 and Hakim Singh P.W. 9 were the witnesses of fact. Doctor A. R. Khan P.W. 4, Raj Nath Singh P.W. 5, Vidya Ram Sharma P.W. 6, Dr. V. K. Mehta P.W. 7 and Harihar Singh P.W. 10 were the formal witnesses.

The accused persons in their statement recorded u/s 313, Cr. P.C. denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and took the defence that Omendra Pal Singh cousin brother of Sompal Singh Appellant was assaulted regarding which Deshraj Singh had lodged a F.I.R. and because of the aforesaid reason, the accused persons have been falsely implicated. They also took the defence that there was enmity between them and the prosecution side because of election rivalry and that son of Appellant Meharban Singh had lodged a report against Dular Singh. Sahab Singh Appellant also took the defence that no report was got lodged by Shankar Singh nor he had given any statement and because of the enmity in operating rahat that he has been falsely implicated. Appellant Jagan Nath Singh also took the same defence.

Accused persons examined Dr. Y. N. Agarwal D.W. 1 and Raghunandan Singh D.W. 2 in their defence.

As stated above the trial Judge found the case of the prosecution proved to the hilt and, therefore, convicted the Appellants as is mentioned above, which conviction and sentence has been challenged in the instant appeals.

We have heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned amicus curie in support of both the appeals and Sri P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel for the informant and Sri Sudhindra Kumar, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

Sri Sahai contended before us that the F.I.R. was not dictated by the deceased as the contents of the F.I.R. does not indicate that it was dictated by the deceased himself as he has used proper noun to refer himself in the body of the F.I.R. He submitted that the F.I.R was manipulated and was lodged ante-time and is a manufactured document. He further submitted that the prosecution relied upon the testimony of only related and inimical witnesses who had all the reasons to falsely implicate the Appellants and no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. He contended that a perusal of the original written report exhibit Ka-1 clearly indicates that the name of the witnesses were added subsequently after body of the F.I.R. was dictated as Ganga Ram Singh and Ram Gulam Singh but the aforesaid two witnesses were also not produced by the prosecution in the trial to support its version which clearly indicates that the F.I.R. is cooked up and the prosecution version is false. He further submitted that the place of the incident is not fixed and the medical examination report and injury report does not support the ocular testimony. He contended that the role specified to Jagan Nath Singh of assaulting the injured Bhoop Singh with ballam is absolutely false as Bhoop Singh had not sustained any ballam injury at all. He further contended that the deceased had sustained severe injury on his head and, therefore, he could not have dictated the F.I.R. at all and the F.I.R., therefore, is a cooked up version. He further submitted that the scribe of the F.I.R. is the nephew (bhanja) of the deceased and, therefore, all the witnesses are related and their testimony cannot be believed. He contended that the deceased was assaulted by accused persons which is not a fact as the deceased did not sustain any injury by ballam and bhala which were wielded by Appellants Jagan Nath Singh and Sompal Singh. He further submitted in alternative that Section 149, I.P.C. has no application on the facts of the present case as from the prosecution evidence itself it is clear that the common object of the unlawful assembly was not at all to commit the murder of the deceased. He submitted that from the evidence of two injured witnesses Bhoop Singh and Pooran Singh what can be said at the worst against the Appellants is that they had a common object of giving a severe beating to the deceased and nothing more than that and, therefore, the recorded conviction of all the Appellants except Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahab Singh u/s 302/149, I.P.C. is bad in law and cannot be sustained. For Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahab Singh he contended that their act is an individual act of giving a single blow each to the deceased punishable u/s 304, Part I, I.P.C. as the assault made by each of them was bereft of intention to cause death but knowledge to cause death can be presumed for them. Concludingly he submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Appellants and the appeal deserves to be allowed and the Appellants be acquitted. Sri Sahai contended that the case of Appellant Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahab Singh is distinguishable from the case of rest of the Appellants and, therefore, rest of the Appellants Jagan Nath Singh, Sompal Singh and Meharban Singh be acquitted of the charge u/s 302/149, I.P.C.

Sri P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel for the informant alongwith Sri Sudhindra Kumar, learned A.G.A. contrarily submitted that the presence of the injured witnesses at the spot is not doubtful and the defence has failed to dislodge their testimony and, therefore, the prosecution case against the Appellants is proved. They further submitted that it is a day light incident and the accused persons were known to the prosecution side from much before as they were the resident of the same village and, therefore, it is not a case of mistaken identity. They further contended that the medical report is consistent with the prosecution version and whatever minor contradictions had occurred in the testimony of the witnesses that was natural and does not damage the prosecution story at all. They further submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the Appellants and their appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. They further submitted that so far as Section 149 is concerned all the Appellants have attacked the deceased simultaneously and, therefore, it should be presumed that they had a common intention to commit the murder of the deceased and, therefore, Section 149, I.P.C. has been rightly applied by the trial Judge. Summing up their submissions they submitted that the appeal of the Appellants lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed and their convictions and sentences deserves to be upheld.

We have given our anxious consideration on the rival contentions and have perused the evidences and other materials on the record.

It is a day light incident. From the prosecution version it is clear that as soon as the deceased came out of his house he was assaulted by all the Appellants who were variously armed with ballam, kanta, bhala and lathi. There was no instigation to murder him and nobody shouted for that object. Injury report of the deceased Shankar Singh Exhibit Ka-2 coupled with the evidence of Dr. A. R. Khan P.W. 4 clearly indicates that the deceased had not sustained any injury by ballam and bhala. Thus, according to medical report it seems that two of the Appellants Jagan Nath Singh and Sompal Singh did not assault the deceased at all. From the said fact it is difficult for us to presume that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to murder the deceased. To this extent the evidence of prosecution witness that the deceased was attacked by all the malefactors simultaneously does not inspire confidence and the said allegation is not established and to this extent we hold the prosecution witnesses of fact unreliable. Their testimony is contrary to the medical and post-mortem examination report and, therefore, the version that the deceased was assaulted by all is a disproved fact. Further according to prosecution version itself the deceased was assaulted by the lathi but two lathi injuries are on the non-vital part of the body on right thigh and on the back of shoulder with one contusion on the chest. The said assault by the lathi is indicative of the fact that at least Meharban Singh, who wielded lathi did not share the common object to murder the deceased as he had not caused any internal damage or any grievous injury to the deceased. A perusal of the post-mortem examination report of the deceased clearly indicates that in the opinion of the doctor the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury Nos. 1 and 2 sustained by him. Both those two injuries were incised wounds and were attributable to Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahab Singh Appellants who had been specifically assigned the role of assaulting the deceased by kanta by deceased himself. In such a view we are of the opinion that so far as the offence u/s 302/149, I.P.C. is concerned that cannot be implanted on all the Appellants as the common object of the unlawful assembly was not to commit the murder of the deceased. If all the accused did not share the common object to murder the deceased they cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149, I.P.C. read with 302, I.P.C. Further from their conduct it is extremely suspect that the unlawful assembly had a common object to commit murder of the deceased. No doubt common object can develop at the spur of the moment but then it must be shared by all. If some of the members of the unlawful assembly did not share it nor they had the knowledge of the common object then they cannot be convicted in conjunction with Section 149, I.P.C. In the present case, we have not found that the common object of the assembly was to murder the deceased. There is a dearth of evidence for such a finding in the deposition of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 who are the injured witnesses. There is also no evidence on record to the effect that all the members of the unlawful assembly even knew the said object.

From the evidence of the two injured witnesses P.W. 2 Bhoop Singh and P.W. 3 Pooran Singh it is clear that when the incident started then only the deceased was out side his house. The aforesaid two witnesses were in side and they had not seen the genesis of assault. From the evidence of P.W. 2 it is clear that he and P.W. 3 were the real brothers of the deceased and injured Pooran Singh was his son. At the time of the incident, the deceased had taken the lunch after feeding the cattles and then had come out when he was assaulted. His shrieks for help was heard by his wife Shyam Dei who informed P.W. 1 and on her information that P.W. 1 alongwith Mukhu Singh and Pooran Singh came to the spot. In his Section 161, Cr. P.C. statement which is in the nature of dying declaration of the deceased, he had stated that he was assaulted as soon as he came out of his house. His wife tried to save him. Hearing his call for help his brothers P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and Mukhu Singh came to the spot and accosted them on which all the accused bet them as well. He (deceased) was assaulted with kanta by Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahab Singh and Meharban Singh assaulted him with lathi. Mukhu Singh was assaulted with kanta by Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahab Singh by bhala by Sompal Singh and by ballam by Jagan Nath Singh but Bhoop Singh and Pooran Singh evaded assault by bhala, ballam and kanta and sustained injuries by lathi only. The injuries of the deceased and injured which has been referred to above when examined in the light of this evidence clearly indicates that the Appellants had no common object to murder the deceased. From the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 we have not been able to find out any evidence regarding the said common object. It also cannot be said that the common object of the assembly to murder the deceased developed at the spot because there are total number of 5 accused in the case out of whom 2 of them did not assault the deceased at all and the one person armed with lathi did not cause any internal damage or any grievous injury to the deceased. From the post-mortem examination report, the autopsy doctor had also not found any grievous injury beneath the injury sustained by lathi by the deceased. His thoracic cavity had nothing abnormal dictated. Further from the material on record it is established that the incident had occurred on 21.5.1980 and the deceased died on 24.5.1980 after a gap of 3 days in the District Hospital, Budaun. The autopsy doctor had also stated that the cause of death of the deceased was the two incised wound sustained by him. In such a view we find it very difficult to apply Section 149 read with Section 302, I.P.C. on the Appellants. To us the object of murder was unknown to the Appellants and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the unlawful assembly of the Appellants had no such object to'' murder the deceased. The residue is that the conviction of the Appellants u/s 302/149, I.P.C. cannot be sustained and so is the sentence thereunder. We may refer here that the charge-sheet against all the Appellants was also submitted u/s 304 and not u/s 302, I.P.C.

Coming to the submission raised by Sri Sahai regarding the fact that the F.I.R. is ante-time and was not dictated by the deceased, we find the said submission is wholly unacceptable. The prosecution case is very clear from the very beginning that after sustaining the injuries, the deceased had gone to the police station alongwith other injured persons. There is no evidence on record to show that after sustaining injuries, the deceased had become unconscious. We have gone through the original bed head ticket of the deceased at the time of his admission in the hospital. The said bed head ticket of the deceased clearly indicates that the doctor had mentioned that the deceased was conscious. It is significant to note that before his admission in the hospital the deceased had already dictated the F.I.R. From the evidence of the two injured witnesses we also found that in the cross-examination no question was put to them regarding the condition of the deceased on 21.9.1980, i.e., the day on which the incident took place and F.I.R. was registered. He was cross-examined for the subsequent days but not for the day of the incident. The reason to us seems to be that the doctor had clearly mentioned in the bed head ticket that the deceased was conscious. Therefore, the defence did not take the chance to cross-examine the witnesses on the said aspect of the matter. Further from the evidence of the aforesaid two injured witnesses we have not been able to find out anything which can even remotely suggest that the deceased could not have dictated the F.I.R.P.W. 1 who is scribe of the F.I.R. was subjected to searching cross-examination and in his deposition, he has clearly stated that he had written the F.I.R. at dictation of the deceased at his door. He had further stated that the name of the witnesses were not mentioned in the body of F.I.R. but after the F.I.R. was dictated then at the same time at the spot itself the names were dictated by the deceased which was added by him in the F.I.R. He had also stated that the deceased had carried his F.I.R. with him to the police station. From his cross-examination the defence has miserably failed to damage the prosecution case so much so that it has not even suggested to him (P.W. 1) that no F.I.R. was dictated to him by the deceased and the F.I.R. is a cooked up evidence. From the deposition of Vidya Ram Sharma P.W. 6 we failed to locate any evidence that the F.I.R. was not registered when it is alleged to have been registered. In such a view, we are unable to accept the contention of Sri Sahai that the F.I.R. is the out come of concoction, deliberation and consultation and that it is ante-timed.

Coming to the second contention of Sri Sahai regarding the place of the incident we find that prosecution could not have gained any benefit from changing the place of the incident. The prosecution case is clear that as soon as the deceased had come out after taking his lunch he was assaulted at his door. The said statement of the two injured witnesses coupled with the statement of the deceased u/s 161, Cr. P.C. which now is his dying declaration the defence has not been able to dislodge the said fact. The defence has also not suggested any other place of incident and, therefore, we are of the view that the place of incident is the door of the deceased as is the prosecution case. So we are unable to accept the second contention also raised by Sri Sahai.

So far as inconsistency in the injury sustained by Bhoop Singh is concerned, we are of the view that since Bhoop Singh, Pooran Singh, Mukhu Singh and the deceased were assaulted simultaneously, therefore, it was very difficult for any witness to see the complete assault on each and every injured. In such a view there was bound to be some contradictions in their statements and the medical report but the said contradiction does not damage the prosecution case. On the contrary, it proves the truthfulness of their deposition in Court by making their testimony more creditworthy and untutored.

So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the deceased had sustained such injury on head which would have made him inept to dictate the F.I.R. we have already held earlier that till his admission in the hospital, the deceased was conscious and no evidence has been brought on record contrary to it and, therefore, we repel the said submission also.

Coming lastly to the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that all the witnesses are related and no independent witness has been examined in the trial and, therefore, prosecution case is false, we are of the opinion that simply because the witnesses are related their testimony cannot be brushed side nor they can be said to be untruthful witnesses. The defence has not brought out any material on record to snow that prior to the incident of murder there was any marpit between them. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the injured witness had got any motive to falsely implicate the Appellants leaving aside real culprits. On the contrary Section 161, Cr. P.C. statement of the deceased indicate that in the noon rahat incident the cattle of the Appellants drank water from the rahat of the deceased in his presence in which ''Nul'' got broken but even then the deceased and Appellants did not fight with each other and the Appellant only objected to breaking of ''Nul''. This shows lack of inter se enmity to falsely implicate in a case of murder.

In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that simply because the two injured witnesses are related and interested witnesses, their testimony cannot be ignored. From their deposition, we have found them to be truthful and reliable witnesses and but for their evidence for offence u/s 302/149, I.P.C., we do not find anything favourable to the defence in their deposition.

Coming to the case of Appellant Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahab Singh we found that in the F.I.R., the deceased himself has stated that the said Appellants had assaulted him with kanta. The medical examination report of the deceased indicates that he had sustained two incised wound on his head. However, the death had occurred three days after the incident. As has been stated above, the common object of the unlawful assembly was to belabour the deceased. From the material on record and looking to the common object of the assembly we are in grave doubt that the said Appellants had an intention to murder the deceased or cause him such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The force applied in inflicting the injury was such that if did not make the deceased even unconscious and he remained alive for four days. His senses were also not affected and he had dictated the F.I.R. after the incident. In such a view, we are of the opinion that so far as the conviction of Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahab Singh Appellants u/s 302/149, I.P.C. is concerned it is not sustainable and has to be set aside and instead he is convicted u/s 304, Part I, simplicitor. Both of them had inflicted a single blow each on the deceased which is not indicative of their intention to murder the deceased. From the injury, which they had caused to the deceased, knowledge of causing death can very well be presumed but not the intention. Using sharp edged weapon on the head indicates that the Appellants Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahab Singh knew that death may ensue because of the assault made by them and, therefore, they are held liable u/s 304, Part I, I.P.C.

From the discussions made above this appeal is allowed in part. The convictions of Appellant Meharban Singh u/s 147, I.P.C. and of rest of the Appellants-Sahab Singh, Kuwar Pal Singh, Jagan Nath Singh, and Som Pal Singh u/s 148, I.P.C. and convictions of all the above Appellants under Sections 323/149 and 324/149, I.P.C. are confirmed. However all the Appellants are acquitted of the charge u/s 302/149, I.P.C. instead two of the Appellants Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahab Singh are convicted u/s 304, Part I, I.P.C.

For offence under Sections 147, 323/149 and 324/149, I.P.C. Appellant Meharban Singh and for offences under Sections 148, 323/149 and 324/149, I.P.C. Appellant Jagan Nath Singh are sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them as Appellant Meharban Singh was 63 years of age at the time of the incident and now he must be around 87 years of age and he was also suffering from partial paralysis, and Appellant Jagan Nath Singh was 58 years of age at that time and now he must be around 83 years of age. For offence u/s 302/149, I.P.C. they have been acquitted and therefore they need not surrender. Their personal and surety bonds are discharged.

Rest of the Appellants Sahab Singh, Som Pal Singh and Kunwar Pal Singh are awarded the same sentence which has been awarded on them by the trial court for the offences under Sections 148, 323/149 and 324/149, I.P.C. Further Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahab Singh are sentenced to ten years R.I. each for offence u/s 304, Part I, I.P.C. The three Appellants Sahab Singh, Sompal Singh and Kuwar Pal Singh are directed to surrender to their personal and surety bonds forthwith to serve out the sentences awarded on them by this judgment. Trial court is directed to take immediate steps for their arrest and after they are apprehended it shall lodge them in jail to serve out the sentences awarded to them. After their surrender their personal and surety bonds shall be discharged. All the sentences of the three Appellants Sahab Singh, Sompal Singh and Kunwar Pal Singh shall run concurrently.

Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the trial court for it''s intimation and compliance of this order which it shall report to this Court within two months.