Nesargi, J.-In all 8 accused persons were arraigned in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1974 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. The Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 1974 are A-3, A-6 and A-8 and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 1974 are A-4 and A-5 from amongst them. The rest of the accused have been acquitted. 2. All the 8 accused were charged with having committed offences punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code, read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, in regard to the murder of Dilawar Mulla and section 307, Indian Penal Code, read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, in regard to attempt to commit the murder of Maktumhusein,P.W.9, father of Dilawar. A-1 and A-2 had also been charged with having committed an offence punishable under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The charge under section 147, Indian Penal Code, was levelled against all the accused. 3. A-1, A-2 and A-7 have been acquitted of all the charges. A-3 to A-6 and A-8 viz., the appellants in the said two appeals have beep acquitted of the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code, read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. They have been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under section 307, Indian Penal Code, read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. Out of these appellants, A-4 only has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on the ground that he was the person who had shot at P.W.9. A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-8 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. A-3 to A-6 and A-8 have also been convicted under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentences are to run concurrently. The convictions and the sentences have been challenged in these appeals. There is no appeal by the State. 4. A-2 and A-3 arc brothers. A-1 is the son of A-2. A-8 is the son of A-3. A-4 to A-7 are said to be the friends of A-1 to A-3 and A-8. The substantive sentences are to run concurrently. The convictions and the sentences have been challenged in these appeals. There is no appeal by the State. 4. A-2 and A-3 arc brothers. A-1 is the son of A-2. A-8 is the son of A-3. A-4 to A-7 are said to be the friends of A-1 to A-3 and A-8. The case of the prosecution is that there was ill will between A-2, A-3 and their people on the one hand and P.W.9 Muktumhusein, his son the deceased Dilawar and P.W.12 Meerasab the son-in-law of P.W.9 on the other. In view of this ill-will, according to the prosecution, A-1 had been shot some time prior to 6th November, 1973 and a Criminal Case was pending in that connection as against P.W.9 his son Dilawar and P.W- 12, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Bailhongal. P.W.9, his son Dilawar and P.W.12 were in custody. I. A. 2 an application for bail on their behalf was filed before the learned Magistrate and he, on 26th April, 1973, enlarged these three persons on bail restricting their stay to Bailhongal and requiring them to give attendance in the Bailhongal police station at 7-00 p.m., every day. They accordingly came out on bail. Even when they were in custody, it is the case of the prosecution, that A-4 and A-5 had approached them with an offer that they would settle the disputes between them and A-2 and A-3, and in that connection P.W.9 had paid Rs. 2,000 to A-4 and A-5 as per their demand. On coming out of jail, they found that the dispute had not been settled by them and they were insisting upon A-4 and A-5 either to settle their dispute effectively or to return the sum of Rs. 2,000. A-4 and A-5 were, as per the case of the prosecution, attempting to secure more money from P.W.9. All these accused persons and P.W.9, Dilawar and P.W.12 belong to a village Dastikop situated some distance away from Bailhongal. 5. By about 5-30 p.m. on 6th November, 1973, a Tuesday, P.W.9, Dilawar and P.W.12 went to the police station at Bailhongal where P.W.14 Venkappa, Head Constable, was the Station House Officer, to report attendance as per the terms imposed on them while enlarging them on bail. 5. By about 5-30 p.m. on 6th November, 1973, a Tuesday, P.W.9, Dilawar and P.W.12 went to the police station at Bailhongal where P.W.14 Venkappa, Head Constable, was the Station House Officer, to report attendance as per the terms imposed on them while enlarging them on bail. P.W.14 told them that they were to report at 7-00 P.M. and asked them to wait in the police station till 7-00 P.M. They told him that they would better go and make arrangements for cooking their food and then return at 7-00 p.m. and get their attendance marked. Then they left the police station and proceeded towards Laddi-Khoot in the main bazaar in Bailhongal. When they were in Laddi-Khoot they saw in front of them these accused persons except A-7 standing in a row. P.W.9, on seeing A-4 greeted him by saying ‘Namaskara Mava’. Then suddenly A-1 shot at Dilawar and because of the pistol shot Dilawar fell down injured. Almost at the same time A-4 shot at the back side of P.W.9 and P.W.9 sustained injuries. He also collapsed. The remaining accused persons shouted that P.W.12 should not be left to go free and he should be finished. P.W.12 ran back and hid himself in an enclosed gutter. These accused persons chased him, but could not find him and hence went away. P.W.12 returned to the spot and found that Dilawar had expired and P.W.9 was bleeding having sustained gun shot injuries. People who were on the streets and in the nearby shops collected. P.W.9 secured some cotton from a nearby shop, bandaged the wounds on P.W.9 and led him to the Katta of one Bhavimani Sahukar nearby. He made P.W.9 rest there. In the meanwhile Head Constable 1094 reached there and he arranged to take P.W.9 to the Civil Hospital where P.W.1 Dr. Adivesh was the Medical Officer . Then P.W.12 ran to the police station, reached there by about 7-00 p.m. and contacted P.W.14 the Station House Officer. He gave information to P.W.14 and P.W.14 got it reduced to writing by securing a Constable from the guard room through the assistance of the only Constable P.W.6 who was with him. The information was recorded as per Exhibit P-17. P.W.14 registered a case and issued F. I. R. He sent express reports to the superior officers. He gave information to P.W.14 and P.W.14 got it reduced to writing by securing a Constable from the guard room through the assistance of the only Constable P.W.6 who was with him. The information was recorded as per Exhibit P-17. P.W.14 registered a case and issued F. I. R. He sent express reports to the superior officers. He entrusted a copy of the F. I. R. and Exhibit P-17 to P.W.6 for being produced before the Magistrate in Bailhongal. We may mention at this stage itself that P.W.6 delivered them to the Magistrate at 11-30 P.M. as, according to him the Magistrate was out of his house right from about 8-30 to 9-00 p.m., till 11-30 p.m. and he had to wait there. P.W.14 then took up investigation, went to the spot, arranged for watch over the spot and then proceeded to the Hospital, and thereafter went on moving between the spot, hospital and the police station. He detailed some members of his staff in search of the accused, but was not successful in securing them. P.W.17 Mallikarjunappa, the Circle Inspector of Police, took up investigation from P. W. 14 at 10-30 P.M. He enquired with P.W.9 in the police station and visited the scene of offence and held inquest proceedings and continued investigation. It is in our opinion appropriate to narrate some important features of the investigation at this stage. P.W.17 got information on 25th November, 1973 through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bailhongal, that A-1, was an under trial prisoner in the Sub-Jail at Dharwar and that A-2 had been admitted in a hospital in Dharwar. He made a request to the Magistrate at Bailhongal to write to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, I Court, Dharwar, and secure A-1 from the sub-jail in Dharwar. We may state that the learned Magistrate took steps and ultimately secured A-1 from the Sub-Jail at Dharwar. P.W.17 was able to arrest A-3, A-5 and A-6 on 17th December, 1973; A-7 on 16th March, 1974; A-4 on 21st December, 1973; A-8 on 28th May, 1974; A-1 on 12th January, 1974; A-2 on 5th March, 1974. He completed the investigation and placed charge-sheet against all the 8 accused. 6. A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-8 have admitted that there was ill-will between them and P. W 9, Dilawar and P.W.12 and the people. He completed the investigation and placed charge-sheet against all the 8 accused. 6. A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-8 have admitted that there was ill-will between them and P. W 9, Dilawar and P.W.12 and the people. A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 have denied any connection with these two rival set of people. All of them have denied all the incriminating circumstances levelled against them by the prosecution. 7. It does not admit of any dispute that it was in the evening on 6th November, 1973 that Dilawar, son of P.W.9 Maktumhusein was shot and. killed and P.W.9 Maktumhusein was shot and injured in Laddi-Khoot in the bazaar in Bailhongal. In that view of the matter, it is, in our opinion, unnecessary to scan the evidence adduced by the prosecution in proof of these facts. 8. The only two eye witnesses examined in this case are P. Ws. 9 and 12. The only witness examined, in proof of the charge under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as against A-1 and A-2 is P.W.4 Sadeppa. P.W.4 has turnhostile and has not supported the prosecution. The prosecution itself has produced Exhibit P-13 which is the documentary evidence secured from the Civil Hospital, Dharwar, and spoken to by P.W.3 Malati, staff nurse in the Civil Hospital at Dharwar. That makes out that A-2 had got himself admitted in the Civil Hospital, Dharwar. as an inpatient on 5th November, 1973 and was discharged on 14th November, 1973. Similarly, the prosecution itself has produced Exhibit P-30 an extract of the Register maintained in the sub-Jail, Dharwar, which is spoken to by P.W.17 the Circle Inspector of Police and which by itself shows that one Babusab Kasimsab Mulla, was sent to Sub-jail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, First Court, Dharwar, on 5th November, 1973 and he was in jail even on 6th November, 1973. We may make it clear at this stage itself that the prosecution itself has satisfactorily established that this Babusab Kasimsab Mulla, mentioned in Exhibit P-30 is none other than A-1 himself. 8-A. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted A-1 and A-2 of all the charges, because of the non-supporting evidence of P.W.4 and the documents Exhibits P-13 and P-30. He has held that the say of P.Ws.9 and 12, the eyewitnesses to the extent it involves A-1 and A-2 cannot be held to be reliable. 8-A. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted A-1 and A-2 of all the charges, because of the non-supporting evidence of P.W.4 and the documents Exhibits P-13 and P-30. He has held that the say of P.Ws.9 and 12, the eyewitnesses to the extent it involves A-1 and A-2 cannot be held to be reliable. He has acquitted A-7 mainly on the ground that his name is not found either in Exhibit P-17 the first information or in the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 12. The prosecution has, as against A-7, put forward that after A-7 was arrested on 16th March, 1974 he voluntarily made a statement as per Exhibit P-33 that he had kept hidden the country pistol in his house and took the investigating officer, police and the panchas and produced that country pistol marked as M.O. 20. That part of the evidence also has been disbelieved by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, after having held that the prosecution had not satisfactorily established that A-1 shot at Dilawar and caused his death and that A-1 and A-2 were present in Laddi-khoot during the incident, concluded the present appellants could not be convicted for having committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The State has, as already mentioned, not preferred any appeal against the orders of acquittal of the present appellants also even in regard to the charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code, read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. But all the same, and particularly in view of the strong arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that when P.Ws.9 and 12 are found to be not reliable in regard to A-1 and A-2 their evidence as against these appellants also has to be discarded, it would be necessary to go into all the aspects pertaining to the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 12 to find out whether the view of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, that the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 12 in regard to involvement of A-1 and A-2 is unreliable is sound. 9-13. [His Lordship then discussed the evidence in the case and held that the evidence given by P.Ws.9 and 12 are reliable and suspects the investigation so far as A-1 and A-2 are concerned Was not at all bona fide.] 14. 9-13. [His Lordship then discussed the evidence in the case and held that the evidence given by P.Ws.9 and 12 are reliable and suspects the investigation so far as A-1 and A-2 are concerned Was not at all bona fide.] 14. Having found that P.Ws.9 and 12 are wholly reliable witnesses, it is to be seen whether Exhibits P-13 and P-30 enure to their benefit as found by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, because it may be remembered that that is the basis of the reasoning of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, to acquit A-1 and A-2. This takes us to the investigation done by P.W.15 Shivappa, the Sub-Inspector of Police, and P.W.17 Mallikharjunappa, the Circle Inspector of Police. P.W.15 has sworn that he was asked to arrest A-2 and he apprehended A-2 on 5th March, 1974 and produced A-2 before P.W.17. He has, in his cross-examination stated that this investigation disclosed that A-2 was an in-patient in the Civil Hospital, Dharwar from 5th November, 1973 and he was discharged on 14th November, 1973. This evidence of P.W.15 and Exhibit P-13 the relevant record from the Civil Hospital, Dharwar, were made use of by the defence to contend that A-2 could not have been present during the incident, as he was an in-patient in Dharwar between 5th November, 1973 and 14th November, 1973 and that contention has found favour with the learned I Additional Sessions Judge. We are clearly of opinion that the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, ought not to have relied upon the Statement of P.W.15 elicited in his cross-examination that his investigation disclosed that A-2 was an in-patient in. Dharwar Civil Hospital between 5th November, 1973 and 14th November, 1973 because that statement is nothing but a conclusion arrived at by P.W.15 on the basis of the material he had come across during his investigation. Conclusions of witnesses including police, are never legal evidence in any case. In view of this particular answer given by P.W.15 and in view of the fact that it is the prosecution which has produced Exhibit P-13 and examined P.W.3 Malati, the staff nurse, in proof of Exhibit P-13, in spite of the case of the prosecution being: that all the accused were guilty of the offences under sections 302 read with 149. and 307 read with 149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, our curiosity was aroused and we found it necessary to look into the case diary maintained by the investigating officer P.W.15 to find out what kind of investigation he had made and what kind of material he had found and whether that material warranted the conclusion that P.W.6 has narrated in his cross-examination. We also perused the charge-sheet presented by the prosecution. We find from the charge-sheet that C. Ws. 6 to 9 are witnesses cited from the Civil Hospital, Dharwar. Out of them, C.W.7 is P.W.3 Malati. Shri M. S. Kulkarni, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who conducted the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has, by his memo. dated 17th September, 1973 given up by C.Ws.6, 8 and 9 as unnecessary. C.Ws.6, 8 and 9, as seen from the case diary and as described in the relevant column, of the charge-sheet, are members of the staff in the Civil Hospital, Dharwar. We perused the case diary to find out what they were supposed to state before the Court if they had been examined as witnesses, because they had been cited as C.Ws.6, 8 and 9. The material that we have found has convinced us that they had been cited to establish that A-2 was absent from the hospital between 6.00 p.m. and 9-00 p. m. and he could have taken part in the incident. So, what has been stated by P.W.15 in his cross-examination is nothing but a lie. It would not be proper to narrate what the material is, because it can be gathered only from the case diary and it does not form part of the evidence. This leaves no doubt in our mind that giving up of C.Ws.6, 8 and 9 must have been at the instance of the investigating officers to favour A-2. The Additional Public Prosecutor ought not to have given up these witnesses. Therefore, his bona fides is open to suspicion. It is in our opinion desirable that the concerned authorities enquire into this aspect and take suitable action. The Additional Public Prosecutor ought not to have given up these witnesses. Therefore, his bona fides is open to suspicion. It is in our opinion desirable that the concerned authorities enquire into this aspect and take suitable action. Now in view of the fact that we have for reasons already recorded, found that P.Ws.9 and 12 are wholly reliable witnesses and their evidence that A-1 and A-2 were present and A-1 shot at Dilawar, is reliable, it follows that A-1 must have employed a method of his own, in regard to which we have no material and we cannot even conject, to come out of the Sub-Jail at Dharwar, and take part in the incident. P.W.17 has, in this connection, answered to the Court had that he did not make any attempts to investigate whether A-1 could have come out of the Sub-Jail so as to reach Bailhongal and take part in the incident. Why the investigating officer took it for granted that what was depicted in Exhibit P. 17 must be the truth, is not made available to the Court. It was the duty of P.W.17 to continue the investigation from that angle, find the circumstances and secure the material to enable the Court to arrive at a proper decision. It is rather strange that both A-1 and A-2 decided to goto Dharwar on 5th November, 1973. A-2 decided to get himself admitted as an inpatient in the Civil Hospital, Dharwar, and A-1 decided to surrender to the Court. Exhibit P-30 is the result of certain circumstances that had transpired. Those circumstances are that A-1 was an accused on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class I Court, Dharwar, for an offence under section 411 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code for being in possession of stolen articles. That case was from Garag. A-1 had not attended the Court on certain previous dates and hence his bail had been cancelled and he was to be arrested. He found it convenient to appear in Court on 5th November, 1973 it is not known whether the case against him had been fixed on 5th November, 1973 or not, surrendered to Court, thereby forcing the Court to send him to the Sub-Jail. It is because of these circumstances that A-I was sent to Sub-Jail. He found it convenient to appear in Court on 5th November, 1973 it is not known whether the case against him had been fixed on 5th November, 1973 or not, surrendered to Court, thereby forcing the Court to send him to the Sub-Jail. It is because of these circumstances that A-I was sent to Sub-Jail. These facts are put forward by the prosecution itself to show that it was a coincidence that A-1 and A-2 happened to go to Dharwar on 5th November, 1973 and one was admitted in the Civil Hospital and one was taken into custody as under trial prisoner. But the facts are so strong as to convince us that it is made to appear that it is a coincidence while in fact it is not a coinscidence. The learned I Additional Seesions Judge ought to have looked at thesfacts from this angle, as suspicion in the mind of the Court ought to have been aroused in view of the peculiar nature of these facts as narrated and discussed by us. We are afraid that the learned I Additional Sessions Judge has approached these facts and circumstances in a mechanical manner and has arrived at the only conclusion possible if such an approach is made that P.Ws.9 and 12 cannot be believed to the extent they involve A-1 and A-2. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the defence that when P.Ws.9 and 12 are found to have concocted the case against A-1 and A-2, it is not difficult to infer further that they must have concocted the whole of the case against the appellants also does not appeal to us. 15. We have already pointed out in the preceding paragraph that the answer given by P.W.15 in his cross-examination that his investigation disclosed that A-2 was an in-patient in the Civil Hospital, Dharwar, between 5th November, 1973 and 14th November, 1973 is a lie, and that C. Ws. 6, 8 and 9 appear to have been deliberately given up. The strong impression in our mind is that the investigation in regard to this part of the case against A-1 and A-2 is not bona fide. The circumstances narrated and discussed by us in this behalf positively show that this part of the investigation is mala fide. 6, 8 and 9 appear to have been deliberately given up. The strong impression in our mind is that the investigation in regard to this part of the case against A-1 and A-2 is not bona fide. The circumstances narrated and discussed by us in this behalf positively show that this part of the investigation is mala fide. Similarly the circumstance that P.W.17 did not think it fit to investigate as to whether A-1 could have managed to come out of the Sub-Jail and be in Bailhongal to take part in the incident and if so he also sails in the same boat. There also we see positive indication of mala fide investigation. This conclusion only can explain as to why the prosecution took it on itself to examine P.W.3 and produced Exhibit P-13 and P-30. Moreover the evidence of P.W.3 does not at all speak to the identity of A-2 as Kasimsab mentioned in Exhibit P. 3 which document shows that that Kasimsab was an in-patient admitted in the Civil Hospital, Dharwar, on 5th November, 1973 and discharged from the hospital on 514th November, 1973. On the other hand she has specifically stated:hat she did not remember A-2 having ever been present as an in-patient in the ward in the Civil Hospital during the said period. In that view of the matter, it must be held that in spite of the attempt made by the prosecution that A-2 was that person who is mentioned in Exhibit P-13, the prosecution has failed to establish that fact and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has failed to notice this lacuna in the evidence, but has still held that A-2 was an inpatient in the Civil Hospital, Dharwar, during the relevant period. 16. Even on the basis of the conclusion that the prosecution had not established that A-1 had shot Dilawar, it cannot, as is patent enough, follow that A-3 to A-6 and A-8 ought to be acquitted of the charge under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. This patent error in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, could not have been ordinarily over-looked by the Director of Prosecutions Shri G.N. Sabhahit, District and Sessions Judge. 17. This patent error in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, could not have been ordinarily over-looked by the Director of Prosecutions Shri G.N. Sabhahit, District and Sessions Judge. 17. As we strongly felt that this was a case where the State ought to have preferred an appeal against the orders of acquittal, we looked into the procedure that the State adopts while preferring appeals against acquittal. Two Directorates of Prosecutions have been established in this State. The area from which this case has come up pertains to the Directorate at Dharwar, wherein the Director of Public Prosecutions is the District and Sessions Judge, Shri G.N. Sabhahit. Circulars are issued by the State in regard to the work and administration of the Directorates. The relevant clause in the Circular reads thus: "2. (b) In every case in a Sessions Court ending in an acquittal or where there is conviction only for minor offences, the accused having been acquitted of more serious offences, the Public Prosecutor should likewise within 15 days from the date of the judgment obtain certified copy of the judgment and forward the same to the Director of Prosecutions, with his report indicating reasons for filing or not filing an appeal. If the Director of Prosecutions decides that an appeal should be preferred, he should obtain from the Public Prosecutor the complete record of the case together with a Memorandum of grounds of appeal, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. (c) In either of the cases referred to in paras, (a) and (b) supra, the Director of Prosecutions shall forward the relevant papers and the certified copy of the judgment along with his recommendation, to the State Government, in the Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs." It is seen from the above that whenever a case ends in acquittal in the Sessions Court or where there is a conviction only for a minor offence, the accused having been acquitted of more serious offences, the concerned Public Prosecutor has to forward to the Director of Prosecutions, the certified copy of the judgment within 15 days from the date of judgment. Thereafter the Director of Prosecutions is required to scrutinise the judgment by securing all the necessary materials from the Public Prosecutor and express his opinion whether it is or not a case fit for filing an appeal against the acquittal. Thereafter the Director of Prosecutions is required to scrutinise the judgment by securing all the necessary materials from the Public Prosecutor and express his opinion whether it is or not a case fit for filing an appeal against the acquittal. If he is of the opinion that it is a case for filing an appeal, he is required to collect all the other necessary papers from the concerned Public Prosecutor and forward all of them to the State Government in the Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs. Then the State Government after scrutinising the papers and if satisfied that it is a case fit for filing an appeal, directs the State Public Prosecutor to file an appeal. The learned State Public Prosecutor informed us after consulting the Department of Law, that the State Government had not received any papers in this case from the Director of Prosecutions, Dharwar, and, therefore, the State had no occasion to think whether an appeal against the acquittal of A-1 and A-2 and other accused ought to be filed or not and, hence, no appeal was filed. These facts show that the Director of Prosecutions viz., Sri G.N. Sabhahit had concluded that this was not a case fit for filing an appeal against the acquittal. The discussion that we have made in the preceding paragraph shows that such a conclusion has to be characterised as a cursory one. We are inclined to believe that the mala fides found in the investigation made by the investigating officers in regard to involvement of A-1 and A-2 appear to have permeated into the said Directorate also. But, we are constrained to take this serious view under the peculiar facts and circumstances that are available in this case. Working of the Directorate in such a manner is highly unsatisfactory as it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. As per the Circulars, the Directors appear to be the sole arbiters in the decision whether an appeal against acquittal should be preferred or not. If they come to a conclusion that the case is not a fit one for appeal to the High Court, they need not communicate that conclusion to the State Government thereby keeping the State Government in the dark. If they come to a conclusion that the case is not a fit one for appeal to the High Court, they need not communicate that conclusion to the State Government thereby keeping the State Government in the dark. When such high responsibility is cast on the Directors and when the Director is from the cadre of the District and Sessions Judges, we expect the Directors to discharge this responsbility by exercising the powers vested in them in the manner expected of them. 18. The only question that remains for consideration is the contention of the defence that the sentence of imprisonment for life passed on A-4 is not based on sound reasoning, as the remaining appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, for the same offence. We find much force in this contention. All the appellants have been found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not the grievance of the State that the sentence passed, on A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-8 is low as no appeal has been filed by the State. It is not the law that when section 149 of the Indian Penal Code comes into play, the sentence passed on a member of an unlawful assembly against whom overt act is proved, should be more severe than the one passed on the other member of the unlawful assembly. If all the appellants had been sentenced to imprisonment for life, then the sentence would have been quite in accordance with law. Now the sentence passed on A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-8 cannot be enhanced to imprisonment for life. Hence the sentence passed on A-4 will have to be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default rigorous imprisonment for one year. 19. In view of the foregoing reasons, we dismiss these appeals, subject to the aforementioned modification in the sentence passed on A-4 Mallappa Kallappa Kammar. We direct that a copy of this judgment should be sent to the State Government in the Department of Law, for taking such action as the Government may deem necessary. Send a copy to the concerned Director of Prosecutions