Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Lala Ram And Ors vs State on 27 September, 2012
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR.
J U D G M E N T
DB CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 575/2004.
LALA RAM & OTHERS - APPELLANTS
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - RESPONDENTS
Date of Judgment: 27th September, 2012.
PRESENT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain-I.
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Mr. S.S. Hasan for the appellants.
Mr. J.R. Bijarnia, Public Prosecutor.
(PER HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA TRIVEDI J.)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-original accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order dated 12.2.04 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chhabra, District Baran (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No. 60/02, whereby the trial court has convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 148, 452, 302 read with Section 149 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC, and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 452 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 148 and for a period of six months for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Shri Ghanshyam S/o Ganga Ram, an FIR being No. 45/02 was registered on 30.1.02 at the Police Station Chhipa Barod, District Baran against the present appellants and others for the offences under Sections 147,148, 149, 307, 323 and 452 of IPC. Since the injured Ganga Ram succumbed to the injuries, an offence under Section 302 of IPC was also added. After the completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against the appellants and five others for the alleged offences in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Chhipa Barod, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Baran for trial. It appears that out of the eight accused five accused were absconding and, therefore, the trial court framed the charges against the present three appellants for the offences under Sections 148, 452 and 302 of IPC, in the alternative for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149; and under Section 323 and in the alternative under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC. The said charges were read over to the accused, however they denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution to prove its case and the charges levelled against the appellants-accused led oral evidence by examining as many as 21 witnesses and also adduced documentary evidence. On the completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the further statements of the appellants-accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they denied allegations levelled against them and stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsels for the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused as stated hereinabove vide the impugned judgment dated 12.2.04.
3. The case of the prosecution before the trial court was that on 30.1.02, the accused Bihari Lal, Lala Ram and Uda Lal alongwith 6 to 8 other persons came in the jeep at the house of the deceased Ganga Ram at about 12.00 to 1.00 A.M., when the deceased Ganga Ram and all his family members were sleeping in the corridor (osri) of his house. The accused Bihari Lal and Uda Lal were armed with sticks (lathis) and Lala Ram had iron tami with him. They entered the house of the deceased and started beating the deceased who was sleeping. When other family members tried to intervene, they were also beaten by the appellants with sticks and tami and other persons who were in the jeep pelted stones at them. The deceased Ganga Ram received fatal injuries on his head and also other injuries on the other parts of body. It was also further case of the prosecution that during the course of the said fight, PW 11, Hemi Bai, wife of the deceased, PW 8 Ghanshyam, son of the deceased, PW 14, Babulal, another son of the deceased, and PW 7 Sabu Bai, wife of Ghanshyam also received injuries. The complaint (Ex.P.13) was lodged by the son of the deceased Ghanshyam at about 6.15 A.M., on the basis of which the FIR (Ex. P.14) was registered at police station Chhipa Barod at about 7.00 A.M. on 30.1.02. It was further case of the prosecution that after the incident the said Ganga Ram was taken to the hospital at CHC, Chhipa Barod where he was treated by Dr. Ramesh Chand Meena, however the deceased succumbed to the said injuries. It was also the case of the prosecution that the accused Bihari Lal had married PW 5 Champi Bai, who was the daughter of the deceased and that the complainant Radheyshyam i.e. son of the deceased had married PW 19 Rukma Bai, who was the sister of the accused Bihari Lal. The accused Lala Ram was the maternal uncle (mama) of the accused Bihari Lal and the accused Uda Lal was the brother of the accused Lala Ram. As per the case of the prosecution, the said accused alongwith other 6 to 8 persons had come to the house of the deceased at the midnight hours armed with lathis and iron tami with the common object to show criminal force and commit criminal trespass, for the purpose of taking away the said Champi Bai, wife of the accused Bihari Lal, who was staying with her father i.e. the deceased since last more than one year. According to the case of the prosecution the accused had caused injuries to the said Ganga Ram, with the intention of causing his death or with the intention that such injuries were likely to cause his death and, therefore, all the accused had committed the alleged offences under Sections 148, 452, 302 read with Section 149 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC. The defence which was sought to be put forth by the appellants-accused was that the accused had gone to the house of the deceased for taking Champi Bai, wife of the accused Bihari Lal, as the deceased was trying to get her married to some other person. According to the defence, the accused had not caused any injury to the deceased or any other persons of his family, but the deceased had received the injury as he fell down on the floor and hit with one stone.
4. In the first limb of his arguments, Mr. Hasan for the appellants-accused submitted that most of the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution were the family members of the deceased and therefore were interested witnesses. He also submitted that their evidence was also not consistent as there were contradictions appearing in their evidence as regards the presence of the accused, alleged weapons possessed by them and about the role played by each of the accused.
5. As regards the appreciation of evidence, where the discrepancies or contradictions appear, the Apex Court in case of State represented by Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanan and Anr., (2008) 17 SCC 587, following the earlier decisions has made very pertinent observations in para 18 as under :-
18. The High Court also held that as there were some discrepancies and improvements in the statement of the witnesses, their evidence should not be relied upon. In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, [(1985) 1 SCC 505] this Court has laid down the approach which should be followed by the Court in such cases:
"10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investi-gating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross-examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer."
Even otherwise, it has been said time and again by this Court that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. Further, on the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms an opinion about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances the appellate court would not be justified to review it once again without justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the situation, which has to be taken note of. Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, that itself would not prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies.
6. In the said case, the Apex Court has also reiterated the legal position regarding appreciation of evidence of witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased and observed in para 13 thereof as under :-
13. Before the High Court the stand taken by the respondents was that the evidence of P.W. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 should not have been relied upon as they were closely related to the deceased and were interested witnesses. The law is long settled that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness, for the mere reason that an eyewitness can be said to be an interested witness, his/her testimony need not be rejected. Most of the times, eye-witnesses happen to be family members or close associates because unless a crime is committed in a public place, strangers are not likely to be present at the time of occurrence. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegation against an innocent person. Whenever any plea is taken by the accused persons about the interestedness of witnesses, materials have to be placed in that regard. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
7. The Apex Court in catena of decisions has also held that suspicion howsoever strong can not take place of proof and the prosecution should prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Apex Court has also further put a note of caution that fancy doubts should not be given undue importance, as a miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from a conviction of an innocent. A beneficial reference of the decisions in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Islam, AIR 2011 SC 2317; in case of Gurbachan Singh Vs. Satpalsingh AIR 1990 SC 209; in case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, be made in this regard.
8. In view of the above stated legal position, let us broadly examine the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution. The prosecution in order to prove the charges levelled against the accused had examined the PW 1 Dr. Leeladhar Kasat, who had carried out the postmortem of the deceased Ganga Ram. He had stated that the Injury No.1,on the head i.e. the fracture of left frontal and parietal bones was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. Of course, in the cross-examination, he had stated that the said injury was possible if somebody had fallen down with force on the floor and received injuries on the head. The prosecution had also examined PW 2 Dr. Ramesh Chand Meena and PW 4 Dr. Gangadhar Mittal, who had treated the injured witnesses Ghanshyam, Babulal, the deceased Ganga Ram, Sabu Bai, Hema Bai and Anita, whose injury certificates were also produced on record by the prosecution.
9. The prosecution had also examined among others the eye-witnesses PW 5, Champi Bai, daughter of the deceased, PW 6 Sita Bai another daughter of the deceased, PW 7 Sabu Bai, wife of the complainant Ghanshyam, PW 8 Ghanshyam, son of the deceased, PW 11 Hemi Bai, wife of the deceased, PW 13 Nathi Bai, wife of Babulal, PW 14 Babulal, son of the deceased and PW 19 Rukma Bai, wife of Radheyshyam. All these eye-witnesses, out of whom three were injured witnesses had consistently stated in their respective evidence before the trial court as regards the time, date and the manner of occurrence of the incident in question. Except the minor discrepancies all had stated interalia that the accused Bihari Lal, Lala Ram and Uda Lal alongwith other 6 to 8 persons had come in the jeep at the midnight hours to the house of the deceased Ganga Ram, when he and his family members were sleeping in the open corridor of his house, and that appellants-accused started beating up Ganga Ram with sticks and iron tami, and when the family members tried to intervene, they were also beaten up. The other persons who had come with the accused in the jeep had also pelted stones. During the cross-examination of the said witnesses, nothing material has emerged which would make their testimonies not trustworthy. The injuries received by the deceased and other witnesses were also duly proved by the prosecution. The prosecution had also proved that the deceased Ganga Ram had died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the incident in question. Under the circumstances, it was duly proved that the deceased Ganga Ram had died a homicidal death and not a natural death, and on account of the injuries caused to him in the alleged incident.
10. The main thrust of submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. S.S. Hasan for the appellants is that the prosecution had failed to prove the author of the fatal injury as to with whose blow the head injury was caused as a result of which the deceased had died. He also submitted that considering the relationship between the parties i.e. the accused Bihari Lal being the son-in-law of the deceased Ganga Ram, and the sister of the accused Bihari Lal having married, the complainant Ghanshyam, who was the son of the deceased, there could not be any intention to kill the deceased as sought to be proved by the prosecution. Mr. Hasan taking the court to the evidence adduced by the prosecution had submitted that there was no clear evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused had constituted an unlawful assembly with the common object to show criminal force or criminal trespass. Mr. Hasan trying to distinguish the case of the appellant Uda Lal from the other accused also submitted that the presence of Uda Lal and the alleged role played by him was also not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, when two views are possible from the same set of evidence, the benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the appellants-accused.
11. However, the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. J.R. Birjania for the State relying upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution submitted that though the relationship between the deceased and the accused Bihari Lal was not disputed, the very circumstance that all the accused had come at the midnight hours with lathis and iron tami proved that they had come with the common object to use criminal force, and commit criminal trespass and cause bodily injuries to the deceased and his family members. He also submitted that all the ingredients of the alleged offences were duly proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and reliable evidence and the appellants could not be given the benefit of doubt on the flimsy grounds.
12. After having carefully considered the evidence on record in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it transpires that the prosecution by examining the eye-witnesses had proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the three accused alongwith other six to eight persons had come to the house of the deceased at the midnight hours armed with lathis and tami. The eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution have consistently stated, and their testimonies have remained unchallenged in the cross-examination that the appellants-accused alongwith other six to eight persons had come to the house of the deceased armed with lathis and iron tami. The PW 5 Champi Bai, PW 6, Sita Bai, PW 7 Sabu Bai, PW 8 Ghanshyam, PW 11, Hemi Bai, PW 13 Nati Bai, and PW 14 Babu Lal had also duly identified all the three appellants-accused in their respective evidence during the course of trial. The only defence that was put forth by the appellants in the cross examination was that the deceased Ganga Ram was not sending his daughter Champi Bai with her husband i.e. accused Bihari Lal, and was trying to get her married with some other person, and therefore the accused had gone to take her away from the deceased. Now it is pertinent to note that by taking up such defence, the appellants-accused had admitted their presence at the scene of offence.
13. Mr. Hasan had faintly sought to submit that the name of the appellant Udalal was not mentioned in the complaint and that the eye-witness PW 19 Rukma Bai had also not identified him in her evidence and hence the prosecution had failed to prove the presence of appellant Udalal at the scene of offence beyond reasonable doubt. In the opinion of the court, there is no substance in the said submissions of Mr. Hasan. Though it is true that the name of the appellant has not been specifically mentioned in the complaint (Ex.P.13), he has been described as the brother of Lala Ram. So far as eye-witnesses are concerned, all the eye-witnesses except PW 19 Rukma Bai had duly identified the appellants-accused including Uda Lal sitting in the court in their respective evidence. PW 19 Rukma Bai, of course had not identified the accused Uda Lal by stating that she did not know him, but she did say that the accused Bihari Lal and Lala Ram had beaten her father-in-law Ganga Ram and thereafter had run away alongwith other persons in the jeep. When the appellant Uda Lal was described as the brother of Lala Ram in the complaint lodged within few hours of the occurrence of the incident and when most of the eye-witnesses including the injured witnesses had specifically stated in their respective evidence about the presence and the role played by each of the three appellants-accused, and when they were also duly identified by the said witnesses during the course of trial, there remains no shadow of doubt that all the three appellants-accused alongwith other accused had come in jeep at the midnight hours, armed with lathis and iron tami, and had unlawfully entered the house of the deceased, with the common object to show criminal force and cause bodily injuries to the deceased and his family members, and that all the appellants-accused had caused such bodily injuries to the deceased Ganga Ram with lathis and tami which resulted into his death, and that they had also caused minor injuries to the other family members of the deceased.
14. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that as per the settled legal position, once a membership of unlawful assembly is established, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish any specific overt act to any of the accused for fastening of liability with the aid of Section 149 and that if the injuries which caused death of the person are juxtaposed with the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it becomes unnecessary to go into the question as to which accused caused what injury and which was fatal one. Beneficial reference of the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Mahmood & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (2007) 14 SCC, 16 and in case of Yunis @ Kaniya Vs. State of M.P., (2003) 1 SCC 425 be made in this regard. In the instant case, though the charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against eight accused, the trial could proceed only against the three present appellants, as others have remained absconded. During the course of trial, the presence of all the appellants-accused as part of unlawful assembly was duly proved, and therefore as per the settled legal position, it was not incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove as to which accused caused what injury to the deceased, which caused his death, for fastening the liability with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
15. The next perennial question which has cropped up for consideration before this court is whether the appellants-accused had committed the murder, punishable under Section 302 of IPC or had committed the culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of IPC.
16. The learned counsel Mr. Hasan for the appellants in the alternative had submitted that considering the relationship between the parties, more particularly that the sister of the accused Bihari Lal had married the son of the deceased, it was required to be inferred that there could not be any intention on the part of the appellants to cause death of the deceased or to cause such bodily injury to the deceased sufficient to cause his death. Relying upon the arrest and personal search memos (Ex. P.24 and P.26 respectively), Mr. Hasan also submitted that there were injuries found on the person of the said accused when they were arrested for which the prosecution had not offered any explanation and, therefore it was required to be inferred that some scuffle had taken place between the parties and that the accused had also received some injuries in the said scuffle. According to Mr. Hasan, the deceased Ganga Ram was physically weak as was suffering from cancer. Mr. Hasan relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Chinnathaman Vs. State (2007) 14 SCC 690, and in case of Shankar Diwal Wadu Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 518, and in case of Ramjit & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 114 submitted that there being no evidence to prove premeditation or pre-plan to cause death of the deceased, and there being only one fatal injury on the head of the deceased, the case of the appellants was required to be considered under the Exception-IV to Section 300 and for imposing punishment under Part II of Section 304 of IPC.
17. However, the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Birjania would submit that the prosecution was not obliged to prove the injuries if any, found on the person of the accused, when no such defence was put forth by the appellants-accused in the cross-examination of any of the witnesses including of the Investigating Officer that the accused also had received injuries in the alleged incident. In this regard the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Pyare Mishra Vs. Prem Shanker & Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 614. Mr. Birjania has also submitted that there was no evidence on the record to suggest that sudden fight had taken place in the heat of passion, for bringing the case of the appellants under Exception-IV to Section 300 of IPC.
18. So far as the alleged injuries on the person of the accused Bihari Lal and Lala Ram are concerned, it appears that in the arrest-cum-personal search memos (Ex.P.24 and P.26 respectively), it was stated that some minor old injuries were there. However, as rightly submitted by Mr. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the prosecution was neither called upon nor was obliged to explain such injuries on the person of the accused, more particularly when there were no questions put by the defence in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons. The Apex Court in case of Ram Pyare Mishra Vs. Prem Shanker & Ors. (supra) has considered the law with regard to the non-explanation of the superficial injuries on the accused persons. In para 18 of the said judgment it has been observed as under :-
16. So far as non-explanation of superficial injuries on the accused persons is concerned, in Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.(2004 (13) SCC 257), it was held as follows:
Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution will not affect prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries. As observed by this Court in Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1972 SC 2593) prosecution is not called upon in all cases to explain the injuries received by the accused persons. It is for the defence to put questions to the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons. When that is not done, there is no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to explain any injury on the person of an accused. In Hare krishna Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1988 SC 863), it was observed that the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every case. In other words, it is not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. If the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the Court in proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, question of obligation of prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. It is more so when the injuries are simple or superficial in nature. In the case at hand, trifle and superficial injuries on accused are of little assistance to them to throw doubt on veracity of prosecution case. (See Surendra Paswan v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 8 Supreme 476)."
19. In view of the above, the court does not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. Hasan for the appellants that it was the duty of the prosecution to explain about the alleged injuries on the person of the appellants-accused. None the less from the admitted facts which have emerged from the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, it appears that even as per the case of prosecution, the accused Bihari Lal had come with the other accused to forcibly take away with him, his wife Champi Bai, who was the daughter of the deceased and that the deceased was not ready to send her with the accused, and the said Champi Bai was also not ready to go with her husband. Under the circumstances, it could be reasonably inferred that some altercations must have taken place which must have resulted into a scuffle, and that during the scuffle, the appellants-accused must have hit deceased with lathi and tami which caused his death, and that they also must have beaten the other family members who had tried to intervene to rescue the deceased Ganga Ram. Thus considering the totality of the circumstances and the nature of relationship between the parties, it could be safely inferred that there was no premeditation or pre-plan on the part of the appellants-accused to cause death of the deceased. Considering the nature of injuries also it is required to be inferred that the appellants-accused had not taken any undue advantage or had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
20. Though the witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated that the deceased Ganga Ram was beaten up by the appellants-accused with lathis and tami, as such there is only one head injury which was proved fatal. Under the circumstances, the court finds substance in the submission of Mr. Hasan that had there been an intention of the appellants to kill the deceased, or to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause his death, there would have been repeated blows of lathis and tami given by the appellants and in that case more injuries would have been found on the body of the deceased. It is also pertinent to note that the deceased was aged about 65 years and was also not that physically strong, inasmuch as it has come on the record from the evidence the witnesses that the deceased was suffering from cancer, of course he had recovered therefrom, but he had some problem in his mouth. Thus, if the person had died on account of only one blow of lathi given on his head, which had proved fatal, and in absence of any other grievous injuries on the other parts of the body, it is difficult to hold that the appellants-accused had the intention to kill the deceased, of course it could be inferred that they had the knowledge that such a blow on the head i.e. on the vital part of the body, could cause his death in ordinary course of nature.
21. Thus, having regard to the totality of evidence and circumstances, it emerges that though the appellants-accused had caused such bodily injury to the deceased which was sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature, the said injury was caused without any intention to cause his death and was caused without any premeditation and was caused during the scuffle which had taken place between the parties. The case of the appellants-accused therefore is required to be considered under Exception-IV to Section 300 and under Part II of Section 304 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
22. In view of the above, while confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants-accused for the offences under Section 148 and Section 452 as also under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC passed by the trial court, the conviction of the appellants-accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC is converted into offence punishable under Part II of Section 304 read with Section 149 of IPC. So far as appellant No.1 Lala Ram and appellant No.3 Bihari Lal are concerned, they have already undergone the sentence for about ten years and, therefore they are sentenced for the period already undergone by them. They are directed to be released forthwith.
23. So far as the appellant No. 2 Uda Lal is concerned, it appears that he was on bail during the pendency of trial and the Appeal. Considering his relationship with the other accused and the role played by him, he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149 of IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is directed to be taken into judicial custody.
24. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.2.04 passed by the trial court stands modified accordingly, and the appeal stands partly allowed.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)J.(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I)J. MRG.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
M.R. Gidwani PS-cum-JW