Shankar Lal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

 This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2008 passed by the

learned Additional District & Sessions

Judge (Fast Track), No.2, Pali in Sessinos Case No.5/2008, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148,

302, 302/149, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149 IPC and have been sentenced as under:-

U/s.148 IPC

All the accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo three years’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to

further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment.

U/s.302, 302/149 IPC

All the accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo

one year’s simple imprisonment.

U/s.323 and 323/149 IPC

All the accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo one year’s simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to

further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment.

U/s.324 and 324/149 IPC

All the accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo three years’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to

further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment.

All the sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a written report (Ex.P/49) was submitted by the complainant Ramkaran @ Om Karan @ Omiya on

12.11.2007 at 2.00 P.M. at Camp Jagdamba Colony, Naya Gaon, Pali wherein it is stated that he was sitting with his mother, maternal uncle ( ekek)

and sister near the hut, at that time, Shankerlal, Mishrilal, Prakash, Ummed Ram, Sukha Ram, Kanya came there with a common intention. Shankarlal,

Mishrilal and Prakash were carrying a kunt and other co-accused were carrying lathis in their hands and threatened to bury them as they did not leave

the plot and with that intention, accused-appellants Shankarlal and Mishrilal inflicted kunt blows to his mother, resultantly, she received injuries on head

and neck and she fell down and his maternal uncle ( ekek ) was beaten by lathis, resultantly he fell down. Meanwhile, his cousin Bhundaram (son of

his maternal uncle) came from village side, then Shankerlal, Mishrilal and Prakash inflicted kunt blows due to which he fell down on the ground. It was

stated that on seeing this he started running, then Shankerlal inflicted kunt blow from backside. Due to the incident, his mother and Bhundaram died on

the spot. At that time, due to hue and cry, Binjaram, Anwar Khan and Sayari reached there who saw the incident. His sister Indra was also there.

On the basis of this information, FIR was registered and filed charge-sheet for the offences as mentioned in the FIR and the charges under the

above mentioned offences were framed.

The accused denied the charges and sought trial.

During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 69 documents in support of prosecution story. The appellants-accused

were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the rival submissions of the prosecution and the defence, the trial court convicted and

sentenced the appellants-accused vide judgment dated 29.09.2008 as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred this

appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the appellants-accused contended that Sayari (PW-13) was projected as eye-witness of the incident. Smt. Sayari Devi (PW-

13) has not supported the prosecution story. If she would have been an eye-witness, then certainly she, being a relative of the deceased, must have

disclosed the real story before the trial court. The learned trial court, while convicting the appellants-accused, has not considered this aspect of the

matter. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubt.

It was also contended that no offence can be said to have been committed unless and until some motive behind the act complained of is established. In

the present case, as per the prosecution story, there was a plot, which was alleged to be in possession of the complainant party and due to this, the

appellants-accused became aggressor and tried to take possession thereof. As per the statement of Gulab Ram (PW-16), who is a material witness of

the story, categorically stated that prior to the incident, almost 7-8 months, the plot, which was connected in this case was being possessed by the

complainant party. However, one portion was sold by one of the co-accused Shankarlal though the possession was not delivered to him. Therefore, on

the fateful day, Shankarlal and his relatives, just to take legal share went to the plot in question and asked for handing over the possession but the same

was denied by them, therefore, the incident occurred and resultantly two persons died on the spot. It was also contended that the statements of eye-

witnesses are not reliable because as per the statement of Dr. Balchand Gulechha (PW-5), who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and

looking to the postmortem report, it reveals that no injury was caused by blunt weapon. In view of the fact as alleged by the witness to the extent that

Prakash inflicted injury by lathi, it seems that the prosecution has concocted the story to connect the other accused under this false case. Hence, in

view of the untrustworthyness of eyewitnesses, the appellants-accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

It was also submitted that the learned trial court has also not considered the glaring contradictions. The learned trial court has also failed to consider

the glaring contradictions but there is no whisper regarding contradictions. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial court is perverse and contrary to

material placed on record.

It was also contended that looking to the FSL Report, article contains only human blood has been mentioned but the blood group was not determined in

the FSL Report, Ex.P/69. The prosecution has failed to prove as to what was the blood group of the appellants-accused. No matching of the blood

group was made. This fact has also not been considered by the learned trial court while convicting the appellants-accused and the judgment under

appeal is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellantsaccused and contended that the

prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubt. Omkaran @ Ramkaran (PW-18) lodged the

report just after the incident and according to the report, statements of witnesses were recorded by the police and all the accused, after their arrest,

given information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and on their information, recoveries were made. There are eye-witnesses of the incident.

Omkaran @ Ramkaran (PW-18) is the injured eyewitness and his sister Indra (PW-12), who was present at the place of incident, has fully supported

the prosecution story. Binja Ram (PW-14) and Anwar Khan (PW-15), who reached at the place of occurrence on hearing the hue and cry, have also

supported the prosecution story. There are no material contradictions in their statements. All the appellants-accused formed an unlawful assembly and

in furtherance of common object, inflicted injuries on deceased Manjla Devi and Bhunda Ram and committed murder.

Pushpa (PW-10), Ummed (PW-11), Indra (PW-12), Binja Ram (PW-14) and Anwar Khan (PW-15), in their statements, corroborated the prosecution

story and stated that all the accused are involved in commission of crime. The witnesses Binja Ram (PW-14) and Anwar Khan (PW-15) although did

not name Kanya but witnesses Indra (PW-12) and Om Karan @ Ramkaran (PW-18), in their statements, named Kanya as accused and on the

information of Kanya, lathi was recovered on which human blood of Group ‘B’ was found and Article 13 was identified by the investigating

officer in the court and he further stated that on the information given by Kanya, Article-13 was recovered and the prosecution has successfully

proved the guilt of the appellantsaccused beyond reasonable doubt.

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the evidence placed on record.

It was alleged that the appellants-accused formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of a common object and inflicted injuries on the deceased.

A mere assembly of persons, however, which does not constitute unlawful assembly where meeting is for a lawful purpose, even if some members of

the assembly resort to unlawful course or commit offences. The essential pre-requisite to render an assembly should have one or more of the common

objects enumerated in Section 141 IPC. [AIR 1956 SC 513]

The common object of an unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly

at or before the scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be detected from the facts and circumstances of each case. [(1989) 1 SCC 437]

In the absence of the finding that the assembly was promoted by a common object within the meaning of the Section, it cannot be branded as an

unlawful assembly. [AIR 1978 SC 1021].

Acting in a body cannot be a decisive factor in inferring common object. Many other factors, such as membership of assembly, the weapons used and

the nature of inference as well as other concerning circumstances have also to be taken into consideration. In a given case, the prosecution has to

prove that the person concerned was not only a member of the unlawful assembly at some stage but also shared the common object of such assembly

at all the crucial stages. [(1994) 1 SCC 736]

The facts and circumstances showing that none of the accused had any intention to kill any particular person but when the parties came to clash, only

one assailant giving blows on the head of the deceased by sharp cutting weapon. It was held that the accused person could not be said to have any

common object to commit murder of the deceased. [1993 Cr.L.J. 3540 (SC)]

Under Section 149 IPC, the liability arose by reasons of the membership of the unlawful assembly with the common object and there may be no active

participation at all in commission of the offence. Over act need not to be proved, however, it must be proved that the object of a person composing the

assembly was common and all were aware of it. [2004(1) SCALE 104]

In view of the settled legal position, we have to weigh the evidence placed on record.Â

Om Karan @ Ram Karan (PW-18) submitted written report Ex.P/41 and informed that on 12.11.2007, at about 12.30 p.m., he along with his

mother, mother’s brother ( ekek) Ummeda Ram and his sister Indra was sitting in jhupa and at that time, his father Shankerlal S/o Jora Ram

Bagri, his elder father Mishrilal S/o Jora Ram Bagri, his cousin Prakash S/o Mishrilal, Ummeda Ram another cousin, Ummeda Ram S/o Thana Ram

and Sukha Ram S/o Ganesha Ram, sons of his father’s sister ( cqvk ), Kanya w/o Prakash (HkkstkbZ ) and Ukdi W/o Ganesha Ram came there.

Shankerlal, Mishrilal and Prakash were having kunt and the others were having lathis in their hands and Shankerlal said that since they have not

vacated the plot, therefore, he will bury them in the said plot and Shankerlal and Mishrilal inflicted injuries by kunt on his mother’s neck and head

due to which she fell down. His uncle (ekek ) Ummeda Ram was also given lathi blows, he also fell down.

In the meantime, Bhunda Ram, son of his uncle ( ekek) came from the village side, then Shankerlal, Mishrilal and Prakash inflicted kunt blows on him

and he also fell down. When he started running, then Shankerlal inflicted kunt blow from the reverse side. His mother and Bunda Ram died on the

spot. On hearing hue and cry, Binja Ram, Sayri and Anwar Khan came to the spot and saw the incident.

Om Karan @ Ramkaran (PW-18), in the parcha bayan (Ex.P/49) also stated that on hearing hue and cry, Binjaram, Anwar Khan and Sayari came to

the spot, who also witnessed the incident.

The postmortem of the deceased Manjla Devi and Bhunda Ram took place. Dr. Balchand Gulechha (PW-5), who conducted the postmortem, was

examined. This witness, in his statement, stated that on 12.10.2007, he performed postmortem at about 05.25 a.m. On examination, he found the

following injuries on the body of deceased Bhunda Ram:-

i. Incised wound 16 c.m. X 10 c.m. X 12 c.m. at left shoulder - underlynig muscles and shoulder joint, found cut at cavity of scapula.

ii. Incised wound 10 c.m. X 4 c.m. X 6 c.m. on left side of neck â€" underlynig muscles and vessels found cut extending up to back of neck.

iii. Incised wound 9 c.m. X 4 c.m. X 5 c.m. just above injury No.2 â€" underlying bone of base of skull, muscles and blood vessels found cut extended

up to cervical vertebra at back.

iv. Incised wound 15 c.m. X 3 c.m X 6 c.m at left external ear and left back of scalp â€" underlying skull bones at temporal parietal and occipital

bones found cut exposing the cut brain matter.

v. Incised wound 8 c.m. X 4 c.m. X 5 c.m. at right parietal region underlying bone muscles and brain matter found cut.

vi. Incised wound 3 c.m. X 2 c.m. X 1 c.m. at right upper forehead at hairline.

vii. Incised imputed right hand lying obliquely except right thumb.

The cause of death was shown to be the injury to brain following head injury in association with excessive haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.

On postmortem of deceased Manjra Devi, following injuries were found on her person:-

i. Incised wound 10 c.m. X 5 c.m. X 6 c.m. tailing towards left upper chest of horizontally (tailing into abrasion of 8 c.m. x linear site) at middle of

lower part of neck and food pipe, muscles and vessels, food pipe found cut. Cut extending into vertebral body.

ii. Incised wound 5 c.m. X 3 c.m. X 4 c.m. underlying cut bone and cut brain can be seen at left side of scalp, muscle over the bone, also found incised

lying obliquely. iii. Incised wound 15 c.m. X 3 c.m. X 4 c.m. underlying bones and cut brain can be seen at left side of scalp behind and above injury

No.2 extending from front of scalp to the back of scalp towards left side, muscles over the bone also found incised. iv. Incised wound 6 c.m. X 4 c.m.

X 3 c.m. underlying muscles and bones of scapula found cut at left upper back at shoulder.

All the injuries were antemortem in nature and were caused by sharp weapon.

The cause of death was injury to brain following head injury in association with injury to wind pipe and blood vessels in the front of neck.

This witness also examined the injuries of Om Karan @ Ramkaran and prepared injury report (Ex.P/16) as per which he sustained Abrasion 4 c.m. X

4 c.m. on the wrist of right hand. This witness also examined the injuries of Ummed Ram and prepared injury (Ex.P/17) as per which, he sustained the

following injuries:-

i. Incised wound 6 c.m. X ½ c.m. X 1 c.m. on parietal frontal region, wound margin clear cut, edges sharp

ii. Incised wound 4 c.m. X ½ c.m. X 1 c.m. on right scapula region, margin clear cut, edges sharp.

iii. Bruise 3 c.m. X ½ c.m. on left maxillary region reddish color.

Omkaran @ Ramkaran (PW-18), in his statement deposed that Mishrilal inflicted a kunt blow on the head of his mother and Prakash and

Shankarlal also inflicted kunt blows on the head of his mother and when Ummedaram intervened, Shankerlal, Prakash and Mishrilal inflicted kunt

blows on Ummedaram. When Bhundaram (deceased) intervened in between, Prakash inflicted a kunt blow on his right hand due to which his right

hand cut-off and when he tried to ran away, Mishrilal and Shankerlal chased him and Mishrilal inflicted a kunt blow on his shoulder due to which he

fell down and then Shankarlal inflicted a kunt blow on his head.

From a perusal of the statement of Omkaran @ Ramkaran (PW-18) and postmortem reports (Ex.P/14 and Ex.P/15) and injury reports (Ex.P/16 and

Ex.P/17), it is clear that statement of Omkaran @ Ramkaran (PW-18) stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence.

Ummed (PW-11), injured eye-witness, in his statement, deposed that on the date of incident, he was sitting in the hut of his sister Manjla and

RamKaran and Indra (son and daughter of his sister Manjla) were also there. At that time, Mishra Ram, Ummeda Ram, Shankar, Prakash, Sukhiya

and Kankudi came there and they were having kunt and lathis in their hands and started abusing them and when they came out, Mishra Ram inflicted

kunt blow on the head of his sister, Shankar inflicted a kunt blow on the head, shoulder and legs of his sister and Prakash also inflicted a kunt blow on

the person of his sister. When he intervened to save his sister, Shankerlal inflicted a kunt blow on his head and Misra Ram inflicted a kunt blow on his

shoulder.

Sayri Devi was examined as PW-13, in her statement, stated that on hearing hue and cry on the day of incident, she came out of her house. She

saw Misrilal, Shankarlal, Prakash, Sukhiya, Ummeda and Kankudi, going towards Naya Gaon. She further stated that she did not see anybody else

except them. Ummeda and Sukhiya were having lathis and Shankar, Mishri and Prakash were having kunt in their hands. This witness was declared

as hostile.

Binjaram was examined as PW-14, who in his statement stated that on hearing hue and cry, he and Anwar Khan reached there then he saw that

Shanker, Mishri, Prakash, Ummeda Ram, Sukhiya and Kankudi were standing there and they were abusing. Shankar, Mishri and Prakash were having

kunt in their hands and Sukhiya, Ummeda and Kankudi were having lathis. Prakash, Mishrilal, Shankar inflicted kunt blows on Manjla Devi due to

which she fell down and he and Anwar Khan intervened, they were threatened to stay away otherwise they will also be killed. Sukhiya and Prakash

inflicted kunt blows on Ummeda Ram and when Bhundaram came to intervene then Prakash inflicted a kunt blow on his hand and when Bhundaram

tried to ran away, then Shankar and Mishrilal chased him and inflicted kunt blows from back and after that all the accused ran away from the scene of

occurrence and then Anwar Khan informed police on telephone. This witness further stated that Manjla and her husband Shankarlal were having

dispute over plot of land where Manjla was residing. Shankarlal wanted to get vacated the said plot of land and Manjla Devi was refusing to vacate

the plot and for this reason there was dispute between them.

Anwar Khan (PW-15), in his statement, also stated that on hearing hue and cry from the side of Manjla Devi’s plot, he rushed to the spot and

saw that Mishrilal, Shankarlal, Prakash, Sukhiya, Ummeda Ram and Kankudi were abusing Manjla Devi. Mishrilal, Shankar and Prakash were having

kunt in their hands and the rest of the accused were having lathis. He further stated that he himself and Binjaram tried to conciliate between them and

tried to settle their dispute but the accused did not agree. Shankar, Prakash and Mishrilal inflicted kunt blows on Manjla Devi and when he tried to

rescue her, the accused persons gave threatening for not intervening in the matter otherwise they will also be killed. Manjla Devi became unconscious

and fell down near boundary. At that time, Ummeda Ram, brother of Manjla Devi, came to rescue her then Mishrilal, Prakash and others inflicted

injuries, then Ummeda Ram fell down blood started oozing out from his head. In the meantime, Bhunda Ram came there, who was the son of

Ummeda Ram. When he tried to rescue his father, then Prakash inflicted kunt blow, then Bhunda Ram started running away towards village, then

Mishrilal, Shankarlal and Prakash chased him and inflicted kunt blows on the back side of the kunt. Bhunda Ram fell down and at that time, all the

accused ran away. He informed police on phone. He further stated that the plot where Manjla Devi was residing, was belonging to Joraram and

accused Shankar wanted to get the plot vacated and Manjla was not ready to vacate the plot and for that reason, the incident took place and out of the

injuries inflicted, Manjla and Bhunda Ram died.

In cross-examination, this witness stated that at the time, when he heard hue and cry, he was sitting near the door of his house with his family

members. On hearing hue and cry, he alone rushed. Binjaram came after him and at that time 4-5 persons gathered. When he reached at the spot,

there was exchange of abusive language. Prakash, Shankar, Ummed Ram, Sukhram, Kankudi Devi were also using abusive language. Manjla was

also abusing and Manjla, while using abusive language, stated that she will not vacate the plot. Manjla came out of her hut. She was standing alone. It

was further stated that exchange of abusive language continued for 4-5 minutes. It was also stated that Manjla Devi started living at the disputed plot

before three months. Earlier she was living with her brother.

On analyznig the statements of witnesses (PW-13, PW14 and PW-15), they never named Kanya and the witness Indra (PW-12) daughter of

accused Shankar and sister of complainant Omkaran/Ramkaran (PW-18) named Prakash, Mishrilal, Shankarlal, Kankudi, Kanya, Ummeda Ram and

Sukhia. She, in her statement, further stated that Mishrilal, Shanker and Prakash were having kunt in their hands and the others were having lathis and

started abusing her mother and uncle ( ekek ), while saying to come out from the plot of land. Mishrilal inflicted kunt blows on her mother. She further

stated that other than Mishrilal, who inflicted injuries on her mother, is not known to her. Her mother fell down and her uncle ( ekek) Ummed Ram

tried to rescue, then Shankarlal inflicted kunt blows, her uncle ( ekek ) became unconscious and fell down. At that time, Bhunda Ram came from the

village side, then Prakash inflicted kunt blow on the head of Bhunda Ram. She further stated that the persons possessing lathis also inflicted injuries,

but she could not assign lathi blows. In the cross-examination, she has stated that when her uncle (ekek ) and mother came out of hut, then she also

came out and she saw that Sayri and Anwar Khan were also present there. She further stated that at the time when the hot exchange was going on,

then Sayri,was also there. She further narrated that the other persons from the mohalla also continued to speak but she could not understand as what

they were talking. Thereafter, she further stated that they were also saying, “leave it leave itâ€​.

On scrutiny of the statements of these witnesses, it has come out that before the actual act of beating, there were 5-7 persons present and hot

exchange of abusive language between Manjla and accused persons continued for near about five minutes and the accused were pressing upon

Manjla to vacate the plot of land, which actually belonged to her father-in-law and her husband wanted to sell the same to others. Manjla was refusing

to vacate the plot of land. The facts and circumstances show that none of the accused had any intention to kill any particular person but when the

parties came to clash, only Shankar Lal and then Mishri Lal inflicted kunt blows on Manjla Devi.

From the evidence on record, it has also come out that all the injuries inflicted on Manjla and Bhundaram were assigned to Mishrilal, Shankarlal and

Prakash and the injuries inflicted on Ummeda Ram were assigned to Shankarlal. From the perusal of postmortem reports of Manjla Devi, Bhundaram

as also the injury report of Ummeda Ram and statement Dr. Balchand Gulechha (PW-5), it has come out that Manjla Devi suffered four injuries and

Bhundaram suffered seven injuries. All the injuries were incised wound and caused by sharp-edged weapon. Omkaran @ Ramkaran sustained

abrasion on the wrist of right hand, which was caused by the blunt weapon and injuries of Ummeda Ram, as per Ex.P/17, were also caused by sharp-

edged weapon. No injury of lathi was on the body of any of the persons including Manjla Devi and Bhundaram nor any overt act of Sukh Ram,

Ummed Ram, Kanya and Kankudi was shown by any of the witnesses. There is no evidence that all these accused persons knew before hand that

the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of a common object. All the accused pesons named, gathered there and

exchanged abusive language and pressed Manjla Devi to vacate the plot of land. Sukhram, Ummed Ram, Smt. Kanya and Smt. Kankudi were not

assigned any overt act and did not participated in commission of the actual act, which took place after heated exchange of abusive language.

For bringing an act under the purview of Section 149 IPC, the following two are the essential ingredients:-

(i) it must be either an offence committed by a member of the unlawful assembly; or

(ii) an offence such as the members of that assembly knew it to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.

There is no evidence on record that the murders of Manjla and Bhundaram have been committed in prosecution of common object of that assembly or

that the members of that assembly knew it likely to be committed. The appellants-accused Sukha Ram who is son of aunty ( cqvk ) of complainant,

Ummed Ram who is also son of another aunty ( cqvk ), Smt. Kanya who is the wife of accused Prakash and Smt. Kankudi who is aunty (c qvk ) of

the complainant, they have been implicated in the act by way of over-implication.

So far as recovery of lathi from Smt. Kanya is concerned, no injury was found on the body of any injured caused by lathi. All the injuries were found

to be caused by a sharp-edged weapon. Further, there was no matching of blood-group found on the lathi alleged to have been recovered from the

possession of Smt. Kanya and, therefore, no inference can be drawn against Smt. Kanya. The prosecution has failed to establish that the the act was

committed in furtherance of common object.

In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that Shankarlal, Mishrilal and Prakash are responsible individually for the act committed by them.

So far as the deceased Manjla is concerned, as per the postmortem report, the cause of her death was injury to brain following head injury in

association with injury to wind pipe and blood vessels in front of neck. From the evidence of Ummed (PW11), Indra (PW-12), Binjaram (PW-14),

Anwar Khan (PW-15) and Om Karan @ Ramkaran (PW-18), it has transpired that all these witnesses have attributed causing injuries on head of

Manjla with kunth categorically to Mishrilal and Shankerlal, which resulted into her death.

So far as the deceased Bhundaram is concerned, the cause of death shown in his postmortem report is the injury to brain following head injury in

association with excessive haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. The witnesses Ummed (PW11), Indra (PW-12), Binjaram (PW-14), Anwar Khan

(PW-15) and Om Karan @ Ramkaran (PW-18) have categorically stated that the appellant-accused Prakash inflicted kunth blow on the right hand

wrist of Bhundaram and when he tried to run away, Shankarlal and Mishrilal chased him; Mishrilal inflicted injury with kunth on the shoulder and when

Bhundaram fell down, Shankarlal inflicted injury with kunth on his head. Thus, the injury caused by Prakash was not fatal to cause his death and it

was injuries caused by Shankarlal and Mishrilal on his head, which caused the death of Bhundaram.

So far as the injuries caused to Ram Karan and Ummeda Ram are concerned, Dr. Balmukand Gulechha (PW-5), in his statement, stated that he has

examined the injuries caused to Ram Karan and Ummeda Ram. Ram Karan had one simple injury caused by blunt weapon and injured Ummeda Ram

had suffered three injuries. Injury No.1 was caused by sharp weapon and injuries Nos.2 and 3 by blunt weapon. For Injuries Nos.1 and 2, opinion for

X-ray examination was given and injury No.3 was simple. Injury report of Ummeda Ram is Ex.P/17. X-ray report for injuries Nos.1 and 2 was not

placed on record nor there is any opinion that the injuries Nos.1 and 2 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

On analyzing the evidence on record, it was found that the injuries caused to Ram Karan is assigned to Shankar Lal and injuries caused to

Ummeda Ram are assigned by witness PW-11 Ummed to Shankar Lal and Mishri Lal and by PW-15 Anwar Khan and PW-18 Omkaran, injuries

were assigned to Prakash, Shankar Lal and Mishri Lal. In view of this, conviction of Shankar Lal, Mishri Lal and Prakash under Sections 323 and 324

IPC is maintained.

Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants-accused Shankarlal, Mishrilal and Prakash are acquitted of the charges under Sections 148

and 149IPC. The conviction of the appellants-accused Shankarlal and Mishirlal under Section 302 IPC is maintained. The conviction of appellant-

accused Prakash is modified in the manner that he is discharged from the offence under Section 302 IPC and instead he is convicted under Section

326 IPC.Â

Consequently, the sentence of appellants-accused Shankarlal and Mishrilal for offence under Section 302IPC as aforesaid is maintained. The sentence

of appellants-accused Shankarlal, Mishrilal and Prakash for offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC is also maintained. The appellant-accused

Prakash is sentenced to undergo 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default whereof to undergo six months’ simple

imprisonment, for offence under Section 326 IPC.

If the appellant-accused Prakash has served the substantial sentence, he be released immediately, if not required in any other case.

The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants-accused Sukha Ram, Ummed Ram, Smt. Kanya and Smt. Kanku beyond reasonable

doubt, hence, they are acquitted of all the charges by giving benefit of doubt. The appellantsaccused Sukha Ram, Ummed Ram, Smt. Kanya and Smt.

Kanku are on bail. Their bail bonds are canceled.

Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the appellants-accused Sukha Ram, Ummed Ram, Smt. Kanya and Smt. Kanku

are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount each, before the learned trial court,

which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of

leave, the appellants-accused, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.