Close scrutiny of the evidence of witnesses makes it clear that contents of the FIR are not proved by the maker of the same P.W. 11 Narad. He only admitted his signature. It is trite law that the basic purpose of lodging FIR is to set the criminal law into motion. It is not a substantive piece of evidence. FIR Ex. P-21 was promptly lodged in which presence of appellants is mentioned.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal Nos. 775 and 801 of 2001
Decided On: 05.09.2016
Juganoo and Ors.
Vs.
State of C.G.
Vs.
State of C.G.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Pritinker Diwaker and Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, JJ.
Citation:2017 CRLJ 663 Chhatis
1. By this judgment, Cr. Appeal No. 775/2001 and Cr. Appeal No. 801/2001 are being disposed of jointly. Accused No. 4 Mukesh Sharma has preferred Cr Appeal No. 775/2001 along with other appellants and subsequently he has also preferred Cr.A. No. 801/2001. In these circumstances, Cr.A. No. 801/2001 filed subsequently by appellant Mukesh Sharma is dismissed being unnecessary.
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7-8-2001 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 352/1999 convicting and sentencing all the seven appellants as under:--
Section IPC SentenceRIfor Fine Rs. Sentence in default of payment of fine-additional RI for 147 6 months 200/- 1 month 148 1 year 500/- 1 month 450/149 5 years 1,000/- 1 month 323/149 6 months 300/- 1 month 302/149 Imprisonment for life 5,000/- 1 month
All the substantive jail sentences are directed to run separately.
The trial Court acquitted all the above appellants of the offence under Sections 325/149 and 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous injuries to Ravi Prakash and Gokaran after forming unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object and also for the charges of voluntarily causing grievous injuries to Ravi Prakash and Gokaran after forming unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon in prosecution of common object of the said assembly. The trial Court also acquitted co-accused Riyaz @ Azaz alias Kallu and Habbu @ Habib Miyan of the charges under Sections, 147, 148, 450/149, 302/149, 326/149, 325/149 and Section 323/149, IPC. During the said trial, co-accused Amir, Amin, Pappu @ Pawan and Roshan were absconding. By the said judgment, these 4 accused persons were not tried. Subsequently, in the said sessions case No. 352/99, absconded accused Amir, Amin and Roshan were tried for the charges under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 450/149, 325/149, 326/149, 302/149 and vide judgment and order dated 17-3-2004, above three absconded co-accused were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Against the said judgment of acquittal of above three accused persons, the State has not preferred an)' acquittal appeal before this Court. Hence acquittal of above three accused persons attains finality. Co-accused Pappu @ Pawan is still absconding."
3. During pendemcy of Cr.A. No. 775/2001, appellant No. 3 Sikandar Mohammad died, therefore, his appeal stood abated vide order dated 12-5-2009.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 23-4-1999 at about 9.45 pm, P.W. 11 Narad R/o village Mangla Dhuripara lodged an FIR Ex. P-21 against 12 accused persons (except acquitted co-accused Habbu @ Habib Miyan). The Civil Lines Police registered Cr. No. 207/99 against all the 12 accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 307 of the IPC. In the said report, P.W. 11 Narad stated that when P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash @ Gudda was returning to his residence after supplying milk to one Rajjo Bani, then he along with P.W. 13 Gokaran asked him to take a bath in his badi (kitchen garden). Thereafter all the three reached to the house of P.W 1 Ravi Prakash. They saw all the accused persons, Juganoo, Anis, Sikandar, Salim, Azaz, Amir, Amin, Vijay, Roshan, Pappu, Durga, Mukesh etc. armed with club, hockey stick, sword assaulting younger brother of P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash namely Om Prakash. They also encircled the house. When all the accused persons saw them coming, they chased them and assaulted. When this witness sustained injuries on head and left hand, he ran away and thereafter all those accused persons with intention to kill Ravi Prakash, Om Prakash and Gokaran assaulted them with deadly weapon over their head, abdomen, neck, hand and leg. They also unauthorizedly entered into the house of Ravi Prakash and damaged the gate. The incident was witnessed by P.W. 4 Raju Kashyap, mother of the Ravi, his sister-in law and niece. P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash, deceased Om Prakash and P.W. 13 Gokaran were lying unconscious on the ground. They were taken on a rickshaw and admitted to the hospital. As per this witness, on 18-4-1999 at Telipara, during the marriage of one Ravi Shankar Kashyap there was a dispute with accused Juganoo etc. and on account of that dispute, Juganoo and 10-12 accused persons have assaulted deceased Om Prakash and P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash with deadly weapons causing grievous injuries to them. After recording the Ex. P-21 FIR, injured Om Prakash was sent for medical examination. P.W. 21 Dr. S. Mukharji examined Om Prakash and noticed history of assault, behavior abnormal, in semi conscious state and one abrasion on forehead 2 x 1 cm caused by hard and blunt object. He admitted the patient in male surgical ward and further opined that duration and opinion will be given by the surgical specialist. He gave his MLC report Ex P-41. He also examined P.W, 1 Ravi Prakash and noticed one lacerated wound over scalp 12 x 1/2 cm, one lacerated wound over scalp 14 x 1/2 cm, swelling over left hand 4 x 2 cm, patient vomited once, advised for x ray and admitted to mail surgical ward and referred to surgical specialist. His report is Ex. P-40. He also examined P.W. 13 Gokaran and noticed one lacerated wound on left side of forehead 3 x 1/2 cm caused by hard and blunt object, one punctured wound 1/2 x 1/4 cm on left elbow caused by sharp pointed object. He admitted the injured for treatment, advised for x-ray. His report is Ex. P-39. Later, Om Prakash succumbed to injuries on 28-4-1999 during treatment at Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai. After his death, an unnumbered merg was registered at police station Bhilai Nagar vide Ex. P-34. The same was numbered by the Civil Lines, Bilaspur police vide Ex. P-36. The body of deceased Om Prakash was sent for post mortem on 28-4-1999. Dr. V.S. Baghel P.W.25 conducted autopsy and noticed following injuries:--
i. abrasion with black scab 2 1/2 cm x 2 1/2 cm on mid frontal area.
ii. scratch mark on 1 cm x 1 cm area of shape 'M' in the mid line on the lower part of neck, black in colour.
iii. Four and three scratch marks over 1 cm x 1 cm & 1 cm x 1/2 cm area on lower and anterior part of chest on right side with black scab.
iv. Scratch mark with scab 2 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm area on left side of lower part of chest.
v. Abrasion of 2 cm x 1 cm on upper and anterolateral part of right arm, blackish in colour.
vi. Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm on posterior aspect of elbow right blackish.
vii. Black bruise 3 cm x 2 cm on right palm and index finger
viii. Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm on lateral aspect of right knee
ix. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on upper lateral aspect of leg right 2 cm x 1 1/2 cm on lower 3rd of left leg, blackish.
x. Abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm left knee anteriorly blackish."
The autopsy surgeon opined that the deceased died due to grievous injury on head, hemorrhage and hemorrhagic shock. He also opined that the head injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur who registered the same as Cri. Case No. 1554/1999 and committed the same to the Court of Sessions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer and conducted the trial.
6. During trial 9 accused/appellants i.e. Juganoo alias Karim Khan, Anis Mohammad, Sikandar, Mukesh Sharma, Vijay Suryavanshi, Riyaz alias Azaz alias Kallu, Durga alias Durgesh alias Motu, Salim Khan, Habbu alias Habib Miyan were charged for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 450/149, 302/149, 326/149, 325/149 and 323/149 of the IPC.
7. In order to prove guilt of the accused/appellants, prosecution examined 25 witnesses in all. Accused/appellants examined 3 defence witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Sections 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question.
8. The trial Court after hearing respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted co-accused Riyaz alias Azaz and Habbu alias Habib and convicted and sentenced all the appellants as aforementioned.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
10. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants submits as under:--
"i. The trial Court has placed reliance on the statement of P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash @ Gudda. Though there are other eye-witnesses but out of them, P.W. 11 Narad, P.W. 13 Gokaran have turned hostile. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved the statements of P.W. 4 Raju @ Ramesh, P.W. 12 Sumitra Bai and P.W. 14 Shanti Bai as their statements were not credible and natural. They have improved their statements, were not in a position to identify and attribute the rote of the accused persons. Their statements have been recorded belatedly though they were available. Their-statements are contradictory therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected their evidence.
ii. The statement of P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash @ Gudda is also not trustworthy and credible inasmuch as his diary statement Ex. D-1 was recorded on 2-5-1999 i.e. after 9 days though he was available and conscious during his treatment in the hospital and it is not correct that he was not in a position to give his statement. The injuries noticed over the body of P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash were not found grievous in nature. He has improved his diary statement Ex. D-1 from his dying declaration Ex. D-2 and his court statement. As there is no credible corroboration by other witnesses, hence it would not be safe to uphold the conviction solely on the basis of the statement of P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash.
iii. It is further submitted that as per statement of PW. 1 Ravi Prakash, deceased Om Prakash was assaulted by accused Habbu @ Habib and Sikandar. Accused Habbu has been acquitted by the trial Court and no acquittal appeal has been preferred against his acquittal and accused Sikandar has died during pendency of the appeal.
iv. The common object of all other accused persons to kill deceased Om Prakash along with said co-accused Habbu and Sikandar (since deceased) is not proved. Therefore, it cannot be said that all other accused were having the same common object.
v. No importance can be given to the seizure of sword from appellant Juganoo as there is no injury over the body of deceased Om Prakash or any other injured caused by sword. On the other hand, it shows for the sake of argument that though the accused/appellants were armed with deadly weapon like sword but they did not use it.
vi. The prosecution has failed to prove motive to kill Om Prakash because there was dispute over a trivial issue which may not be held as motive to kill the accused.
vii. No overt act has been attribute to the present appellants. Though they were in a position 1p inflict as many injuries as they wish, but the deceased sustained only one injury over his head which ultimately proved fatal for his life. Other abrasions noticed were superficial and simple in nature. P.W. 25 Dr. V.S. Baghel has stated that all other injuries are simple in nature and were not sufficient to cause death.
viii. There is difference in medical and ocular evidence.
ix. The independent witness P.W.11 Narad and P.W. 13 Gokaran have not supported the prosecution case. Besides this, all other witnesses are interested witnesses as they are relative of the deceased. The prosecution has not examined the neighbours.
x. Presence of P.W. 4 Raju @ Ramesh is doubtful. As the incident occurred in the night, no test identification parade was conducted. The other witnesses have not said anything regarding presence of P.W. 4 Raju @ Ramesh.
xi. In absence of any FSL report and in absence of any incriminating circumstance against the appellant for recovery of any article, appellants' conviction is not proper.
xii. P.W. 12 Sumitra Bai was not in as position to specify as to who assaulted whom by which article. Hence she cannot be held as eyewitness and the court below has rightly discarded her testimony.
xiii. P.W. 14 Shanti Bai has also made a general statement in the court and has not said anything against any of the accused that they assaulted. As she had not said anything against any of the accused specifically the trial court has rightly not accepted her testimony as reliable.
xiv. In alternate, it is submitted that all the accused/appellants have remained in jail for more than 6 years. Looking to the fact that they have not shared common intention to kill the deceased, they were armed with lethal weapon but did not use the same and did not inflict fatal injuries to Om Prakash, the act of the accused/appellant at best may be covered under the ambit of Section 304 para I or II read with Section 149 or Section 326/149 of the IPC. Looking to the period of their detention and since the incident is more than 17 years old and the accused/appellant were in the age group of 18 to 22 years at the time of incident, they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them."
11. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance in the following case laws:--
"i. Busi Koteswara Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/1010/2012 : (2012) 12 SCC 711 Para 13 --
"13. It is clear that when a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, the normal test is that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident in question."ii. Inder Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0009/2015 : (2015) 2 SCC 734 Para 20 and 21 --
"20. So far as the principle of caution as enunciated in the case of Masalti v. State of U.P. (MANU/SC/0074/1964 : AIR 1965 SC 202) is concerned, we find ourselves in agreement with the submission advanced by learned senior Counsel Mr. Basant that in the peculiar facts of the case, the courts below should have further decided as to how much corroboration was required for accepting the presence and participation of individual accused person. The informant had though claimed presence of 29 persons but subsequently five were acquitted by the trial court and one was acquitted by the High Court. On this issue, on going through the charts disclosing number of witnesses who have deposed against individual Appellants to show their presence, participation, weapon and overt act, if any, we find that the test approved in Masalti 's case (supra) and subsequently followed in several other cases including the case of Busi Koteswara Rao (supra) needs to be followed in this case also. In the latter judgment in paragraph 13 the law on the subject has been expounded in very clear terms:iii. Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre and others v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/1720/2009 : (2009) 10 SCC 773 Para 67, 68, 69, 72, 74 --
13. It is clear that when a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, the normal test is that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident in question.21. Since the accused persons and the 6 material eye witnesses in this case are co-villagers, it is expected that at least three witnesses should be in a position to name individual accused persons for sustaining his conviction. Applying that test, it is found that accused No. 9-Bhagwan Singh, son of Prabhu Lal; accused No. 18-Suresh Kumar, son of Ram Dhakad; accused No. 20-Kanhi Ram, son of Prabhu Lal; accused No. 27-Prahlad Singh, son of Nathu Lal; and accused No. 28-Ram Prasad, son of Bheru Lal deserve to be acquitted by granting benefit of doubt. This benefit of doubt arises in their favour because although they have been named specifically by informant P.W. 15 as persons who were members of the unlawful assembly and who participated in assault but such claim of the informant has not been supported by more than one witness. In other words, there is no clear and cogent evidence of three witnesses against the aforesaid accused persons. So far as accused No. 28-Ram Prasad is concerned, no doubt his name has been taken by P.W. 12 and P.W. 24 also but they have not specified as to whether it was Ram Prasad, son of Bheru Lal or another accused by the same name, i.e. accused No. 25-Ram Prasad, son of Jeth Ram."
"67. In Shere and Ors. v. State of U.P. (MANU/SC/0486/1991 : 1991 Supp (2) SCC 437), this Court held:iv. Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal Saheb and others v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0589/2006 : (2006) 2 SCC 450 reported in MANU/SC/0589/2006 : (2006) 2 SCC 450 para 16, 20, 23:--
...But when there is a general allegation against a large number of persons the Court naturally hesitates to convict all of them on such vague evidence. Therefore we have to find some reasonable circumstance which lends assurance. From that point of view it is safe only to convict the abovementioned nine accused whose presence is not only consistently mentioned from the stage of FIR but also to whom overt acts are attributed....68. In Musa Khan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, this Court observed:
...Thus a court is not entitled to presume that any and every person who is proved to have been present near a riotous mob at any time or to have joined or left it at any stage during its activities is in law guilty of every act committed by it from the beginning to the end, or that each member of such a crowd must from the beginning have anticipated and contemplated the nature of the illegal activities in which the assembly would subsequently indulge. In other words, it must be proved in each case that the person concerned was not only a member of the unlawful assembly at some stage, but at all the crucial stages and shared the common object of the assembly at all these stages....69. In Nagarjit Ahir v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0047/2005 : (2005) 10 SCC 369, this Court applied rule of caution and in the facts and circumstances of the case held that it may be safe to convict only those persons against whom overt act is alleged with the aid of Section 149, IPC lest some innocent spectators may get involved.
72. The High Court in para 36 of its judgment observed that common object of the said unlawful assembly was to cause grievous hurt. A little later in para 37, the High Court held that common object of the unlawful assembly was to make murderous attack on the deceased. At first blush, there seems to be some inconsistency in the judgment but on a deeper scrutiny, we find that it is not so. It is well-known that for determination of common object of the unlawful assembly, the conduct of each of the members of the unlawful assembly before and at the time of attack is of relevant consideration. At a particular stage of the incident, what is object of the unlawful assembly is a question of fact and that has to be determined keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of incident.
74. In a case such as the present one, although having regard to facts, the number of participants could not be less than five, it is better to apply rule of caution and act on the side of safety and convict only A-2, A-3, and A-12 under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. whose presence as members of party of assailants is consistently mentioned and their overt acts in chasing and assaulting the deceased are clearly proved. A-4, A-5, A-6, A-10 and A-1l get the benefit of doubt with regard to offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. since evidence against them in chasing and assaulting the deceased is not consistent. However, all the eight appellants are guilty of the offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 326 read with Section 149, I.P.C. This is proved beyond doubt and the High Court cannot be said to have erred in holding so."
"16. Learned Counsel for the appellants have lastly submitted that the appellants had no motive to commit the murder of Hira Singh deceased as it was P.W.1 Ganesh Singh who was an eyewitness to the assault made by A-1 and A-5 upon Udai Narain five days earlier and they wanted him (PW.1) not to give evidence against them in the said case. So the real animosity was with Ganesh Singh. The deceased Hira Singh was no doubt the elder brother of Ganesh Singh but he was living away from the village and was carrying on business in Calcutta. He had come to his village on the occasion of Holi festival and it was then that A-1 and some other co-accused had asked him to forbid his brother (PW.1) not to give evidence to which he had given a reply that being a witness to the incident he would give evidence in Court. Thus, the only act attributed to the deceased was his refusal to persuade his younger brother not to give evidence against A-1 and A-5 regarding the incident of assault made upon Udai Narain. There was no guarantee that Ganesh Singh would not have given evidence against them even after Hira Singh had dissuaded him from doing so more so when he was living away from the village. Learned Counsel has further submitted that so far as A-2, A-3 and A-5 are concerned, they did not cause any injury to the deceased and the second injury on the body of the deceased was a small incised wound which was only skin deep and it was a superficial injury. It has thus been urged that the conviction of the remaining accused for the offence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC, other than the one who caused the stab wound on the chest which proved fatal, is illegal and deserves to be set aside.v. Sudina Prasad and others v. State of Bihar (2002) 10 SCC 99 Para 6 and 8:--
20. So far as A-1 is concerned, his case is fully covered by clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC as it can be reasonably inferred that he intended to cause bodily injury to the deceased by aiming the blow on the left side of the chest and the injury was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, he is clearly liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC. Learned Sessions Judge had framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC against all the accused including A-1. In view of Section 464 Cr.P.C. it is possible for the appellate or revisional court to convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that the failure of justice would in fact occasion. In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself. In Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P. (MANU/SC/0320/2004 : 2004 CriLJ 2025), this question has been examined by a three Judge Bench to which one of us (G.P. Mathur, J.) was a party and aforesaid principle has been laid down. In the present case the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, whose testimony has been relied upon, clearly deposed that A-1 was armed with a spear and he assaulted the deceased with the said weapon. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. a specific question in this regard was put to A-1. Therefore, A-1 was made aware of the basic ingredients of the offence and the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him. Thus, he can be convicted under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of Hira Singh.
23. As mentioned earlier there was no such motive which could have impelled the accused persons to commit the murder of Hira Singh as he had merely declined to ask or persuade his younger brother PW.1 Ganesh Singh from giving evidence against A-1 and A-5 in the case relating to assault made upon Udai Narain. The statement of Ganesh Singh had already been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The deceased was not himself a witness in the said case. A-2, A-3 and A-5 did not cause any injury to the deceased. The incised wound on the body of deceased is of very small dimension and is only skin deep, which shows that A-4 did not wield the farsa with any intention or object to cause injury to deceased. In view of these features of the case, it cannot be held that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit the murder of the deceased or that the members of the unlawful assembly knew that murder is likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. However, as members of the unlawful assembly carried deadly weapons, the knowledge that grievous injury may be caused can certainly be attributed to them We are, therefore, of the opinion that conviction of A-3, A-4 and A-5 under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC deserves to be set aside and instead they are liable to be convicted under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC for which a sentence of 7 years RI will meet the ends of justice."
"6. The second feature is that 11 out of 12 injuries did not cause any damage to the internal organs. It is the horizontal bruise on the left side of the back which possibly would have caused the fracture of the ribs.vi. Sarman and others v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0096/1993 : 1993 Supp (2) SCC 356 Para 5 and 6:--
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. We, therefore, alter the conviction from Section 302, IPC to Section 304 Part II, IPC. Hence we therefore, convict the appellant for the said offence read with Section 149 IPC instead of Section 302, IPC."
"5. Now coming to the nature of the offence it is true that the doctor found a number of injuries. However, it must be noted that even according to the prosecution all the appellants were only armed with lathies and were charged for offence punishable Under Section 147, I.PC. The doctor, P.W. 19 who conducted post mortem noticed 17 Injuries. Out of them injuries, Nos. 1, 3, 10, 11 and 14 were described as incise wounds. Though they resulted in bleeding but no other damage was noticed. It is only injury No. 15 which resulted in a depressed fracture of parietal bone and ultimately proved in membrane puncture. Though the doctor in a general way stated cause of death was due to multiple injuries but he has specifically stated that on injury No, 15 he noticed a depressed fracture of parietal bone which individually was sufficient to cause death of the deceased. In these circumstances question that arises is whether all the other accused also responsible for the death of the deceased, the prosecution has not explained as to how the deceased received incise wounds though they are simple. The prosecution case in general is that all of them were found with lathies. Nobody has stated that which of them caused the injury No. 15 which unfortunately resulted in the death of the deceased. If anyone of the appellants had exceeded the common object and acted on his own, it would be his individual act. In this case unfortunately no witness has come forward as to which of the accused has caused which injury. In these circumstances we find it difficult to award punishment under Section 302/149, I.P.C.vii. Shaji and others v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0544/2011 : 2011 AIR SCW 2003 Para 12 and 13:--
6. Although post-mortem report says that all the injuries might have caused the death of the deceased but in as much as the accused inflicted injuries with lathies and particularly when they are simple and on non vital parts it cannot be said that their object was to kill the deceased. They may have knowledge that the blows given were likely to cause death."
"12. The following conclusion in Kuldip Yadav (MANU/SC/0390/2011 : 2011 AIR SCW 2404) is also relevant which reads as under:
'It is not the intention of the legislature in enacting Section 149 to render every member of unlawful assembly liable to punishment for every offence committed by one or more of its members. In order to attract Section 149, it must be shown that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object of unlawful assembly and it must be within the knowledge of other members as one likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. If the members of the assembly knew or were aware of the likelihood of a particular offence being committed in prosecution of the common object, they would be liable for the same under Section 149 Indian Penal Code.13. Though as per the decision of the Constitution Bench, the prosecution is well within its jurisdiction to establish the charge under Section 149 Indian Penal Code even after the acquittal of two members of the unlawful assembly, however, in order to attract Section 149 Indian Penal Code, it must be shown that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object of unlawful assembly and it must be within the knowledge of other members as one likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. In the case on hand, admittedly the prosecution rests on the evidence of P Ws 1,2 and 5 who alleged to have witnessed the occurrence. We have already mentioned that we are not concerned with A-1 (Appellant No. 1 herein) in the present appeal in view of the order of premature release by the State Government. PW-1, in his evidence, though mentioned that he knows all the six accused persons and identified them in the Court, has not attributed to any of the accused other than A-1. In categorical terms, he informed the Court that "A-1 (Shaji) cut the head of Usman by the chopper (MOI)". He also deposed that the incident had completed within ten minutes. Though he deposed that he told about the incident to one Appachan, the owner of the mill, that Shaji and others attacked Usman, the said Appachan was not examined. Like PW-1, PW-2 also attributed only against A-1, who was in possession of a chopper. Though she mentioned, that A-4 was carrying iron rod, she had not elaborated anything about the role of others except A-1. In the same way, the other eye witness, PW-5 identified and attributed only A-1 for the commission of offence. Absolutely, there is no reference to the role of other accused. Even the Investigation Officer examined as PW-14 had not mentioned anything about the role of other accused except A-1. In fact, in cross-examination, he had admitted that" "PW-1 had not given statement specifically that A-2 beat Usman by Iron rod". In view of the claim of the learned Counsel for the Appellants about the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5, we have carefully analyzed the same. As rightly submitted by Mr. T.N. Singh, none of these witnesses attributed involvement of other accused except A-1. As observed in Kuldip Yadav (supra), before convicting accused with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code, the Court must give clear finding regarding nature of common object and that the object was unlawful. In the absence of such a finding as also any overt act on the part of the accused persons, mere fact that they were armed would not be sufficient to prove common object. In as much as Section 149 creates a specific offence and deals with punishment of that offence, in order to convict a person or persons with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code, a clear finding regarding common object of the assembly must be available and the evidence discussed must show not only the nature of the common object but also that the object was unlawful. In the case on hand, we are satisfied that the above-mentioned ingredients have not been fulfilled or established by the prosecution insofar as the accused other than A-1."
12. It is prayed that the case of the accused/appellants is covered by above case laws. Hence benefit may be given to the accused/appellants as they are not liable for murder of Om Prakash.
13. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the State argued that all the accused/appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC. P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash @ Gudda is an injured eye witness. Statements of P.W. 4 Raju @ Ramesh, P.W. 12 Sumitra Bai, P.W. 14 Shanti Bai are also reliable as they have identified the accused/appellants in the doc and stated regarding their role in the incident. As per injured eye witnesses, deceased Om Prakash v/as dragged out from the house after house trespass and he was assaulted. The accused/appellants were armed with deadly weapon like hockey, club, sword and they formed unlawful assembly with intention to kill Om Prakash in prosecution of their common object. The trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellants. The judgment of the Court below is well founded. There is no infirmity in the same.
14. To appreciate the arguments, we have perused the record.
15. P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash, brother of deceased Om Prakash is an injured eye-witness. As per this witness when he came to his house along with P.W. 13 Gokaran and P.W. 11 Narad, he saw in the light of the courtyard, the accused persons had encircled the house. Some were breaking window, some were breaking gate. When he reached to the courtyard, accused Juganoo assaulted him by sword, accused Sikandar and Vijay etc. also started beating him by legs, thereafter Sikandar broke the gate and took out his brother Om Prakash. Thereafter accused Habbu assaulted the deceased by hockey and Sikandar assaulted the deceased by club. Other accused were beating him by legs. He states that P.W. 13 Gokaran also received injuries. He and Om Prakash ran towards the field of Hari. Juganoo and other accused chased them and beat. Juganoo had sword, Vijay had spade. Other accused also had rod and hockey sticks. During cross-examination this witness remained very firm and nothing could be elicited so as to discredit his statement.
16. P.W. 2 Golva alias Manoj is a rickshaw puller. He took the injured to hospital. P.W. 3 Virendra Singh Chhatri is an eye-witness. He saw injured Om Prakash and P.W. 2 Ravi Prakash in an semi-conscious condition, blood was oozing. They were lying on their badi. Thereafter they were taken to hospital by the villagers. P.W. 4 Raju alias Ramesh is also an eye-witness. As per this witness when he and deceased Om Prakash were talking, accused persons came their armed with sword, hockey sticks and clubs. Accused Juganoo, Sikandar, Mukesh and Anish chased Om Prakash to assault him, then Om Prakash rushed into his house and closed the door. This witness fled towards field. All the 4 accused persons broke the gate, took out Om Prakash and assaulted him. During this incident, P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash, P.W. 13 Gokaran and P.W. 11 Narad came. Accused persons also assaulted them and caused injuries. Thereafter he saw Om Prakash and Ravi Prakash in injured condition, blood was oozing from the head. Then they were taken to hospital. P.W. 5 Shiv Bahadur is father of deceased Om Prakash and P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash. He is a witness of earlier incident and a hearsay witness to this incident. He states that on 22-4-1999 a day prior to incident, he, Rajkumar, and Brindawan were sitting near the shop of Habbu Miyan. Habbu, Salam, Sikandar and Salim came there and Habbu asked that his nephew Juganoo will beat his son Om Prakash. He requested to forgive the incident and to make compromise. On 23-4-1999 at about 8 to 8.30 pm he was at Mangla Chauk. He heard that his both sons Ravi Prakash and Om Prakash were beaten by Juganoo along with 10-12 persons. His both the sons were taken to hospital in a rickshaw. He also rushed to the hospital.
17. P.W. 6 Umashankar Kashyap is a witness of seizure memo Ex. P-2 and P-8 whereby plain soil and blood stained soil, hockey stick, club, slippers, spade and other articles were seized. EW. 7 Ramkhilawan Kashyap is also a hearsay witness. He is brother of the deceased. He saw his both the brothers on a rickshaw along with other villagers in an injured condition. They were taken to hospital. He also saw P.W. 13 Gokaran and P.W. 11 Narad in an injured condition. He is also a witness of inquest Ex. P-4. P.W. 8 Rajkumar is a witness before whom a day prior to the incident Habib, Kalam, Salim, Sikandar came and abused that they will beat Om Prakash. P.W. 9 Santosh is a witness of memorandum and seizure of certain articles from accused persons vide Ex. P-5 to P-12. P.W. 10 Lallu Kashyap is a witness of seizure memo Ex. P-13 whereby blood stained clothes of P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash were seized. P.W. 11 Narad, the injured witness has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. He is lodger of the FIR. He admits his signature on it but does not support the contents of it. P.W. 12 Sumitra Bai is wife of the elder brother of -deceased Om Prakash. As per this witness, she had seen 10 to 15 boys, they were abusing and uttering obscene words to Ravi Prakash and Om Prakash. They encircled their house, forcibly entered into the house, took out Om Prakash of the house. Ravi Prakash came along with Narad and Gokaran. They were assaulted by those persons. Om Prakash received injury on his head, neck and internal injury on abdomen. Ravi Prakash was also injured. Thereafter they were taken to hospital on a rickshaw. This witness identified the accused persons as the persons who entered into her house and assaulted. She identified Jugnoo who was having sword at the time of incident. She has further deposed that the accused persons had left their slippers, rods, sticks outside the house which were seized by the police. P.W. 13 Gokaran is an alleged eye-witness, has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. As per this witness, somebody assaulted him. He received injury over his hand and hence he was not in a position to identify as to who beat whom. P.W. 14 Shanti Bai is the mother of deceased Om Prakash and injured eye-witness Ravi Prakash. As per this witness, she along with other family members and Om Prakash was in the house. Ten-fifteen people came to their house and after breaking window and gate they entered into the house, took Om Prakash to courtyard and beat him by hands and fists and also pressed his neck. They were saying that they will not let him alive. This witness identified acquitted accused Habbu and also identified Juganoo that it was he who had broken window and the gate and also pushed her. She also received injuries. She further states that all the assailants also beat P.W.1 Ravi Prakash, deceased Om Prakash, PW. 13 Gokaran and P.W. 11 Narad. Thereafter the injured were taken to hospital.
18. P.W. 15 Tarun Kashyap is a witness of inquest Ex. P-4. P.W. 16 Dr. S. Chatterjee was the in-charge radiologist. He noticed fracture in medial epicondyle of humerus bone of Gokaran. He gave his report Ex. P-16 and x-ray plate is Ex. P-16-A. He has also examined x-ray of parietal bone of injured Om Prakash and noticed a fracture and gave his report Ex. P-17, x-ray plates are 17-A and B. He also examined x-ray plate of Ravi Prakash and noticed no fracture. P.W. 17 Dhaniram Thakur, Constable helped in the initial investigation. P.W 18 Dr. G.P. Naidu is the doctor from whom bed head tickets of P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash were taken by the police vide Ex. P-19. P.W. 19 Ramgyan Morya, Sub Inspector conducted inquest Ex. P-4 and also sent the body of Om Prakash for post mortem along with memo Ex. P-20. P.W. 20 K.S. Rathiya, Sub Inspector is the investigating officer and has duly proved the entire investigation. P.W. 21 Dr. S. Mukharjee examined Gokaran and noticed one lacerated wound on left side of forehead 3 x 1/2 cm caused by hard and blunt object, one punctured wound 1/2 x 1/4 cm on left elbow caused by sharp object. He admitted the injured for treatment, advised for x-ray. His report is Ex. P-39. He also examined P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash and noticed one lacerated wound over scalp 12 x 1/2 cm, one lacerated wound over scalp 14 x 1/2 cm, swelling over left hand 4 x 2 cm, patient vomitted once, advised for x ray. His report is Ex. P-40. He also examined Om Prakash and noticed history of assault, behavior abnormal, in semi conscious state. One abrasion 2 x 1 cm caused by hard and blunt object. He admitted the patient in male surgical ward and further opined that duration and opinion will be given by the surgical specialist. He gave his MLC report Ex. P-41. He after examination of the blood stained clothes advised for chemical analysis, also examined the articles sent by the police and opined that injuries caused over the body of Om Prakash, Ravi Prakash and Gokaran may be caused by the said articles. He gave his report Ex. P-42.
19. P.W. 22 Santosh Verma is a Patwari and prepared the spot map Ex. P-43. P.W. 23 Dinesh Pandey is a witness of inquest Ex. P-4 and also a witness of memorandum Ex. P-5, seizure P-7, P-6, P-8, P-9, P-10, P-11, P-12, though he has admitted his signatures but has not supported the contents of said documents. He has been declared hostile. P.W. 24 Dr. S.S. Bhatia examined injured P.W. 11 Narad and noticed contusion on occipital reason, simple caused by hard and blunt object and an abrasion on right hand size 3 cm x '/a cm. He gave his report Ex. P-24-A. P.W. 25 Dr. v. Baghel is the autopsy surgeon and conducted post mortem of Om Prakash and noticed many scratches, bruise and abrasions on the body of the deceased and opined that deceased died due to grievous injury on head and hemorrhage and hemorrhagic shock. He also opined that the head injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. His report is Ex. P-44.
20. The accused persons adduced three defence witnesses D.W. 1 Hajarilal Chhabda D.W. 2 Siyaram and D.W. 3 Vinod Sharma. D.W. 1 Hajarilal Chhabda has stated that police wanted to make accused Habbu as witness and Habbu was not agree for the same. Thereafter Habbu was arrested and made accused. D.W. 2 Siyaram has not stated anything specific. D.W. 3 Vinod Sharma is a witness of the fact that acquitted accused Riyaz Mohammad was admitted in the school and thereafter he left the school after class 5th. Said register is Ex. D-7.
21. So far as the case laws cited by the appellants are concerned, in Busi Koteswara Rao's MANU/SC/1010/2012 : (2012) 12 SCC 711 (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, the normal test is that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident in question. In Inder Sing MANU/SC/0009/2015 : (2015) 2 SCC 734 (supra) same principle has been reiterated. In Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre MANU/SC/1720/2009 : (2009) 10 SCC 773 (supra), it is held that when there is a general allegation against a large number of persons the court naturally hesitates to convict all of them on such vague evidence. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex mentioned from the stage of FIR but also to whom overt acts are attributed. In Musa Khan's case (supra), placing reliance in the cases of Shere and others (supra), Musa Khan and Others (supra) and Nagarjit Ahir (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, convicted some accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC whose presence as members of party of assailants was consistently mentioned and their overt acts in chasing and assaulting the deceased were clearly proved and gave some accused persons benefit of doubt with regard to offence under Section 302/149, IPC since evidence against them in chasing and assaulting the deceased was not consistent. However the Hon'ble Apex Court held all the appellants guilty for offences under Section 148 and 326/149 of IPC. In Radha Mohan Sing (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court found that there was no such motive which could have impelled the accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased as he had merely declined to ask or persuade his younger brother from giving evidence against accused A-1 and A-5 in the case relating to assault made upon Udai Narain. Accused A-4 did not wield the farsa with any intention or object to cause injury to deceased. In view of these features of the case, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it cannot be held that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit the murder of the deceased or that the members of the unlawful assembly knew that murder is likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. However as members of the unlawful assembly carried deadly weapons, the knowledge that grievous injury may be caused can certainly be attributed to them, while settling aside conviction under Section 302/149, IPC they were convicted under Section 326/149, IPC. In Shahji (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court observed that Section 149, IPC creates a specific offence and deals with punishment of that offence, in order to convict a persons or persons with the aid of Section 149, IPC, a clear finding regarding common object of the assembly must be available.
22. Close scrutiny of the evidence of witnesses makes it clear that contents of the FIR are not proved by the maker of the same P.W. 11 Narad. He only admitted his signature. It is trite law that the basic purpose of lodging FIR is to set the criminal law into motion. It is not a substantive piece of evidence. FIR Ex. P-21 was promptly lodged in which presence of appellants is mentioned. From perusal of evidence of P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash, P.W. 4 Raju alias Ramesh and of course to some extent P.W. 12 Sumitra Bai who identified accused Juganoo and also made doc identification of all the accused, it is clear that accused/appellants are the persons who assaulted Om Prakash, Ravi Prakash and others after house trespass. If we further peruse the statement of P.W. 14 Shanti Bai this fact is duly corroborated that 10 to 15 persons came to their house, trespassed by damaging the window and gate and they assaulted Om Prakash and also Ravi Prakash, Gokaran and Narad. This witness had also identified acquitted co-accused Habbu and Juganoo. Presence of the appellants along with accused Sikandar (since deceased) is proved by the witnesses. It is also duly proved that they were armed with deadly weapons, Juganoo with sword and others were armed with hockey, spade and clubs. P.W.1 Ravi Prakash is the injured eyewitness who had also received injuries and was admitted in the hospital for treatment. As per statement of this witness, Om Prakash was taken out from the house and thereafter he was beaten. As per P.W, 1 Ravi Prakash, he was beaten by acquitted co-accused Habbu. P.W, 13 Gokaran was beaten by hockey and club. Injury over the head of Om Prakash was duly supported by P.W. 25 Dr. V.S. Baghel, who conducted autopsy. Other injuries on the body of the deceased were abrasions, simple in nature. As per para 7 of the autopsy surgeon P.W. 25 Dr. V.S. Baghel, the other injuries i.e. abrasions are not sufficient to cause death. They may only cause pain. Therefore it is duly proved that Om Prakash received an injury over his head caused by hard and blunt object sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature and the death was homicidal in nature. Accused Sikandar (since deceased) has died during pendency of this appeal. Accused Habbu was acquitted of the charges and no acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State against his acquittal.
23. Therefore, presence of present appellants in the house of Om Prakash along with deadly weapon is duly proved. Their participation in the entire incident is stated by P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash and other witnesses. Therefore, prosecution has proved the element of Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC against the appellants and also regarding forming unlawful assembly with lethal weapons in connection with the act as stated by the injured eye-witness duly supported in part by other witnesses. Now the question for consideration is as to what was the common object of the said unlawful assembly.
24. Death of Om Prakash was proved as homicidal occurred on account of solitary blow over his head and the same was caused by accused Sikandar (since deceased). The trial Court disbelieved P.W. 4 Raju @ Ramesh, P.W.11 Narad, P.W. 12 Sumitra Bai, P.W. 13 Gokaran and P.W. 14 Shanti Bai. P.W. 11 Narad and P.W. 13 Gokaran have turned hostile and they have not said anything specific against any of the appellants. Remaining witnesses in some way or the other support each other so far as presence of accused persons is concerned. They corroborate P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash. Though nobody received injury of hard and sharp weapon but it is proved that Juganoo was armed with sword. Though P.W. 11 Narad has turned hostile but existence of the said FIR is proved by the investigating officer.
25. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that statement of the P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash was recorded belatedly, on perusal of the record, it is apparent that he was also hospitalized and was under treatment. Looking to other corroborative facts like promptly lodged FIR and that he himself sustained injuries in the incident, it cannot be said that his statement was recorded belatedly or it can be doubted.
26. Upon consideration of the entire facts we are not agree with the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants. We are of the view that presence of the appellants in the house of Om Prakash armed with deadly weapons is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It is also proved that the members of the unlawful assembly damaged the window and the door and took out Om Prakash from the house and thereafter accused Sikandar (since deceased) assaulted once over the head of Om Prakash which is the only injury noticed by the autopsy surgeon sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Other injuries have no significance to the death of Om Prakash. The allegation against the other accused/appellants are general in nature. Therefore, this court has to appreciate whether the present appellants had the same common intention as the deceased accused Sikandar had. For this, prosecution has tried to prove motive that prior to few days, on occasion of one marriage, there was some dispute and incident between Om Prakash and accused Juganoo. In that background, the family members of Om Prakash were threatened. A threat was given that accused persons will teach a lesson to Om Prakash. Said issue was a trivial one. Barring this, no enmity was proved or shown during trial. We are convinced with the alternate argument that though the appellants were armed with deadly weapon but they did not assault the deceased. The autopsy surgeon noticed only one fatal injury. Therefore though the accused/appellants formed unlawful assembly to teach a lesson to Om Prakash regarding the past incident but they did not form the unlawful assembly with common object to kill Om Prakash. In the shadow of entire facts and evidence, their act in view of the general allegations against them is not covered within the definition of Section 302/149 of the IPC and at best the present accused/appellants may be held liable for having common object to inflict grievous injury with deadly weapon which they were carrying at that time. The case of accused Sikandar (since deceased) is different from the present accused/appellants. So far as offence under Sections 147, 148, IPC is concerned, technically as the accused/appellants were armed with deadly weapons, the conviction under Section 147, IPC is merged with Section 148, IPC and there is no need to pass separate sentence for section 147, IPC as the sentence under Section 148, IPC is appropriate. So far as criminal trespass for causing simple injury to P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash is concerned, the accused/appellants are convicted with the aid of Section 149 of IPC, which provides that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
27. We are not convinced with the remaining part of the argument advanced regarding innocence of the accused/appellants in totality. In the light of the case law cited before us, we are convinced that looking to the entire facts and evidence specially by P.W. 1 Ravi Prakash it would not be appropriate to uphold the conviction of the accused/appellants under Section 302/149 of the IPC instead the present accused/appellants are liable to be convicted for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons committed in prosecution of any common object. Every other member present as a part of such assembly is guilty for offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
28. So far as conviction for other charge i.e. under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 450/149, IPC is concerned, prosecution has duly proved its case against present accused/appellants and conviction and sentence for the said offences need no interference and are upheld. Since conviction awarded against the appellants under Section 147, IPC is technically merged into offence under Section 148, IPC, separate sentence under Section 147, IPC is not required. Other sentence awarded by the trial Court is not required to be interfered with. Hence they are affirmed.
29. Now the question is as to what would be the sentence for the offence under Section 326/149, IPC? The incident is about more than 17 years old. The accused/appellants were at the age group of 18 to 22 years at the time of incident. They were the first offender with no previous criminal antecedent. Accused/appellant Durga remained in jail for more than 7 years. Other accused/appellants remained in jail for about more than 6 years. Looking to their period of detention, the period already undergone by them shall serve the ends of justice. The trial Court in para 51 of the judgment ordered that the substantive jail sentences awarded to each of the accused shall run separately. Since no reason for said order is shown in the judgment, and also looking to the entire facts, it would be appropriate that the substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellants shall run concurrently with the benefit of set off for the period already undergone by them.
30. Further if we consider the evidence of the present case in the light of the case laws cited by learned counsel for the appellants, it is clear that in the FIR itself lodged immediately after the incident, name of accused Juganoo, Anish, Sikandar, Saleem, Azaz, Amir, Amin Mukesh, Vijay, Roshan, Pappu, Durga are mentioned as accused. P.W. 1 Shiv Prakash has also named accused Juganoo, Anish, Sikandar, Azaz, Durga, Mukesh, Roshan, Pappu, Vijay, Habbu, Saleem etc. P.W. 4 Raju has named Juganoo, Sikandar, Mukesh, Anish. P.W.12 Sumitra Bai and P.W. 15 Shanti Bai have stated that 10-15 boys came and assaulted. The case laws cited justify conviction of the appellants with the aid of Section 149, IPC as they formed an unlawful assembly. The head injury is attributed to the accuse Sikandar (since deceased), and allegations against the present appellants are general in nature, the incident occurred on account of a trivial issue, however as members of the unlawful assembly they carried deadly weapons, the knowledge that grievous injury may be caused can certainly be attributed to them. Therefore their conviction under Section 326 with the aid of Section 149, IPC is justified as per the case law in Musa Khan's case.
31. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 302/149 are set aside. They are convicted under Sections 147, 148, 450/149, 323/149 and Section 326/149, IPC. Separate sentence under Section 147 is not imposed. For offence under Sections 148, 450/149, 323/149, IPC, the sentences awarded by the trial court are upheld with a modification that all the substantive jail sentences shall run concurrently. For offence under Section 326/149, IPC the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional RI for 1 month. The fine amount if deposited by the appellants for offence under Section 302/149, IPC, the same shall be adjusted in the fine sentence awarded under Section 326/149, IPC. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment