Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nek Narayan & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 9 February, 2017
Author: S.K. Gangele
Bench: S.K. Gangele
Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
Cr.A. No.2930/1998
Neknarayan and others appellants
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh respondent
Coram :
Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anurag Shrivastava
===========================================
Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
===========================================
Reserved on :30.01.2017
*********
JUDGMENT
(Pronounced on : 09.02.2017) Per S.K. Gangele J Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 03.12.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No.78/1995. The trial Court found the appellants guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Sections 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'the IPC') and awarded a sentence of life and seven years with fine amount.
2. Accused Govind Singh, Neknarayan and others were engaged in the business of money lending. They used to Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/2 advance loan on higher interest rates. There was a dispute between Bhagwan Singh and Neknarayan. Bhagwan Singh had to pay an amount of Rs. 70,000/- to Neknarayan.
3. On 27.06.1991, Ramsingh, Kali Bai, Hajju @ Hazrat and other persons came to Vikrampur Railway Station to board a train. At that time, appellants Govind Singh, Niranjan Singh, Girwar Singh and Neknarayan armed with guns, Rishiraj armed with lathi and Battulal armed with farsa came on the spot. They had abused Ramsingh. Govind Singh inflicted blow of lathi on Ramsingh. After hearing cry, family members of Ramsingh, wife of Leeladhar, Saraswati Bai and other persons reached on the spot. Rishiraj had inflicted lathi blows to Kali Bai and Mooratsingh, Udalsingh, Sardar Singh, Bhagwan Singh tried to save her. However, Neknarayan, Govind Singh, Niranjan Singh and Girwar Singh had opened fire at the complainant party. In the incident, Kali Bai died on the spot after one hour. Hajju @ Hazrat, Ramsingh, Saraswati Bai, Udal Singh, Tofan Singh, Pannalal, Leeladhar and Mooratsingh received gun shot injuries. The incident was reported to G.R.P., Gadarwada. The report was lodged at the Police Station and injured persons had been taken to District Hospital, Narsinghpur. The doctor (PW-2) performed postmortem of deceased Kali Bai.
Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/3
4. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellants and co-accused Rishiraj. Initially, the appellants were absconding, hence, the trial Court proceeded against co-accused Rishiraj. He was acquitted. Subsequently, the appellants were arrested. They abjured their guilt. The trial Court, after completion of trial, held the appellants guilty for commission of offences mentioned above in the judgment and awarded sentence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the trial Court has committed an error in holding the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. For the aforesaid offence, co- accused Rishiraj was tried separately and he was acquitted by the trial Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that there is no evidence against the appellants to convict them in other offences. Apart from this, the learned counsel further submitted that the appellants and complainants moved an application for compromise for an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and looking to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellants which is near about 2-3 years, the sentence of the appellants be modified to already undergone if this Court held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.
Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/4
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that there is enough evidence that the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly and the object of forming of unlawful assembly was to kill the complainants. Kali Bai died in the incident. Hence, the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty and awarded appropriate sentence.
7. PW-6 Leeladhar is an injured eye witness. PW-7 Ramsingh and PW-14 Mooratsingh are also eye witnesses. PW-8 Madan Gopal, PW-9 Saraswati Bai, PW-12 Chhotelal, PW-18 Sardar Singh, PW-19 Pannalal, PW-20 Bhagwan Singh turned hostile. PW-21 B.R. Gujar is the investigating officer.
8. PW-6 Leeladhar deposed that he was taking tea on the shop of Lachhman Veeran, at that time, Neknarayan, Govindsingh, Niranjan Singh, Girwar Singh, Rishiraj and Battu Dhobi came there. They had inquired about Bhagwan Singh and said that they had to recover Rs. 70,000/- from Bhagwan Singh because he had taken loan from them. At that time, they had beaten Ramsingh, who is the father of Bhagwan Singh, by lathi, farsa and gun. Neknarayan was armed with gun. Govind Singh, Niranjan Singh, Girwar Singh were also armed with gun. Rishiraj was armed with lathi. Battulal was armed with farsa. After seeing 'marpeet' with Ramsingh, I had called other members of the family Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/5 and then all the members of the family i.e. Kallu @ Tofan Singh, Udalsingh, Bhagwan Singh, Kali Bai my wife, my daughter Saraswati Bai, my son Pannalal and my nephew Mooratsingh came on the spot. Neknarayan had fired a gun shot and Kali Bai received injury. Thereafter, Rishiraj had inflicted a lathi blow on Kali Bai. My dauther Saraswati Bai was also beaten by gun and I had also received pallets of gun on the body and also blow of lathi. Saraswati Bai also received pallets injuries. Girwar Singh had fired at Pannalal, who also received pallets injuries. Niranjan Singh had fired at Mooratsingh and he also received pallets injuries. Bhagwan Singh was hiding at the station. Thereafter, all the accused persons had fled away. Due to the injuries, Kali Bai fell down on the spot. She was died after a period of one hour. She received a blow of lathi which was given by Rishiraj. Same facts have been deposed by PW-7 Ramsingh and PW-14 Mooratsingh. PW-14 specifically deposed that Rishiraj had inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Kali Bai and other persons fired gun shots. Same facts have been deposed by the other eye witnesses.
9. PW-2 Dr. Deepak Tignath, who performed postmortem of deceased Kali Bai deposed that on 27.06.1991 he was posted at Government Hospital, Narsinghpur as Assistant Surgeon. He performed postmortem of deceased Kali Bai. Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/6 He noticed one lacerated wound 8 CM x 1 CM bone deep on the right parietal region of the head of Kali Bai. Parietal bone was fractured. She died due to aforesaid injury. He specifically deposed in para 3 that there was only one injury on the head of the deceased Kali Bai.
10. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that the deceased Kali Bai received one injury and it was lacerated wound. All the witnesses deposed that Rishiraj was armed with lathi and he had inflicted lathi blow on the head of deceased Kali Bai. The present appellants were not armed with lathi. All the appellants are said to be armed with guns except appellant No.3 Battulal, who is said to be armed with farsa. Hence, if the prosecution evidence is accepted then it cannot be held that the present appellants had committed murder of deceased Kali Bai. The allegation of inflicting lathi blow on Kali Bai is against Rishiraj. He was tried separately in Sessions Trial No.230/1992. The trial Court vide judgment dated 02.03.1994 acquitted Rishiraj from the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307 read with Section 149 and 120-B of IPC. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the present appellants could not be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
11. The injured witnesses have deposed that they received pallets injuries. Except appellant No.3 Battulal, the present Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/7 appellants were armed with guns. Injured Ramsingh, Saraswati Bai, Kallu @ Tofan Singh, Pannalal, Leeladhar, Udalsingh, Mooratsingh and Hajju @ Hazrat received pallets injuries.
12. PW-11 Dr. B.M. Agrawal in his evidence deposed that he was posted as Assistant Surgen at District Hospital, Narsinghpur on 27.06.1991 and he had examined Hajju @ Hazrat and noticed following injuries on his body:
^^pksV dz0 1& nkfguh tka?k ds ihNs dh rjQ 6 cUnwd dh xksyh dh pksVs ftudk vkdkj 1@4 bapx1@4 bap Fkk ;s vyx vyx LFkkuksa ij FkhA ogka flQZ xksyh vUnj tkus dk ?kko Fkk vkSj ckgj fudyus dk ?kko ugha FkkA pksV dz0 2& nkfguh fi<+yh ij 1@4 bapx1@4 bap vkdkj dk cUnwd dh xksyh yxus dk ?kko FkkA pksV dz0 3& nkfgus ?kqVus ds Bhd uhps] cktw esa 1@4 bapx1@4 bap vkdkj dk cUnwd dh xksyh yxus dk ?kkoA pksV dz0 4& nkfguh dksguh ds uhps] nkfguh vxzHkqtk ij nks cUnwd dh xksyh yxus ds pksV ds fu'kku ftudk vkdkj 1@4 bapx1@4 bap FkkA pksV dz0 5& nkfgauh vxzHkqtk ij cUnwd dh xksyh yxus ds nks ?kkoA pksV dz0 6& oka;h Hkqtk ds fupys ,d frgkbZ fgLls esa ,d cUnwd dh xksyh yxus dk ?kkoA^^
13. PW-15 Dr. D. Kumar in his evidence deposed that on 27.06.1991 he was posted as Assistant Surgeon at District Hospital, Narsinghpur and he had examined Ramsingh, Saraswati Bai, Udalsingh, Tofan Singh, Munnalal, Leeladhar and Mooratsingh and performed their M.L.C. He deposed that he noticed following injuries :
^^1 --------------3 ctdj 30 feuV ij jkeflag oYn xksiky flag yks/kh mez 60 lky nyiriqj ftlds fd cka;sa da/ks ds lkeus dh vksj cka;sa fry dk fu'kkuh Fkk dk ijh{k.k dj fuEufyf[kr pksVsa ikbZ %& ¼1½ QVk gqvk ?kko nkfgus iSj ds lkeus dh vksj Ogh ds vkdkj dk mlesa peM+h m/kM+h gqbZ Fkh 5 ls0eh0x3ls0eh0x1ls0eh0 Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/8 ¼2½ xu'kkWV oqUM nkfgus iSj ds Åijh Hkkx ds lkeus dh vksj ftlesa gM~Mh VwVh yx jgha Fkh 2 ls0eh0x1ls0eh0 vkdkj dk ik;k x;kA ¼3½ xu'kkWV oqUM nkfgus ,d ls0eh0x-6ls0eh0x1ls0eh0 nkfgus iSj ds lkeu dh vksj fupy vk/ks Hkkx ijA ¼4½ xu'kkWV oqUM ckW;s iSj ds chpksa chp -6ls0eh0x-4ls0eh0 ¼5½ QVk gqvk ?kko ck;s ekFks ij 2ls0eh0x1ls0eh0x1ls0eh0A ¼6½ [kjksap nkfgus QksjvkeZ ds ckgjh vksj 1ls0eh0x1ls0eh0A ¼7½ xu'kkWV oqUM ljdqyj la[;k esa 5 izR;sd dk uki -4ls0eh0x-
4ls0eh0 cka;s tkW?k ds Hkhrjh vksj fupys vk/ks Hkkx ijA ;g ikWpksa ? kko 18 ls0eh0 ds ?ksjs ds vanj vk;s FksA ¼8½ lwtu nkfgus gkFk esa 4ls0eh0x4ls0eh0 * * * * 3& mlh fnu 'kke dks 4 cts eSaus dqekjh ljLorhckbZ firk yhyk/kj yks/kh 17 lky nyiriqj ftlds fd fpUg ¼nk<h½ ij dkys fry dk fu'kku FkkA bykt djus ij fuEufyf[kr pksVsa ikbZ%& ¼1½ xu'kkWV oqUM cgqr iSysVl ds }kjk vk;s ?kko tks fd djhc 50 la[;k esa Fks izR;sd dk vkdkj vksoy RkFkk xksykdkj FkkA ftuds uki -4ls0eh0x-4ls0eh0 FkkA ;g lHkh pksVsa 50 ls0eh0 ds ?ksjs esa vkbZ FkhA tks fd djhc 30 ls 50 QqV dh nwjh ls cUnwd ds pykus ls vk ldrh gSA mijksDr ?kko ds dkj.k 'kjhj ds fuEufyf[kr Hkkx esa vlj iM+k nkfguk gkFk] nkfguk Nkrh dk lkeus dk Hkkx] nkfguk isV] rFkk nkfgus rjQ dh tkWa?k peM+h ij dksbZ tyus ds fu'kku ugha Fkk rFkk dkykiu ugha FkkA eSaus ,Dljs dh lykg nh FkhA nkfguk gkFk isV Nkrh rFkk nkfgus tkW?k dhA vkSj lthZdy Lis'kfyLV Mk0 c`tiqfj;k dks vkxs ds bykt ds fy;s izsf"kr fd;kA * * * * 5& mlh fnu eSaus 5 cts feLVj Ånyflag oYn yhyk/kj yks/kh 24 lky nyiriqj ftlds dh ck;sa vksj dh Nkrh esa fryd dk fu'kku Fkk mlds 'kjhj ij fuEufyf[kr pksVsa ikbZ%& ¼1½ xu'kkWV oqUM cgqr lh iSysV dh pksVsa 40ls0eh0 ds ?ksjs esa tks fd 30 ls 50QqV dh nwjh ls pykbZ xbZ FkhA fuEufyf[kr vaxksa esa ikbZ xbZA isV esa lkeus dh vksj 3 pksVsa] ck;sa gkFk esa Åijh vksj ,d pksV] nkfgus gkFk esa ,dpksV] nkfgus ?kqVus esa ,d pksV] eSaus fuEufyf[kr Hkkx ds ,Dljs dh lykg nh FkhA nkfguk gkFk] nkfguk ?kqVuk] ck;kWgkFk rFkk isVA vkSj lthZdy Lis'kfyLV Mk0c`tiqfj;k dks vkxs er ,oa bykt ds fy;s HkstkA fjiksVZ iz0ih&15 gS ftlds v ls v Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA 6& mlh fnu 'kke dks 5 cts eSaus rksQkuflag o0 yhyk/kj yks/kh 29 lky nyiriqj ftlds lkeus xnZu dh vksj fry dk fu'kku RkFkk dh tkWp djus ij fuEufyf[kr pksVsa ikbZA ¼1½ xu'kkWV oqUM cgqr lh iSysV bUtqjh ck;sa iSj ds frgkbZ Hkkx esa djhc 26 dh la[;k esa ikbZ xbZA ¼2½ nks uhy 11 ls0eh0x2ls0eh0 rFkk 5 ls0eh0x2ls0eh0 ck;as da?ks ds ihNs dh vksjA * * * * 8& mlh fnu lk<+s 5 cts eSaus eqUukyky oYn yhyk/kj 21 lky nyiriqj ftlds MkS<+h esa fry dk fu'kku Fkk dk eqykgtk dj fuEufyf[kr pksVsa ikbZ%& ¼1½ xu'kkWV oqUM cgqr lh iSysV dh batqjh tks fd 40 bap ds ?ksjs esa Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/9 Fkh rFkk 50 QqV dh nwjh ls cUnwd ls vkbZ gksuk izrhr gksrh Fkh tks 'kjhj ds fuEufyf[kr Hkkxksa esa Fkh nkfgus xky nks] nkfgus rjQxnZu ,d] nkfguh rjQ dh ihB nks] nkfgus gkFk 12] nkfgus isV rFkk Nkrh 18] nkfguh tkW?k 6 rFkk ckW;h tkW?k ij 7 iSysV dh pksVsa ikbZ xbZA * * * * 10& lk<s 4 cts 'kke dks eSaus yhyk/kj oYn Hkksikyflag yks/kh 55 lky nyiriqj ftlds dh ck;h vksj dkys fry dk fu'kku Fkk dh tkWp djus ij fuEufyf[kr pksVsa ikbZ %& ¼1½ QVk gqvk ?kko tks fd flj ds chpksa chp 6ls0eh0x-6ls0eh0x- 4ls0eh0A ¼2½ [kjksap 2ls0eh0x2ls0eh0 nkfgus iSj ds Hkhrjh vksjA ¼3½ xu'kkWV batqjh] cgqr lh iSysV batqjh tks fd fuEufyf[kr Hkkx ij ikbZ xbZA ckW;k gkFk djhc 30] ckW;k iSj Åijh Hkkx ,d] isV esa 3] nkW;k gkFk nks] xnZu esa ,d] ihB ij ,d] cVd ij nksA * * * * 12& mlh fnu 4 ctdj 15 fefuV ij eSaus ewjrflag o0 jkeflag yks/kh 19 lky nyiriqj ftlds ckW;sa rjQ Nkrh ij fry dk fu'kku Fkk dh pksVksa dh tkWp dh FkhA ¼1½ xu'kkWV oqUM cgqr lh iSysV batqjh tksfd xksyhdkj -4ls0eh0x- 4ls0eh0 dh uki dh Fkh tks fd 60 bap ds ?ksjs esa 'kjhj ds fuEu Hkkx esa vkbZ FkhA nkfgu iSj 8] ck;sa iSj 10] Nkrh] isV rFkk ihB esa 3 ckW;k gkFk ,d] vkSj flj esa ihNs dh vksj FkhA^^ In para 29 of his evidence he deposed that the injured persons received pallet injuries fired by guns.
14. From the evidence of the eye witnesses and the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured persons, it is clear that number of persons received pallet injuries. Some injuries were on vital parts of the body. Hence, intention of the appellants was to kill the complainants/injured persons. The appellants formed an unlawful assembly. Appellant- Battulal was armed with farsa and he was a member of unlawful assembly. Hence, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.
15. Now, the question is that what sentence be awarded Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/10 against the appellants?
16. The appellants and the complainants filed an application I.A. No. 24750/2016 under Section 320 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for compromise. It is mentioned in the application that the relations with the complainants and the appellants have been improved and they want to settle the controversy and dispute. Both the parties have no grievance against each other. The have developed cordial relationship. The compromise entered between both the parties is without any fear and favour. In support of the compromise application, affidavits of the complainants and the appellants have also been filed. Complainants Ramsingh and Leeladhar have died.
17. We have perused the record of the trial Court, which is an old one, because the trial was conducted in the year 1995. The case is of the year 1992 and the incident is of dated 27.06.1991. Initially, the appellants were absconding and subsequently, they were arrested. We cannot find the exact period of detention of the appellants during trial. However, from the record, it is evident that the appellants were in jail for some period. The date of judgment of the trial Court is 03.12.1998. This Court vide order dated 26.04.1999 suspended the sentence of appellant Girwar Singh, the sentence of appellant-Niranjan Singh was suspended on Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/11 07.05.1999, sentence of appellant Neknarayan and Battulal was suspended on 28.06.1999, the sentence of appellant- Govind Singh was suspended vide order dated 24.09.2002. If the period of detention of the appellants during trial be included, then it appears that the appellants were in jail for near about one year or more. The matter has been compromised between the parties.
18. The Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav and others vs State of Jharkhand and another, (2014) 9 SCC 653 has quashed criminal proceedings against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the basis of compromise. The Apex Court has held as under:
"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable? Needless to say that offences which are non-
compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/12 offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
5. In Gian Singh this Court has observed that:
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."
Needless to say that the above observations are applicable to this Court also."
19. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 has also quashed the criminal proceedings registered under Section 307 of the IPC on the basis of compromise. The Court has held as under:
Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/13
"17. We would like to expand this principle in some more detail. We find, in practice and in reality, after recording the conviction and while awarding the sentence/punishment the Court is generally governed by any or all or combination of the aforesaid factors. Sometimes, it is the deterrence theory which prevails in the minds of the Court, particularly in those cases where the crimes committed are heinous in nature or depicts depravity, or lack morality. At times it is to satisfy the element of "emotion" in law and retribution/vengeance becomes the guiding factor. In any case, it cannot be denied that the purpose of punishment by law is deterrence, constrained by considerations of justice. What, then, is the role of mercy, forgiveness and compassion in law? These are by no means comfortable questions and even the answers may not be comforting. There may be certain cases which are too obvious namely cases involving heinous crime with element of criminality against the society and not parties inter-se. In such cases, the deterrence as purpose of punishment becomes paramount and even if the victim or his relatives have shown the virtue and gentility, agreeing to forgive the culprit, compassion of that private party would not move the court in accepting the same as larger and more important public policy of showing the iron hand of law to the wrongdoers, to reduce the commission of such offences, is more important. Cases of murder, rape, or other sexual offences etc. would clearly fall in this category. After all, justice requires long term vision. On the other hand, there may be, offences falling in the category where "correctional" objective of criminal law would have to be given more weightage in contrast with "deterrence" philosophy. Punishment, whatever else may be, must be fair and conducive to good rather than further evil. If in a particular case the Court is of the opinion that the settlement between the parties would lead to more good; better relations between them; would prevent further occurrence of such encounters between the Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/14 parties, it may hold settlement to be on a better pedestal. It is a delicate balance between the two inflicting interests which is to be achieved by the Court after examining all these parameters and then deciding as to which course of action it should take in a particular case.
* * * *
22. Thus, we find that in certain circumstances, this Court has approved the quashing of proceedings under section 307,IPC whereas in some other cases, it is held that as the offence is of serious nature such proceedings cannot be quashed. Though in each of the aforesaid cases the view taken by this Court may be justified on its own facts, at the same time this Court owes an explanation as to why two different approaches are adopted in various cases. The law declared by this Court in the form of judgments becomes binding precedent for the High Courts and the subordinate courts, to follow under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Stare Decisis is the fundamental principle of judicial decision making which requires 'certainty' too in law so that in a given set of facts the course of action which law shall take is discernable and predictable. Unless that is achieved, the very doctrine of stare decisis will lose its significance. The related objective of the doctrine of stare decisis is to put a curb on the personal preferences and priors of individual Judges. In a way, it achieves equality of treatment as well, inasmuch as two different persons faced with similar circumstances would be given identical treatment at the hands of law. It has, therefore, support from the human sense of justice as well. The force of precedent in the law is heightened, in the words of Karl Llewellyn, by "that curious, almost universal sense of justice which urges that all men are to be treated alike in like circumstances."
20. In view of the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court and considering the principle and logic of sentencing, Cr.A. No.2930 of 1998/15 in our opinion, it would be just and proper if the period of sentence of the appellants be modified as already undergone because there has been a compromise between the parties. The case is of the year of 1995 and it is going on for the last 22 years.
21. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 147, 148 and 149 of IPC is hereby set aside. The conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 147, 148 and 149 of IPC is hereby upheld; however, the sentence awarded by the trial Court against the appellants is modified to the extent already undergone. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain unchanged. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby canceled.
(S.K. GANGELE) (ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vkt