Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Arjun And Ors vs State on 3 May, 2018
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 460/1988
1. Arjun son of Mansharam
2. Smt. Mohari wife of Arjun
3. Smt. Mangali daughter of Arjun, wife of Ram Karan.
All by caste Ahir, resident of Dhani Pohadwali Tan Aantela, P.S.
Shahpura District Jaipur (At present in Central Jail, Jaipur).
Accused Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rinesh Gupta with Mr. Aniket
Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sonia Shandilya, Public
Prosecutor.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment 03/05/2018 (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq) This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants challenging judgment and order dated 28.11.1988 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short 'the trial court') whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:
Name of the Section Sentence accused 1. Arjun 302/ Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2. Smt. Mohari 149 IPC 200/-, in default of payment of fine to 3. Smt. Mangali further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. 1. Arjun 148 IPC Two years' rigorous imprisonment with 2. Smt. Mohari fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment 3. Smt. Mangali of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. 1. Arjun 447 IPC One month's simple imprisonment. 2. Smt. Mohari 3. Smt. Mangali (2 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988]
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Facts of the case are that the deceased Ram Narain and the accused appellant Arjun are real brothers and there was some dispute regarding the partition of the land. On 11.07.1986, Smt. Pushpa (P.W.5) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-4) at Police Station Shahpura alleging that her husband Ram Narain went to his field at about 11.00 AM and was cultivating the field through tractor. Her daughter also went with her husband. It was stated that the complainant Arjun had also got his land adjacent to their land and from there Arjun, Pooran, Shriram, Smt. Mohari wife of Arjun and Mangali daughter of Arjun came with lathi and khurpa in the field and started beating her husband Ram Narain. When her daughter made hue and cry, she came rushing there. Her husband was lying on the ground and her condition was very bad. It was further stated that these persons committed offence after coming on their field. The police on the basis of aforesaid written report lodged FIR No. 147/1986 (Exhibit P21) for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 307 and 323 IPC. The Investigating Officer, after registration of the case, went at the spot and found dead body of Ram Narain there. Thus, the case was converted under Section 302 IPC. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the accused-appellants and two other accused persons in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Shahpura from the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District. Since Shriram and Puran were juvenile, their case was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned. The Sessions Judge, Jaipur District framed charges against the accused- appellants for offences under Sections 148, 447 and 302 IPC in (3 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] alternative Section 302/149 IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the case was made over to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses and got exhibited 31 documents. Thereafter, the accused- appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. In defence no witness was produced, though three documents were got exhibited. Upon conclusion of trial, the trial court vide it's judgment and order dated 28.11.1988 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal.
Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the accused- appellants argued that the conviction of the accused appellants under Sections 302/149, 148 and 447 IPC is bad in law and against the facts available on the record. The learned trial court did not consider this aspect of the case that there is a delay in lodging of the FIR. As per the prosecution case, FIR was lodged on 11.07.1986, but the same was not received in the court of the learned Magistrate till 14.07.1986. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate other facts in this light, which clearly show that FIR was lodged after delay. The delay in lodging the FIR was to concoct the case against the accused-appellants. It is argued that there was some dispute in connection with the partition of the land from the last so many years between the accused party and the deceased. But, there is nothing on the record to show that how this occurrence took place on the date when Ram Narain was found dead. There must be some motive for the crime, but the prosecution has failed to prove the same. Thus, in these (4 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] circumstances it is clear that the genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed and it shows that nobody knows that how the occurrence took place and who committed murder of Ram Narain.
It is argued that the trial court has convicted the accused-appellants on the basis of the statements of Kumari Meera (P.W.2), Smt. Pushpa (P.W.5) and Trilok (P.W.6). But the trial court has failed to examine the statements of these witnesses properly. If the trial court would have examined the statements of these witnesses critically and correctly, then it would have acquitted the accused appellants from all the charges. As per the FIR, the occurrence was seen only by Kumari Meera (P.W.2). When Smt. Pushpa (P.W.5) heard the hue and cry, she immediately rushed to the field and found there her daughter. In written report submitted by Smt. Pushpa, name of Trilok was not mentioned. It was also mentioned by her that when she reached there, she found her husband in injured condition lying on the ground. Even in the FIR she has not mentioned that she saw any of the accused persons running from that place or standing there. Thus, in these circumstances, as per the FIR, the only witness of the incident is Kumari Meena. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the case and erred in believing the testimony of the Smt. Pushpa (P.W.5) and Trilok (P.W.6).
Learned counsel argued that it seems that the police changed the original version and improved the same in police proceedings and the name of Trilok was introduced and Smt. Pushpa (P.W.5) also became the eye witness of the occurrence. Thus, in these circumstances it is clear that Smt. Pushpa (P.W.5) and Trilok (P.W.6) are not the eye witnesses of the occurrence.
(5 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] The learned trial court did not consider this aspect of the case properly and erred in convicting the accused-appellants. The testimony of Kumari Meena (P.W.2) suffers from many errors and no reliance can be placed on her testimony for convicting the accused appellants. She is a child witness and there are material improvements in her testimony from time to time. Her testimony is also not corroborated by the other evidence. She is a witness, who was tutored by her mother and other members. In the facts and circumstances of this case, no reliance can be placed on her testimony. Smt. Pushpa (P.W.5) is also not an eye witness of the occurrence. The FIR was lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by her. In that report, she did not claim that she witnessed the occurrence. It seems that afterwards when the prosecution realised that Kumari Meera is not the eye witness of the occurrence and no conviction can be sustained on her testimony, then this witness was introduced as an eye witnesses and improvement was made in the prosecution story. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the case properly. There are many improvements, contradictions and other errors in her testimony and no reliance can be placed for convicting the accused appellants.
It is argued that Trilok (P.W.6) is also not an eye witness of the occurrence. His presence was not shown in the FIR and it seems that he was introduced afterwards. From a bare perusal of the testimony of this witness it is clear that he has made improvements, contradictions and other errors. Thus no reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness. If the statements of Kumari Meera (P.W.2), Smt. Pushpa (P.W.5) and (6 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] Trilok (P.W.6) are read together then it will be clear that these three persons are saying that the other witnesses were not present at the time of the occurrence and they are contradicting each other on material aspects of the case. The trial court has erred in placing reliance on the testimony of Prabhu (P.W.3) and Sugan Ram (P.W.4), who are hostile witnesses. When the prosecution did not place reliance on the testimony of these witnesses then there was no occasion for the learned trial court to place any reliance or take corroboration from them. The trial court has not properly considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The witnesses produced by the prosecution are not trustworthy and no reliance can be placed on their testimony for convicting the accused appellants.
The postmortem report (Exhibit P-8) totally demolishes the prosecution story about the participation of five accused persons in this case. As per the medical report, there were two injuries by sharp edged weapon. One was incised and another was stabbed wound. The prosecution case is that accused appellant Arjun was having lathi and both the other ladies were having khurpa with them. Thus three accused persons had three sharp edged weapons with them, but there are only two injuries by sharp edged weapon. The stab wound cannot be caused by khurpa or kulhari. Thus in these circumstances it is clear that the learned trial court has erred in placing reliance on the testimony of Kumari Meera (P.W.2), Smt. Pushpa (P.W.5) and Trilok (P.W.6) and thus erred in convicting the accused appellants. The participation of the accused appellants in this case is very much doubtful. The prosecution has failed to prove the presence of the accused (7 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] appellants and participation in this occurrence beyond all reasonable doubt. Unnatural conduct of the prosecution witnesses clearly show that no reliance can be placed on them and they are got up witnesses. There was no signature of the doctor on the postmortem report (Ex.P.8) under the cause of death. It seems that this portion was added afterwards to show the cause of death. From the facts and circumstances of this case it is also clear that there was some doubt about the poisoning and due to that death of Ram Narain. The doctor sent some parts and other important things to confirm that whether any poison was administered to deceased or not but the prosecution has not brought that report either to show that he died due to poison or not. Thus due to non production of that report, it will be presumed that the deceased Ram Narain died due to poisoning and not due to injuries or that is why the cause of death was added afterwards and the doctor did not put his signature after that. Thus in these circumstances the prosecution case seems to be false and fabricated on its face value.
It is argued that the learned trial court has believed on recoveries made from the accused persons. As per the prosecution case human blood was found on these recovered articles and the deceased had the same blood group. It is important to note that there is nothing on the record to show that these articles were kept sealed and not tempered with. As mentioned above there were only two injuries by sharp edged weapon and three persons were having sharp edged weapons. Thus in these circumstances it is also clear that it is a fabricated piece of evidence to implicate the accused appellants in this case. The investigation in this case (8 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] was not at all fair and the investigating agency was also helping the complainant party. From a bare perusal of the postmortem report it would be clear that there were no common object for committing the murder of Ram Narain. The injuries were not caused on the vital part of the body. The fact clearly demolishes the prosecution case. The learned trial court has not properly considered the other facts and circumstances of this case which were favourable to the accused appellants. The defective charges were framed against the accused persons due to which the defence has been very much prejudiced. The accused appellants were not put all the questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which they have convicted. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal be allowed and accused-appellants be acquitted of all the charges.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the judgment and order passed by the trial court. In doing so, learned Public Prosecutor referred to statements of prosecution witness, which we will deal with at appropriate place.
We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully examined the material on record.
Pushpa (P.W.5), informant in the present case has claimed to be eye witness of the incident. In the written report (Exhibit P-4), she has stated that her husband Ram Narain was getting his agricultural field cultivated, which was in his kathadari and possession, by tractor around 11.00 A.M. Her younger daughter had also accompanied her husband. Arjun, his wife Mohari, daughter Mangali, sons Puran and Shriram came together (9 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] armed with lathies, kurpa etc. and subjected her husband Ram Narain to severe beating. When informant's daughter raised hue and cry, the informant came rushing there and saw that her husband Ram Narain lay on the ground in serious condition. When the informant, Pushpa (P.W.5) appeared as witness in the trial court she, however had stated that when her daughter came, her husband was ploughing the field with the tractor of Kana. Sugan Jat was driving the tractor. Her daughter came back home to fetch water. She told that Arjun, Shriram, Puran, Mangali and Mohari were beating her husband. Puran, Arjun and Shriram had lathies, Mangali and Mohari had khurpa and they all were beating Ram Narain. When she went at spot, Arjun threatened that if she intervened, she would also be killed. She went to Prabhu Meena for help. Thereafter this witness stated that Arjun inflicted lathi blow on the legs and hands of her husband Ram Narain. Ram Narain received all the injuries on his hands. Mohari and Mangali caused injuries to him by khurpa. Puran and Shriram also caused injuries to him by lathies. Even though Prabhu came there but upon seeing that the accused was beating the deceased, he went in another direction. Trilok Jat, on hue and cry, came there and forbade the accused from doing so but the accused did not stop beating. This witness stated that she told Jagdish and Dalchand to take care of her husband and she would go to police station for making a report. These people laid Ram Narain in a seriously injured condition on a cot and gave him water. By the time this witness returned back, Ram Narain had already died. But this witness has categorically stated that the deceased was beaten by all the five accused. Trilok had come there on hearing hue and cry and thereafter Prabhu also came there. Sugan Jat, who was (10 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] driver of the tractor, was also present there. This witness has stated that 8 bighas of their land was adjacent to their house and another 8 bighas of land was towards the well. In cross- examination, she admitted that in the written report she did not mention the names of Prabhu and Trilok because at that time she was in the state of shock. But in the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-1) she mentioned their names. In cross-examination although, she admitted that the deceased used to sometime consume liquor, but she denied suggestion that the deceased Ram Narain was drunk at the time of incident and that he was sick and had been administered injection for his ailment. When statement of this witness is examined in entirety, it would suggest that she though reached at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident started on being called by her daughter, but her daughter Meera (P.W.2) was certainly present at the place of occurrence.
Apart from this, Trilok (P.W.6) has also supported the case of the prosecution. Meera is a child witness being aged 10 years. She has stated that her father was getting the agricultural field cultivated by the tractor of Kana Jat. Her father was standing beneath a tree of jhati. Her father asked her to fetch water from their house, which was in the adjacent field. At that time, she saw that Arjun, Mangali, Mohari, Shriya and Puran were beating his father. When she cried, these people stated that if she intervened, she would also be killed. When her father started to run to save himself, these people again subjected him to beating.
Her mother also reached there. Trilok also came there. After
sometime, these people ran away. Dalchand and Jagdish made
(11 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988]
her father lying on a cot. Her mother had gone to police station to lodge the report. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much emphasis on statement of this child witness to argue that agricultural land, which her father was getting cultivated had already been cultivated by Arjun and secondly, this incident took place when she went back home to bring a lota (container of water). As regards, first submission, this witness is only 10 years aged. Informant Pushpa (P.W.5) categorically stated that the deceased was cultivating two pieces of agricultural land each of which was admeasuring 8 bighas and fell in his share. Even if therefore, in response to a leading question, this child witness has been made to say that Arjun had already cultivated this disputed agricultural land, it does not in any manner cause any dent to prosecution case, as eventually we do not find the argument of right of private defence of person and property raised on behalf of accused-appellants substantiated, which we shall discuss later.
Trilok (P.W.6) is yet another eye witness. Prabhu Meena (P.W.3) though was produced as eye witness, but he turned hostile. He stated that when he was taking bath, Pushpa wife of Ram Narain was raising hue and cry. She was crying that Arjun was beating Ram Narain and somebody should come to save him. He stated that by the time, he reached there, the incident had already over. Even though, this witness has been declared hostile, but conduct of his statement is that his testimony has to be held admissible being evidence of res-gestae under Section 6 of the Evidence Act because he heard the sound of cry of Pushpa that Arjun was beating her husband Ram Narain.
(12 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] The Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 held as under:
"Section 6 of the Act has an exception to the general rule where-under, hearsay evidence becomes admissible. But as for bringing such hearsay evidence within the ambit of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there could not be an interval which would allow fabrication. In other words, the statements said to be admitted as forming part of res gestae must have been made contemporaneously with the act or immediately thereafter."
The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 1441 held as under:
"In our considered view, the test to determine admissibility under the rule of "res gestae" is embodied in words "are so connected with a fact in issue as to form a part of the same transaction". It is therefore, that for describing the concept of "res gestae", one would need to examine, whether the fact is such as can be described by use of words/phrases such as, contemporaneously arising out of the occurrence, actions having a live link to the fact, acts perceived as a part of the occurrence, exclamations (of hurt, seeking help, of disbelief, of cautioning, and the like) arising out of the fact, spontaneous reactions to a fact, and the like. It is difficult for us to describe illustration (a) under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, specially in conjunction with the words "are so connected with a fact in issue as to form a part of the same transaction", in a manner differently from the approach characterized above."
Sugan Ram (P.W.4), who was the driver of the tractor, also stated that he had cultivated two pieces of agricultural land of the deceased. Then an altercation took place between Ram Narain and his brother Arjun. When people started assembling there, he went away on his tractor. Thereafter, he does not know what happened. Though this witness has not supported case of the prosecution as eye witness, but nevertheless his statement (13 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] threw a light on the genesis of the incident, which took place over the dispute which was in respect of his share in ancestral agricultural land.
Trilok (P.W.6) has also appeared as an eye witness. He stated that he had agricultural land adjacent to the agricultural land of the accused and the deceased. He heard sound of hue and cry. Then he saw that Ram Narain was being beaten by Arjun, Bhanwari and Mangali along with two children Purn and Shriya. Arjun had lathi and Bhanwari and Mangali had khurpa, but he could not see that what weapon two children were carrying. Ram Narain was alone and pleaded the accused not to beat and then ran away. Ram Narain was still breathing. By the time Onkar, Girdhari and Mulya came, Ram Narain had breathed his last. Daughter of Ram Narain was crying. When Ram Narain's wife came to agricultural field, he by gesture asked her to go to police station. Ram Narain died on spot. He stated that partition of the ancestral land had already taken place between two brothers. Since he also had a share in the ancestral land, it was divided in three parts. In cross-examination he stated that the land between two brothers was divided in four parts. While land of one corner was being cultivated by Ram Narain, land situated in another corner was being cultivated by Arjun.
Girdhari (P.W.12) happened to be real brother of accused and the deceased. He has stated that there was dispute between them with regard to agricultural land. They had settled their dispute by partition. 15 bighas of land went in the share of each of them. Land was divided into four parts. While first and third corner of the land fell in the share of Ram Narain, land (14 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] situated in second and fourth corner fell in the share of Arjun. This witness has explained that one piece of agricultural land in the north western side fell in the share of Arjun and another piece of agricultural land situated in north eastern side came to the share of Ram Narain. Similarly, third piece of agricultural land situated in south western side came to the share of Arjun. Fourth piece of agricultural land situated in south eastern side came to the share of Ram Narain.
Investigating Officer Prahlad Singh (P.W.19) has proved site plan (Exhibit P-5), which when read with the statement of Girdhari (P.W.12) makes it clear that the incident took place in the south eastern corner of the agricultural field which was in the share of Ram Narain and this part of land as also northern corner of the land both came to the share of Ram Narain which were freshly cultivated. Accused-appellants therefore cannot claim any right of private defence either of person or property. The prosecution has produced on record that the deceased had initiated proceedings against the accused-appellants under Section 107 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Additional Collector, Shahpura.
However, the evidence clearly suggests participation of mainly Arjun, but also few planted his wife, daughter and children. Investigating officer has recovered blood stained lathi at the instance of Arjun vide Exhibit P-17; blood stained khurpa at the instance of Mohari vide Exhibit P-18; another blood stained khurpa at the instance of Mangali vide Exhibit P-19. Attesting witnesses to these recoveries are Babu Lal and Matadeen who have proved the same. Investigating Officer has also recovered Dhoti and vest of the accused vide Exhibit P-20 at the instance of Arjun. Attesting (15 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] witness to this recovery are Mahadev (P.W.17) and Moolchand (P.W.18) who have supported the same. All these articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and were found to contain human blood, thus, providing corroboration to the allegation that accused-appellants actively participated in the incident, which caused death of the deceased. FLS Report (Exhibit P-16) indicates that Packet E containing blood stained khurpa recovered at the instance of Mangali; packet F containing another blood stained khurpa recovered at the instance of Mohari; packet G containing blood stained lathi recovered at the instance of Arjun were found to contain human blood of few red, brown, faint brown, medium, small at placed thick, thin. Similarly, Dhoti and vest of the accused Arjun in packet H were also found to contain human blood. FSL Report (Exhibit P-16) indicated that all the 8 packets were received in properly sealed condition bearing impressions which tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded.
Omkar (P.W.7), uncle of the accused Arjun is attesting witness to recovery of shoes of the deceased recovered vide Memo Exhibit P-7. He has also denied suggestion that Ram Narain ever forbade the accused Arjun from cultivating land of his share. Sultan Ram Patwari Halka Antela (P.W.9) has stated that dead body of Ram Narain was lying in the land of Khasra No. 3415 in which Trilok had half share and Ram Narain, Girdhari sons of Mancha had half share. He has proved nakal jamabandi (Exhibit P-9). Dr. Roop Narain Karadia (P.W.8) has proved post mortem report (Exhibit P-8) of the deceased Ram Narain according to which he sustained eight injuries. Cause of death was opined to be loss of excessive blood from multiple injuries and rupture of (16 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] liver and right lung due to fracture of ribs. Deceased sustained one incised wound i.e. injury no. 1 which was in the size of 2"x1 cm muscle deep. Margines were everted. Wound became wide. Clotted blood positive situated at 6" above the lateral molecolus of right leg at the outer border of right tibia which was caused by sharp weapon. Injury no. 6 was stab wound in oval shape. Margins everted, muscles sen. Bleeding positive. Clotted bone was not injured but muscle were injured posterior surface at left am at upper limb in between the left elbow and shoulder joint, which was caused by sharp and pointed weapon. All other injuries were by blunt weapon being lacerated wound and abrasions. Injury no. 7 and 8 proved fatal. Injury no. 7 was abrasion with irregular margins shape 2" x 2" clotted blood positive with liner depression 2" below the angle of right scapula, which was caused by blunt weapon. Similarly injury no. 8 was bruise in the size of 6" x 1" dark red in colour. Swelling positive liver in shape and placed vertically in between renal angle to angle to scapula in right side of back, which was also caused by blunt weapon. It was this injury which was held responsible for fracture of 9 th, 10th and 11th ribs of the deceased. Cause of death was opined to be loss of excessive blood from multiple injuries and rupture of liver and right lung due to fracture of ribs.
Quarrel in the present case basically had taken place between two brothers namely accused-appellant Arjun and the deceased Ram Narain, which was preceded by altercation and heated exchange of words, which fact has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. In this sudden fight, accused-appellant Arjun inflicted repeated injuries by blunt weapon i.e. lathi. His (17 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] wife Mohari and daughter Mangali participated in the quarrel and caused one injury each by sharp and pointed weapon i.e. khurpa, which is also from angular side, but looking to the dimensions of the injuries and despite doctor stating that all injuries were responsible for loss of blood cannot be said to be dangerous to life. These two ladies when they saw their head of family i.e. Arjun quarrelling with Ram Narain over the land dispute subjected him to beating by khurpa, however, looking to the number of injuries, it cannot be held that they shared any kind of common object/intention with the accused Arjun to cause death of Ram Narain. Therefore, it was Arjun alone who must be held guilty of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder because the incident in the present case took place in a sudden fight in heat of passion between two brothers and would be covered by fourth exception to Section 300 IPC. However, charge against the accused-appellants under Section 324 IPC cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Unlawful assembly was formed for giving threshing and severe beating to Ram Narain to evict him from the part of the land which the accused claimed to be their own. Two children were sent to Juvenile Justice Baord concerned. Thus, the accused-appellants are held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed.
Conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants Arjun, Mohari and Mangali for offence under Sections 148 and 447 IPC is maintained. Accused-appellants Mohari and Mangali are acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 302/149 IPC. However, accused-appellant Arjun is also acquitted of the charge for offence (18 of 18) [CRLA-460/1988] under Section 302/149 IPC, instead he is convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited with the trial court within a period of two months, in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years. Accused-appellant Arjun is convicted for offence under Section 324/149 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. However, accused-appellants Mohari and Mangali are convicted for offence under Section 324/149 IPC and sentenced to a period of imprisonment already undergone by each of them with fine of Rs. 50,000/- each to be deposited with the trial court within a period of two months, in default of payment of fine, each of them shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. Upon deposit of amount of fine, as directed above, the same shall be paid by the trial court to widow of the deceased and if she is not alive, to her sons and daughters in equal proportion.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J Manoj/11