Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwanlal And Others vs State Of M.P. on 10 February, 2017
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
*****************
DB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Gupta &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anand Pathak
CRA 70/1999 AFR
Bhagwanlal & Ors.
vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh (Judge)
CRA 85/1999
Kamal Singh (Dead) & Ors.
vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
CRA 102/1999
Kallu (Dead) & Ors.
vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
AND
CRA 125/1999
Toran
vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
================================
Shri TC Bansal and Shri Rajmani Bansal, counsel for
the appellants in CRA Nos.70/1999, 85/1999 and
125/1999.
Shri Atul Gupta, counsel for the appellants in
CRA102/1999.
Dr. (Smt.) Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the
State
================================
JUDGMENT
Delivered on 10/02/2017 Per N. K. Gupta, J:-
All the appeals are connected with the common 2 judgment dated 30/01/1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Guna (MP) in Sessions Trial No.111/1994, hence, the present appeals are hereby disposed off, by the present common judgment.
(2) The appellants have challenged judgment dated 30-01-1999, being aggrieved with their conviction of offence under Section 302 or 302 r/w 149 and Section 148 of IPC, whereas each of them have been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and three years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. (3) Prosecution's case, in short, is that on 23-03-
1994 at about 09:00 pm complainant Shivcharan (PW-1) along-with deceased- Bhaiyalal etc. were present at their field at Village Sakatpur. They were sitting near the well. At about 09:00 pm, appellants- Kallu, Harkishan and Jai Singh went to that field having a bullock cart. They tried to pass the bullock cart through the field of deceased Bhaiyalal and, therefore, Bhaiyalal went near the bullock cart and prohibited them to pass the bullock cart through his field. The appellant-Kallu gave a blow of ''ballam'' causing injury near the ear of deceased- Bhaiyalal. On shouting of Bhaiyalal, witnesses Shivcharan (PW-
1), Radheshyam (PW-5) and Jamunalal (PW-8) went to the spot. When they asked the appellants as to why Kallu assaulted deceased-Bhaiyalal, then they started quarrel. On shouting of Kallu, other appellants, namely, Haricharnan, Kamal Singh, Laxman Singh, Lal Singh, Mangilal, Bhagwanlal, Toran and Ramcharan came to the spot. Bhagwanlal and 3 Mangilal exhorted their companions and they started causing assault upon Jamunalal, Bhaiyalal, Radheshyam and others. Appellants-Toran Singh and Harkishan gave blows of sticks on the deceased Bhaiyalal, whereas the remaining appellants caused injuries to other victims like Shivcharan, Radheshyam and Jamunalal etc. Due to such assaults done by the appellants, Bhaiyalal had expired at the spot. Shivcharan could not visit the police station due to fear of the appellants, whereas the appellants ran away with the help of a tractor of Man Singh. (4) On intimation given to the police, SHO Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-12) from Police Station Vijaypur, (District Guna) visited village Sakatpur and complainant- Shivcharan (PW1) had lodged a Dehati Nalishi (FIR) Ex.P-1. He prepared the memo of position of the dead body of deceased Bhaiyalal as Ex.P-3 and the body of deceased Bhaiyalal was sent for postmortem, whereas the injured persons were sent for their medico-legal examination. Dr. S.O. Bhola (PW9) performed postmortem on the body of deceased- Bhaiyalal and gave a report Ex.P-25. He found only three injuries to deceased Bhaiyalal, one was on his left pinna, second was on back of left ear, which was bone deep, and third was a contusion on tempo-parietal region. On opening the body, he found that below the third injury there was a fracture of tempo-parietal bone and due to head injury, deceased- Bhaiyalal had died. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain (PW-13) examined victims Lalliram, Shivcharan(PW-1) 4 and Jamunalal (PW-8) and gave reports Ex.P/47-A to Ex.P/49-A. He found as many as ten injuries to victim Jamunalal. Dr.R.K.Jain (PW-7) examined victim- Jamunalal radio-logically and gave a report Ex.P-14. A fracture of fifth metacarpal bone was found to the victim Jamunalal.
(5) The SHO- Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-10) picked up the blood stained and ordinary soil from the spot and seizure memo Ex.P-5 was prepared. He also prepared spot map Ex.P-27. He arrested various appellants and recorded their memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Various weapons like ballam, luhangi and lathis (sticks) were recovered from various appellants. The seized articles were sent for Forensic Science analysis. However, till the decision of the case, no report of Forensic Science Laboratory was produced. Ultimately, the charge-sheet was filed before JMFC Raghogarh, Guna, who committed the case to the Court of Session.
(6) The appellants took a plea that they were the victims in the case and in defence, Dr. Somprakash Arora (DW-1) was examined to prove the injuries found to appellants-Harkishan, Kalluram and Toran. The document (FIR) Ex.D/5 was also referred to SHO Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-12).
(7) The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.
(8) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
5(9) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that it was a case where the complainant party did not give any explanation to the injuries caused to the appellants, namely, Harkishan, Kalluram and Toran. Therefore, it was a case of right of private defence and no appellants could be convicted of any offence. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellants have referred the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of ''Puran vs. State of Rajasthan'' [AIR 1976 SC 912], ''Lakshmi Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar''[AIR 1976 SC 2263] and ''Subramani and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu'' [AIR 2002 SC 2980] and submitted that right of private defence cannot be weighed in golden scales. Before considering the right of private defence, as claimed by the appellants, the evidence of present case advanced by both the parties should be considered and the right of private defence shall be considered on the point relating to intention or voluntariness. (10) According to witnesses-Shivcharan (PW-1), Ganga Vishan (PW-4), Radheshyam (PW-5) and Jamunalal (PW8), initially deceased Bhaiyalal, Jamunalal and Radheshyam were present to watch the crops standing in the field and they were sitting near the well. In the meantime, appellants- Kallu, Harkishan and Jai Singh came with a bullock cart and started crossing the same through the field of deceased- Bhaiyalal and, therefore, Bhaiyalal went to stop them. Then, appellant- Kallu gave a blow of 6 ballam to deceased- Bhaiyalal causing injury on pinna of his ear. Appellants- Toran and Harkishan also assaulted deceased - Bhaiyalal with lathis causing injuries on back of his right ear and head. When the witnesses- Radheshyam and Jamunalal had tried to stop the appellants, Kallu shouted and remaining appellants came to the spot and started assaulting deceased Bhaiyalal, complainant- Shivcharan (PW-1) and injured witnesses Radheshyam (PW-5) and Jamunalal (PW-8). These witnesses have categorically mentioned that Bhaiyalal sustained the injuries caused by appellants Kallu, Toran and Harkishan. The witnesses have given a description of overt act done by remaining appellants towards the injured witnesses Shivcharan (PW-1), Radheshyam (PW-5), Jamunalal (PW-8) and Lalliram. Injuries of these witnesses were proved by Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain (PW-
13). He proved MLC reports Ex.P.47-A to Ex.P.49-A respectively for the victims- Lalliram, Shivcharan and Jamunalal. Out of these victims, Jamunalal sustained ten injuries. It is unfortunate that the trial Court did not frame any charge of offence under Section 325 or 323 of IPC against the appellants relating to victim Jamunalal and others and, therefore, there is no use of making a detailed description of injuries caused to injured witnesses Shivcharan, Jamunalal and Lalliram. For consideration of offence under Section 148 of IPC, it would be sufficient to mention that Shivcharan, Jamunalal and Lalliram have sustained injuries in the incident caused by various accused persons like 7 Kamal Singh, Haricharan, Jai Singh, Harkishan, Laxman and Ramcharan etc. (11) The testimony of these witnesses is duly corroborated by the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 lodged with SHO, Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-12). Also, the version of these witnesses is duly corroborated by postmortem, Ex.P-25, proved by Dr. S.O. Bhola (PW-9) and MLC reports of various injured persons proved by Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain (PW-13). Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the counter FIR, Ex.D/5, was registered at Police Station Vijaypur at about 11:30 pm in the night of 23-03-1994 itself, whereas complainant- Shivcharan (PW-1) had lodged the FIR i.e. Dehati Nalishi of the incident on the next day at about 06:30 am. However, contention of learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted because the witnesses have stated that when Bhaiyalal was killed and he was lying at the spot, they had no courage to visit Police Station Vijaypur and to lodge the FIR, however, they sent the intimation and appellant- Kallu, who sustained injuries along with appellants Harkishan and Toran, could visit to the Police Station by a tractor because there was nobody to stop them and, therefore, they were examined medically in the night itself. On the other hand, number of assailants were more and out of them, remaining were not the injured persons, hence, the reason given by the witness- Shivcharan can be accepted that due to fear he could not visit the Police Station in the night and on giving the 8 intimation when SHO Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-12) came to the spot he lodged a Dehati Nalishi. Under these circumstances, proper explanation has been given by complainant Shivcharan for the delay in lodging the FIR and, therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR was lodged with unnecessary delay or it cannot be said that that FIR can be discarded on the ground of delay. Similarly, various injured persons are found to have sustained injuries on particular part of body where they claimed to get the assaults done by the appellants and, therefore, their version was duly corroborated by medical evidence. Hence, testimony of the witnesses Shivcharan, Ganga Vishan, Radheshyam and Jamunalal is acceptable and it is proved beyond doubt that appellants- Kallu, Toran and Harkishan assaulted deceased- Bhiayalal causing injuries to him and consequently, he died, whereas it is proved beyond doubt that the appellants, namely, Kallu, Harkishan, Jai Singh, Laxman Singh, Ramcharan, Haricharan, Kamal Singh, Toran etc. have assaulted various injured witnesses like Jamunalal, Lalliram and Shivcharan.
(12) Before considering the object of unlawful assembly etc. it is to be considered as to who killed deceased Bhaiyalal. According to witnesses Shivcharan (PW-1), Radheshyam (PW-5) and Jamunalal (PW-8), only three appellants assaulted deceased Bhaiyalal and hence, except these three appellants, there was no special role of other appellants in causing death of deceased Bhaiyalal.
9When the incident took place in a spur of moment while appellant- Kallu was taking bullock cart through the field of Bhaiyalal, then the incident was not pre- planned and remaining appellants came on the call of appellant- Kallu. They did not assault the deceased Bhaiyalal and, therefore, their common intention or common object cannot be presumed with appellants Kallu, Toran and Harkishan. Hence, it cannot be said that they participated in the crime of murder. So far as the constitution of unlawful assembly is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that since the appellants had a right of private defence, then no unlawful assembly was constituted. If such contention is examined on the evidence advanced by the parties, then it would be apparent that appellant Kallu had lodged the FIR, Ex.D-5, that at about 09:00 pm deceased- Bhaiyalal and witnesses- Shivcharan, Radheshyam and Jamunalal went to the field of Kallu and started making quarrel as to why they were transporting their bullock cart from the field of Bhaiyalal. The FIR indicates that from the side of victims only four persons were blamed that they participated in the crime, whereas in Dehati Nalish Ex.P-1, complainant Shivcharan (PW1) has mentioned the role of as many as eleven persons, who are the appellants and participated in the crime. In comparison with eleven persons it was not possible for Bhaiyalal and other three persons to visit the field of Kalluram to take a revenge or to teach a lesson.
10(13) For the sake of argument if it is accepted that in quarrel Bhaiyalal had died, then there is no description in the FIR Ex.D-5 as to how the dead body of deceased- Bhaiyalal was taken by other witnesses from the field of Kallu. If Bhaiyalal was aggressor and he was killed in the quarrel, then either his dead body should have been found in the field of Kallu or there must be some allegations made by Kallu as to how the dead body of deceased- Bhaiyalal was taken from his field. It is apparent that Bhaiyalal, Jamunalal, Shivcharan and Radheshyam were only four persons on that field whereas the appellants were more than ten in number. If Bhaiyalal etc. were aggressors, then they would have visited the field of Kallu with the planning of having deadly weapons, whereas the appellants have luhangi and ballam etc. with them. Hence, due to death of deceased- Bhaiyalal, Shivcharan etc. could not go to lodge the FIR in time and Kalluram had an opportunity to lodge the FIR first. Still by looking to the facts and circumstances that the dead body of deceased- Bhaiyalal was found near his field where he objected appellant Kallu when he was transporting a bullock cart from the field, SHO Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-12) had collected blood- stained soil and plain soil from the spot which indicates that he found the blood on the soil near the dead body of deceased- Bhaiyalal and if Bhaiyalal was aggressor and he would have visited the field of appellant- Kalluram, then blood stained soil could not be obtained by SHO Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-12) 11 at the place where the incident was caused according to complainant- Shivcharan in his Dehati Nalish Ex.P-
1. Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the appellants specially Kallu and Harkishan were aggressors.
(14) Learned counsel for the appellants mainly have argued that no explanation has been given about the injuries of Kalluram, Toran and Harkishan, hence, they had the right to private defence. If such contention is considered in the light of evidence advanced by the parties, then it would be apparent that deceased Bhaiyalal had sustained fatal injuries and he fell down and died, then it was not possible for Bhaiyalal to assault Toran etc. It is stated by witness Jamunalal (PW-8) in para 9 that appellants Toran, Harkishan and Kallu had sustained injuries in the incident because when Bhaiyalal was killed, Radheshyam and Shivcharan reiterated and they had beaten appellants- Kallu and Toran, etc. In this connection, the independent witness Ganga Vishan (PW-4) has accepted in para 8 of the evidence, on a suggestion given by defence counsel, that firstly the appellants assaulted the complainant party and, thereafter, the complainant party had also used the lathis in defence. Hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution did not give any explanation to the injuries caused to appellants Toran, Kallu and Harkishan. It is not settled view of the Apex Court that explanation is to be given in the FIR itself. Explanation about the injuries of the accused persons 12 can be given by the witness when he was asked. Under these circumstances, due to differences of factual position of the case, the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Lakshmi Singh (supra), Subramani (supra) and Puran (supra) cannot be applied in the present case relating to murder of deceased- Bhaiyalal. Hence, the plea of right of private defence was not available to the appellants when they started beating deceased Bhaiyalal when he went to the spot to stop appellant Kallu from transporting the bullock cart through his field. (15) So far as the right of private defence in generally is considered, it is accepted by various witnesses that when the witnesses started beating appellants Kallu and Toran, then on shouting of Kallu, various accused persons came to the spot and they started beating Jamunalal, Shivcharan and Lalliram. When Kallu shouted and other appellants came to the spot, at that time the incident which took place with deceased- Bhaiyalal was over and injured witnesses Jamunalal and Shivcharan were beating appellants Kallu and Harkishan. It would be apparent that from the side of the appellants only three persons were injured who were present at the spot in the beginning. No one, who came after the call of appellant- Kallu was found injured. When the remaining appellants who came to the spot after the incident of Bhaiyalal which was over, then it cannot be said that they were the members of unlawful assembly to kill the deceased Bhaiyalal. It appears 13 that at the time of first quarrel only three persons were present out of the appellants, namely, Toran, Kallu and Harkishan. Hence, when remaining appellants neither assaulted deceased Bhaiyalal nor they were part of unlawful assembly at the time of incident, then the remaining appellants cannot be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 149 of IPC. (16) As discussed above, when the remaining appellants came to the spot they found the witnesses Jamunalal and Shivcharan were beating appellant Kallu, Toran and Harkishan. Therefore, the overt act of remaining appellants falls within the purview of right of private defence as those have tried to save Toran, Kallu and Harkishan. Hence, the remaining appellants shall get the advantage of right of private defence that when they arrived to the spot they tried to save Kallu Toran Singh and Harkishan. Hence, no crime has been committed by them. Since, the trial Court did not frame the charge of offence under Section 325 or 323 of IPC relating to victim Jamunalal or victim Shivcharan etc. there is no need to consider the right of private defence of remaining appellants. However, since they came to save appellants- Kallu and Harkishan, etc., therefore, it cannot be said that they were the part of unlawful assembly constituted for voluntarily causing hurt to Jamunalal etc. (17) The incident started when three-four persons were present in the beginning who have tried to pass 14 the bullock carts through the field of Bhaiyalal and thereafter, when Jamunalal and Shivcharan had assaulted the appellant-Toran etc. then other appellants came to the spot on call of appellant- Kallu. Therefore, in the light of evidence, the remaining appellants were entitled to get the advantage of right of private defence and it is not proved beyond doubt that they participated in an unlawful assembly to cause the death of deceased- Bhaiyalal or to cause injuries to any of the victims including Jamunalal, Shivcharan etc. Hence, the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the remaining appellants for offence under Section 148 or 302 with the help of Section 149 of IPC. It is not proved beyond doubt that at the time of death of deceased- Bhaiyalal, there were five accused persons who participated in the crime. Dr. S.O. Bhola (PW-9) who performed the postmortem on the body of deceased- Bhaiyalal found only three injuries on his body and, therefore, at the most, three persons had assaulted deceased- Bhaiyalal and, therefore, it cannot be said that any unlawful assembly was constituted. Under these circumstances, it is not proved beyond doubt that any unlawful assembly was constituted at the spot. Hence, none of the appellants can be convicted under Section 148 of IPC or the lower offence of same nature i.e. Section 147 of IPC. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 148 of IPC.
15(18) As discussed above, it is proved beyond doubt that appellants- Kallu, Toran and Harkishan assaulted deceased Bhaiyalal and he succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Therefore, mainly now it is to be considered as to whether these three appellants can be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC. It is true that initially it was the appellant- Kallu who tried to transport the bullock cart from the field of Bhaiyalal and Bhaiyalal prohibited him to do so. Therefore, when the incident took place in a spur of moment, initially intention of Kalluram would be to teach a lesson to deceased- Bhaiyalal so that he should not obstruct him. It is not alleged that after giving a blow to deceased- Bhaiyalal on the pinna of deceased Bhaiyalal, appellant Kallu gave a second blow and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that he intended to kill deceased- Bhaiyalal. Since the incident was not pre- planned and the intention of appellant Kallu was not to kill deceased- Bhaiyalal then his common intention cannot be presumed with appellant Harkishan who gave the fatal blow to the deceased Bhaiyalal on his head. Dr.SO Bhola (PW9) in his post mortem report Ex.P-25, has cleared the position that there was a lacerated wound on left pinna of ear found to deceased- Bhaiyalal. Though appellant Kalluram had used a ballam but it was not so sharp so that it can be said that the injury was caused by sharp-cutting or stabbing weapon. Hence, at the most, intention of appellant- Kallu may be considered that he voluntarily wanted to cause hurt 16 to deceased Bhaiyalal to remove his obstruction and hence, the appellant- Kallu shall liable only for offence under Section 323 of IPC.In absence of his common intention with co-accused Harkishan and in absence of any unlawful assembly he cannot be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC, however, he can be convicted of offence under Section 323 of IPC under the same head of charge of Section 302 of IPC because it is an inferior offence of the same nature. On the same analogy, appellant- Toran can not be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC. He is also liable for offence under Section 323 of IPC for his act i.e. he voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased Bhaiyalal.
(19) It is clearly mentioned by the witnesses that it was the appellant- Harkishan who gave a fatal blow to deceased Bhaiyalal causing a contusion on tempo parietal region and Dr.S.O.Bhola (PW-9) found that bones below the wound were broken and brain was also found damaged. The deceased Bhaiyalal died due to head injury. Hence, appellant Harkishan was responsible to cause death of deceased Bhaiyalal. But as discussed above, none of the appellants wanted to kill deceased Bhaiyalal. A quarrel started in the spur of moment when Kallu was obstructed by deceased Bhaiyalal to pass his bullock cart from the field of Bhaiyalal and, therefore, it cannot be said that appellant Harkishan had intended to kill 17 deceased Bhaiyalal. Also, it would be apparent that there is no allegation against appellant- Harkishan that he repeated the assault to deceased- Bhaiyalal and hence, when he gave only a single blow to deceased Bhaiyalal then it cannot be said that he intended to kill him. However, by that single blow deceased Bhaiyalal sustained fatal injury and he had died. Appellant- Harkishan should know that by giving such a forceful blow he would kill the deceased Bhaiyalal and, therefore, he should be liable for his overt act that he gave a powerful blow to deceased Bhaiyalal on his head causing his death though he did not intend to kill deceased- Bhaiyalal. (20) In this connection, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of ''Manjeet Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh'' [(2014) 5 SCC 697] may be referred in which in similar circumstances the crime of Section 304 of IPC was found to be constituted. In this connection, the judgment passed by the Apex court in the case of ''Sarup Singh vs. State of Haryana represented by the Home Secretary" [AIR 1995 SC 2452] may also be referred in which the accused was convicted of offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC in similarly circumstances. Hence, appellant- Harkishan was also wrongly convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC. Instead of that offence he should have been convicted of offence under Section 304(Part- II) of IPC.
(21) So far as the sentence is concerned, out of appellants, appellant- Kallu had died during pendency 18 of the appeal and, therefore, his appeal has already turned abated whereas appellant- Toarn remained in custody during the trial for 76 days and, thereafter a few days during pendency of the appeal and, therefore, he has already undergone in the custody for a period of six months approximately. Hence, for offence under Section 323 of IPC, it would be appropriate to impose the jail sentence upon appellant Toran for the period in which he remained in custody.
(22) Learned counsel for the appellants have placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of ''State of Punjab vs. Mann Singh and another'' [AIR 1983 SC 172], State of Orissa vs. Bhagaban Barik'' [AIR 1987 SC 1265], 'Madhusudan Satpathy vs. State of Orissa'', [AIR 1994 SC 474] and ''Bagdi Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh'' [AIR 2004 SC 387]. In all such cases, the accused was sentenced for approximately eighteen months' to three years' for offence under Section 304( Part- II) of IPC whereas in the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Manjeet Singh(supra), has recorded seven years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304 of IPC. By considering various judgments passed by the Apex Court, it is apparent that the incident took place in a spur of moment and no deadly weapon was used by appellant- Harkishan. Hence, it would be appropriate to sentence him for three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-.
19(23) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by appellant- Bhagwanlal, Lal Singh, Laxman Singh and Ramcharan, Kamal Singh, Haricharan, Mangilal and Jai Singh are hereby allowed. Therefore, their conviction and sentence of offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 of IPC are hereby set aside. They are acquitted from all the charges. The appeal filed by appellant- Toran is hereby partly allowed. His conviction and sentence of offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 of IPC are hereby set aside. He is acquitted from the aforesaid charges. However, under the head of charge of Section 302 of IPC, appellant Toran is convicted of offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced with jail sentence of the period for which he already remained in custody. The appeal filed by appellant- Harkishan is partly allowed. His conviction and sentence of offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 of IPC are hereby set aside. He is acquitted from the aforesaid charges. However, under head of charge of Section 302 of IPC he is convicted of offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. His custody period shall be adjusted towards his main jail sentence. If fine is not deposited within two months, then he shall undergo for one year's rigorous imprisonment in default. (24) The presence of remaining appellants except appellant- Harkishan is no more required. Therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand 20 discharged whereas appellant- Harkishan is directed to surrender immediately before the trial Court so that he may be sent to the jail for execution of remaining jail sentence.
(25) A copy of the judgment be also sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and to prepare the super-session warrant relating to appellant- Harkishan and to get the sentence executed.
(N.K. Gupta) (Anand Pathak)
Judge Judge
10 /02/2017 10/02/2017
MKB