Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Kunwar And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: RLW2004(1)RAJ336
JUDGMENT Bansal, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated February 28, 1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City in Sessions Case No. 356/92 and Sessions Case No. 12/93 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:
Sheesh Ram & Battu each u/S. 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days simple imprisonment.
u/S. 302 and u/S. 307 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment.
Rameshwar u/S. 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days' simple imprisonment.
u/S. 302/149 and 307 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment.
Radhey u/S. 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days' simple imprisonment.
u/S. 302 and 307/149 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. l.000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment.
Ram Kunwar, Hanse, Harsahai and Rajdhar each u/S. 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days' simple imprisonment.u/S. 302/149
307/149 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1.000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that a February 4, 1991 at 3:10 P.M. Heera S/o Surajmal, by case-Gujar, R/o-village Tajpur, Tehsil Todabheem submitted a written report Ex.P.7 to PW. 13 Laxmikant Sharma, ASI, Police Station Salempur at the place of incident to the effect that today at around 8:00 A.M. Balram and Bhagwan Singh were returning to their school situated at Hindaun City. The informant and his son Rameshwar accompanied them to see them off. When they were waiting for bus on the road near village Lapawali and village Daharia, appellant Rajdhar alongwith other appellants Battu, Rameshwar, Radhey, Sheeshram, Ramkunwar @ Ram Kumar, Hanse and Harsahai came there in a tractor. Having stopped the tractor all the appellants encircled them. He and Rameshwar saved themselves by running towards the village. His sons Balram and Bhagwan Singh also ran to save themselves. The appellants chased them and thereafter Radhey inflicted injury with axe on the person of Balram. Balram fell down and thereafter appellant Battu gave axe blow on the neck of Balram and other appellants also caused injuries. Bhagwan Singh was also caused injuries by the appellants. He sustained injury with sharp weapon below his eye. Balram succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Bhagwan Singh was got admitted in hospital Karauli and his condition is serious. It was also alleged in the report that between his Uncle Moti and the appellants, a case is pending and on account of this enmity the appellants had killed Balram and caused injuries on the person of Bhagwan Singh. PW 13 Laxmikant Sharma forwarded this report to P.S. Salempur for registering a case and initiated investigation. On the basis of this Written Report Ex.P.7 a case under Section 147, 148, 341, 323, 326, 307 and 302/149 IPC was registered by In-charge, P.S. Salempur on the same day at 3:50 P.M. Formal FIR is Ex.P.8. PW 13 Laxmikant Sharma, the Investigating Officer prepared Site Plan Ex.P.1. Blood smeared soil from both the places where Balram and Bhagwan Singh were caused injuries, was seized and sealed vide Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 respectively. Inquest Report Ex.P.9 of the dead body of Balram was also prepared. Autopsy on the dead body of Balram was conducted by PW. 12 Dr. Budhram Meena, Medical Officer, P.H.C. Balghat on the spot on the same day at 4:30 P.M. and the prepared Post-mortem report Ex.P.10. Bhagwan Singh was medically examined by PW.7 Dr. Dashrath Singh at 1:15 P.M. on February 4, 1991 and he prepared Injury Report Ex.P.6. Bushirt, woolen cap, baniyan which Bhagwan Singh was wearing at the time of incident, Safi belonging to Rameshwar and woolen chaddar (Shawl) belonging to Heera were seized and sealed by the Investigating Officer vide Seizure Memo Ex.P.2. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Appellant Ramkunwar was arrested on June 23, 1991 vide Ex.P.15. On his information Ex.P.16 which was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the Investigating Officer and at his instance, lathi was recovered from his house vide Seizure Memo Ex.P.17. On X-ray it was also found that Bhagwan Singh had also sustained fracture of left parietal bone. His X-ray report is Ex.P.19. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against appellant Ramkunwar in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City. Thereafter another charge-sheet was fifed against appellants Hanse. Harsahai and Rajdhar. Learned Judicial Magistrate committed all these four appellants together for trial to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hindaun City. The investigation was kept pending against the remaining accused-appellants against whom Challan was filed on February 3, 1993 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hindaun City. Learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City. Learned Additional Sessions Judge consolidated both the cases and proceeded further. Charges under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149 IPC were framed against all the appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants pleaded innocence. They further stated that Bhagwan Singh and Balram were caused injuries by three unidentified persons and this incident was witnessed by Bharat, Vishram, Todar, Dharam Singh, Harhans, Pukhraj, Rajaram, Peetam and others. In their defence the appellants examined DW1 Radheyshyam, DW2 Pyare, DW3 Darshan Singh, DW4 Bharat Lal, DW5 Dharam Singh, DW6 Ramroop and DW7 Rammu.
4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated he re-in-above.
5. We have heard Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants Hanse, Harsahai and Rajdhar, Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the remaining appellants, learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the material on record.
6. PW-7 Dr. Dashrath Singh stated that on February 4, 1991 at 1:15 P.M. he examined Bhagwan Singh @ Fateh S/o Heera Singh, aged 15 years, R/o Tajpur and found following injuries on his person. Bhagwan Singh was admitted in Karauli hospital on the same day.
(1) Incised wound 17cm. x 1cm. x skin x muscle x bone deep with clean cut margins, spindle shape tapering edges on left side of face from nose to left side of neck obliquely placed.
(2) Incised wound 2cm. x 0.25cm. x skin x muscle deep with clean cut margins spindle shape, tapering edges on left side of face below injury No. 1.
(3) Incised wound 2cm. x 0.25cm. x skin x muscle deep with clean cut margins spindle shape tapering edges on left side of chin.
(4) Incised wound 5cm. x 0.5cm. x skin x muscle deep on left side of occipital part of skull with clean cut margins. Spindle shape, tapering edges with bleeding.
(5) Red abrasion 5cm. x 3cm. on right gluteal region.
(6) Red contusion 3cm. x 1cm. on back of left side of chest.
(7) Red abrasion 2cm. 1mm. on left shoulder 2 in number.
(8) Red abrasion 6cm. x 1cm. on upper part of left thigh.
(9) Red contusion 5cm. 1cm. on occipital part of skull.
(10) Red contusion 1cm. x 0.5cm. on upper lip with fracture of both side lateral incisor teeth.
7. Dr. Dashrath Singh further stated that injuries 1, 2, 3 and 4 were caused by sharp weapon and the remaining injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Injuries, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were simple in nature. Injury No. 10 was grievous in nature. At the time of medical examination Bhagwan Singh was unconscious and his condition was serious. He was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur for X-ray and further treatment. Duration of injuries was within 6 hours. He prepared Injury Report Ex.P.6. Injuries 1, 2 and 4 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also stated that he received X-ray Report Ex.P.19 and accordingly Injury No. 4 was found to be grievous in nature.
8. PW20 Dr. Gopal Lal Yadav deposed that on March 16, 1991 he was posted as Reader, Department of Radiology, SMS Hospital, Jaipur. On the request of Medical Jurist he got left forearm and skull of Bhagwan Singh x-rayed and it was found that left parietal bone was fractured. X-ray plates are Ex.P.8. He prepared X-ray Report Ex.P.19.
9. PW12 Dr. Budhram Meena, the then Medical Officer, PHC Balghat stated in his deposition that on February 4, 1991 he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Balram S/o Heera Gujar, aged 17 years, R/o-Tajpur and found following ante- mortem injuries:-
EXTERNAL INJURIES (1) Incised wound 5cm. x 3cm. x skin x muscle cut. vertebra never torn below angle left mandible bone, over left side of neck with clean cut margin, spindle shape, tapering edge with blood clots with cut off carotid vessel with clotted dark red blood.
(2) Abrasion 1cm. x 1cm. on left side lower region of face.
(3) Incised wound 3cm. x 1.5cm. x skin, muscle cut upto bone on left parietal bone with clean cut margin, spindle shape, tapering edge. 8cm. above left ear lobe vertical direction (above to lower) with clotted dark red blood.
(4) Incised wound 3cm. x 1.5cm. x skin x muscle x bone deep. Bone cut on occipital part of skull, clean cut margin, spindle shape, tapering of edge fracture of occipital bone with clotted dark red blood.
(5) incised wound 3cm. x 2.5cm. x skin x muscle x bone deep on dorsal aspect of right wrist joint, clean cut margin, spindle shape, tapering edge, fracture of lower part of ulna bone with clotted dark red blood.
(6) Bruise 6cm. x 3cm. on back of left elbow joint.
INTERNAL INJURIES
1. Scalp- injured with haemorrhage and haematoma Skull- Compound fracture of occipital bone. Intracranial and subdural and cerebral haemorrhage.
2. Membranes- injured haemorrhage with haematoma.
3. Brain and Spinal Cord.- injured intracranial subdural and cerebral haemorrhage and haematoma. Spinal Cord- congested.
Heart- Left contained little blood.
Right side contained little blood.
Large vessels- carotid vessel cut with adjacent vessel also cut.
10. Dr. Meena further stated that external injury No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were caused by sharp weapon and the rest by blunt weapon. Duration of injuries was within 8 hours. In his opinion the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to head injury leading to injury to brain and injury to carotid artery in neck. He further stated that injury No. 1 and 4 individually and collectively were the cause of death. He prepared post-mortem report Ex.P.10.
11. There are no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of Dr. Dashrath Singh, Dr. Gopal Lal Yadav and Dr. Budhram Meena and it was not challenged by learned counsels appearing for the appellants in their submissions. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that Balram met with the homicidal death because of the injuries enumerated in Post- mortem Report Ex.P.10. It has. also been proved by the prosecution that Bhagwan Singh sustained grievous as well as simple injuries as stated by Dr. Dashrath Singh and Dr. Gopal Lal Yadav.
12. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsellor the appellants Ram Kunwar, Sheesh Ram, Radhey, Battu and Rameshwar contended that PW3 Rameshwar and PW5 Bhagwan Singh being the brothers of the deceased, PW2 Khushiram and PW4 Yadram being related to the deceased's family are interested and partisan witnesses and, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon. Chances of false implication of the appellants by these witnesses cannot be ruled out.
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submission. In Rizan and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh through The chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (1), the Apex Court held that:-
"We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible."
In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SC 364) it has been laid down as under: (AIR p.366, para 26) "26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
The above decision has since been followed in Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan {(1974) 3 SCC 698} in which Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614) was also relied upon.
We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this court as early as in Dalip Singh case in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed: (AIR 366, para 25) "25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in - 'Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54)' (AIR at p.59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."
Again in Masalti v. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 202) this Court observed: (AIR pp. 209-10, para 14) "But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses.... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."
To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh {(1974) 3 SCC 277} and Lehna v. State of Haryana {(2002) 3 SCC 76}."
14. In State of U.P. v. Jabdeo and Ors. (2), Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that:-
"The law is long settled that for the mere reason that an eyewitness can be said to be an interested witness, his/her testimony need not be rejected. For the interest which an eyewitness may have, the court can while considering his or her evidence exercise caution and give a reasonable discount, if required. But this surely cannot be reason to ignore the evidence of eyewitnesses."
15. In Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi) (3), the Apex Court held that:-
"Interested witness by itself cannot possibly be a ground to reject the evidence on record. The test of creditworthiness or acceptability, in our view, ought to be the guiding factor and if so, question of raising an eyebrow on the reliability of the witness being an interested witness would be futile-in the event the evidence is otherwise acceptable, there ought not to be any hindrance in the matter of the prosecutor's success- the evidence must inspire confidence and in the event of unshaken credibility, there is no justifiable reason to reject the same. It is on this score the issue of interested witness thus stands negated, as raised by the appellant."
16. In view of the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court, the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses cannot be rejected only on this ground that they are related to the deceased. The only legal requirement is that their evidence should be scanned keeping in view the fact that they are related to the deceased.
17. We would now scan the testimony of the aforesaid four witnesses with utmost care and caution. PW5 Bhagwan Singh stated that on 4/2/91 at around 8:00 A.M. he alongwith his brother Balram, father Heera and brother Rameshwar left his home to go to Hindaun where they were studying in a school. They reached on the road situated near village Lapawali and village Dhehra. When they were waiting for a bus of a tractor, appellants Battu, Radhey, Sheeshram, Rameshwar, Ram Kumar, Hanse, Harsahai and Rajdhar came in a tractor driven by Rajdhar. The appellants alighted from the tractor and surrounded them. Appellants Battu, Radhey and Sheeshram were armed with 'axe', Rameshwar with 'Dharia' and the remaining with 'lathies', Bhagwan Singh further stated that to save their lives Rameshwar, his father Heera and Balram ran towards village Tajpur and he ran towards village Katara. The appellants chased Balram and appellant Radhey inflicted injury with axe on the head of Balram. Balram fell down. Thereafter appellant Sheeshram gave an axe blow to Balram and appellant Rameshwar caused an injury with 'Dharia' on the right forearm of Balram. PW5 Bhagwan Singh also stated that he was also caught hold by Sheeshram. Thereafter Rameshwar gave a 'Dharia' blow on his left temporal region. He fell down and thereafter appellant Sheeshram gave an axe blow behind his ear. Appellant Hanse inserted lathi into his mouth. Thereafter he became unconscious. He regained consciousness in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur.
18. PW-3 Rameshwar, who is the brother of the deceased Balram and injured Bhagwan Singh, stated that on the fateful day Balram and Bhagwan Singh were returning to their school. He and his father Heera came on the road with Balram and Bhagwan Singh for seeing them off. When they were waiting for a bus or a tractor, all the appellants came in a tractor. Tractor was being driven by Rajdhar who stopped it near them. Thereafter on the exhortation of appellant Battu, all the appellants alighted from the tractor and surrounded them. Rameshwar further stated that he, his father Heera and Balram ran towards village situated in south of road. Bhagwan Singh ran towards village Katara situated in north of road When Balram was running at the distance of 10-12 steps from the road, appellant Radhey chased him and caused injury with axe on his head. Balram fell down. Thereafter appellant Battu gave another blow on the neck of Balram, Sheeshram inflicted injury with axe on the head and appellant Rameshwar caused injury with 'Dharia' on right forearm of Balram. Rameshwar also stated that the remaining appellants gave lathi blows to Balram. He further stated that after having killed Balram, appellants chased Bhagwan Singh. Rameshwar inflicted injury with 'Dharia' on his mouth. Bhagwan Singh fell down. Thereafter Sheeshram gave an axe blow on the temporal region and Battu inflicted injury with axe on the neck of Bhagwan Singh. Appellant Hanse inserted lathi into the mouth of Bhagwan Singh and thereafter the remaining appellants caused injuries with lathies. He also stated that appellant Radhey inflicted injury with axe on the chest of Bhagwan Singh. Thereafter appellant Rajdhar went with his tractor towards Hindaun and the remaining appellants fled away towards village Katara. It was also stated by Rameshwar that Yadram and Khushiram also reached on the spot. They went to the place where Balram was lying and found that he was dead. Thereafter they went to the place where Bhagwan Singh was lying and found him alive. Thereafter he alongwith his father took Bhagwan Singh to Hindaun in a tractor. Bhagwan Singh was given first-aid by a doctor in Hindaun and advised them to take Bhagwan Singh to hospital, Karauli. They went to Karauli and got Bhagwan Singh admitted in the hospital. After around one hour his father Heera left for the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination Rameshwar stated that deceased Balram was the student of XIth class and Bhagwan Singh was studying in IVth class. He also stated that around one year six months before this incident, Kamal S/o appellant Ram Kumar was killed and the appellants were having the suspicion that his father Heera was behind the murder of Kamal and to take revenge the appellants committed the murder of Balram. It was also stated by Rameshwar in his cross-examination that he and his father had seen the incident from a distance of 60-70 steps from the place where Balram was caused injuries. He also admitted that his grand-father was the real brother of grand-father of Khushiram and Yadram.
19. PW2 Khushiram and PW4 Yadram stated that on the fateful day they were irrigating their land situated at a little distance from the place of occurrence. They stated in their deposition that when Heera, Rameshwar, Balram and Bhagwan Singh were standing on the road, all the appellants came in a tractor. When they reached near Rameshwar and others they stopped the tractor, alighted from it and thereafter surrounded Balram, Bhagwan Singh, Heera and Rameshwar. Heera, Rameshwar and Balram ran towards village Tajpur and Bhagwan Singh ran towards village Katara to save their lives but the appellant chased Balram and Bhagwan Singh. Khushiram and Yadram further stated that appellant Radhey caused injury with axe on the head, appellant Battu inflicted injury with axe on the neck, appellant Battu inflicted injury with axe on the neck, appellant Sheeshram gave an axe blow on the head and Rameshwar inflicted injury with 'Dharia' on the right forearm of Balram. The remaining appellants gave lathi blows on the person of Balram. They also stated that appellant. Radhey inflicted injury with axe on the chest, Battu caused injury with axe on the chin, appellant Sheeshram gave an axe blow on temporal region behind ear and appellant Rameshwar inflicted injury with 'Dharia' on the face of Bhagwan Singh. They also stated that appellant Hanse inserted his lathi into the mouth of Bhagwan Singh and the remaining appellants also gave beating with lathies to Bhagwan Singh.
20. On close and careful scrutiny of the statements of Bhagwan Singh, Rameshwar, Yadram and Khushiram, we have come to the conclusion that the testimony of these witnesses qua appellants Radhey, Battu, Sheeshram and Rameshwar is reliable and true. Their testimony qua the remaining appellants does not inspire confidence in our mind. Appellant Battu, Sheeshram, Radhey and Rameshwar are real brothers and appellant-Ram Kumar is their father. No specific overt act has been assigned to appellant Ram Kumar by the aforesaid witnesses. Though Khushiram, Rameshwar and Yadram deposed that appellant Ram Kumar also gave lathi blow on the person of Balram and Bhagwan Singh but they did not specify the part of the body of Balram and Bhagwan Singh on which appellant Ram Kumar had inflicted injury. PW5 Bhagwan Singh did not state that he was caused injury by appellant Ram Kumar. As per the version of Khushiram, Rameshwar and Yadram, appellants Ram Kumar, Hanse, Harsahai and Rajdhar had caused injuries with lathies to Balram but on post-mortem examination out of six injuries only two were found to have been caused by blunt weapon. As per the Arrest Memo Ex.P. 15 of appellant Ram Kumar, his age was 70 years at the time of his arrest. It is not believable that an old man of 70 years would accompany his four sons to commit the alleged crime. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, his false implication in the incident cannot be ruled out. So far as appellants Rajdhar, Hanse and Harsahai are concerned, there is nothing on record to show that they are related to the remaining appellants. They belong to village Tajpur to which the family of the deceased belongs whereas appellants Ram Kumar, Radhey, Battu, Sheeshram and Rameshwar are the residents of village Lapawali. The prosecution has failed to prove the motive of Rajdhar, Hanse and Harsahai to commit the alleged crime. Appellant Harsahai is the son of appellant Hanse. Though PW1 Kirodi stated that on account of execution of sale deed of the land belonging to Pyar Singh in favour of appellant Rajdhar, there was enmity between Heera and Rajdhar but PW3 Rameshwar denied this fact in his cross-examination. Both Rameshwar and Bhagwan Singh did not state that there was animus between their family and the family of Hansa, Harsahai and Rajdhar. Apart from this, the property dispute between Heera and Rajdhar cannot be said to be a motive strong enough for committing the murder of Balram and causing serious injuries to Bhagwan Singh. The Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. (4), observed as under: -
"So far as the motive is concerned, no doubt, there was a civil dispute pending in the civil court between the deceased Mata Prasad and the accused Bhagwan Singh but that cannot be said to be a motive strong enough for committing such a ghastly crime. At worst it raises strong suspicion against the accused."
21. Besides these facts, as already stated above, Khushiram, Rameshwar and Yadram deposed that Ram Kunwar, Rajdhar, Hanse and Harsahai gave lathi blows to Balram and Bhagwan Singh but Bhagwan Singh did not corroborate them and on post-mortem examination only two injuries caused by blunt weapon were found on the dead body of Balram. Therefore, we are of the opinion that appellant Rajdhar, Hanse and Harsahai were not involved in the alleged crime and they did not come alongwith appellants Radhey, Battu, Sheeshram and Rameshwar at the place of occurrence. In our considered view, they have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime by Heera on account of a dispute regarding land.
22. For the aforesaid reasons and on thorough and careful examination of the ocular testimony of the prosecution, we have come to the conclusion that the testimony of Khushiram, Rameshwar, Yadram and Bhagwan Singh is not credible and cogent so far as appellants Ram Kumar, Hanse, Harsahai and Rajdhar are concerned but their testimony qua the remaining appellants namely Radhey, Battu, Sheeshram and Rameshwar is trustworthy. It gets corroboration from medical evidence also. On post-mortem examination of the dead body of Balram, four injuries caused by sharp weapon were found and on medical examination, four injuries caused by sharp weapon were found on the person of Bhagwan Singh.
23. DW4 Bharatlal and DW5 Dharam Singh stated in their deposition that when sons of Heera were waiting on the road for a vehicle, three persons came on a motor-cycle. They were armed with axe and lathies. As their face was covered with cloth, they could not be identified. They caused injuries to them (sons of Heera). As per the version of Bharatlal and Dharam Singh, they had seen the incident. We have considered these statements from the point of view of trustworthiness and come to the conclusion that these are not credible. PW5 Bhagwan Singh himself sustained injuries during the course of occurrence. It is true that there was enmity between the family of Bhagwan Singh and the family of appellants Sheeshram, Battu, Radhey and Rameshwar on account of a criminal case relating to the murder of Kamal, who was the brother of the aforesaid appellants in which Heera was one of the accused. But merely on this ground the testimony of Bhagwan Singh cannot be discarded. In Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab (5), Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that:-
"Undisputedly, Piara Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were taken towards the fields of Shabeg Singh. Piara Singh was murdered in the fields and firearm injuries were caused to Mukhtiar Singh whereas contention of the accused is that due to previous enmity, he was named falsely- the evidence available on record however negates such a plea: human behaviour also runs counter to such a plea since it is absurd to suggest that an injured person would take recourse to implicate someone against whom there was enmity leaving aside the real assassin."
24. In view of the aforementioned decision of the Apex Court, we are of the view that PW5 Bhagwan Singh, who sustained injuries in the incident, has not implicated these four appellants on account of enmity leaving aside the real culprits. In our opinion, to take revenge of murder of their brother Kamal. Radhey, Battu, Sheeshram and Rameshwar had killed Balram and caused serious injuries to Bhagwan Singh. Thus, the prosecution has also succeeded in proving that there was a strong motive of these appellants to cause death of Balram and serious injuries to Bhagwan Singh. PW5 Bhagwan Singh gets support by Khushiram, Yadram and Rameshwar. Though the statements of Bhagwan Singh, Yadram, Khushiram and Rameshwar have not been found reliable qua appellants Ram Kumar, Hanse, Harsahai and Rajdhar but on this ground they cannot be held to be unreliable and untrustworthy so far as appellants Radhey, Battu, Sheeshram and Rameshwar are concerned. In Rizan and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh through The chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under: -
"Stress was laid by the accused-appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out the entire prosecution case. In essence, prayer is to apply the principle of falsus in undo falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co-accused persons his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where the chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the court to convict and accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of a particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence". (See Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. {AIR 1957 SC 366}) Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who it is always open to a court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab {AIR 1956 SC 460}) the doctrine is a dangerous one, specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because a witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a deadstop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab v. State of M.P. {(1972) 3 SCC 751} and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar {AIR 1965 SC 277}). An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because the grain and the chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. {AIR 1954 SC 15} and Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab {(1975) 4 SCC 511}). As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki {(1981) 2 SCC 752} normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category into which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted recently in Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar {(2002) 6 SCC 81} and Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa {(2002) 8 SCC 381}. Accusations have been clearly established against the accused-appellants in the case at hand. The courts below have categorically indicated the distinguishing features in evidence so far as the acquitted and convicted accused are concerned."
25. We have sifted the prosecution evidence of the aforesaid witnesses with care and having separated the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood, we have come to the conclusion that the testimony of Bhagwan Singh, Rameshwar, Khushiram and Yadram qua appellants Radhey, Battu, Sheeshram and Rameshwar is consistent and trustworthy.
26. It was also canvassed by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel that the presence of PW2 Khushiram, PW3 Rameshwar and PW4 Yadram at the seen is doubtful because when appellants were inflicting injuries on the person of Balram and Bhagwan Singh, they did not make attempt to rescue them which is an unnatural conduct of a human being when they are related to the deceased and the injured. Their unnatural conduct proves that they were not present at the time of the incident.
27. We have considered the above submissions. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Delhi (6), 76, the Apex Court observed that:
"It appears that before the witness arrived, the appellant had inflicted injuries on different parts of the body of his daughter who was on the ground in a pool of blood and when he arrived on hearing the cries of his daughter, the appellant was found giving indiscriminate dagger-blows to Neelam, daughter of this witness, on different parts of her body and when this witness protested, he ran towards him. In these circumstances it cannot be said to be unnatural if he could not take any steps to save the life of his daughter as he being unarmed, as an ordinary normal human being. Could not have taken risk of his life at the hands of the appellant, which was so imminent."
28. In the instant case both Heera Rameshwar were unarmed. Khushiram and Yadram had seen the occurrence from their field. Appellants Radhey, Battu, Sheeshram and Rameshwar had inflicted injuries indiscriminately with sharp edged weapon 'axe' and 'Dharia' on the person of the deceased and PW5 Bhagwan Singh, Rameshwar, Heera, Khushiram and Yadram could not take risk of their lives at the hands of appellants and in these circumstances, it cannot be said to be unnatural if they did not take any steps to rescue the deceased and injured Bhagwan Singh. The presence of these witnesses stands proved from the statement of PW1 Kirodi and PW8 Bhanwar. PW1 Kirodi and PW8 Bhanwar deposed that on hearing hue and cry when they reached on the spot from their field, they found Heera and Rameshwar weeping and Yadram and Khushiram present there. They also found Balram dead and Bhagwan Singh in injured condition. Both Kirodi and Bhanwar are independent witnesses and their statements quoted above are believable. Thus, from the testimony of Kirodi and Bhanwar the presence of Khushiram, Yadram, Heera and Rameshwar is established.
29. It was also urged by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel that the incident took place on public road and so many persons were working in nearby......at the time of the occurrence but no independent witness was examined by the prosecution and merely on the testimony of interested and partisan witnesses, it cannot be held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this submission. There is nothing on record to show that any other independent person except witnesses examined by the prosecution had also witnessed the incident, and, therefore, it cannot be held that the prosecution has withheld the independent witnesses. Apart from this, in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed that:-
"As regards the examination of independent persons or witnesses, we would do well to note a decision of this Court in Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Admn.) {(2000) 2 SCC 646} wherein this Court in para 12 observed: (SCC pp. 653-54) "12. It is next contended that despite the fact that 20 to 25 persons collected at the spot at the time of the incident as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, not a single independent witness has been examined and, therefore, no reliance should be placed on the evidence of PW 5 and PW 7. This submission also deserves to be rejected. It is a known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be witnesses or to assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in cases where injured witnesses or the close relative of the deceased are under constant threat and they dare not depose the truth before the court, independent witnesses believe that their safety is not guaranteed. That belief cannot be said to be without any substance. Another reason may be the delay in recording the evidence of independent witnesses and repeated adjournments in the court. In any case, if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, the prosecution cannot be blamed and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses. Dealing with a similar contention in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh (1988 Supp SCC 686) this Court observed: (SCC pp. 691-92, para 15) 'In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable.' "
The test of creditworthiness and acceptability in our view, ought to be the guiding factors and if so the requirements as above, stand answered in the affirmative, question of raising an eyebrow on reliability of witness would be futile. The test is the credibility and acceptability of the witnesses available - if they are so, the prosecution should be able to prove the case with their assistance."
30. In view of the above observations of the Apex Court, the testimony of PW2 Khushiram, PW3 Rameshwar, PW4 Yadram and PW5 Bhagwan Singh qua appellant Radhey, Battu, Sheeshram and Rameshwar cannot be rejected on the ground that independent witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution.
31. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel also submitted that there was a delay of around 7 hours in lodging the F.I.R. and no reasonable explanation for this delay was given by the prosecution during trial. Learned counsel contended that as per the prosecution evidence, after the incident injured Bhagwan Singh was taken to Hindaun and thereafter to Karauli where police stations are situated but FIR was no lodged promptly at these police stations and it was stated that the FIR (written report Ex.P.7) was submitted before PW.13 Laxmikant Sharma, ASI at 3:10 P.M. on the fateful day. Mr. Gupta placed reliance on Raghunath v. State of Haryana and Anr. (7).
32. In Raghunath v. State of Haryana and Anr. (supra), the Apex Court observed as under:-
"As already noticed, the FIR was lodged on 19-12-1994 at 2.30 a.m. for the incident said to have taken place on 18-12-1994 at about 9.30 p.m. An accident is stated to have taken place in Village Teekli, which is stated to be at a distance of about 14 km from Gurgaon. It is in the evidence on record that Sadar Police Station, Gurgaon and Police Post Badshahpur fall on the way from Village Teekl to General Hospital, Gurgaon. The complainant party did not stop at the two police stations and proceeded straight to General Hospital, Gurgaon, it is urged that the conduct of the complainant party is unusual and this has created doubt about the genesis of the prosecution story. This contention has been rejected by the learned trial court that the complainant party was busy in getting the first and immediate aid to the injured persons of the family. We are of the view that in the ordinary circumstances, it is quite imperative that the complainant party could have stopped at the police station, sought necessary help from the police station and also given first-hand information to the police. From the evidence of PW 4 Dr. B.B. Sharma, it appears that the injuries suffered by the complainant party are simple in nature except that of Kundal Lal (deceased). In our view, therefore, there are no mitigating circumstances for not reporting to the police station at the first hour especially when the police stations are on the way to General Hospital."
33. From the perusal of the above decision of the Apex Court it is evident that the facts of that case were different from that of the instant case. In the case of Raghunath v. State of Haryana and Anr. (supra), the injuries suffered by the complainant party were simple in nature but in the instant case the injuries sustained by PW5 Bhagwan Singh were serious in nature. In the incident PW5 Bhagwan Singh sustained 4 incised wounds caused by sharp weapon and 6 other simple injuries caused by blunt weapon. Incised wounds were on his face, left side of chest, and occipital part of skull. When he was examined by PW7 Dr. Dashrath Singh, Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Karauli at 1:15 P.M. on the same day, he was unconscious and his general condition was poor. He was given first-aid by the doctor at Hindaun and his father and brother were advised by the doctor to take him to General Hospital, Karauli. In these circumstances, they could not be expected to stop and to report the matter at police stations Hindaun and Karauli before getting Bhagwan Singh admitted in the hospital. It is also clear from the prosecution evidence that after getting Bhagwan Singh admitted in General Hospital, Karauli, his father Heera immediately left for the place of occurrence where the dead body of his son Balram was lying and submitted his written report Ex.P.7 to PW13 Laxmikant Sharma, ASI on the spot. In these circumstances we are of the considered view that the decision given in Raghunath v. State of Haryana and Anr. (supra), does not render help to the appellants and, therefore, the above submission made by learned counsel is rejected.
34. It was next contended by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel that as per the version of PW16 Hazari Singh, on submission of the written report Ex.P.7, in pursuance of the directions given by PW13 Laxmikant Sharma, ASI he took it (Ex.P.7) to police station P.S. Salempur. PW16 Hazari Singh stated that he folded the report Ex.P.7 and put it in his pocket for taking it to P.S. Salempur. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel submitted that it appears from the written report Ex.P.7 that it was never folded and, therefore, it proves that the original FIR of the case has been withheld by the prosecution. Learned counsel placed reliance on Jalal v. The State of Rajasthan (8).
35. We are of the view that because of slip of tongue or bonafide mistake, PW16 Hazari Singh has stated that he had folded the written report Ex.P.7 and put it in his pocket for taking it to P.S. Salempur. He might have taken it in a 'pad' without folding it. Apart from this, in Jalal v. The State of Rajasthan (supra) the prosecution evidence was not rejected merely on the ground that there was variance in prosecution evidence regarding folding of FIR. Consequently, the above contention of learned counsel has no force.
36. It was also urged by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel that it is evident from the prosecution evidence that on receiving the information about the alleged incident PW13 Laxmikant Sharma, ASI reached on the spot. That information which was the first information was not produced by the prosecution during trial. Mr. Gupta canvassed that Ex.P.7 is not the First Information Report of the case and it is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, not admissible in evidence. We have also considered this contention of Mr. Gupta, learned counsel. PW17 Gangasingh Chauhan, the then SHO, P.S. Salempur stated that on 4/2/91 he left for Mahuwa with Laxmikant Sharma, ASI and other police personnels in government jeep on receiving information of the incident of arson. Oh the way he met with Dy. Superintendent of Police who was in another jeep. Thereafter he accompanied the Dy.S.P. .. his jeep and left behind Laxmikant Sharma, ASI and Hazari Singh, driver. PW17 Gangasingh Chauhan further stated that at police station P.S. Mahuwa he received a wireless message that one person was killed and another was beaten up near village Lapawali. As police station Mahuwa was surrounded by agitating people, he could not leave police station P.S. Mahuwa and, therefore, he directed Laxmikant Sharma, ASI on wireless to go to the place of occurrence and proceed in accordance with law. PW17 Gangasingh Chauhan further stated that after 4:30 P.M. he left for the place of occurrence and reached on the spot. The Apex Court in Ramsingh Bhavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujrat (9), held as under:-
"From time to time, controversy has been raised, as to at what stage the investigation commences. That has to be considered and examined on the facts of each case, especially, when the information of a cognizable offence has been given on a telephone. If the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the officer in charge, proceeds to the place of occurrence on basis of that information to find out the details of the nature of the offence itself, then it cannot be said that the information, which had been received by him on telephone, shall be deemed to be First Information Report. The object and purpose of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the First Information Report, but to request the officer in charge of the police station to reach the place of occurrence. On the other hand, if the information given on telephone is not cryptic and on basis of that information, the officer in charge, is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and he proceeds from the police station after recording such information, to investigate such offence then any statement made by any person in respect of the said offence including about the participants, shall be deemed to be a statement made by a person to the police offer "in the course of investigation", covered by Section 162 of the code. That statement can not be treated as First Information Report. But any telephonic information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the nature and details of such information, cannot be treated as First Information Report. This can be illustrated. In a busy market place, a murder is committed. Any person in the market including one of the shop owners, telephones to the nearest police station, informing the officer in charge, about the murder, without knowing the details of the murder, the accused or the victim. On basis of that information, the officer in charge reaches the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed. Can it be said that before leaving the police station, he has recorded the First Information Report? In some cases the information given may be that a person has been shot at or stabbed. It cannot be said that in such a situation, the moment the officer in charge leaves the police station, the investigation has commenced. In normal course, he has first to find out the person who can given the details of the offence, before such officer is expected to collect the evidence in respect of the said offence."
"The Apex Court has reiterated the same legal position in a recent case in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. with Damodaran P. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., and in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. v. Revada Chandrasekhar and Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SCW 2571 and held that apart from a vague information by a phone call or cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for the purpose, by a police officer incharge of a police station is the first information report."
37. In the instant case, cryptic information regarding the alleged incident was received by the police and, therefore, that information cannot be treated as the First Information Report of the alleged incident. Having gone through the entire evidence of the prosecution, we are of the opinion that written report Ex.P.7 is the First Information Report, Therefore, we find no substance in the above submission made by learned counsel.
38. For the aforesaid reasons and on close and careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that appellants Radhey, Battu, Sheeshram and Rameshwar had caused injuries with sharp edged weapon to Balram which resulted in his death instantaneously. They had also caused injuries on the person of PW5 Bhagwan Singh. The prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the remaining appellants and therefore, they are entitled to be acquitted.
39. Now the question arises for consideration as to what offence was committed by appellants Radhey, Battu, Sheeshram and Rameshwar. These appellants came at the place of occurrence armed with sharp edged weapons 'Kulhadi' (axe) and 'Dharia'. They caused injuries on the person of deceased Balram indiscriminately. On post-mortem examination incised wounds were found on the neck, parietal bone, occipital part of skull and right wrist joint of the deceased. There was compound fracture of occipital bone. Brain was injured and carotid vessel was also cut. On medical examination out of 10 injuries, 4 incised wounds caused by sharp edged weapons were found on the person of Bhagwan Singh. These incised wounds were on his face, chin and occipital part of skull. On X-ray it was also found that left parietal bone was fractured. Looking to these facts and other facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid four appellants had the common intention to cause death of Balram and Bhagwan Singh and with that common intention they came at the place of occurrence and surrounded Balram, Bhagwan Singh and their father and brother. When Balram and Bhagwan Singh ran to save themselves, appellants chased them and caused injuries with sharp edged weapons to them. Because of injuries caused by appellants Radhey, Battu, Sheeshram and Rameshwar, Bairam died on the spot. Apart from the common intention to cause death, appellants had the intention to cause such bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injuries were caused to both Balram and Bhagwan Singh in furtherance of the common intention. Because of proper treatment the life of Bhagwan Singh was saved. Had he died appellants would have been found guilty for the murder of Bhagwan Singh. In the opinion of PW12 Dr. Budhram Meena, external injuries 1 and 4 which were on the neck and occipital part of skull, individually and collectively were the cause of death. PW8 Khushiram, PW3 Rameshwar and PW4 Yadram stated in their deposition that appellant Battu inflicted injury with axe on the neck of Balram. They also slated that both Radhey and Sheeshram caused injuries with axe on the head of Balram and therefore, it is not clear the who had caused injury No. 4. In these circumstances having caused death of Balram, appellants Battu committed an offence under Section 302 IPC and appellant Radhey, Sheeshram and Rameshwar committed and offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. They are also found guilty under Section 307 read with 34 IPC for having caused injuries to Bhagwan Singh. They are entitled to be acquitted of the remaining charges.
40. As a result of the above discussions, we dispose of these appeals as under: -
0) Appeal No. 259/1998 filed by appellants Hanse, Har Sahai and Rajdhar and Appeal No. 322/98 filed by appellant Ram Kunwar are allowed. While setting aside their conviction and sentence, they are acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. They are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
(ii) Appeal No. 322/98 filed by appellants Sheesh Ram, Radhey, Battu and Rameshwar is partly allowed as under:-
(a) Appellant Battu is acquitted of the charges under Sections 148 and 307 IPC. His conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court under Section 302 IPC is confirmed. Instead of Section 307 IPC, he is convicted under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thousand only), in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
(b) Appellant Sheesh Ram is acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 302 and 307 IPC. Instead, we convict him under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer six month's rigorous imprisonment and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-(Rs. two thousand only), in default of payment of fine to further, suffer simple imprisonment for three months respectively.
(c) Appellant Rameshwar is acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 307 and 302/149 IPC. Instead, we convict him under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer six month's rigorous imprisonment and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thousand only), in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months respectively.
(d) Appellant Radhey is acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 302 and 307/149 IPC. Instead, we convict him under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer six month's rigorous imprisonment and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-(Rs. two thousand only), in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months respectively.
(iii) The judgment dated February 28, 1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City stands modified accordingly.