Chattisgarh High Court
Gulam Mahmood vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 February, 2010
Author: T.P.Sharma
Bench: T.P.Sharma
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal 152 of 2004 AND Criminal Appeal 153 of 2004
1 Gulam Mahmood
2 Gulam Safdar
3 Gulam Akhtar
...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh
...Respondents
! Mr Abhay Tiwari
^ Mr Rakesh Kumar Jha
CORAM: Honble Mr T P SHARMA AND Hon ble Mr R L JHANWAR JJ
Dated: 03/02/2010
: JUDGEMENT
APPEALS UNDER SECTION 374 2 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 The judgment of the Court was delivered by T.P.Sharma, J.:-
1. Criminal Appeal No. 152/2004 filed by appellants-Gulam Mahmood and Gulam Safdar & Criminal Appeal No.153/2004 filed by appellant-Gulam Akhtar are arising out of the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 19.1.2004 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, in Sessions Trial No.405/2002, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The aforesaid criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 19.1.2004 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, in Sessions Trial No.405/2002, whereby & whereunder learned First Additional Sessions Judge after holding appellants-
Gulam Mahmood and Gulam Safdar in Criminal Appeal No.152/2004 & Gulam Akhtar in Criminal Appeal No.153/2004 guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34 & 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, each of them have sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, respectively.
3. Judgment is impugned on the ground that the trial Court has not considered the defence taken by the appellants that they have inflicted minimum injuries in exercise of right of private defence of property which they are entitled under Sections 97 and 100 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby committed illegality.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the fateful day of 8.7.2002 at about 7 a.m. at morning, Abdul Majid (since deceased), Jamshed Ali, Halima Bibi and brother and sister of Jamshed Ali were present in their house, the appellants along with Nuresha Begum, Smt.Saratun and Gulam Ahmad came to their house, they were holding dagger, sword, stick and assaulted Abdul Majid and Halima Bano. When Dilsher Ali and Siraj came to save their father Majid Ali, then the aforesaid accused persons also assaulted them. Appellant Gulam Mahmood assaulted Halima Bano by dagger over her abdomen and back, she fell down. All the appellants including other accused persons assaulted Abdul Majid by sword, dagger, rod and stick and caused instantaneously death. They have also caused injury to Siraj Ali and Dilsher Ali. Witnesses Tejaram, Chattardhari, Amarjit, Bhola Prasad, Janki, Jagdish, Sukhram and family members of Sukhram were present at the time of incident. Jamsher Ali (PW-2) immediately went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. vide Ex.P/2 and merg intimation vide Ex.P/3. Investigating officer proceeded for the scene of occurrence. After summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/15, inquest over dead body of deceased Abdul Majid was prepared vide Ex.P/1. Dead body of deceased Abdul Majid was sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Premnagar. Autopsy was conducted by Dr.A.L.Soni (PW-14) vide Ex.P/13 and found following injuries:-
1) One incised wound over pinna of left ear cutting the middle of pinna to root of lobule, size 3 cms. to whole thickness of pinna.
2) Incised wound over left side of occipital part of head, size 5 cms. x 1 cms. x brain deep. Occipital bone was cut.
Injury No.1 was grievous and injury No.2 was fatal in nature and sufficient for causing death. Death was due to shock as a result of excessive heamorrhage and death was homicidal in nature. Bloodstained soil, plain soil, one stick and broken pieces of bangles were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P/5.
5. Injured Halima Bibi @ Halima Bano was also sent for medical examination. Dr.Satyaketu Gupta (PW-19) has examined her vide Ex.P/33 and found following injures:-
1) One incised wound over left lower scapular region, size 2 + cms. x 1 + cms. piercing towards anterior chest wall and maxilla injury was through & through (chest), outer (exit), size 1 cm. x 1 cm.
2) Swelling over the right hand, size 7 cms. x 3 cms.
Injury No.1 was grievous in nature. Injured Siraj was also examined by Dr.Satyaketu Gupta (PW-19) vide Ex.P/34 and found one incised wound over left occipital area of head, size 3 cms. x + cm. and one abrasion over left knee of size 2 cms. x 1 cm. X-ray of head was advised. Injured Dilsher Ali was also examined by Dr. Dr.Satyaketu Gupta (PW-19) vide Ex.P/35 and found one incised wound over parietal area, size 4 cms. x 1 cm x + cm., one lacerated wound between thumb and index finger of right hand, size 2 cms. x + cm. x + cm. and one abrasion over right scapular region and right side of waist. Injuries were grievous in nature. During the course of investigation, appellant Gulam Ahmad was taken into custody vide Ex.P/5A. He made disclosure statement of axe and same was recovered at the instance of appellant Gulam Ahmad vide Ex.P/6. Appellant Gulam Akhtar was taken into custody. He made disclosure statement of axe vide Ex.P/5 B and same was recovered at the instance of appellant Gulam Akhtar vide Ex.P/8. Appellant Gulam Sabdar was taken into custody. He made disclosure statement of stick vide Ex.P/6 A and same was recovered at the instance of appellant Gulam Sabdar vide Ex.P/9. Appellant Gulam Mahmood made disclosure statement of dagger and rod vide Ex.P/7-A and rod was recovered at the instance of appellant Gulam Mahmood vide Ex.P/10. Dagger and sword were recovered from the spot. Seized articles were examined by Dr.Satyaketu Gupta (PW-19) vide Exs. P/29 to P/32. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis and presence of blood over dagger, sword, stick, axe and rod were confirmed vide Article A.
6. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Code'). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Surguja (Ambikapur), from where learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, received the case on transfer for trial.
7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code where they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. The appellants have taken specific defence that the complainant party has assaulted appellant Gulam Ahmad and caused four injuries and Siratun and caused one injury. They were also examined by Dr.Satyaketu Gupta (PW-19) vide Exs.D/1 and D/2. No assistance from public authorities immediately was available to them. The complainant party came to the house of the accused party and they assaulted accused party by sword, dagger and other dangerous weapons, therefore, no option except to cause injury to save their life was available to the accused party, then in exercise of right of private defence of the person, they have caused minimum injury necessary to save them. The defence has examined Sagar Singh (DW-1) and Dr.Satyaketu Gupta. Sagar Singh (DW-1) has deposed in his evidence that Dilsher and Abdul Majid were present in the field and when appellant Gulam Ahmad went to the field with seed, then Dilsher assaulted Gulam Ahmad by spade and deceased Abdul Majid assaulted Gulam Ahmad by stick. Dilsher assaulted Gulam Ahmad by spade over his right knee. He shouted for help. After hearing sound, mother of Gulam Ahmad namely Siratun proceeded towards the place of incident whom injured witness Halima Bibi (PW-3) assaulted by stick over her head and both the parties have assaulted to each other. Siratun fell down in the land. After the incident, Abdul Majid ran away from the spot to his house. Dr.Satyaketu Gupta (DW-2) has deposed in his evidence that he has examined Gulam Ahmad on 8.7.2002 vide Ex.D/1 and found one incised wound over his right hand, size 12 cms. x + cm. x mussel deep. Blood vessels were found cut and there was excessive bleeding and one incised wound over left scapular region, size 1 + cms. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. Both the injuries were grievous in nature. One lacerated wound over head and parietal and temporal area, size 2 + cms. x 1 + cms. x 2 cms. , 2 cms. x + cm. He is advised for X-ray. One abrasion over right knee, size 2 cms. x 1 cm. He has also examined Siratun Nisha vide Ex.D/2 on the same day and found incised wound over the head, size 4 cms. x 1 + cms. x + cm.
8. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as aforementioned.
9. We have heard Mr.Abhay Tiwari, counsel for the appellants and Mr.Rakesh Jha, Dy.Govt.Advocate for the State/respondent and perused the judgment impugned as also record of the trial Court.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the alleged incident took place on the ground of dispute of the land and Gulam Mahmood has also lodged the report against the complainant party. The prosecution has not explained the injuries found over the body of accused persons and has concealed genesis of the offence. In the absence of explanation of the injuries found over the body of the accused persons, only presumption can be drawn that the complainant party has caused injuries to the accused party and then they have caused injury in exercise of right of private defence. Crime No.42/2002 has been registered against the complainant party under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in which though they have been acquitted of the charge but shows that the complainant party has caused fatal injuries to the accused party. The defence is not under obligation to prove its defence like the case of the prosecution. The defence is only required to cast doubt over the case of the prosecution and in the present case, the defence has proved its defence.
11. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Mohd. Ramzani v. State of Delhi1, in which the Apex Court has held that an accused person under Section 105, Evidence Act, to establish his plea of private defence is not as onerous as the unshifting burden which lies on the prosecution to establish every ingredient of the offence with which the accused is charged beyond reasonable doubt. It is further well established that a person faced with imminent peril of life and limb of himself or another, is not expected to weigh in "golden scales" the precise force needed to repel the danger. Even if he at the heat of the moment carries his defence a little further than what would be necessary when calculated with precision and exactitude by a calm and unruffled mind, the law makes due allowance for it.
12. On the other hand, learned State/respondent counsel supported the impugned judgment and argued that the accused persons have formed unlawful assembly for committing murder of Abdul Majid, attempted to commit murder of Halima Bibi and injury to Siraj and Dilsher and in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly, they have committed the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel further argued that counter case was also registered at the instance of the appellants against the complainant party. The present appellants have not caused any injuries to the complainant party in exercise of their right of private defence and even such right was not available to them at the time of commission of the offence.
13. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the material available on record. In the present case, the appellants have not substantially disputed homicidal death as a result of ante- mortem injuries of deceased Abdul Majid, on the other hand, otherwise also established by the evidence of Dr.A.L.Soni (PW-
14) and autopsy vide Ex.P/13 which reveals that fatal injuries were found over his ear and head and the same were sufficient for causing his death and death was homicidal in nature. Defence has also not disputed fatal injuries found over the chest of injured Halima Bibi which was stab and piercing injury through & through over the chest and same was fatal to the life, on the other hand, otherwise also established by the evidence of Dr.Satyaketu Gupta (PW-19) and medical examination report Ex.P/33. Simple injury and incised wound found over the body of Siraj Ali & Dilsher Ali are also not disputed by the appellants, on the other hand, otherwise also established by the evidence of Dr.Satyaketu Gupta (PW-19) and medical examination report Exs.P/34 and P/35. In the present case, the complainant party were examined on 8.7.2002 by Dr.Satyaketu Gupta (PW-19) who has also examined accused Gulam Ahmad vide Ex.D/1 on the same day at about 8 a.m. and accused Gulam Safdar on the same day vide Ex.D/2. Exs. D/1 and D/2 are injuries report of accused Gulam Ahmad and Gulam Safdar. Crime No.42/2002, registered at Police Station Premnagar against the complainant party under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the present Crime No. 41/2002, registered against the appellants party reveals that both the cases are counter cases and committed same time at same place between same parties.
14. As regards the complicity of the accused/appellants in the crime in question is concerned, the conviction is based on evidence of eye witnesses/injured witnesses, recovery of weapons on the basis of disclosure statements made by the appellants and presence of blood over the weapons. Halima Bibi (PW-3) injured witness has deposed in her evidence that at the time of incident at about 7-7.30 a.m., the appellants came to her house, they surrounded her house and after abusing them started assaulting to them. Appellant Gulam Mahmood was holding axe, appellant Gulam Akhtar was holding dagger, appellant Gulam Safdar was holding rod and other co- accused persons were holding sticks. Deceased Abdul Majid was present in the kitchen garden of Dilsher. After hearing sound of quarrel, deceased Majid came near the place of incident, then appellants assaulted Abdul Majid. They assaulted over the head of Abdul Majid. She was trying to save her husband, at that time, appellant Gulam Akhtar inflicted injury by dagger over her abdomen and other appellants also assaulted her, her husband died on the spot. Child witness Samina Bano (PW-7) has also corroborated the evidence of Halima Bibi (PW-
3). Another injured witness Siraj Ali (PW-15) has deposed in his evidence that at the time of incident, all the appellants came with axe, stick, rod, dagger and sword, they assaulted to his father Abdul Majid. He tried to intervene the quarrel, but appellant Gulam Mahmood assaulted over his head by rod, they killed Abdul Majid on the spot. They have also assaulted his brother Dilsher and appellant Gulam Mahmood assaulted by dagger. Chatardhari (PW-1) has deposed in his evidence that he has seen injuries over the dead body of Abdul Majid, but has not supported the case of the prosecution. Jamsher Ali (PW-2) has corroborated the evidence of Halima Bibi (PW-3). In his cross-examination, Jamsher Ali (PW-2) has admitted that both the parties are neighbours. He has admitted in paragraph 15 of his evidence relating to the land dispute. He has denied the suggestion that on the ground of dispute, Dilsher and Abdul Majid have assaulted Gulam Ahmad by stick and spade and also denied the suggestion in paragraph 21 that they have assaulted the complainant party and Halima Bibi (PW-
3), mother of this witness has also assaulted co-accused Siratun by stick over her head and she fell down. He has also denied that both the parties have quarreled and assaulted to each other. He has also denied in paragraph 29 of his evidence that they have caused any injury to Gulam Ahmad and Siratun.
15. Defence has cross-examined Halima Bibi (PW-3) in detail. In her cross-examination she has admitted the enmity between both the parties relating to one girl and the land dispute, but has denied that firstly, they have assaulted the accused party. She has specifically denied in paragraph 15 of her cross-examination that her husband has firstly assaulted co-accused Siratun. Samina Bano (PW-7), daughter of deceased Abdul Majid, has admitted in her cross-examination that both the parties are neighbours and firstly, incident took place behind her house, but she has denied that they have assaulted the accused party. Defence has cross-examined Siraj Ali (PW-
15) in detail. In his detail cross-examination, he has denied that his brother Dilsher Ali has assaulted Gulam Ahmad by spade and they have assaulted the accused party. He has also denied that they were assaulting Seratun, then the accused party came to save her. Injuries were examined by Dr.Satyaketu Gupta (PW-19). Defence has cross- examined this witness as defence witness 2. He has deposed in his evidence that on 8.7.2002 i.e. on the date of incident he has examined appellant Gulam Ahmad vide Ex.D/1 and found four injuries as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the said judgment. His evidence and report Ex.D/1 reveal that two incised and one lacerated wound were found in scapular region and head. The evidence of Dr.Satyaketu Gupta and report Ex.D/2 also reveal that one incised wound was found over the head of Siratun Nisha which reveals that both the persons were received injuries at the time of incident. Injuries found over right hand of the appellant Gulam Ahmad of size 12 cms. x 5.5 cms, mussels and blood vessels were found cut, excessive bleeding was present and injuries were grievous in nature. Likewise, second injury found over scapular region was also grievous in nature. It shows that injuries found over the body of appellant Gulam Ahmad and Saratun Nisha were not self-inflicted and not trifle.
16. The prosecution has not explained the injuries found over the body of the accused party, though in all cases the prosecution is not required to explain the injuries found over the body of the accused persons, if they are trifle in nature and may cause during the course of scuffle, but if the injuries are grievous in nature and are notable size, then the prosecution is under obligation to explain the injuries, otherwise, it may be presumed that firstly, the complainant party assaulted the accused, then they have caused injuries to the complainant party. Station In-charge Khuleshwar Sai Paikra (PW-18), who has conducted investigation, has admitted in paragraph 19 of his cross-examination that appellant Gulam Ahmad has also lodged the report against Dilsher and others. He has also admitted in paragraph 23 of his cross-examination that appellant Gulam Ahmad and Siratun Nisha were also examined by the doctor and Siratun Nisha was admitted in hospital since 8.7.2002 to 29.7.2002. The evidence of this witness shows that injuries of Siratun Nisha were also grievous in nature and even she has admitted in hospital for 21 days. Incised wound was found over her head. The prosecution has examined other witnesses, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have deposed that they have seen injuries over the persons after the incident. They have deposed that they came to know that quarrel took place between both the parties and both the parties received injuries.
17. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellants came near the house of the complainant party along with weapons and they have assaulted complainant party and caused homicidal death of Abdul Majid, serious injury by dagger passing through & through from front part abdomen to back part (back) to injured Halima Bibi and injuries by sharp edged weapon to Dilsher Ali and Siraj Ali, thereby they have caused injuries to four persons and out of four persons, one Abdul Majid died on the spot. Halima Bibi (PW-3) received injuries by dagger and two other persons received simple injuries. Dr.A.L.Soni (PW-14) and autopsy report Ex.P/13 reveal that two fatal injuries were found over the head of deceased Abdul Majid. The evidence of Dr.Satyaketu Gupta (PW-
19) and medical report Ex.P/33 reveal that three injuries were found over the body of Halima Bibi, medical report Ex.P/34 of injured Siraj Ali reveals that two injuries were found over his body and medical report Ex.P/35 of injured Dilsher Ali reveals that three injuries were found over the body of Dilsher Ali.
18. Jamsher Ali (PW-2) has admitted in paragraph 28 of his cross-examination that criminal case for the offence punishable under Sections 307 & 326 of the Indian Penal Code is pending against his father and brother. He has also admitted in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination that the appellants are neighbours and houses are adjoining to each other where the incident took place. Halima Bibi (PW-3) has admitted in paragraph 10 of her cross-examination that the appellants are neighbours. She has denied the suggestion in paragraph 14 of her cross-examination that she has assaulted accused party.
19. In the present case, the prosecution has not explained the serious injuries caused over the body of appellant Gulam Ahmad and another injured co-accused Siratun Nisha. If the injuries are not explained by the prosecution, then it may be presumed that the accused persons were having right of private defence or in general that the prosecution evidence should be rejected as they have not come out with the whole truth particularly regarding the genesis of the occurrence.
20. While dealing with the question of non-explanation of injury, the Apex Court in the matter of State of Karntaka v. Jinappa Payappa Kudachi and others2 has observed in paragraph 6 as under:-
"6. The effect of non-explanation by the prosecution about the injuries on the accused persons on the facts and circumstances of each case. Normally if there is such non-explanation, it may at the most give scope to argue that the accused had the right of private defence or in general that the prosecution evidence should be rejected as they have not come out with the whole truth particularly regarding the genesis of the occurrence. In the instant case, the occurrence took place in the bus itself at the Bastward cross. A-1 to A-6 admitted their presence and also admitted their participation. The evidence of the injured witnesses amply establishes that these six accused participated in the occurrence causing the death of the three deceased persons and causing serious injuries to PWs 1, 3, 4 and 6."
21. Other witnesses have specifically deposed that the incident took place near the house of Abdul Majid which was adjoining to the house of the appellants. Presence of both the parties in their house at about 7.30 a.m. was natural. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellants were holding weapons and have caused fatal injuries. The injuries found over the body of Halima Bibi (PW-3) clearly reveal that dagger has been used. Autopsy report of deceased Abdul Majid also reveals that sharp edged weapon has been used at the time of causing such injuries. Likewise, the injury found over the body of injured Siraj Ali and injured Dilsher Ali also reveals that incised wounds were also found over their bodies show that the appellants have used sharp edged weapons for inflicting such injuries, though the prosecution has not explained the injuries found over the body of appellant Gulam Ahmad and co-accused Siratun Nisha, wife of appellant Gulam Sasfdar, but it reveals that grievous injuries were found over their bodies by sharp edged weapons. It shows that the complainants' party was also having sharp edged weapon and has inflicted injuries to appellant Gulam Ahmad and co- accused Siratun Nisha.
22. In these circumstances, admittedly, right of private defence was available to the appellants' party and they have exercised their right of private defence. The complainants' party have also assaulted Siratun Nisha woman of the accused party and the accused party have assaulted Halima Bibi by dagger and caused fatal injuries, though at the time of exercising of right of private defence, the person using its right is excepted to apply minimum force required to defend himself, but the same cannot be measured in golden scales.
23. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellants have caused injuries to four persons including murder of Abdul Majid and fatal injuries to Halima Bibi (PW-3) shows that all the complainant party were not holding dangerous weapons, may be the case that one of them was armed with some sharp edged weapon who has caused injury to appellant Gulam Ahamd and co-accused Siratun, but injuries caused to four persons that too fatal injuries shows that the present appellants have caused more harm and have exceeded their right of private defence by causing homicidal death of Abdul Majid and causing serious injury to Halima Bibi (PW-3). But they have not caused any injury with intent to cause death of Abdul Majid.
24. As held by the Apex Court in the matter of Mohd. Ramzani (supra), a person faced with eminent peril of life and limb of himself or another is not expected to weigh in "golden scales", the precise force needed to repel the danger, but certainly there was no eminent danger of causing death, then causing fatal injury resulting into death and causing injury by dagger through & through over the chest of woman shows that they have exceeded their right of private defence and have caused death of the person i.e. Abdul Majid.
25. There was no occasion for causing death of Abdul Majid and fatal injury to Halima Bibi that too through & through over the chest by dagger. The evidence of prosecution clearly shows that the appellants have caused injury in sharing common intention. Admittedly, the appellants have exceeded their right of private defence available to them and have caused homicidal death of Abdul Mahid, but taking into consideration together the injury caused to Abdul Majid and right of private defence available to the appellants, it may be safely inferred that the appellants have not caused culpable homicidal death amounting to murder of Abdul Majid, but they have caused fatal injuries to Abdul Majid having knowledge that they may cause death of Abdul Majid. The act of the appellants squarely falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have also caused simple injuries by sharp edged weapons to injured Siraj Ali and injured Dilsher Ali, which they were entitled to inflict in exercise of right of their private defence.
26. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Court below has convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34 & 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
27. As regards the conviction under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the manner in which the appellants have caused injuries to Halima Bibi (PW-3) by using dagger and causing injury through & through over the chest shows that there was no occasion to cause such fatal injury that too to the woman. The act of the appellants squarely falls within the ambit of Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
28. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction imposed upon the appellants under Sections 302/34, 324/34 & 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable under the law, however, the conviction imposed upon the appellants under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable under the law.
29. In the result, Criminal Appeal Nos. 152 of 2004 & 153 of 2004 are partly allowed. The conviction & sentence imposed upon the appellants under Section 302/34 is altered into Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for custodial period i.e. since 10.7.2002 till today and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, the conviction & sentence imposed upon the appellants under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby maintained. The conviction & sentence imposed upon the appellants under Sections 324/34 & 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the charges of Sections 324/34 & 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Fine if deposited by the appellants under Sections 324/34 & 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code be refunded to them.
J U D G E