State of U.P. vs Vijay Singh and Others

K.S. Rakhra, J.—These are connected appeals and revision against the judgment and order dated 6.8.2005, passed in S.T. No. 19 of 1998, connected with S.T. No. 104 of 1998 by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jalaun, whereby he has convicted seven persons namely Vijay Singh, Shailendra Singh, Amit Singh, Shyam Singh, Ram Singh, Shobha Singh and Vishal Singh u/s 364 read with 149, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each and further convicted and sentenced them to one year u/s 147, I.P.C.

Out of these persons Vishal Singh, Vijay Singh, Shailendra Singh and Amit Singh have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4360 of 2005, challenging their conviction and sentence. Similarly Ram Singh and Shyam Singh have jointly challenged their conviction through Criminal Appeal No. 4437 of 2005 and Shobha Singh has challenged his conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No. 3613 of 2005. All these seven persons were accused of kidnapping Puran Singh son of Lakhan Singh on 26.9.1997. His dead body was found in a well on 27.9.1997. These Appellants were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 364/149, 302/149 and 201/149, I.P.C. The trial court acquitted them for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. and 201/149, I.P.C. This acquittal has been challenged by the State through Government Appeal No. 5150 of 2005 and by the complainant Girendra Singh by filing Criminal Revision No. 3967 of 2005. Since all these appeals and revision have arisen out of one judgment they are being decided together.

Out of accused-Appellants, three namely Vijay Singh, Shailendra Singh and Vishal Singh are real brothers being sons of Dhara Singh. Appellant Shobha Singh is their real uncle and Appellant Amit Singh is son of Shobha Singh. Remaining two Appellants Ram Singh and Shyam Singh are cousin brothers from another family, having a common grandfather.

The incident took place allegedly in a hotel of Phool Singh Yadav in mohalla Deo Nagar of township of Jalaun within circle of P. S. Jalaun. It is alleged that Appellant Vishal Singh resident of Hardoi Raja was in litigation with Angad Singh of same village and there was strong enmity between the two with regard to management of school. The deceased Puran Singh used to casually drive jeep of Angad Singh and used to remain in his company. This was cause of annoyance for Vishal Singh and his family members against the deceased.

According to prosecution on 26.9.1997 the informant Girendra Singh alongwith his brother Puran Singh (deceased) and fellow villagers Ram Kumar Singh, Ram Raja and Niranjan of village Hardoi Raja and Dinesh Chandra of village Sihari Doudpur, Shyam Bihari of village Parvatpur had come to the township of Jalaun for some work. Since they became late for return to their village, they all went to the hotel of Phool Singh Yadav at Deo Nagar crossing of Churkhi road and were eating food. At about 7.45 p.m. all the seven accused-Appellants arrived there in a jeep No. MP-15-2077 which was stopped in front of hotel. The accused persons made entry into the hotel and caught Puran Singh and dragged him out, making physical assault. They threw him in the jeep and fled away from Churkhi road.

P.W. 1 Girendra Singh stating the above facts lodged a report at the police station at 21.05 hours which was registered as Crime No. 633 of 1997 u/s 364, I.P.C. The police station was only one furlong away from the hotel of Phool Singh. In the report Ex. Ka-13 it was alleged that the said kidnapping had been done with a view to kill Puran Singh. It was mentioned that jeep was being driven by accused Amit Singh.

Investigation of this crime was taken by S.I. R. S. Singh, P.W. 5 in whose presence the F.I.R. was registered at the police station. He immediately recorded the statement of first informant and left the police station with police force in order to trace out the victim and the accused persons. He could not find them out but made a spot inspection and prepared site plan Ex. Ka-5. He also found a kerosene oil lamp lighting on the spot. The Investigating Officer, recorded the statement of Phool Singh, Arvind, Hari Babu and Mohd. Naim on the same day. On 27.9.1997, on the basis of additional information given by Girendra Singh and detection of dead body of Puran Singh in a well the description of crime was altered from Sections 364 to 302/201, I.P.C. This witness held the inquest of dead body and prepared inquest memo Ex. Ka-7. After due formalities, the dead body was sent for autopsy. On 27.9.1997, the above Investigating Officer, recorded the statement of Tej Singh, Hira Singh, Mool Singh and Mata Prasad and also prepared site plan of the place of recovery of dead body. On the same day he recorded the statement of Onkar Singh and Sita Saran and tried to trace out the accused persons but could not succeed. On 28.9.97 he recorded the statement of Ram Raja, Dinesh Singh, constable Ajab Singh and home guard Radha Charan. On 29.9.97 he recorded the statement of Ram Kumar. On 30.9.97, he recorded the statement of Shyam Bihari and could arrest accused Amit Singh and Ram Singh on 1.10.97. On 3.10.97, he arrested Vijay Singh, Shailendra Singh and Shyam Singh and recorded the statement of witness Tej Singh. The case property was sent to forensic expert on 5.10.97. On 8.10.97 accused Vishal Singh put in appearance before the Court.

The investigation thereafter was taken up by P.W. 7, A. P. Pandey. He recorded further statements of Girendra Singh, Tej Singh and Rajendra Singh and on 22.12.97 he recorded the statements of Raju and Sheo Pal and submitted charge-sheet.

According to the prosecution, the first informant was with the first Investigating Officer when he visited the place of occurrence on the date of incident and had prepared site plan of the hotel of Phool Singh. After this, he went to his village and with the help of 4-6 persons of the village left on a tractor in search of victim. When they reached in the ''Bara'' of Hubbi Kachhi they on the basis of information received from some shephard recovered the dead body of Puran Singh from a well. The first informant had then informed the police about it.

The post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr. A. K. Agarwal P.W. 4 on 28.9.1997 at 12.30 p.m. The following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased :

Incised wound measuring 7.0 cm. ? 1.0 cm. over left cheek muscle deep ;

Incised wound measuring 8.0 cm. ? 1.0 cm. over top of left shoulder joint back to scapula skin deep ;

Incised wound measuring 4.0 cm. ? 1.5 cm. over left occipital region, skin and scalp bone is cut ;

Lacerated wound measuring 1.0 cm. ? 0.5 cm. over lateral aspect of left arm over deltoid, muscle deep ;

Lacerated wound measuring 2.5 cm. ? 0.5 cm. over and above injury No. 4 muscle deep ;

Lacerated wound measuring 2.0 cm. ? 0.5 cm. over back right palm below middle finger muscle deep ;

Lacerated wound 2.0 cm. ? 1.0 cm. over back and mid right palm muscle deep ;

Lacerated wound measuring 7.0 cm. ? 5.0 cm. over antero lateral aspect right forearm, 5.0 cm above wrist, muscle deep;

Lacerated wound measuring 2.0 cm. ? 1.0 cm. back of left arm below left elbow, muscle deep ;

Abrasion in area of 5.0 cm. ? 4.0 cm. on back of right abdomen lumber region ;

Abrasion measuring 6.0 cm. ? 4.0 cm. left scapula ;

Multiple abrasion over front of neck and face ;

Fire arm wound of entry measuring 2.0 cm. ? 1.0 cm. over right axillary region just below rib margin, margin inverted and lacerated intestine stomach and spleen ;

Fire arm wound of exit measuring 3.0 cm. ? 2.5 cm. over left side abdomen, just below rib at axillary line ; and

Fire arm wound of entry measuring 1.0 cm. ? 1.0 cm. over back of chest on left side just below scapula margins inverted, lacerated rib pleura heart and both lung.

In the stomach some digested food was found in the small intestine and faecal matter was found present in the large intestine. Cause of death in the opinion of the doctor was the result of ante mortem injuries. The doctor issued post mortem report Ex. Ka-3 and in his opinion death had occurred about one day before.

The accused-Appellants denied the allegations made against them and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses in all i.e., Girendra Singh P.W. 1 who is the first informant and claimed to be an eye-witness. He is also witness of inquest. Rajendra Singh P.W. 2 is ''sala'' of Angad Singh aforesaid. He was chance witness and his statement u/s 161, Cr. P.C. was recorded after two months of the incident. Ram Kumar Singh P.W. 3, also claimed to be eye-witness. P.W. 4 Dr. A. K. Agarwal is witness of autopsy. P.W. 5 R. S. Singh, S.I. is first Investigating Officer. P.W. 6, Naim Khan prepared chik F.I.R. and P.W. 7 S.I. A. P. Singh is the II Investigating Officer In reply to this, the accused persons examined village chaukidar Ram Das as D.W. 1 who claimed that the dead body was noticed by him on 26.9.97 at about 4 p.m. And he informed the police at about 4.30 p.m. According to him, the dead body was recovered from the well on 27.9.97 at about 11 a.m.

It has come in the evidence that the well from where the dead body was recovered was situate at a distance of 3 kms. from his village Hardoi Raja and at a distance of 2 kms. from the place of kidnapping. Mahoba to which Rajendra Singh belongs is at a distance of 100 kms. from the hotel of Phool Singh. It has further come in the evidence that Angad Singh aforesaid is brother of Sheo Bhan Singh and Tej Singh. They are sons of Kushal Singh.

The trial court after considering the evidence of the prosecution came to the conclusion that kidnapping of Puran Singh by seven accused persons was established beyond doubt but he did not find satisfactory evidence about killing of Puran Singh by them and therefore, they were convicted only for the offence u/s 364/149, I.P.C. and were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302/149 and 201/149, I.P.C.

We have heard Mrs. N. A. Munis, learned A.G.A., for the State, Sri S.P.S. Raghav, senior advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Singh for the Appellants Vijay Singh, Shailendra Singh, Amit Singh, Shobha Singh and Vishal Singh and Sri Vinay Khare, advocate, for Shyam Singh and Ram Singh. We have also heard Sri Ajay Singhal and Sri Dilip Gupta for the complainant and have carefully examined the entire evidence on record.

Before proceeding further it may be mentioned here that the trial court had disbelieved the testimony of D.W. 1 Ram Das, chaukidar as well as the testimony of Rajendra Singh P.W. 2 who was resident of Mahoba which is a place at a distance of 100 kms. away and he claimed that he had seen the accused persons assaulting and killing the victim.

After considering the facts and the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that if prosecution version with regard to kidnapping of Puran Singh by seven accused-Appellants on 26.9.97 at the hotel of Phool Singh is to be believed then it has also to be believed that they had killed Puran Singh and dropped his body into the well from where the dead body was recovered on the following day at about 12 O''clock in the noon and it was the duty of the accused-Appellants to explain the death of Puran Singh as it was a fact specially within their knowledge. The dead body was recovered soon after the kidnapping of victim and therefore, if the kidnappers are identified, the burden u/s 106, Indian Evidence Act, would lie upon them to explain how the victim was killed. The crucial question for decision therefore, is as to whether kidnapping of Puran Singh by accused persons is proved beyond doubt or not.

The argument of Sri Dilip Gupta in this regard was that F.I.R. in the matter was promptly lodged and all the seven accused Appellants were named therein. There was no reason for the first informant to falsely implicate the accused-Appellants and witness Ram Kumar Singh examined as P.W. 3, has to be believed because he was cited as a witness in the F.I.R. itself.

Sri Raghav on the other hand drew our attention to the statements of witnesses as well as contents of F.I.R. in support of his argument that prosecution has improved its version from time to time and the F.I.R. lacks importance because material facts relating to the case were conspicuously missing therein. It has also been argued that if there was enmity with Angad Singh there was no need to kidnap Puran Singh and eliminate him.

Let us now examine the entire evidence in the light of argument raised by both the sides. It is to be noted that most important witness examined by the prosecution is the informant Girendra Singh himself who has given details of enmity and the details of manner in which offence has been committed. His testimony is sought to be corroborated by the testimony of Ram Kumar Singh P.W. 3. A perusal of his statement would show that he has made material improvement in the version of the incident given in the F.I.R. and the version given in his deposition before the Court. It is true that the F.I.R. cannot be an encyclopaedia of all the facts relating to crime but at the same time when the matter is being reported to the police with a view that they should take action then all those facts which normally strike to mind and help in assessing the gravity of the crime or identity of the culprits must be stated in the F.I.R. although briefly. In the instant case, we find that material facts are missing in the F.I.R. Ex. Ka-13.

It is significant to note that F.I.R. is silent about the weapons carried by any or all the accused at the time of incident. The F.I.R. shows that kidnappers as well as victim and witnesses were unarmed. The witnesses and the victim in all were seven persons. The incident had taken place in the hotel of Phool Singh who has not been examined in this case as a witness nor any of his servant has been examined to corroborate the version of first informant. A natural question would arise that if the kidnappers were unarmed and the victim and the witnesses were also unarmed and equal in number then if there was apprehension that kidnapping was being done with a view to commit murder, the natural conduct of the witnesses and specifically of those who were related to the victim would be to attack the culprits and prevent kidnapping. In the instant case, the F.I.R. does not indicate that any such conduct was shown by the informant or his companion witnesses. This strange behaviour has been subsequently tried to be explained by saying that two of the accused, i.e., Shobha Singh and Vishal Singh were armed with licensed gun and D.B.B.L. gun.

It has also been added by the informant in his deposition that the kidnappers were chased on a scooter by Ram Raja and Ram Kumar P.W. 3 but this too could not bring any fruit. This was another important factor but the F.I.R. is silent about this aspect.

Sri Raghav has argued that the omissions of description of weapons and chase of culprits by the witnesses on scooter, are suggestive of the fact that Girendra Singh as well as other witnesses had not seen the occurrence.

A perusal of statement of Girendra Singh P.W. 1 shows that according to him the deceased, the first informant and the witnesses named in the F.I.R. were taking food in the hotel of Phool Singh when the kidnapping took place. A lamp was lighting in the hotel. Only the informant, his brother Puran Singh, Ram Singh, Ram Kumar Singh and Dinesh Singh were left in the hotel when the accused persons came on a jeep. According to him, Appellant Vishal Singh was carrying D.B.B.L. gun of Shobha Singh and Shobha Singh was carrying his own licensed gun. Vijay Singh and Ram Singh caught the victim from his arms and Amit Singh held him from neck and dragged him while Vishal Singh and Shobha Singh hit the victim with the buts of their weapons. They were hurling abuses and exhorted their companion culprits to take away Puran Singh and kill him. The witness further stated that Ram Raja and Ram Kumar Singh P.W. 3 of village Hardoi Raja chased the culprits on a scooter but could not prevent them from taking away the victim. After 15 to 20 minutes Ram Raja and Ram Kumar Singh returned back unsuccessfully.

According to the informant when he lodged the report with the police the Investigating Officer came to the place of occurrence and then they both came to village Goora as well as township of Jalaun and they came to know that Shobha Singh had gone to Orai on tractor. They went to Orai at the house of Shobha Singh but he was not found there and his house was locked. There they came to know that Shobha Singh had gone to his ''saroo''s'' house at Orai. The Investigating Officer and the complainant went to said ''saroo''s'' house and found that Shobha''s tractor was standing there but Shobha had left the place after leaving the tractor there. The tractor was seized by the police. The witness stated that the Investigating Officer, then came to Jalaun and prepared site plan. At about 9 p.m. the informant returned to his village and with the help of some villagers proceeded on the tractor towards Gargawa minor and detected the dead body of the deceased in a well in the ''bara'' of Hubbi Kachhi in village Kuraudha Bujurg.

In the cross-examination, Girendra Singh P.W. 1 has admitted that he is a teacher in Madho Singh Siksha Niketan, Hardoi Raja which is a private school. Angad is manager and his father Kushal Pal Singh is chairman of managing committee. According to him, in village Hardoi Raja there is another school called Nehru Junior High School which is a private institute. There is dispute in the management committee of this school. One group is with the manager Angad Singh and Chairman Hira Singh and the second group claims Vishal Singh to be Chairman of the managing committee. The informant admitted that the last undisputed manager of Nehru High School aforesaid was Kapoor Singh who was the uncle of accused Ram Singh and Shyam Singh. Admittedly there was dispute of management of Nehru School aforesaid and the same was still pending in the Court. The aforesaid enmity was also reflected in the two groups during election of Pradhan.

Thus, according to the witness Girednra Singh P.W. 1, there was enmity between Vishal Singh''s group and Angad Singh''s group. The relationship between the family of Kushalpal Singh and the complainant is such that son of Kushalpal treats the bhabhi of this witness as his sister. It has also come in the testimony of Girendra Singh P.W. 1 that in the Management Committee of Nehru Junior High School headed by Angad Singh father of this witness namely Lakhan Singh was Deputy Secretary. Thus, the enmity between the two sides and the affinity of witness with Angad Singh is wholly established. From this we conclude that there was enmity and sufficient motive for both the sides to harm each other.

The question to be considered is as to whether P.W. 1 Girendra Singh had seen the occurrence himself or he had lodged the F.I.R., on the information received from other. The hotel of Phool Singh was only 5 kms. from village Hardoi Raja. Although from the F.I.R. it appears that the victim, the first informant and the other witnesses had gone to Jalaun together but the testimony of this witness shows that they had gone for different purpose and probably had met at Jalaun by chance. He stated that he himself, his brother, witnesses Ram Raja and Ram Kumar Singh had gone to Jalaun from their village together where Dinesh Chandra and Shyam Bihari met them accidentally. Rama Raja had gone there to buy some ''samagri'' for ''trayodash'' of his father which was going to be held three days after the incident. This witness had gone to Jalaun for expelling oil from oil seed and had also to make purchases for the house. The oil had already been expelled when this incident took place. The witness failed to give the name of the owner of expeller where the oil was expelled. Since the distance of this village was only 5 kms. from the place of occurrence, there appears to be no justification for them to have stayed back at Jalaun and to have food at the hotel of Phool Singh. It is significant to note that Phool Singh or any other employee of the hotel has not been examined to corroborate that any such incident had taken place at the hotel. The explanation for their stay at Jalaun given by the witness is not convincing because the distance of village was so short that they could have walked down upto the village even if the last bus had been missed. Further as per statement of P.W. 1 Girendra Singh, samagri purchased by Ram Raja was kept at the house of Beta Singh. This Beta Singh has also not been examined to confirm the presence of these witnesses at Jalaun on the date of incident.

There are also material contradictions in the statement of Girendra Singh and Ram Kumar Singh P.W. 3 as to chasing of the kidnappers by Ram Raja and Ram Kumar Singh on a scooter. First of all this fact is not mentioned in the F.I.R. itself by Girendra Singh. Secondly, if Ram Raja and Ram Kumar Singh who were not family members of the deceased could dare to chase the culprits on scooter it is not understandable why the first informant himself could not do so and could not resist the kidnapping by using force. Thus, subsequent attribution of fire arm to Shobha Singh and Vishal Singh at the time of incident appears to be made only to explain the conduct of first informant who behaved as silent spectator.

With regard to chase given to the kidnappers the first informant not only made improvement in this regard in his testimony before the Court but there too he did not disclose the name of owner or the number of scooter. He stated that Ram Raja and Ram Kumar Singh who had given the chase returned back after 15 to 20 minutes. Owner of scooter or garage from where Ram Raja and Ram Kumar Singh are alleged to have picked up the scooter for the above purpose have also not been examined to corroborate this fact. In the cross-examination the informant has stated that Ram Raja and Ram Kumar Singh returned to the hotel after half an hour but on the return they did not disclose anything to the first informant and infact they had not met him at all. He does not know till his deposition in the Court as to how long these persons had given chase to the kidnappers. They had not disclosed to the witness that they had chased the jeep of kidnappers. The witness was unable to explain how in examination in chief he had stated that Ram Raja and Ram Kumar Singh had given chase but could not stop it. Contrary to his statement Ram Kumar P.W. 3, has stated that after giving chase to the jeep of the kidnappers he and Ram Raja returned. They met Girendra Singh and told him that they could not find the jeep. The above contradiction in the statements of these two witnesses and omission of chase in the F.I.R. and non-examination of Ram Raja to corroborate the testimony of Ram Kumar Singh show that the theory of giving chase to the jeep of kidnappers is an afterthought.

The presence of these witnesses at Jalaun at the time of incident is highly doubtful for the reason that there was no satisfactory reason for them to stay back at Jalaun till 7.45 p.m. as they could walk back to the village which was only 5 kms. away. The F.I.R. is also silent about the fact that Ram Raja had to purchase samagri for trayodash of his father. Beta Singh has not been examined to prove that any samagri was purchased and kept at his place. P.W. 3 Ram Kumar Singh is said to have accompanied Ram Raja and in the statement u/s 161, Cr. P.C., he had not mentioned that Ram Raja had also purchased samagri for trayodash of his father. Before the Investigating Officer Ram Kumar Singh had stated that Dinesh Kumar Dwivedi and Shyam Bihari had also gone with them to Jalaun to make purchases but in his deposition before the Court he stated that they had not gone with them but had only met them at Jalaun. Contradictory statement given by the witnesses about their presence at Jalaun at the relevant time creates serious doubt about their claim of being eye-witnesses.

P.W. 3 Ram Kumar Singh has stated that after giving chase to the jeep on scooter they returned to hotel of Phool Singh and from there they went to the house of Shobha Singh which was one kilometer away from the hotel. Girendra Singh P.W. 1 had not accompanied them at that time. Shobha Singh was not found at the house. The witness says that thereafter he went back to his village on scooter alongwith Ram Raja and reached there at 10.30 p.m. On reaching his home, he went to sleep and it was next day morning at about 9 or 10 a.m. he woke up and went to Jalaun at 3 or 4 p.m. In the village he had come to know that people were searching Puran Singh but could not get his clue. According to him, at Jalaun P.W. 2 Rajendra Singh had told him that Puran Singh had been murdered. This statement given by the witness is again not believable as Rajendra Singh has been disbelieved by the trial court itself and his testimony has been recorded by the Investigating Officer after two months of the incident.

From the discussion made above and also omission of material facts in the F.I.R., it is highly doubtful that Girendra Singh and Ram Kumar Singh had seen the occurrence.

Further if Girendra Singh was there and in his presence kidnapping had taken place he would have not lost a minute''s time in contacting the police which was available at the distance of one furlong and requesting them to chase the culprits who had taken away his brother. Timely action on his part could have saved the life of his brother. Absence of this conduct and lodging of the F.I.R. only after more than an hour, in the circumstances of the case, makes the presence of Girendra Singh as highly doubtful.

Dr. A. K. Agarwal P.W. 4, who had performed autopsy, in his cross-examination, has stated that if the dead body was left in the cold water in the well then death could have occurred about four days ago. Looking to the date and time of autopsy this would not tally with the F.I.R. version.

Testimony of Rajendra Singh P.W. 2, is to the effect that on the fateful day at about 10 p.m. he was returning from village Gathela on a tractor alongwith Sheo Pal Singh and Raju Khatik. In the light of tractor, they saw the murder of Puran Singh being committed at Kuthoda culvert. He was killed by seven persons i.e., the accused-Appellants. According to him, all of them were known to the witness from before. Sobha Singh was not carrying any arm. Vishal Singh and Amit Singh were armed with rifle and the remaining Appellants were armed with knife and axes. A jeep was also standing there. The victim was fired at by the accused persons with rifle, D.B.B.L. gun and assaulted with knife and axes etc. After killing him, the culprits had thrown the dead body of Puran Singh into the well. The witness says that having seen all this he returned his tractor and came back.

This witness is ''Sala'' of Tej Singh who is brother of Angad Singh with whom there is strong enmity of Vishal Singh which is the motive for commission of crime. We are unable to believe the statement of this witness firstly, because his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer after two months of the commission of crime, secondly, no witness has been examined to corroborate him and thirdly, his presence on the spot is highly doubtful and has been rightly disbelieved by the trial court. It appears that this witness has been examined in order to explain the injuries on the body of the deceased. He had 15 injuries on his person ; three incised wounds, six lacerated wounds, three abrasion, two wounds of entry and one wound of exit of fire arm injuries. This effort on the part of the prosecution to raise this person as a witness creates further doubt about the truth in its story.

In view of the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, their improbable conduct, omission of important material facts in the F.I.R. and delay in contacting the police are all factors on the basis of which the entire prosecution story becomes highly improbable. Important and independent witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution. In our opinion, the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to be acquitted.

Criminal Appeal No. 4360 of 2005 of Vishal Singh, Vijay Singh, Shailendra Singh and Amit Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 3613 of 2005 of Shobha Singh and Criminal Appeal No. 4437 of 2005 of Shyam Singh and Ram Singh are allowed. Their conviction under Sections 364/149 and 147, I.P.C. and sentences passed against them are hereby set aside.

Government Appeal No. 5150, State v. Vijay Singh and six others and Criminal Revision No. 3967 of 2005, Girendra Singh v. State and Ors., are dismissed.