Pyboina Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi and others vs State of A.P.

A. Hanumanthu, J

All these three appeals arise out of Sessions Case No.75 of 1993 on the file of Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division at Eluru. Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 1997 has been preferred by accused Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 7; Criminal Appeal No.795 of 1997 has been preferred by accused No.6; and Criminal Appeal No,1 126 of 1997 has been preferred by accused No.3. Accused No.5 died pending trial of the case.

All the appellants were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 148 and 302 of Indian Penal Code for the murder of Tatikayala Taiaiah alias Pedda Kapu-deceascd on 10-12-1992 at about 3.00 p.m. at the fish tank of one Dr. Konda Reddy Rama Rao near Mutyalamma Temple at Mutyalammapuram village within the limits of Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(i) Al and A2 are brothers and the other accused their close associate. All the accused are residents of Tadepalligudem, The deceased was also resident of the same village. Al and the deceased were friends till the year 1990. Thereafter, differences arose between them as they claimed supremacy over each other and they got divided into two groups with their respective henchmen and each group committing several criminal acts and several criminal cases were also fifed and pending against each of them. Thus, there was bitter rivalry between Al and the deceased. The deceased being afraid of the accused shifted his residence to Chebrolu village.

(ii) I''Wl is the Head Constable of Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station. PW2 is the younger brother of the deceased. PW3 is the owner of a coconut shop at Miityalamma temple in Mutyal ammapuram,

(iii) On 10-12-1992 the deceased was proceeding towards Chebrolu from Tadepalligudem on his Yamaha motor cycle bearing No.AEU 8282 after dropping PW7. Before that, the deceased had been to the lorry office of PW2 who is his brother and asked PW2 to go over to Mutyalamma temple which is on the way to Cliebrolu. On seeing the deceased proceeding on his motor cycle, all the accused followed him in Fiat Car bearing No.AHO 2113 being armed with ''Patta Kattutu'' and this was witnessed by PW7 and he followed that Car on his cycle. By the lime the Car reached the Mutyalamma temple the deceased was wearing his chappat at the temple after breaking a coconut to the diety and on seeing him the accused got down from the car with knives. The deceased on seeing them ran towards the fish tank of Konda Reddy Rama Rao through the southern side of the temple. The accused chased him. The deceased jumped into the fish tank and the accused pounced upon him and inflicted injuries on the face, neck, head and hands of the deceased with knives and as a result the deceased died instantaneously.

(iv) After causing the death of the deceased, the accused boarded the car with their weapons and proceeded to Tadepalligudem. This was witnessed by PWs.l to 3 and others. PWI-Head Constable who had been to Badampudi village for execution of Non-Bailable Warrant in Crime No.40 of 1992 of Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station, was returning on his Luna and when he reached near the Mutyalayima Temple he saw the attack on the deceased by the accused. PW1 could not interfere as the accused were more in number and armed with deadly weapons but he chased the car of Ihe accused to some distance to Rice Mill of Sri Lakshmi Srirama Raw and Boiled Rice Mill and informed by phone the Station House Officer, Tadepalligudem town, P.S. Later, he returned to the scene of offence and saw the dead body of the deceased in the fish tank. PW2 who also Qame to Mulyalamma Temple on the instructions of the deceased saw the incident from a Coffee Hotel where he was taking coffee. But apprehending danger from the accused he also did not interfere. PW3 who owns a coconut shop at Mutyalamma Temple also saw the incident and he identified AI and A2 from among the assailants. This incident was also witnessed by PWs.7, 11, 12 and others.

(v) PWl-Hcad Constable went to Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station and lodged the complaint Ex.Pl with PW18-Sub Inspector of Police at 4.30 p.m. and the same was registered as Crime No.102 of 1992 under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC. Ex.P27 is the FIR sent to the Court. PW21 is the Inspector of Police and he received a copy of FIR at 5.30 p.m. He also received a phone call from PW5 of Parimella informing him that Al and six others have come there in a Car and the Car was breakdown in the outskirts of Parimella village and Al came to public telephone and contacted a person to bring a vehicle and the other six persons got into a RTC Bus proceeding towards Ganapavaram. PW21 alerted Ganapavaram Police Station over VHP set for the absconding accused. PW21 along with his men left Tadepalligudem and reached Parimella village at about 6.45 p.m. and found a fiat Car bearing No.AHO 2113 parked in a puntha leading towards the fields of Daila Venkataramaraju. PW21 seized the said Car in the presence of mediators PW13 and others under panchnama, Ex.P22. He also found blood stained turkey towels, MOs.5 to 7 in the Car and seized the same. Then he proceeded to Mutyalammapuram at 9.00 p.m. on that day and found the dead body floating in the fish tank. He also noticed a blue colour Yamaha motor cycle bearing No.AEW 8282 parked on the road margin of National Highway No.5 leading from Eluru to Tadepalligudem. On 11-12-1992 PW21 secured the presence of mediators PW14 and others and prepared a rough sketch of scene of offence and also observation report, Ex.P23. Thereafter, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW14 and others. At the time of inquest, he also recorded the statements of PWs.2, 3 and others. He also seized the chappals MOs.8 and 11. Ex.P14 is the inquest report relating to the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination.

(vi) PW15-Dr. Maheswar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 11-12-1992 and issued post-mortem certificate, Ex.P25. He found as many as 12 external clean cut injuries over the face, neck, head, shoulder and hands of the deceased. PW15 gave his opinion with regard to cause of death as due to shock as a result of severe haemorrhage and due to extensive injuries to face, head and neck and the time of death was less than 24 hours.

(vii) During the course of investigation, PW21 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 30-12-1992 PW21-Inspector of Police arrested A4. On 23-1-1993 A2, A3, A5 and A6 surrendered before PW21 at 11.00 a.m. and he arrested them and sent them for remand. As he noticed an injury to A5, PW21 sent him to Government Hospital at Tadepalligudem for remand. On 1-3-1993 Al surrendered before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem. After completing investigation, PW21 filed the charge-sheet against all the accused on 22-3-1993 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 148 and 302 IPC.

The plea of the accused is one of denial. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.l to 21 and marked Exs.PI to P30 and MOs.l to 12. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The contradictions in the statements of PWs.l and 2 recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC were marked as Exs.Dl to D4.

The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and convicted them for the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge also found the accused not guilty of the charge u/s 120-B IPC and acquitted them of the said charge. A5, as earlier stated, died during the pendency of the trial. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced Al to A4, A6 and A7 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable u/s 148 IPC. He further sentenced each accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each an in default to pay fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed on them, the accused have come up with these appeals. Since all the these appeals arose out of a single judgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Sri C. Padmanabha Redcly, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-accused in all the three appeals, urged the following contentions:

(i) PW1 who was said to be a Head Constable working in Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station, admits in this cross-examination that he was a Station Writer at the time of incident and the Station Writers will not be entrusted with the execution of Non-Bailable Warrants and, therefore, the testimony of PWI that he happened to reach the Mutyalamma temple while he was on duty in execution of Non-Bailable Warrant in Crime No.40 of 1992 cannot be accepted;

(ii) PWI gave the names of Al to A3 only and he did not mention the names of A4 to A7 both in his evidence in Court as well as in his complaint, Ex.PI, and that the investigating officer did not choose to hold Test Identification parade for the identification of A4 to A7 in this case and as such A4, A6 and A7 are entitled for benefit of doubt and the identity of Al to A3 by PWI is highly doubtful as PWt admits that AI to A3 were not accused in respect of the crimes of his police station i.e., Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station,

(iii) PW2 is no other than the brother of the deceased and as such he is an interested witness and his conduct in not intervening while his brother (deceased) was being attacked by the accused is most unnatural and his presence at the time of occurrence could not be believed.

(iv) The police are very much against the first accused as he has been exposing the atrocities committed by them and that the Inspector of Police has set up PWI as complainant to wreck vengeance against the first accused.

(v) The scene of offence could not have been the fish tank as alleged by the prosecution in view of the fact that the dead body was floating its face downwards in the water and that the possibility of the dead body being thrown into the fish tank after the deceased was murdered some where as the dead body could not float in the water immediately after he was done to death and that the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination found no water inside the dead body and that the dead body will float to the surface of the water only after lapse of not less than 24 hours after it was thrown into the water.

(vi) The testimony of PW3 cannot be relied upon in view of the fact that he has stated in his cross-examination that he cannot identify the assailants and that he has not seen the occurrence.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted his arguments in support of the impugned judgment.

At the outset, it may be stated that there was no challenge before the trial Court as well as before us on behalf of the appellants to the fact that Tatikayala Tataiah alias Pedda Kapu (deceased) died due to multiple incised injuries sustained by him on 10-12-1992 at about 3.30 p.m. in the fish pond of Dr. Konda Reddy Rama Rao near Mutyalamma Temple in Mutyalaminapuram village. It is, therefore, needless to refer to the evidence of Dr. KS. Maheswar (PWI 5) who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 11-12-1992 at 1.30p.m. and his autopsy report, Ex.P25. We have gone through the evidence of the said Doctor, PW15 and Ex.P25 and we have no hesitation in holding that the deceased died because of ante-mortem cut injuries sustained by him and as such his death is homicidal.

The next aspect to be considered is whether the evidence on record establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that it was these appellants-accused that caused those multiple injuries which resulted in the death of deceased. We have carefully considered the submissions urged on behalf of the appellants-accused and also the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is not disputed that the deceased and the first accused are the leaders of rival gangs. There were cases and counter cases pending against them. There was much enmity between the deceased and the first accused for supremacy over each other. Therefore, there is ample motive for the accused to do away with the deceased. We are also not oblivious of the fact that because of enmity. There is scope for implicating some innocent persons also falsely. As seen from the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, PWs.l to 3 are the eye-witnesses lo the occurrence. The other witnessess are circumstantial witnesses. PWI who was working as Mead Constable in Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station at that time was the complainant in this case. As earlier stated, the learned senior Counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that PW1 has been set up by the higher authorities with a view to wreck vengeance against Al who was exposing the atrocities of the police. But on a careful consideration of the testimony of PWI and other circumstances in this case, we are not inclined to accept the said contention raised on behalf of the appellants. It is no doubt true that PWl-the complainant is a police witness but that itself is not a ground to reject his testimony when it is otherwise trust-worthy. The testimony of a police witness cannot be brushed aside simply for the reason that he happened to be a police personnel. We have to see whether the version of PWI that he was at the scene of offence at the time of incident is probable and convincing and whether it is corroborated by other evidence on record in this case. It is in the evidence of PWI that he happened to be at the scene of offence as he reached that place while returning from Badampudi village where he had been to execute a Non-Bailable Warrant issued against one Rambabu alias Ramalingeswara Rao connected in Crime No.40 of 1992 of his police station. The testimony of PWI that he was entrusted with the execution of Non-Bailable Warrant on that day has been spoken to by PWI8-Sub-Inspcctor of Police of Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station. PWI 8 has categorically stated that at about 12.00 noon on 10-12-1992 he deputed PWI to execute Non-Bailable Warrant issued against one Rambabu alias Ramalingeswara Rao concenied in Crime No.40 of 1992 of his police station. There is no cross-examination of PW18 on this aspect. Further, the presence of PW1 at the scene of offence has been spoken to by the witnesses PWs.2 and 3 and also PWIO. It is in the evidence of PWI that immediately after the currence he went to a nearby Rama Rao''s Rice Mill and telephoned to the traffic police station as well as town police station about the incident. PWIO is a clerk working in that Rice Mill of Rama Rao and he deposed on oath that on the day of murder the police constable came to his mill to telephone and that he permitted him to telephone. Therefore, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the presence of PWI at the scene of offence and his witnessing the incident. It is in the evidence of PWI that he saw a white fiat car bearing No-AHO 2113 coming with high speed and stopped at Mutyalamma Temple and saw the accused getting down from the Car and chasing the deceased who had come out of the temple after offering his prayers and that the deceased crossed the irrigation channel and ran on the bund of the fish tank and jumped into the fish tank and that all the accused ran after the deceased and they also jumped into the fish tank and hacked the deceased with deadly weapons indiscriminately. PWI further deposed that he did not interfere as he was unarmed and that after the incident all the accused left the scene of offence in Hie same Car. It is also in his evidence that he followed the Car by his Lima upto some distance and thereafter he returned to the scene of offence once again and saw the dead body of the deceased floating on the tank face downwards and there'' were number of injuries on the deceased and found him dead and that he went to Rama Rao''s Rice Mill and telephoned to Town & Traffic Police Stations. Thereafter, fie went to Rural police station at 4.30 p.m. and preferred the complaint, Ex.Pl before PW18 registered the same as Crime No.102 of 1992 and issued the FIR -EX.P27.

It is significant to note that PW1 gave the names of Al to A3 only in the complaint, Iix.P1 and he did not specifically mention the names of the other accused i.e., A4 to A7 as the assailants though he stated that Al to A3 and four others armed with ''Patta Kattulu (Long knives)'' chased the deceased and hacked him to death in the fish pond. Thus, the names of Al to A3 as assailants find place in Ex.Pl and in the First Information Report, Ex.P27. It is contended by the learned senior Counsel for the appellants that PW1 admits that he had no contacts with Al to A3 and that they are not accused in any crime of his police station and as such the testimony of PW1 that he knew the names of Al to A3 cannot be accepted. But PW] has categorically stated both in his examination-in-chief as well as in his cross-examination that he had seen Al to A3 about 20 times prior to the offence in this case as they were coming to the town police station and as they were talking to Circle Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police. Admittedly, Al to A3 are involved in number of cases. Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station and Town Police Station are situated within the same compound and as Al to A3 happen to be the leaders of one group, in all probability, there is ample scope for PWI knowing these people when they were visiting the Town Police Station and also talking to Circle Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police. PWI categorically stated that he knew the names of Al to A3 and admitted that he did not know the names of A4 to A7. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PWI with regard to the involvement of A1 to A3 in the commission of the offence i.e., chasing and hacking him to death with deadly weapons in the fish tank.

The presence and participation of A! to A3 has also been spoken to by PW2 who is no other than the younger brother of the deceased. According to him, he came to Mutyalamma Temple at the instance of his brother (deceased) and that he was taking coffee in the nearby Coffee Hotel and at that time he saw the accused coming in Car and getting down from he same and chasing his brother (deceased) who came out of the temple after offering prayers and that the accused chased the deceased to the fish pond and hacked the deceased with deadly weapons. It is true that PW2 is also a factionist and follower and supporter of his deceased brother and enemically disposed of towards the accused. '' In his cross-examination PW2 admits that he knew A1 to A3 by names and that he does not know the names of other accused. PW2 admits that he did not intervene being afraid of the accused. The explanation is convincing. The accused are also enemically disposed of towards him also. He was also not armed. Hence, the apprehension that he would have been attacked by the accused if in case he had intervened, is genuine. PW2 also had been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. Hence, we do not find any reason to disbelieve his testimony.

The other eye-witness to the occurrence in this case is PW3. PW3 is a vendor of coconuts at Mutyalamma Temple. It is in his chief examination that the deceased purchased a coconut from him and went to the temple and offered prayers and after the deceased came out and was wearing his chappals and at that time a white fiat car came and stopped there and from that car seven people got down and out of them lie identified A1 and A2. He further deposed that on seeing those persons and deceased rah away towards the southern side of the temple and Al, A2 and other chased the deceased and the deceased jumped into tlie fish tank and the assailants also jumped into the fish tank and hacked the deceased indiscriminately with knives, lie further stated that at that time the Head Constable (PWI) also came there and witnessed the occurrence. In his cross-examination on behalf of A6, he staled that the car stopped at a-distance of 10 yards from his shop. Thus, in his examination-in-chief P\\V3 has categorically spoken to with regard to the presence and participation of Al and A2 along with others. It is significant to note as seen from the observation of the trial Judge that when he was questioned in his cross-examination whether he had seen the incident in this case, PW3 nodded his head indicating that he had not seen the occurrence and PW3 further stated that the incident had taken place on the rear side of his shop and that he did not see what had happened on the rear side of his shop on that day. Obviously, he had realised from what he had stated in his examination-in-chief. He was also not treated as hostile by the prosecution, in those circumstances, normally the Court could not rely on the testimony of such a witness. But in this case it is also significant to note that the learned trial Judge who recorded the testimony of this witness had categorically observed in the deposition itself that this witness is a handicapped person affected by polio to his left hand and left leg and very weak person and he was very much afraid of giving answers for the questions put to him by the defence Counsel and he was shedding tears and became panic. The learned trial Judge made a mention with regard to the demeanour of this witness, PW3, as under :

"The witness is a handicapped and affected by polio to the left hand and leg and he is very weak person and he was very much afraid of some one or the other and not giving answers either positively or negatively to the questions put by the defence Counsel and it is purely on account of fear by some one or the other and he was also shedding tears and seems to be more panicky."

Another significant factor is that this witness, PW3, was examined on 12-9-1994. At that time he was not cross-examined on behalf of Al to A5 and A7 and he was only cross-examined on behalf of A6. Subsequently he was recalled as per the orders in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and he was cross-examined on 21-4-1997. It was in this cross-examination that he resiled from what he had stated in examination-in-chief. This factor seems to have weighed very much with the trial Judge. In this context, the learned trial Judge observed that "much water has flown under the bridge and the answers which were elicited in the cross-examination of this witness are only made out of fear." The learned trial Judge further observed that the examination-in-chief of this witness is corroborated by other two eye-witnesses PWs.l and 2 and under those circumstances the learned trial Judge further observed that the evidence spoken to by this witness (PW3) in his examination-in-chief cannot be ignored. Much weight has to be given to the observations made by the trial Judge with regard to the demeanour of this witness (PW3) who was examined in his Court. The learned trial Judge found this witness to be a truthful witness and gave his evidence freely when he was examined in chief on 12-9-1994, but he became panic and he was shedding tears out of fear of some one or the other when he was subjected to cross-examination after a lapse of two years and ten months and, therefore, this witness nodded his head indicating that he had not seen the occurrence in giving reply to the question put to him whether he had seen the incident in this case. As observed by the learned trial Judge, it may be a fact that much water had flown tinder the bridge during that period of two years and ten months. The witness could not open his mouth as observed by the trial Judge to answer the questions- put to him in cross-examination and he simply nodded his head and fear and panic were writ large on his face as observed by the trial Judge. Under those circumstances, in our opinion, the trial Judge rightly believed the testimony of PW3 and it is amply corroborated by the other two eye-witnesses to the incident.

In the instant cases, much effort has been made by the accused to weaken and nullify the evidence of the prosecution by delaying the cross-examination part under one pretext or the other and by winning-over the witness. Rightly, the trial Court did not fall prey to such unholy tactics played by the accused. But, at times, such tricks may succeed, which result in miscarriage of justice making the criminal justice system vulnerable and unstable. Even if the witness cannot be managed, long delay some times will fail the criminal justice system because of failing memories due to long delays in recording the evidence, be it examination-in-chief or cross-examination. Human system is not comparable to robot system and as the age and time advances man''s memory may undergo change. These aspects have to be kept in mind by the (rial Courts in recording the evidence and when he have come of the age propagating the sp''eedy trial of cases in the context of the accused and even tracing the same to the most cherished fundamental right of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the accused are no exception from the said theory when it comes to their conduct in adopting the delaying tactics to subvert the cause of justice, as a genuine prosecution case may fail because of the delaying tactics adopted by the accused. Article 21 of the Constitution is a two-side coin, one protraction the accused from undue protection of the trial and the other protecting the cause of the prosecution by preventing the undue protraction of the criminal proseculion at the instance of the accused. As such, the lower Courts are duty-bound to see that neither the criminal case is protracted on account of the delay caused by the prosecution nor is the prosecution case protracted on account of the delaying tactics of the accused and the situation has to be dealt with deftly by not granting undue and unwarranted adjournments, otherwise this Court may have to take serious view both on the judicial side and the administrative side. If the accused or the witness play tricks, then the trial Court should exercise the power of issue of non-bailable warrants for speedy fi*iat. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court rightly relied on the chief-examination of PW3, which is amply corroborated by PWs.l and 2, and in the process did not commit any fallacy.

It is no doubt true that the dead body was lying with its face downwards in the fish pond. It is contended by the learned senior Counsel for the appellants that if really the incident had taken place in the fish pond, the dead body would not have been floating on the water immediately afler the occurrence and there is every possibility of the deceased having been done to death at some other place, and his dead body might have been dumped into the waters of the fish pond. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned senior Counsel for the appellants. The testimony of the Investigating Officer, PW21, falsifies this contention. He has categorically stated in liis evidence that the depth of the water where the dead body was found, was only 1-1/2 feet. If the depth of the water is about 1-1/2 feet the dead body would be lying and it could not be said that it was floating on the water. Further, it is in the positive evidence of PWs.l to 3 that the deceasecKvas done to death in the fish pond as soon as he jumped into it while trying to escape from the clutches of the accused. Hence, the argument of the learned senior Counsel for the appellants that the deceased was done to death at some other place and his dead body was thrown inside the fish pond cannot be accepted.

On a close scrutiny of the evidence on record, we are doubtful with regard to the presence and participation of A4 to A7. As earlier stated, their names do not find place in the complaint and the first information report. Both PWs.l and 2 have categorically stated that they do not know the names of A4 to A7. PW3 also identified Al and A2 only and he has not identified the other accused. Further, admittedly, no test identification parade was held during the course of investigation for the identification of A4 to A7. It is true that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in Court, but prior identification in the test parade lends assurance and corroboration to the evidence in Court. The evidence of identification of the accused at the time of trial for the first time is inherently of a week character. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Kanan and Others Vs. State of Kerala, , that identification of accused for the first time in Court without being tested by prior test identification parade is valueless. In Mohd. Abdul Hafeez Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , the Apex Court was considering a case where the descriptive particulars of the assailants were not given by the victim in the first information report and no test identification parade was held but the accused were convicted on the identification of the victim in Court four months after the offence. Under those circumstances, the Apex Court held that the conviction is not sustainable in the absence of earlier test identification parade. In the instant case also, PW1-complainant has not given the descriptive particulars of A4 to A7 in his complaint, Ex.PI. There is also nothing on record to show that PWs.2 and 3 also had given the descriptive particulars of the accused Nos.4 to 7 in their statements before the Investigating Officer. PWs.l and 2 have identified them (A4 to A7) for the first time in Court. Hence, no weight can be given to their identification for the first tie in Court in the absence of earlier test identification parade. Hence, we are of the view that the appellant-accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 are entitled for benefit of doubt. As earlier stated A5 died pending trial of the case.

For the fore-going reasons, the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellants-accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The convictions and sentence imposed on the appellants-accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 IPC are confirmed. The appellants-accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The fine amount imposed on A4, A6 and A7 is also ordered to be refunded if deposited already.

In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 1997 preferred by accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 is allowed partly; Criminal Appeal No.795 of 1997 preferred by accused No.6 is allowed, and Criminal Appeal No.l 126 of 1997 preferred by accused No.3 is dismissed, as indicated above.