Mana Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

This appeal is directed against judgment dated 26.5.88 passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta City, whereby the appellants Manaram, Parsaram and

one Tilokaram (since deceased) were convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine

Rs.2,000/-; in default to suffer further imprisonment of one year rigorous imprisonment. That apart, Parsaram has also been convicted for offence

under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences awarded to Parsaram are ordered to run

concurrently.

The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 30.8.86, when Bhabuta Ram (PW 7) was grazing cattle in his agriculture field ‘Bhomwala’,

around 12-1 P.M. Tilokaram, Manaram and Parsaram residents of Guna Ki Dhani came there. Manaram was armed with farsi and Tilokaram and

Parsaram were having lathis. On seeing them, Bhabutaram ran away. They chased him and Manaram inflicted farsi blow on his right hand, which

resulted in amputation of his hand. On Bhabuta Ram raising the hue and cry, Shivkaran and Sanwataram-the father of Bhabuta Ram, came to his

rescue from the fields nearby. They were also belaboured. Consequently, Bhabuta Ram’s father Sanwataram suffered grievous injuries and fell

down. According to Bhabuta Ram (PW 7), they had purchased the agriculture field 15 years back and since then, the accused persons were keeping

enmity with them.

On the basis of parcha bayan (Ex.P/13) of Bhabuta Ram (PW 7), the police registered the FIR (Ex.P/31) for offences under Sections 323, 324, 447

& 307 IPC and investigation commenced. Later, Sanwataram died on the spot and therefore, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added.

During the investigation, after inquest proceedings, the dead body of Sanwataram was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn and the

statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused persons were arrested. On the basis of disclosure statement of

appellant Manaram, farsi was recovered vide Ex.P/11 whereas, at the instance of Parsaram and Tilokram, lathis were recovered vide Ex.P/2 &

Ex.P/12 respectively. The blood smeared soil, control soil and farsi etc. were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory and FSL report

(Ex.P/3) was obtained.

After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellants and Tilokaram (since deceased) for offence u/ss. 302, 307,

323, 325, 447/34 IPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta, who in its turn committed the matter for trial to the Sessions Judge,

Merta. The trial Judge framed the charges against accused Manaram for offences under Sections 447, 302/34, 307/34, 325, 324/34 & 323 IPC and

against the accused Parsaram and Tilokaram for offences under Sections 447, 302/34, 307/34, 325/34, 324/34 & 323 IPC. The appellants denied the

charges and claimed trial.

The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses (PW 1 to PW 13) and produced the documentary evidence Ex.P/1 to Ex.

P/36. The accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, they denied their involvement in the commission of crime. On

behalf of the defence, Manaram (DW1), Puraram (DW 2), Balu (DW 3), Narayan (DW 4) were examined as witnesses and the documentary

evidence were exhibited as Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/7.

After due consideration of the rival submission and the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as

indicated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and carefully scanned the evidence adduced at the trial.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court itself has

found the prosecution story unreliable and for this reason, the appellants have been acquitted for the offence under Section 447 IPC and were further

acquitted of the charges for offences under Section 307/34, 325, 325/34 IPC for causing injuries to PW 7-Bhabutaram, the first informant, injured eye

witness. The deposition of the eye witnesses suffers from major contradictions, inconsistencies and embellishments on material points. The eye

witnesses examined being related to the deceased are interested witnesses and therefore, their testimony is required to be examined minutely with

abundant caution. Learned counsel would submit that since the trial Judge has disbelieved the prosecution case regarding common intention of the

accused persons to kill PW 7-Bhabutaram, no common intention on the part of the appellants could be inferred in respect of deceased Sanwataram,

who intervened while Bhabutaram was being belaboured. The prosecution evidence is not consistent regarding place of occurrence inasmuch as, as

per FIR lodged by PW 7Bhabutaram, the incident occurred in ‘Bhomwala Khet’ alleged to be in their possession, however, as per the witnesses

examined the incident occurred at Nimbaram’s field. The testimony of PW4- Galkuri, PW 5-Kaluram and PW 8-Harlal has been disbelieved by

the trial court. The prosecution has failed to prove as to who caused fatal blow. In this regard, the version of PW 7-Bhabutaram and PW 11-

Shivkaran is contradictory and not in consonance with medical evidence. As per PW 11-Shivkaran, Manaram inflicted injuries on the head of the

deceased by blunt side of farsi whereas, PW 7-Bhabutaram does not say so. The evidence of eye witnesses is not corroborated by medical evidence,

which makes the prosecution case highly doubtful. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case where the trial

court has arrived at the finding that head injury was caused by any of the accused, the case of the prosecution does not travel beyond the provisions of

Section 326 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court has failed to consider the defence evidence. According to the learned counsel, the

story put forward by the defence is more probable and acceptable and thus, the conviction of the appellants deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record has been examined by the learned trial court threadbare and

the findings arrived at cannot be said to be erroneous so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction with the

conviction and sentence awarded. It is submitted that the evidence of injured eye witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are

interested witnesses. Learned Public Prosecutor urged that the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution do not reveal any reason for

rejecting their evidence as untrustworthy or unreliable. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that though the trial court has not found the case

against the appellants for offences under Section 307/34, 325/34 IPC proved, in respect of the injuries caused to PW 7-Bhabutaram but, a bare

perusal of the judgment reveals that the evidence on record in this regard has not been appreciated by the trial court in correct perspective.

We have considered the rival submissions and scanned the record thoroughly.

PW 12-Dr. Jitendra Kumar conducted autopsy of the dead body of Sanwataram. As per the post mortem report (Ex.P/22), following ante mortem

injuries were found on the person of the deceased Sanwataram:-

Incised wound 1 ½†x 1/2†x Bone Deep on Rt. Forearm vertical 2†below elbow-Sharp. From this wound pieces of Radius & ulna were

coming outGrievous.

Bruise 4â€​x1â€​ on ulnar border Rt. forearm. Middle halfVerticle Simple-Blunt.

Lacerated wound ½â€​ x 1/2â€​ x Bone Deep 1â€​ above Rt. Mastoid underneath bones-Blunt-Grievous.

Lacerated wound 1½â€​ x ½â€​ x Bone Deep on Rt. Parietal Region fracture of underneath Bones- Blunt-Grievous.

Bruise 1 ½â€​x 1â€​ on Rt. Scapular region-Simple-Blunt.

Bruise 2â€​x1â€​ on post fold of Lt. Axilla Simple-Blunt.

The cause of death is opined to be head injury caused to the deceased.

The injuries found on the person of the deceased and cause of death, further stands confirmed by deposition of PW 12-Dr. Jitendra Kumar, who

deposed in unequivocal terms that injury no.3 & 4, caused on the head of the deceased individually were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course

of nature. Thus, looking at the nature of injuries and the medical evidence on record the death of Sanwataram was concededly homicidal in nature.

The prosecution case was founded on testimony of eye witnesses PW4-Galkuri, PW 5-Kaluram, PW7-Bhabutaram, PW11Shivkaran as also PW

8-Harlal, who had seen the appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence.

Before testing the evidence adduced at the trial, we deem it appropriate to refer to the position of law settled on the issue whether it is safe to convict

an accused on the testimony of single eye witness, who is alleged to be an interested witness.

In ‘Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras’, AIR 1957 SC 614, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:

“...xxx.... It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of

uncommon occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of

witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the

discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of

the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no

legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a

single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of

witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of

law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact, Generally

speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty to its conclusion either way- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a

single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court

equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for

corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses.

Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be

indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of

a disputed fat. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony open to suspicion and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free

from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many

precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this

rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very

nature, suspect, being that of a particular in crime. But, where there no much exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to

convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of

the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.â€​(Emphasis supplied)

In Masalti & Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:

“... There is no doubt that when a criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very

careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not evidence strikes the Court as genuine;

whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But, it would, we think, be

unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested

witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground

that it is a partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated.

Judicial approach has to be cautions in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be

accepted as correct.â€​(emphasis supplied)

In “Anil Phukan vs. State of Assamâ€, 1993 Cri.L.J.1796, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a conviction can be based on the

testimony of single eye-witness and there is no rule of law of evidence which says to the contrary provided that sole witness passes the test of

reliability. However, where the single eyewitness is not found to be wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may

show that he could have any interest in the prosecution then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in

material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye witness is wholly unreliable witness that his

testimony is discarded in toto.

 In the said case, where the alleged single eye-witness being a close relative of the deceased and though alleged to be present at the place of

occurrence but did not attempt to save deceased and also his statement about the time of occurrence was contrary to the medical evidence, the court

observed that said eye witness could not be relied upon for the conviction of the accused.

Thus, it stands well settled that the absence of independent witness by itself may not give rise to the adverse inference against the prosecution and

credibility of the witness of the close relative of the deceased cannot be discarded solely on the ground that he is an interested witness if it otherwise

inspires confidence. However, the court must scrutinize such evidence with care and caution. Where the testimony of sole eye witness is not found to

be wholly reliable, the court must insist upon corroboration of his testimony.

In the backdrop of the settled position of law referred to hereinabove, now we proceed to scrutinize the evidence of PW4Galkuri, PW 5-

Kaluram, PW7-Bhabutaram, PW11-Shivkaran & PW 8-Harlal, on whose testimony rests the structure of prosecution case.

PW 4-Galkuri, the wife of the deceased Sanwataram deposed that on the fateful day at 10 A.M. she and her son PW7-Kalu were in their dhani

situated in their agriculture field. On hearing the hue and cry in the agriculture field 100 steps away from their dhani, she alongwith PW 7-Kalu

rushed to the place of occurrence where they saw the accused persons Mana, Tiloka and Parsa. Manaram was armed with farsi and Tilok &

Parsaram with sticks. All the three accused killed her husband, her brother in law Shivkaran was lying injured 15 steps away and at the relevant time,

all the accused were belabouring Bhabutaram. Sanwataram suffered head injuries and his hand and fingers were found cut. Sanwataram died on the

spot. Bhabutaram and Shivkaran were taken to hospital at Degana by Kalu in a cart. She deposed that agriculture field is in possession of Bhabutaram

and further that her brother in law and Bhabutaram were lying in boda i.e. beans crop whereas her husband was lying in Nimabaram’s field.

In cross examination, she deposed that she had seen accused belabouring Bhabutaram and also lying there the dead body of her husband and

Shivkaran in injured state. On seeing them, the accused persons fled away. Shivkaran was lying in boda i.e. beans crop in east (agun) of

Nimbaram’s agriculture field.

PW 5-Kaluram deposed that on fateful day around 11 A.M., he and his grand mother Galkuri were in their dhani situated in Barna Ka Kankad.

On hearing hue and cry, he and his grand mother Galku rushed to the place of occurrence. Sanwataram and Shivkaran were lying in Nimbaram’s

field. Bhabutaram was being belaboured by all the three accused in Nimbaram’s field. Sanwataram and Shivkaran were already beaten by them.

Accused Manaram was armed with farsi, Tilok and Parsaram were having sticks in their hands. He further deposed that his grand father was lying

dead, the injury was caused on his head by farsi and his right hand was cut. Bhabutaram’s left hand was injured and Shivkaran had suffered head

injury by farsi and there were injuries on his hand as well. Bhabutaram and Shivkaran were taken to the hospital by him in a cart.

In cross examination, he stated that all the three injured were lying 20 steps away in west of math in between boda i.e. beans crop and

Nimbaram’s field. When he reached there, Shivkaran was in position to speak, Bhabutaram was unconscious and his grand father Sanwataram

had already died. Bhabutaram gained his consciousness after 2-3 days. He had seen the accused persons fleeing away from a distance of 10 steps.

PW7-Bhabutaram deposed that on fateful day around 10 A.M. when he was grazing cattle in his ‘Bhomwala’ field, accused Mana, Tiloka

and Parsa came there. Mana was armed with farsi and remaining two accused were having sticks in their hands. As soon as they came there, they

started belabouring him. Mana inflicted farsi blow on his left arm, Parsa inflicted injury on his right hand, his right hand was fractured. Tilok gave stick

blow on his head, as a result thereof, he fell down. His uncle Shivkaran and father Sanwataram came to his rescue. His father was killed. He

(Bhabutaram) was taken to the hospital by Kalu in a cart where doctor examined his injuries. His father was left behind as he was to be taken in

motor vehicle. Bhomwala field was purchased by him 15 years back from Bala Sanwta, the rental (bigori) thereof is paid by him.

In cross examination, he deposed that one half of the agriculture field (Bhomwala) in the west belongs to his father and he had purchased the east part

of the said field from Ratna and in the eastern side there exists field of Bhola and Lichman. He deposed that he had purchased 15 bighas land in the

west of Lichman’s field and 16 bighas in the east. Seeing the accused, he had moved 5-7 steps in the west where he was belaboured by the

accused persons. On account of the beating, he fell unconscious then, said he was conscious. He further deposed that his father and Shivkaran had

reached there while he was being belaboured.

In the first instance, he was beaten and thereafter, his father and Shivkaran were also beaten. Contrary to what stated in examination in chief, in cross

examination, the suggestion of the defence that Manaram gave a blow from sharp edged side of farsi on his left hand, which resulted in fracture, was

accepted by him as correct. He further deposed that in Nagaur hospital, he remained unconscious for 2-3 days.

PW8-Harlal deposed that on hue and cry being raised, he reached Bhomwala field where Kalia, Shivkaran and Sanwataram’s wife were

screaming. Sanwataram and Bhabutaram had suffered injuries. He had seen Tiloka, Mana and Parsa running away. Bhabuta and Shivkaran were

taken in a cart, Sanwata expired on the spot.Â

PW11-Shivkaran deposed that Manaram, Tilokaram and Parsaram came running from southern side and belaboured Bhabutaram. Parsa gave

stick blow on left hand of Bhabuta, as a result whereof his hand got fractured, then Mana gave farsi blow on his left hand. On the attempt being made

by them to rescue Bhabuta, they were also belaboured. Parsa gave stick blow on his head, back and various parts of the body. Sanwata was given

farsi blow on head by Mana from its reverse side and Parsa gave stick blow on Sanwata’s hand. Sanwata’s legs were broken by Mana. Then

all the three accused continued to belaboured them. When his brother’s wife Galku and Kalu also came running there, the accused fled away.

Then Kalu had taken them to Degana in a cart and Sanwata was left behind to be taken in a jeep. Their injuries were examined in Degana hospital,

then they were taken to Nagaur. Bhabuta had purchased the field of Sanwata Bala from Lichman and Prabhu, sons of Ratna, 13-14 years back. The

accused were claiming the field to be owned by them, which was cause of belabouring.

In cross examination, he deposed that when accused reached there, Bhabutaram was sitting 14 steps away from the math of Kistoor’s field. As

soon as the accused reached there, they chased Bhabutaram, he was belaboured and when he and Sanwataram came to his rescue, the accused

started belabouring them as well. After beating, Bhabutaram fell down in the agriculture field and lost consciousness. When he and Bhabutaram were

taken to the hospital, Bhabutaram was unconscious. Bhabutaram gained consciousness after 4-5 days at Nagaur. Sanwataram died on the spot.

As per deposition of PW7-Bhabutaram, an injured eye witness, in the first instance, the accused Mana armed with farsi and accused Tilok and

Parsa armed with stick came to the ‘Bhomwala’ field where he was grazing cattle and belaboured him and when his father Sanwataram and

uncle PW11-Shivkaran intervened, they were also belaboured. PW 11-Shivkaran, yet another injured eye witness, has also deposed that in the first

instance, the accused persons belaboured Bhabutaram and on attempt being made by him and Sanwataram (deceased), they were also beaten. To the

contrary, PW4-Galkuri and PW5-Kalu, on hue and cry being raised, when they reached the place of occurrence, Sanwataram (deceased) and PW11-

Shivkaran were lying in the field and PW7-Bhabutaram was being belaboured by the accused persons. In this view of the matter, the conclusion

arrived at by the trial court that PW4-Galkuri and PW5-Kaluram cannot be accepted to be eye witnesses of the incident of beating, cannot be faulted

with.

It has come on record that there was a dispute between Bhabutaram and the accused persons in respect of the land alleged to have been

purchased by Bhabutaram from Sanwata Bala/ Lichman and Prabhu, sons of Ratna. There is no discrepancy in the deposition of the eye witnesses

that accused Mana was armed with farsi and accused Tiloka and Parsa with sticks. It is noticed that on account of certain discrepancies in deposition

of the injured eye witnesses PW7-Bhabutaram and PW11-Shivkaran regarding the injuries being caused by the accused on the person of PW7-

Bhabutaram, the trial court has not found the charges against the accused persons in respect of the injuries caused to Bhabutaram as proved beyond

reasonable doubt. As the acquittal of the accused persons of the charges in respect of the injuries caused to PW7-Bhabutaram is not questioned by

the prosecution and therefore, it would not be appropriate to enter into the correctness of the finding recorded by the trial court in this regard, which is

not challenged by the prosecution. But in any case, on that account, the deposition of PW-7 Bhabutaram, injured eye witness in respect of the injuries

caused by the accused persons to Sanwataram (deceased) and PW11-Shivkaran, cannot be discarded as not trustworthy.

PW7-Bhabutaram has deposed that in the first instance, the accused Mana, Tilok and Parsa belaboured him and when his father Sanwataram

(deceased) and PW 11-Shivkaran came to his rescue, the accused persons belaboured them as well. It is true that PW7-Bhabutaram has not

disclosed the details of the injuries caused by the three accused persons individually but then, it has come on record that on being belaboured by the

accused persons, Bhabutaram fell unconscious and thus, being severely injured, possibly he could not notice the individual act of the accused persons

in belabouring Sanwataram (deceased) and PW11Shivkaran. Merely because, PW7-Bhabutaram has not assigned the injuries caused by the accused

persons to Sanwataram (deceased) and PW11-Shivkaran, his testimony cannot be disbelieved.

It is pertinent to note that out of the injuries caused to the deceased Sanwataram noticed above, injury no.3 & 4, caused on his head were found

fatal. PW11-Shivkaran has categorically deposed that Sanwata was given farsi blow on head by Mana from its reverse side and Parsa gave stick

blow on Sanwata’s hand. Thus, apparently, one of the two injuries found fatal is clearly attributed to accused Mana whereas another head

injury caused is not attributed to any of the accused specifically.

This takes us to consider whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, wherein the incident has occurred, the injuries were caused

by the accused on the person of the deceased Sanwataram in furtherance of their common intention to cause his death.

Indisputably, the appellants accused had dispute with Bhabhutaram, who is alleged to have purchased the disputed land, which is claimed to be

owned by the appellants. From bare perusal of the evidence on record, it is apparent that in the first instance, the accused appellants armed with the

weapons as aforesaid, assaulted PW7-Bhabhutaram and when Sanwataram (deceased) and PW11-Shivkaran intervened, they were also belaboured.

There is nothing on record suggesting that the accused appellants had hatched a plan on the spot to commit murder of Sanwataram and in furtherance

of common intention to commit his murder cause fatal injuries. Even the nature of the injuries caused does not reflect that the appellants accused and

Tiloka Ram (since deceased) had intention to cause death of Sanwataram or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. It is pertinent to

note that while inflicting injury on the head of the deceased, the accused Mana Ram has used reverse side of farsi. In the considered opinion of this

Court, had there been an intention to cause death, nothing prevented accused Mana Ram from using sharp edged side of farsi for inflicting injuries on

the person of deceased Sanwataram. But then, looking at the nature of the injuries that turns out to be fatal and the weapon used, it could be safely

inferred that the accused persons caused the said injuries having knowledge that it is likely to cause death.

We are aware about the fact that out of the two head injuries, found to be fatal, one injury is established to have been inflicted by accused

appellant Mana but it is not established on the basis of the evidence on record as to who had inflicted yet another head injury on the person of the

deceased. But the fact remains that the appellants accused with common intention indulged in belabouring Sanwataram and in furtherance of the

common intention caused the said injuries and therefore, notwithstanding the fact that it is not established as to who caused yet another head injury

found fatal, in view of discussion above, by virtue of provisions of Section 34 IPC, both the appellants accused are liable to be held guilty for offence

under Section 304 Part II IPC.

The conviction of the appellant Parsa Ram under Section 323 IPC for causing injuries to Shivkaran is not questioned by the counsel for the

appellants before us.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC is set aside. The appellants Mana and Parsa

are convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II/34 IPC. The accused appellants are on bail since 7.9.88 and thus, taking into consideration the

long lapse of time, we sentence them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine Rs.25,000/- each; in default of payment of fine, they

shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The conviction and sentence of appellant Parsa by the trial court for offence

under Section 323 IPC is maintained. The bail bonds of the appellants shall stand forfeited. They will surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining

period of sentence awarded.