State of U.P. vs Naurtu Singh and Others

M.C. Jain, J.—This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 18.5.1992 passed by Sri Chhotey Lai, the then Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 1990 recording acquittal in favour of the four Respondents who are police personnel, namely, Naurtu Singh, S.I., Constable Mahesh Chand, Constable Jwala Prasad and Constable Virendra Kumar. Charge-sheet had been laid by C.B. C.I.D. against them and four others, namely, S.I. Devi Dayal, Constable Dambar Singh, Constable Radhey Shyam and Constable Ram Sanehi but only the present four Respondents faced the trial while summoning order against the remaining four had been quashed and the Criminal Revision Nos. 238 of 1986 and 219 of 1988. The present four Respondents were tried for the offences punishable u/s 148, I.P.C, 302, I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 452, I.P.C. The murder of one Lakkhu Singh was involved and the place of occurrence was the house of Lakkhu Singh in village Kinawa, Police Station Kasganj, District Etah on 20.8.1983 at about 9.30 p.m. The prosecution case was that in 1982 the Respondents were posted at police outpost Inaiti of Police Station Kasganj. On 4.7.1983 at about 6 a.m. the accused Respondent Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad along with three companion Constables wen to village Kinawa and caused marpit of Lakkhu Singh, his sons Suraj Pal Singh and Saheb Singh his wife Nemwati. Smt. Vidya wife of Saheb Singh and Smt. Meera wile of Suraj Pal when they were at their field of maize crop. S.I. Naurtu Singh and others also extended threats to them. Regarding this occurrence, Lakkhu Singh deceased made an application to the C.J.M. Etah u/s 156(3). Code of Criminal Procedure on 7.7.1983. A case was directed to be registered and investigated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, requiring a report by 7.9.1983. Consequently, a case was registered at Police Station, Kasganj in which S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad were the named accused. Annoyed thereby the Respondents were looking for an opportunity of settling the score with Lakkhu Singh and his family. On 20.8.1983 S.I. Naurtu Singh, another S.I. Devi Dayal, Constables Jwala Prasad, Mahesh Chandra, Virendra Kumar. Dambar Singh, Ram Sanehi and Radhev Shyam along with two sections of P.A.C. set out at 5 p.m. The P.A.C. truck and police jeep were parked at some distance from village Kinawa because onwards way was not jeepable. At about 9.30 p.m. the said police force surrounded the house of deceased Lakkhu Singh. They went inside the house and overpowered Lakkhu Singh and his son Bharat Singh. P.W. 1. The police personnel were armed with lathis and dandas also. They assaulted Lakkhu Singh and Bharat Singh, P.W. 1. Their cries attracted Achhey Lal. Phool Singh and other villagers. Phool Singh was also given a beating. Lakkhu Singh became unconscious as a result of assaulting. The police personnel then directed Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 and Phool Singh to carry the injured Lakkhu Singh to the place where the P.A.C. truck and jeep had been parked. The injured Lakkhu Singh, Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 and Phool Singh were placed on the P.A.C. truck. Lakkhu Singh died on the way. Bharat Singh. P.W. 1 lodged report about this incident at the Police Station on 21.8.1983 at 1 a.m. in which S.I. Naurtu Singh. Constable Jwala Prasad. Constable Virendra Singh and Constable Mahesh Chandra were named along with one Daroga, two Constables and P.A.C. personnel whose names had not been disclosed. A case u/s 147/148/149/ 452/302 I.P.C. was registered by Head Constable Kalvan Singh, P.W. 6.

A little earlier thereto at 12.25 a.m. a written report Ex. Ka 4 with a different version of the occurrence was lodged at Police Station Kasganj by S.I. Naurtu Singh--Respondent No. 1 also. The version given by him in the report was that he along with S.I. Devi Dayal. Constable Dambar Singh, Constable Radhey Shyam. Constable Jwala Prasad, Constable Mahesh Chandra. Constable Virendra Kumar, and Constable Ram Sanehi duly armed along with two sections of P.A.C. were in search of wanted criminals and when they reached in the northern side of village Kinawa at about 10 p.m. Lakkhu Singh, his son Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 and Phool Singh met them in injured condition and disclosed that because of party factions and enmity in the village there had been a quarrel and Lakkhu Singh was precariously injured. At their request, they were accommodated on the Government vehicle but Lakkhu Singh died on the way.

The defence as put forth at the trial was that injury to Lakkhu Singh had been caused by his son Bharat Singh. P.W. 1 and others and when Phool Singh, P.W. 2 and others rushed to mediate in the matter, he (Phool Singh) was also inflicted injuries. The accused-Respondents, however, did not examine any witness in support of their defence.

On the other hand, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 was the son of deceased Lakkhu Singh and the informant as also the injured of the present felony. He narrated the entire incident. He was supported by his mother Nemwati, P.W. 3 who was the victim and eye-witness of earlier incident of 4.7.1983 about which too she gave evidence and regarding which the application u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure., Ex. Ka 7 was made by her husband Lakkhu Singh naming S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad (Respondents) along with three unknown Constables. Phool Singh, P.W. 2 was also an injured. However, instead of standing by the side of prosecution, he supported the defence case. Another witness was Head Constable of P.A.C. Dashrath Singh, P.W. 4. Yet another eye-witness examined was P.A.C. Head Constable Parmatma Singh, P.W. 7. One Ajay Pal Singh, P.W. 5 was also examined as an eye-witness but he was also declared hostile having not supported the prosecution case. He stated that shouts were emanating from the house of Lakkhu Singh and he had reached there. He had found that Lakkhu Singh, Saheb Singh and Bharat Singh, P.W, 1 were quarrelling and Lakkhu Singh and Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 had sustained injuries. According to him, he did not see the Respondents assaulting them. His version was that they came later on and took them away. The version of Phool Singh, P.W. 2 was also to the effect that in the night at about 9.30 or 10 p.m. he had heard shouts from the house of Lakkhu Singh and had reached there where he had found Saheb Singh and Lakkhu Singh quarrelling. During the course of the incident the police arrived and took away Lakkhu Singh and his son along with him. He testified that during the quarrel between Lakkhu Singh and his sons he also sustained injuries while mediating. Nav Ratan Singh, Advocate P.W. 8 proved Ex.Ka 7 which was the application made by Lakkhu Singh to the Chef Judicial Magistrate, Etah in relation to the earlier incident of 4.7.1983. Dy. S.P. of C.B. C.I.D. Sri Mahavir Singh Tomar, P.W. 9 had investigated the case. The later part of the investigation was conducted by Inspector P.C. Chaturvedi.

It may also be staged here that the injury reports of Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 and Phool Singh, P.W. 2 and post-mortem report of the deceased Lakkhu Singh were exhibited without formal proof as the accused Respondents admitted the same. As per the injury report Ex.Ka 23 of Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 he had sustained a bruise with traumatic swelling which was of a blunt object and simple in nature. As per the injury report Ex.Ka 22 of Phool Singh, P.W. 2 he had sustained seven simple injuries of blunt object. The postmortem report of the deceased Lakkhu Singh is Ex.Ka 21. Postmortem over his dead body was conducted on 21.8.1983 at 4.30 p.m. by P.W. 4, Dr. G.C. Agrawal. He was aged about 55 years. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person:

Lacerated wound 2.5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x scalp deep on left side of head 10 cm. from left ear and 14 cm. from left eyebrow. On dissection 2 cc, hematoma present underneath the scalp.

Contusion 8 cm. x 6 cm. on outer aspect of left upper arm. Upper part. On dissection hematoma present in subcutaneous tissues and muscle fibers lacerated.

Abraded contusion 10 cm. x 8 cm. on dorsum of left hand wrist. On dissection extensive hematoma present in subcutaneous tissues.

Contusion in an area of 24 cm. x 8 cm. on front of leg (left) in middle. On dissection extensive hematoma present on muscles, tissues torn.

Contusion 11 cm. x 10 cm. on outer aspect of right upper arm middle. On dissection extensive hematoma present in tissues and muscles torn.

Abraded contusion 6 cm. x 4 cm. on back of right upper arm upper part. On dissection hematoma present in tissues and muscles torn.

Contusion 17 cm. x 3 cm. on back of chest in middle across midline, transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in layers of muscles.

Multiple contusion on right buttock in an area of 20 cm. x 14 cm. varying in size. On dissection extensive hematoma present in tissues and layers of muscles.

Abraded contusion 8 cm. x 6 cm. on front of right knee. On dissection hematoma present in tissues and knee joint.

Abrasion 4 cm. x, 1 cm. on outer aspect of right knee joint. On dissection hematoma present in tissues underneath.

On appraisal of evidence, the learned trial Judge believed the defence case and discarded the prosecution case and evidence. He accordingly, recorded acquittal in favour of the accused Respondents. Aggrieved, the State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal.

We have heard learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State in support of the appeal and Sri P.N. Mishra learned Counsel for Respondents in opposition of the appeal. We have also carefully gone through the evidence on record. On a thoughtful consideration, we are of the opinion that the entire edifice of acquittal has been built by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on what has been stated by the hostile prosecution witnesses in support of defence. He presumably thought that what was stated by them favouring the defence was to be accepted as gospel truth without any demur and without subjecting the same to judicial scrutiny. He seemingly proceeded with a priori approach, applying a fault finding standard to the prosecution evidence and ignoring the inherent and natural probabilities/improbabilities. He also attached uncalled for importance to insignificant variations in the testimony of Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 and Nemwati. P.W. 3, highlighting them as material contradictions. The salient features emerging from the admitted facts and the evidence on record have conveniently been given a go-bye by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which clinchingly proved the guilt of at least the accused Respondent S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad. No doubt, benefit of doubt may be afforded to the remaining two accused Respondents, namely. Constable Mahesh Chandra and Constable Virendra Kumar. We intend to deal with the solid facts emerging from the evidence on record to prove these two accused Respondents S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad to be guilty.

The first and the foremost aspect of the matter which has not been taken note of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that the present incident took place on 20.8.1983 at about 9.30 p.m. at the house of Lakkhu Singh deceased whose son Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 injured and wife Nemwati, P.W. 3 are. There had been an earlier incident on 4.7.1983 at about 6 a.m. at the field of Lakkhu Singh regarding which he had made an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah on 7.7.1983, Ex.Ka 7 naming S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad along with three unknown Constables as having assaulted him, his sons Suraj Pal and Saheb Singh, his wife Smt. Nemwati. P.W. 3, Saheb Singh''s wife Smt. Vidya and Surajpal''s wife Meera Devi with the butts of the guns. They had also allegedly offered threats that he (Lakkhu Singh) and his sons Suraj Pal and Saheb Singh would be exterminated in fake e-counter. Thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate, had directed a case to be registered and report submitted by 7.9.1983. The case came to be registered in consequence thereof. It cannot be doubted that S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad being posted under the same Police Station came to know of such audacity on the part of Lakkhu Singh of having moved an application u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure against them causing a case to be registered against them. It would have naturally annoyed them. Judged in this right perspective, they must have taken it into their heads to settle score with Lakkhu Singh and his family members to teach them a lesson. Thus, there was a deep and clear animus on the part of S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad to have indulged in this crime by raiding the house of Lakkhu Singh at about 9.30 p.m. in the fateful night and to mercilessly give thrashing to him as also to his son Bharat Singh. P.W. 1.

Secondly, the defence version believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was self-contradictory. It did not at all find support from what the hostile present witnesses Phool Singh, P.W. 2 and Ajay Pal Singh. P.W. 5 stated. The defence case as per the report Ex. Ka 4 lodged by S.I. Naurtu Singh at Police Station Kasganj on 21.8.1983 at 12.25 a.m. was that Lakkhu Singh and the other injured (Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 and Phool Singh. P.W. 2) had met the police party at about 10 p.m. in the northern side of village Kinawa in injured condition and the condition of Lakkhu Singh was precarious. On the other hand, what Phool Singh, P.W. 2 and Ajay Pal Singh, P.W. 5 (hostile prosecution witnesses) have stated is that the police had reached the house of Lakkhu Singh and had taken him and his son on the truck along with Phool Singh, P.W. 2 after inquiring as to why they were quarrelling. Obviously, what these two hostile prosecution witnesses stated in an attempt to help the accused did not reconcile with the version of the report Ex.Ka 4 lodged by S.I. Naurtu Singh at the Police Station as to how he and the police party happened to meet the injured. As the adage goes, two falsehoods fight between themselves. It appears that Phool Singh, P.W. 2 and Ajay Pal Singh, P.W. 5 attempted to help the defence without realizing the implication of what they were stating and the fact that their attempt to help out the defence side was in marked contradiction of what was mentioned by S.I. Naurtu Singh in the report Ex. Ka 4 earlier lodged at the Police Station.

It is also pertinent to observe that there could hardly be any possibility of the injured Lakkhu Singh (deceased) and his injured son Bharat Singh. P.W. 1 walking together to be found by the police party headed by S.I. Naurtu Singh at about 10 p.m. near the northern side of their village Kinawa, if they had actually fought between themselves and sustained injuries. The presence of Phool Singh, P.W. 2 with them in such a manner is against his own statement made as P.W. 2 that he too had been picked up by the police along with Lakkhu Singh and his son from their house and taken to the Police Station.

Furthermore, it is against the natural probabilities that S.I. Naurtu Singh would have taken the precariously injured Lakkhu Singh (deceased) along with his injured son Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 despite the fact that he (Lakkhu Singh) had earlier caused a case to be registered against him and Constable Jwala Prasad by making an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Etah on 7.7.1983 u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure regarding an earlier incident of 4.7.1983. It is not acceptable that he was too dutiful that he accommodated his opponent and his son on the Government vehicle simply because they requested him to do so in injured condition. Moreover, if it were so, he would have straightaway taken them to the nearest Primary Health Centre for immediate medical aid instead of to the Police Station.

Judged from all the possible angles what appears to be the truth is that S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad with certain other police personnel of Civil Police and P.A.C. made a planning to settle score with Lakkhu Singh and his family members because of Lakkhu Singh having dared to make an application against them u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure earlier causing a case to be registered against them (S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad) regarding the incident of 4.7.1983. They mercilessly assaulted Lakkhu Singh and his son Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 as also Phool Singh, P.W. 2 who happened to reach there to mediate. The attending and related circumstances lead to the justifiable inference that these two police personnel S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad had some foul design to deal with Lakkhu Singh (deceased) and his son Bharat Singh, P.W. 1. It was for this reason that they had been lifted from their house after being assaulted mercilessly. May be their planning was to exterminate them by weaving some imaginary story justifying their action against them. We have just said so by way of passing reference as it is not germane for the decision of the case as to how S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad intended to ultimately deal with Lakkhu Singh and Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 whom they had picked up from their house after assaulting them. It appears that at the time of the incident, Phool Singh, P.W. 2 had sided with Lakkhu Singh and his son Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 and it was for this reason that he too was assaulted by S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad along with their companions and was picked up along with them. Pausing here for a moment, the reason of Phool Singh, P.W. 2 and Ajay Pal Singh, P.W. 5 turning hostile may be explained. The point need not be laboured much that everyone is primarily concerned about his safety and of his family members. We have not the slightest doubt that these two witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution in their own interest and for their safety and those of their family members, under the pressure of the Respondents who are police personnel. In cooler moments they thought to care for their own interests and safety and did not think it worthwhile to be on inimical terms with the police. They had themselves seen as to what happened to Lakkhu Singh who had been audacious to file application against a Sub-Inspector and against police Constable of the area. The ultimate fate of Lakkhu Singh shuddered and unnerved them and they decided to back out, instead of supporting the prosecution.

The statement of P.A.C. Head Constable Dashrath Singh, P.W. 4 may be ignored as being not spontaneous because he has stated that certain lawyers had reached the P.A.C. camp and had commanded him to tender evidence for the prosecution as otherwise he would be made an accused. P.A.C. Head Constable Parmatma Singh, P.W. 7 stated that he had remained outside the house of Lakkhu Singh when the accused Respondents had brought out of the house three persons, assaulting them who were taken to Police Station Kasganj. The statement supports the prosecution version in certain measure that the three persons brought out of the house of Lakkhu Singh were Lakkhu Singh himself, his son Bharat Singh. P.W. 1 and Phool Singh, P.W. 2 who had been taken to the Police Station. It may be observed that at any rate, the evidence of the witnesses declared by the prosecution hostile could be ignored and the case could be judged on the strength of other evidence of the prosecution viz, eye-witnesses Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 injured and Nemwati, P.W. 3. But there could be no justification whatsoever to discard the prosecution case on the strength of what the hostile witnesses Phool Singh, P.W. 2 and Ajay Pal Singh, P.W. 5 stated against the prosecution. It was not at all possible to seek support for the defence version by straining beyond permissible limits the truncated portions of the statements of the hostile witnesses despite stark contradictions between what they stated in favour of defence and what was mentioned by S.I. Naurtu Singh in the report Ex. Ka 4 and also having regard to the inherent and natural probabilities of the situation which have been dealt with above in desirable details.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that there were material contradictions in the testimony of Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 and Nemwati, P.W. 3 as to whether P.A.C. personnel entered their house, as to what weapons the assailants wielded and as to the actual place of occurrence. Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 stated that some of the P.A.C. personnel had also entered the house. On the other hand, the version of Nemwati, P.W. 3 was that P.A.C. personnel kept outside her house. It had further been pointed out that as per Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 the accused assaulted with lathis and butts but Nemwati, P.W. 3 deposed that the accused assaulted with lathis and dandas. It has again been pointed out that as per the statement of Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 the incident first took place in Gher and then in Chowk (courtyard). On the other hand, the statement of Nemwati, P.W. 3 is that the incident took place inside the house.

We have carefully gone through the statements of these two eye-witnesses and we are of the opinion that there is no material contradiction between the evidence of the two and insignificant aspects are unnecessarily being harped upon from the side of the Respondents. It is not at all material as to whether or not the P.A.C. personnel entered the house or not. None of them is on trial. The pertinent question is the participation of the accused-Appellants S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad whose participation in the crime inside the house is established beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 and Nemwati, P.W. 3. It has clearly come in the testimony of Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 that there is single boundary of his house and Cher with a single door in the northern side. It is fortified by the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the Gher and Chowk form part of the house. All the injuries had been caused by blunt objects. Therefore, it is not very material as to whether only lathis and dandas had been used or the injuries had been caused by butts also. Causing injury by a butt would also be one by blunt object. Therefore, we do not find any material contradiction on crucial points in the testimony of Bharat Singh. P.W. 1 and Nemwati, P.W. 3. It should also be kept in mind that discrepancies in the matters of details always occur in the evidence of truthful witnesses. Such variations creep in because there are always natural differences in the faculties of different individuals in the manner of observation, perception and description. Natural variances are bound to be there regarding same occurrence in the version of different eye-witnesses unless they give tutored or crammed evidence in parrot like manner.

So far as the Respondent S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad are concerned, their participation in the crime is clinchingly and satisfactorily proved by the trustworthy testimony of Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 and Nemwati. P.W. 3. Both of them stated that they knew the accused from before as they often used to come to their village. So, there could be no question of mistaken identity in respect of them. For Nemwati P.W. 3 there was an additional reason to have known them because they had allegedly assaulted her, her husband, her sons and wives of her sons on an earlier occasion on 4th July, 1983 at her field of maize crop and an application u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure had been made by her husband against both of them (along with three unknown Constables) Ex. Ka 7 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah on 7.7.1983. Indeed, they were the most natural witnesses of the incident as being the inmates of the house where the present incident took place in the night. It would be recalled that one of them, namely. Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 is injured also whose injury report is also there on record. As mentioned earlier, both of them had deep animus to indulge in this crime. Benefit of doubt may be extended to the other two Respondents, namely. Constable Mahesh Chandra and Constable Virendra Kumar as they had no animus against the deceased Lakkhu Singh and his family. There was no previous background between them on the one hand and Lakkhu Singh and his family on the other. The possibility cannot be ruled out that they were simply physically present at the spot at the command of their superior S.I. Naurtu Singh but did not participate in the incident. Therefore, we find it just and proper to afford to them the benefit of doubt as per the judicial norms. But there can be no question of any benefit of doubt to be given to Section I-. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad who definitely participated in this incident and who had a previous background of deep animus against Lakkhu Singh deceased and his family.

We feel that a separate charge ought to have been framed for the injuries having been caused to the other injured. The injury reports of two injured Bharat Singh, P.W. 1 and Phool Singh. P.W. 2 are there on record but at this stage we do not find it expedient to reopen this chapter and confine ourselves to what they did to Lakkhu Singh (deceased). It appears to us that Respondents S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad were so intoxicated of their powers as police personnel that they had no regard for the valuable right of life and liberty enjoyable by every citizen. The powers with which they were clothed to protect the life and property on the citizens inhabiting the society were misused in just opposite and reverse manner by mercilessly assaulting Lakkhu Singh on the given date, time and place. The incident is an example where the fence ate up the crop. The law protectors became the lay breakers in a beastly manner.

Learned Counsel for Respondents has argued that the injuries of Lakkhu Singh as reported in the post-mortem report cannot carry the case beyond Section 325 I.P.C. We do not agree. It should be pointed out that Lakkhu Singh was aged about 55 years. As many as ten injuries were mercilessly inflicted on different parts of his body with extensive damages underneath. The Respondents S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad Singh were law knowing police personnel. They conducted themselves as they were law unto themselves. As a result of the merciless assault, Lakkhu Singh had been rendered unconscious at the spot itself and died a little while later in their custody in Government vehicle. Having regard to the facts, evidence and the circumstances of the case, it has to be imputed to the Respondents S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad Singh that the act (assaulting Lakkhu Singh) was done by them with the knowledge that it was likely to cause his death. The case is clearly covered under Part II of Section 304, I.P.C. and both of them, namely, S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad are to be punished therefor. Both of them were acting in concert with common intention. They have to be punished under Part II of Section 304. I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. It may be put on record that the Apex Court has held in the case of Amar Singh Vs. State on Haryana, . that conviction "read with Section 34 I.P.C." is possible when charge is "read with Section 149. I.P.C". if the facts proved and the evidence adduced would have been the same if the accused had been charged "read with Section 34, I.P.C." In such a case, failure to charge the accused "read with Section 34, I.P.C." does not result in any prejudice. We are of the opinion that a sentence of seven years'' rigorous imprisonment to each of them, namely, S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad under Part II of Section 304, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

In view of the discussion and reasons detailed hereinabove, we partly allow this appeal. The appeal is dismissed as against the Constable Mahesh Chandra and Constable Virendra Kumar. However, we set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal as regards the Respondents S.I. Naurtu Singh and Constable Jwala Prasad. We find both of them guilty for the offence punishable under Part II of Section 304, I.P.C. read with Section 34. I.P.C. Both of them are accordingly, convicted for the said offence. Each of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the said offence punishable under Part II of Section 304. I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. Both these Respondents are on bail. They shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence passed against them.