Surain Singh vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This is an appeal filed by Surain Singh (aged 44 years) and Puran Singh (40 years) against their conviction under Section 304 Part II, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment thereunder, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide his judgment dated April 20, 1987.

Manjit Kaur, widow of complainant Sukhdev Singh, resident of village Kapura, tehsil Moga, district Faridkot, has filed Criminal Revision against the aforesaid judgment, praying for enhancement of sentence passed against the appellants, Surain Singh and Puran Singh, as also for compensation to be awarded to the legal heirs of deceased Sukhdev Singh.

The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, briefly stated, is as under :

On August 26, 1986, at about 1100 a.m., Sukhdev Singh complainant (since deceased), was going to his fields. Gurdial Singh (PW7) and Harbans Singh (PW8) were also accompanying him on bicycles, but they were slightly behind him. Sukhdev Singh was surrounded by the appellants, Surain Singh, who was armed with a toki, and Puran Singh, armed with a dang, and Raj Singh (since acquitted), who was armed with a gandasi, who were sitting on a tractor, near the field of Harbans Singh (PW 8). The appellants and their coaccused Raj Singh got down from the tractor. Puran Singh raised a lalkara that Sukhdev Singh be taught a lesson for inflicting injuries to one Jagga. It is alleged that, thereafter, all the three accused, i.e. Surain Singh, Puran Singh and Raj Singh assaulted Sukhdev Singh with their respective weapons and inflicted injuries on the person of Sukhdev Singh. Raj Singh gave gandasi blows on the right arm and right leg, while Surain Singh gave a blow from the reverse side of toki on the right hand and another blow with toki was given on the right arm of Sukhdev Singh. Puran Singh gave dang blows on the left leg and left arm. The injured Sukhdev Singh raised an alarm, ''Mar Ditta ! Mar Ditta !'' Thereupon, appellant Surain Singh gave a toki blow on his right ankle, Raj Singh gave gandhali blow on his legs and Puran Singh gave 2/3 dang blows to Sukhdev Singh. This occurrence was witnessed by Gurdial Singh (PW 7) and Harbans Singh (PW 8), who raised an alarm. The accused persons, thereafter, made good their escape from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons on the said tractor. Harbans Singh went to the house of Sukhdev Singh, informed his father Jita Singh, who accompanied him to the place of occurrence. Sukhdev Singh was then taken to the Civil Hospital by his father Jita Singh. At the Civil Hospital, Dr. S.P. Bansal (PW 2) examined him. Dr. Bansal found the following injuries on the person of Sukhdev Singh :

(1) Multiple contusion with all round swelling of right hand. Advised xray.

(2) Multiple contusions with swelling of whole of right forearm. Advised xray.

(3) Lacerated punctured wound 1/2 cm in diameter x depth not probed on the outer aspect of right elbow, fresh bleeding present. There was swelling of elbow joint and upper arm upto its middle. Advised xray.

(4) Abraided contusion 6 x 4 cms on the top of left shoulder. Advised xray.

(5) Abraided contusion 21/2 x 2 cms on the outer aspect of left arm in its middle.

(6) Abraided contusion 3 x 2 cms on the back of left elbow. Advised xray.

(7) Multiple contusions with swelling of almost whole of left fore arm. Xray advised.

(8) Incised wound 3 x 1 cm x muscle protruding out of the wound on the anterior aspect of right leg, 12 cms above the ankle joint. Advised x ray.

(9) Lacerated punctured wound 1 cm in diameter x bone deep on the front of the right leg, 4 cms below knee with all round swelling upto the knee joint. Advised xray.

(10) Multiple contusions with all round swelling of the left knee and upper part of the leg. Advised xray.

(11) Lacerated punctured wound 3/4 cms in diameter x muscle deep on the inner aspect of left leg 12 cms above the left ankle joint. Advised x ray.

(12) Abraided contusion on inner aspect of middle of left thigh."

Injuries No. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 10 and 12 were caused by blunt weapon, while injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11 were caused by blunt pointed weapon. Injury No. 8 was caused by sharp edged weapon. Dr. Bansal prepared the medicolegal report, a carbon copy of which was proved as Exhibit PA. Exhibit PA/1 is the diagram showing the seat of injuries. Dr. S.P. Bansal declared Sukhdev Singh fit to make statement at 3.30 p.m. on 26.8.1986, vide his endorsement Exhibit PD. Sukhdev Singh made a statement before ASI Darshan Singh in Civil Hospital, Moga, the same day, i.e. 26.8.1986 at 4.15 p.m. (Ex.PP). ASI Darshan Singh made his endorsement on the statement, which is Exhibit PP/1 and sent with his endorsement to the police station for registration of the formal FIR. MHC Sukhminder Singh prepared the formal FIR (Exhibit PP/2). A special report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate, who received it on 26.6.1986 itself at 11.30 p.m. Dr. S.P. Bansal advised xray of the injuries, which was done and the xray report shows fracture of lateral condyl of lower end of right humerus and communuted fracture of 1st and 2nd metacarpal bones and fracture of both bones of forearm at its lower end was also found. There was communuted fracture of the upper end of the right fibula found. Exhibit PB is the xray report, while Exhibit PB/1 to Exhibit PB/8 are the skiagrams of Sukhdev Singh. Dr. S.P. Bansal after perusing the xray reports and skiagrams declared injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 9 as grievous and rest of the injuries were declared as simple, vide his report Exhibit PC.

Sukhdev Singh died at the hospital at Moga. Dr. Satish Goel sent report Exhibit PF on 26.8.1986 at 5.30 p.m. regarding death of injured Sukhdev Singh, to the police station City Moga. The inquest proceedings were conducted on the body of Sukhdev Singh by ASI Darshan Singh (PW 10), who prepared the inquest report (Exhibit PH), which was duly attested by witnesses Balwinder Singh and Gurdial Singh. He prepared a memo (Ex.PE) for postmortem examination and he entrusted the duly sealed dead body of Sukhdev Singh to Constables Chhinderpal Singh and Sukhdev Singh. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. S.R. Mittal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Moga, on 27.8.1986. The dead body was of an adult male, moderately built and nourished, wearing printed kachha. Eyes and mouth were partially open. Rigor mortis was preset in all the four limibs. Post mortem staining was present on the back. The right forearm was having a splint. All the injuries except abrasions were having dressing and stitches. The examination of the antemortem injuries was done after removing the dresses from the wounds. The splint on the right forearm was also removed. In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which were antemortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable time between the injuries and death was about 6 hours and between death and postmortem was about 12 to 18 hours. A copy of the postmortem report was proved as Exhibit PG, which is in the hand and signatures of the autopsy surgeon, Dr. S.R. Mittal. Exhibit PG/1 is the diagram showing the seat of injuries. Dr. S.P. Bansal had also attended the postmortem examination of the dead body of Sukhdev Singh. Since the wounds were tampered, Dr. Mittal could not state regarding the weapon used for causing injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11. Dr. Mittal clarified that by ''tampered'', he meant the stitches had been applied to the wounds and medical treatment had been given. According to Dr. Mittal, possibility could not be ruled out about injury No. 8 being caused with gandasi (Exhibit P2), as the same appeared to be an incised wound. Injures Nos. 1 and 2 could be caused by the blunt side of gandasi (Exhibit P2). The remaining injuries could be caused by means of dang (Exhibit P4). The police requested vide Exhibit PJ for opinion of the autopsy surgeon, who gave his opinion Exhibit PJ/1 that all the injuries collectively were sufficient to cause death. Injury No. 8 could be caused with any sharp edged weapon including a knife. The possibility of injuries No. 4, 5, 6 and 12 by fall or friction against a hard surface could not be ruled out. Dr. Mittal further stated that multiple contusions could not be caused by a single blow with a blunt weapon.

The Investigating Officer, ASI Darshan Singh went to the place of occurrence alongwith police official Chhinderpal Singh Constable and summoned witnesses Harbans Singh and Gurdial Singh, who were eyewitnesses of the occurrence. He inspected the place of occurrence on the pointing of the said witnesses, Gurdial Singh and Harbans Singh and prepared the rough siteplan (Exhibit PQ), with correct marginal notes. He did not find blood stains near the place of occurrence on the thoroughfare despite search. he recorded the statements of witnesses Gurdial Singh and Harbans Singh. The next day, he searched for the accused persons, but they were not available. On 3.9.1986 Mohinder Singh (PW 9), a member panchayat, produced all the three accused, Strain Singh, Puran Singh and Raj Singh before the Investigating Officer ASI Darshan Singh. He also produced ''International'' tractor and the weapons gandhali (Exhibit P3) recovered from Raj Singh, Gandasi (Exhibit P2) recovered form Surain Singh and dang (Exhibit P4) recovered from Puran Singh. The ASI prepared the sketch plans Exhibit PL/1 of gandasi, Exhibit PM/1 of gandhali and the said weapons were taken into police possession vide seizure memos. Exhibits PL, PM and PN respectively. The tractor was also taken into possession vide seizure memo. Exhibit PO. The registration certificate of the tractor was also taken into possession. The accused were duly arrested and brought to the police station along with the recovered property. The accused were lodged in the lockup while the case property was deposited in the malkhana with MHC Sukhdev Singh.

After completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned. The challan report was submitted by SI Harchand Singh. The accused appeared before Shri N.R. Kaushik, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide his commitment order dated 20.10.1986. The Sessions Trial was entrusted to Shri J.C. Aggarwal, the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge sheet against the accused persons, Surain Singh, Puran Singh and Raj Singh, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in simple Punjabi. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

At the trial, the prosecution examined Davinder Kumar, PW 1; Dr. S.P. Bansal, PW 2; Dr. Avtar Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Moga, PW 3; Dr Satish Goel, PW 4, Dr. S.R. Mittal, the autopsy surgeon, PW 5; Revenue Patwari Baldev Raj, PW 6; Gurdial Singh, PW 7; Harbans Singh, PW 8; Mohinder Singh, PW 9; Darshan Singh ASI, PW 10; Hardarshan Singh, PW 11 and Balbir Singh, PW 12. PW Tara Singh was given up as having been won over by the accused. The case of the prosecution was closed.

The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied their participation in this occurrence and stated that it was a false case and the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely due to relationship with the deceased and the enmity with them. They pleaded their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated on suspicion. They were called upon to enter their defence and in defence examined Pritam Singh as DW 1 and closed the defence evidence.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge found accused Surain Singh and Puran Singh guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part II, read with Section 34 IPC and as such they were convicted thereunder. Raj Singh accused was acquitted of the charge. Accused/appellants Surain Singh and Puran Singh, who were convicted for the offence under Section 304 PartII, read with Section 34 IPC, as stated above, were sentenced to suffer four years'' rigorous imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed this appeal.

The widow of the deceased Sukhdev Singh, namely, Manjit Kaur, has filed a Criminal Revision, as stated above, praying for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellants as also for payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Sukhdev Singh.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab/respondent. I have been taken through the evidence on the record.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted two fold arguments. He did not assail the findings of the learned trial Judge regarding the participation of the appellants, Surain Singh and Puran Singh, in inflicting injuries to the deceased, Sukhdev Singh. The arguments were confined only on the offence committed by the appellants, as proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In the first instance, it was argued that the injuries suffered by the deceased Sukhdev Singh were located on nonvital parts of the body, i.e. only four limbs of the deceased. He contended that the location of the injuries suffered by the deceased Sukhdev Singh categorically showed that the injuries were not inflicted with the knowledge that these injuries were likely to cause his death.

The second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was that in the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, there is lack of intention on the part of the accused, whereas the intention is one of the ingredients, apart from knowledge in the first part of Section 304 IPC.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that since intention is not the ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, the learned trial Judge fell in error in applying Section 34 IPC to convict the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC.

Though the learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the findings of the learned trial Judge, holding the appellants guilty of causing injuries to the deceased Sukhdev Singh, the prosecution evidence may briefly be noticed regarding the occurrence, as under :

Gurdial Singh (PW 7) and Harbans Singh (PW 8) are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Mohinder Singh is not an eyewitness of occurrence. He has been examined by the prosecution because the appellants and their coaccused Raj Singh are stated to have made their extrajudicial confessions before him and he produced them before the police with the tractor and the weapons used in the occurrence by the accused persons. Both the eyewitnesses mentioned above, i.e. Harbans Singh and Gurdial Singh stated that in their presence the appellants came on a tractor, who were accompanied by the coaccused Raj Singh (since acquitted) from the side of village Kapure. The tractor was stopped when it reached Sukhdev Singh deceased. The appellants Surain Singh was armed with a toki, Puran Singh was armed with a dang and Raj Singh accused was armed with a gandasi. They all surrounded Sukhdev Singh and assaulted him with the said weapons. After suffering injuries at the hands of the appellants and their coaccused Raj Singh, Sukhdev Singh fell down and the accused persons ran away with their weapons, on the tractor. The eyewitnesses of the incident maintained their statements regarding the occurrence in their searching crossexamination done on behalf of the appellants. The learned trial Judge discussed the evidence of these eyewitnesses in detail and held that their evidence was amply corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. S.P. Bansal, as also the autopsy surgeon, Dr. S.R. Mittal. The prosecution, thus, led clear, cogent, and believable evidence of the eyewitnesses of the occurrence regarding the appellants'' participation in the occurrence and causing injuries to the deceased Sukhdev Singh, by means of toki and dang. The findings of the learned trial Judge, therefore, regarding the appellants inflicting injuries on Sukhdev Singh, aforesaid, are accepted and confirmed.

So far as the two fold arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, it may be noticed that the learned trial Judge has held the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted them of he charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Section 304 IPC provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It comprises of two parts and provides for two kinds of punishments regarding two different circumstances, viz. (1) if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; the punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to 10 years and fine (Section 304 PartI IPC);

(2) If the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to 10 years, or fine, or with both.

Now so far as the facts of the instant case are concerned, the appellants are accused of causing injuries to Sukhdev Singh on his both the arms and legs. The mere fact that the injuries were inflicted on nonvital parts of the body clearly shows that the appellants had knowledge that these injuries were not likely to cause the death of Sukhdev Singh. The autopsy surgeon Dr. S.R. Mittal (PW 5) stated that in his opinion the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries, which were antemortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Dr. Mittal stated further that all the injuries collectively were sufficient to cause death. But he could not point out any single/individual injury responsible for causing death of deceased Sukhdev Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noticed in the judgment that Dr. S.P. Bansal (PW 2) had admitted in crossexamination that all the injuries of Sukhdev Singh were on nonvital parts of the body. It will appear from the statement of Dr. S.R. Mittal (PW 5) that Dr. S.P. Bansal was also assisting him at the time of postmortem examination of the dead body of Sukhdev Singh. A careful perusal of the injuries noted as antemortem injuries in the postmortem report and in the evidence of the autopsy surgeon Dr. S.P. Mittal (PW 5) would go to show that none the injuries by itself was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased.

Apart from this, the acquitted accused Raj Singh had also allegedly participated in the occurrence and assaulted the deceased by means of gandhali. Raj Singh was acquitted on the ground that the injuries attributed to him were injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11, which could not be caused with the gandhali (Exhibit P3) as its blade is wider than the width of the injuries. The witnesses gave the approximate width of the blade of the gandhali between 21/2 cm to 3 cm. The learned trial Judge while discussing the discrepancies observed as under :

"The learned defence counsel, however, argued that the presence of Raj Singh accused at the time of the occurrence is doubtful as according to PW 7 and PW 8 the said accused caused injuries along with his companions with his gandhali on the person of Sukhdev Singh, but that part of their statements stands belied from the statement of Dr. S.P. Bansal, who was examined as PW 2 as he unequivocally deposed in his examinationinchief that injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11 on the person of Sukhdev Singh could not be caused with the gandhali Exhibit P3 as its blade is wider than the width of the injuries. The witness gave the approximate width of the blade of the gandhali to be 21/2 to 3 cm. The doctor even deposed that the said injuries could not be caused with the gandhali Ex.P3 even if it was used from the corner of the blade as the weapon is not rounded. So, injuries Nos. 3, 9, 11 which were attributed to Raj Singh accused by the eyewitnesses, have been ruled out to have been caused by the gandhali Ex.P3. It is a clear case of the prosecution that gandhali Ex.P3 was recovered from Raj Singh accused at the time of his arrest as that weapon was used by him in the offence. An attempt was made to seek opinion of Dr. S.R. Mittal, PW 5, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Sukhdev Singh whether the said injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11 could be caused with the gandhali, but the witness did not lend any support to the prosecution version and he deposed that he could not say about the weapon regarding injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11 since the wounds had been tampered. So, according to the expert medical opinion, the injuries attributed to Raj Singh accused could not be caused with the gandhali Ex.P3 which the accused was allegedly carrying at the time of the occurrence. The learned defence counsel also submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of the eyewitnesses and the medical evidence and so no reliance should be placed on the occular testimony. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the authorities cited as 1975 C.A.R. page 12 (Supreme Court) in re: Jagir Singh v. The State and 1975 C.A.R. page 264 (Supreme Court) in re; Ram Narain etc. v. State of Punjab. In those authorities, it was held that where the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the Ballistic Expert, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discard the entire case. Further, reliance was placed on 1972 Criminal Law Journal page 185 in re: Pearay Lal and another v. Shankar Dass. On the basis of this analogy the learned defence counsel argued that the presence of Raj Singh accused at the time of the occurrence is highly doubtful. The learned counsel also argued that in India there is a tendency to involve all the members of the family for the offence, so the prosecution must bring home the guilt to each accused to the hilt and that benefit of doubt should always be given to the accused. I find force in the said contention of the learned counsel for the accused. Since the presence of Raj Singh accused at the spot becomes doubtful, so the benefit thereof must enure for the accused and as such giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, Raj Singh, he is acquitted of the charge framed against him."

The acquittal of Raj Singh accused has become final inasmuch as the same was not challenged in appeal by the State. The evidence of the eyewitnesses of the occurrence categorically shows the participation of Raj Singh in the occurrence inasmuch as he is said to have used gandhali for inflicting the injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11 to Sukhdev Singh and the evidence regarding accused Raj Singh was found materially contradicted by the medical evidence on record inasmuch as the learned trial Judge held that the presence of Raj Singh accused at the spot was doubtful and, therefore, the benefit thereof was given to him and he was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Once it has been held that injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11 were not inflicted by Raj Singh and the prosecution evidence is silent about the appellants'' inflicting these injuries (Nos. 3, 9 and 11), it cannot be said that the remaining injuries, i.e. injuries Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 8, 10 and 12 could cause the death of Sukhdev Singh. There is no evidence of the prosecution that injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11 were inflicted by the appellants. It cannot be assumed that these injuries must have been inflicted by the appellants. Taking into consideration the statement of the autopsy surgeon, Dr. S.R. Mittal that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, resulting from the antemortem injuries, which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Sukhdev Singh, the antemortem injuries (Nos. 3, 9 and 11) were also taken into consideration by the autopsy surgeon, in giving his opinion regarding the cause of death.

Under these circumstances, it cannot be reasonably held that the appellants who are accused of inflicting the injuries, excepting injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11, had any knowledge that the injuries so inflicted could result or were likely to result in the death of Sukhdev Singh. The prosecution evidence is meticulously silent regarding injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11 having been inflicted by the appellants. Because of the specific evidence of the eyewitnesses, Gurdial Singh (PW 7) and Harbans Singh (PW 8), that injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11 were caused by accused Raj Singh with the gandhali, I am of the considered view that once the prosecution case regarding the co accused Raj Singh was disbelieved, who was alleged to be the author of three antemortem injuries (Nos. 3, 9 and 11) and in view of the clear and categorical statement of the autopsy surgeon, Dr. S.R. Bansal that all the antemortem injuries together were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Sukhdev Singh, the appellants Surain Singh and Puran Singh cannot be held to be guilty of inflicting such fatal injuries to Sukhdev Singh deceased with the knowledge that these injuries (excepting injuries Nos. 3, 9 and 11) were likely to cause his death. Therefore, there is sufficient force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. Once the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC has not been found established against the appellants, the question of applicability of Section 34 IPC to the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC will not arise. Therefore, it was not necessary to deal with that argument. The appellants, undoubtedly, shared a common intention to inflict injuries to Sukhdev Singh and in furtherance of their common intention, they inflicted injuries on Sukhdev Singh, for which they are liable to be held guilty with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Sukhdev Singh injured suffered fractures on his limbs, as noted above, and the same were caused by blunt object inasmuch as the only injury caused by the sharp edged weapon is injury No. 8, which was found to be simple in nature. The appellants are, thus, liable to be held guilty of the offences punishable under Section 325 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, Section 324 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC. The appellants are, thus, held guilty of the offences noted above and are convicted thereunder, instead of being convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC, read with Section 34 IPC and they are acquitted of the said charge, i.e. under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC.

The learned counsel for the appellants next prayed that the appellants be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in which the occurrence took place and also noticing the fact that the injured Sukhdev Singh succumbed to the injuries in the hospital the same day, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants and the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants in that regard is declined.

In my considered view, the sentence of two years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ each and in default of payment of fine to suffer further three months'' rigorous imprisonment each under Section 325/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 323 IPC would be appropriate and adequate punishment in the interest of justice. The appellants are, thus, sentenced accordingly. All the substantive sentences awarded to the appellants shall run concurrently. The amount of fine on realization shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, Sukhdev Singh.

26 Subject to the modifications aforesaid, the appeal on merit is dismissed.

In view of the findings recorded above I find no force in the revision filed by the widow of the deceased, Sukhdev Singh, and the same is dismissed.