JUDGMENT N.C. Dwivedi, J.-1. Cr. A. No. 933/77 Jagdish v. State of MP., Cr. A. No. 941/77 (Makhan v. State of MP) and Cr. A. No. 955/77 (Rikhiram & five ors v. State of M.P.) arise out of the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge Durg in Sessions in trial 37/77 decided on 19-9-1977 and have been consolidated. Judgment in Cr. A No. 933/77 shall govern the disposal of all these appeals. 2. In these appeals the appellate Jagadish Makhan, Rikhiram Ghanaram, Takhatram, Babooram, Purru and Prabhu have challenged their convictions under Ss. 148 and 302/149 of the I.P.C. for which each of them was sentenced to undergo riogorous imprisonment for two years and imprisonment for life respectively. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case is this : Deceased Underam Lodbi had long standing enmity with the appellants. The appellants and their associates used to damage the garden and corps of the deceased. On 19-2-1977, the deceased left his house in the morning at about 8 or 9 a. m. to go to Bemetara. When he reached the house of Fagua at a short distance from his own house, the appellants, armed with lalhis, tabbals and axes. emerged out, surrounded him and attacked him with the result that he died on the spot. When Gouribai (PW 4), Devarsingh (PW 20), Ramsahai (PW 1), Mst. Shyam Kunwar (PW 3) and Tijau (PW 6) came to intervene, the appellants also assaulted them. Premdas Kotwar (PW 2) lodged the FIR Ex. P. 9 at 12.30 p.m. the same day. 4. On the memorandums and seizure memos, clothes, lathis etc. were seized from the appellants. (Vide Exbibits P-1 to P-6, P.11, P-16, and P-20 to P-22, P-33 and P-42). However, none of these articles appear to have been sent to the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist and have, therefore, no incriminating value. 5. An inquest was held over the dead body of Uderam as per inquest report Ex. P-31. 6. Dr. Govinddani (PW 18) performed the autopsy on the dead body of Uderam on 20-2-1977 and as per post mortem report Ex. P.25, found the following marks of injuries on the dead body: (i) Sharp out wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" over the left eyebrow, horizontal in the centre. (ii) sharp cut wound 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" over the upper lid, left eye, vertical in the centre. P.25, found the following marks of injuries on the dead body: (i) Sharp out wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" over the left eyebrow, horizontal in the centre. (ii) sharp cut wound 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" over the upper lid, left eye, vertical in the centre. (iii) Sharp cut wound 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" below lower eye lid of left eye, placed hourizontally. (iv) Sharp cut wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the bridge of nose, placed vertically, (v) Sharp wound 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" over the left nostril placed obliquely. (vi) Sharp cut wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" over lower lid of right eye. (vii) Sharp cut wound 2" x 1" x 1" on the forehead, on the right side placed transversely. (viii) Sharp cut wound 2" x 1/2 " x 1" on the forehead, right side, 2" above the 7th injury. (ix) Sharp cut wound 2" x 1" x 1" over the left side of frontal bone, placed obliquely. (x) Lecerated wound 2" x 2" x 1" on the left side of frontal bone, oblique in shape. (xi) Lacerated cut wound 2" x 2" x 1" on the centre of frontal bone, placed horizontally. On internal examination, dark blood was found beneath the scalp. There was a crack fracture in the skull on the joint of frontal and parietal bones at the centre. Left tibia was fractured into multiple pieces at middle 1/3 rd. These injuries could be caused by hard and blunt object and sharp edged weapon. Death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage and fracture of the skull and left tibia bone. All these injuries were ante mortem in nature. Death occurred within 24 hours of the post mortem examination. 7. On 20-2-1977, Dr. Govinddani examined the following injured persons : (i) Devarsingh (PW 20) : A lacrrated wound and scratches were found on his person which could be caused by hard and blunt object. The injury report is Ex. P-26. (ii) Smt Gouribai (PW 4) : Two scratches were found on her right and left knees which could be caused by some rough object. She also complained of pain in the back. The injury report is Ex.P-27. (iii) Smt Shyamkumar (PW 3) : There was a scratch on her right shoulder which could be caused by some rough object. The injury report is Ex. P-28. She also complained of pain in the back. The injury report is Ex.P-27. (iii) Smt Shyamkumar (PW 3) : There was a scratch on her right shoulder which could be caused by some rough object. The injury report is Ex. P-28. (iv) Tijau (PW 6) : A Lacerated wound was found on his left shoulder which could be caused by hard and blunt object. The injury report is Ex. P-29. (v) Ramsahai (PW 1) : There was an abrasion on the left shoulder. The injury report is Ex. P-30. 8. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication on account of enmity. 9. The point for decision in these appeals is whether the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Uderam alias Ude and in prosecution thereof, committed his murder. 10. We have heard Shri P.S. Das Advocate for the appellant Jagdish and Shri S.C Datt Advocate for the other appellants. We have also heard Shri K.L. Issrani, Govt. Advocate for the State. Both the Advocates did not dispute that Uderam is dead and that his death was homicidal. On record, we have the inquest report Ex. P-31 and Marg intimation Ex.P-41 which show that number of persons had seen the dead body of Uderam. The post mortem report Ex.P-25, coupled with the evidence of Dr. Govinddani (PW 18), conclusively established that the deceased had, on his person, number of injuries which could be caused by hard and blunt object and sharp edged weapon. Death occurred due to the injuries coupled with fracture of the skull. We are convinced that Underam is dead and that his death was homicidal. 11. Before we begin to scrutinise the prosecution evidence, we would like to mention that along with the appellants Asharam Devaram alias Sadhu Mansingh, Ramji, Balla, Latel, Dhansingh and Lachhiram were also prosecuted under sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC, but they have been acquitted of the offences charged with. We would further mention that the lower Court has only placed reliance on the evidence of Firanta (PW 17), corroborated by the FIR Ex. P-9 and expressly or impliedly disbelieved number of witnesses. The reasons for disbelieving the witnesses are as follow: (i) Premdas (PW 2), an independent witness, does not support his FIR, and he was not declared hostile. (Para 8) (ii) Mst. P-9 and expressly or impliedly disbelieved number of witnesses. The reasons for disbelieving the witnesses are as follow: (i) Premdas (PW 2), an independent witness, does not support his FIR, and he was not declared hostile. (Para 8) (ii) Mst. Shyamkuwar (PW 3) was disbelieved because Ramsahai (PW 1) does not name her. (Para 9) (iii) Mat. Gouribai (PW 4) was disbelieved because there was enmity about damage to the garden and there was omission that the appellant Rikhiram had pierced knife in the eyes of her husband. (Para 10). (iv) Makhan (PW 5) was not relied upon, through there is no categorical finding on this point. (Para 11) (v) Tijau (P W 6) was disbelieved because of his weak eye sight. (Para 12) (vi) Milandas (PW 7) was disbelieved because of contradiction whether stones were hurled by the appellants or women-folk. (Para 13) (vii) Poonaram (PW 8) was disbelived because he arrived after the incident was over. (Para 14) (viii) Badriram (PW 10) was disbelieved because he left the house for irrigating him badi, but without doing irrigation, he remained behind. (Para 16) (ix) Fatkanbai (PW 19) was disbelieved because she, being the mother of the deceased, has implicated the appellants. (Para 18). (x) Devarsingh (PW 20) was disbelieved because he is the elder brother of the deceased and a criminal case was pending against him on the complaint of the appellants. (Para 19). All the eye witnesses are relations of the deceased and belong to the opposite faction. Further, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that eyes of the deceased were pierced, is not supported by the medical evidence. 12. We will now proceed to scrutinise the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is undisputed that the incident occurred near the house of Fagua. The spot map Ex. P-34 show that Devarsingh (PW 20) was at a distance of 80' from the place of incident, Ramsahai (P W 1) was at a distance of 140' and Mst. Gouribai (PW4) was at a distance of 185'. The distances given above are not much and the spot map shown no obstruction between the places where the witnesses were present and the place of incident Further, the incident took place at about 8 or 9 a. m. when there is sufficient sunlight. 13. Ramsahai (P.W. 1) implicated the appellant in the lathi and tabbal attack on Uderam. The distances given above are not much and the spot map shown no obstruction between the places where the witnesses were present and the place of incident Further, the incident took place at about 8 or 9 a. m. when there is sufficient sunlight. 13. Ramsahai (P.W. 1) implicated the appellant in the lathi and tabbal attack on Uderam. He stated that the appellants Ghanaram, Rikhiram and Purru had tabbals with them, while the appellant Takhatram bad a small axe with him. These persons assaulted Uderam with lathis and tabbals. Appellant Ghanaram dealt a lathi blow on his shoulder which fact is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Govinddani (P.W 18). Thus the presence of Ramsahai (P.W. 1) could not be doubted. In cross-examination, he stated that he saw the assault by lathi and knife. His evidence could not be purely rejected on the ground that he belongs to the opposite camp. 14. Premdas Kotwar (P.W. 2) lodged the F.I.R. Ex. P-9, but he disowned it. The F.I.R. does not constitute substantive evidence, but it could be used for purposes of corroborating or contradicting the maker. Thus Premdas (P.W. 2) will be deprived of corroboration from the report lodged by him, but this will not discredit the remaining evidence. It is a fact that Premdas (P.W. 2) was not declared hostile, but his suppression of the F.I.R. admittedly lodged by him shows that be was not favourably inclined towards the prosecution. Even then his evidence shows that Firanta (P.W. 17 ) had accompanied him and the appellants Jagdish and Purru were present at the place of incident. These two appellants have even denied their presence which is apparantly false. The evidence of Premdas (P.W. 2) is useful to establish the presence of the two appellants Jagdish and Purru near place or incident. 15. Mst. Shyamkuwar (P.W.3) stated that as soon as she came out of her house, she saw the appellant Rikhiram attacking Uderam on his eyes. Appellant Makhan dealt a lathi blow on her shoulder. She testified to the presence of the appellants Takhatram, Ghanaram, Prabhu, Makhan, Jagdish and Dabooram as attacking Uderam with tabbal and axe. She further implicated the acquitted accused Mansingh. She was at a distance of about 5 or 7 metres from the place of incident and according to the spot map, she was not at such a distance as will blur her vision. She further implicated the acquitted accused Mansingh. She was at a distance of about 5 or 7 metres from the place of incident and according to the spot map, she was not at such a distance as will blur her vision. Her evidence could not be disbelieved simply because Ramsahai (P.W.1) did not testify to her presence. It is possible that where there were number of assailants and others had alse gathered, Ramsahai (P.W. 1) missed to spot out Mst. Shyankunwar. The evidence of Dr. Govinddani (P.W. 18) shows thai Mst. Shyamkunwar had sustained an injury on her right shoulder as per report Ex. P-25. Her presence at the time of incident could not, therefore, be doubted because one of the prosecution witnesses failed to see her near the place of incident. 16. Mst. Gouribai (P.W. 4) is the widow of the deceased. She heard some sounds and saw the appellants assaulting her husband with tabbals, lathis and knife. She saw the appellants Prabnu, Rikhiram and Ghanaram dealing tabbal blows all her husband. She entreated them not to assault her husband, but she too was beaten a fact which is corrobrated by the medical evidence. Her evidence was discredited on the ground that there is omission regarding piercing of the eyes of the deceased by the assailants. Another ground for disbelieving her was that the appellants had damaged her crop. These two facts, in our opinion, are not sufficient to discredit a relation witness who would be naturally interested in implicating the real culprits and not falsely implicating persons who have nothing to do with the attack. 17. Makhan (P.W. 5) was not actually disbelieved and there is no such observation that he was an unreliable witness. He stated that his mother informed him that Rikhiram, Goanaiam etc. were assaulting Uderam. He immediately came and saw the appellants assaulting Uderam. He staled that as soon as his mother informed him at his field which is at a distance of 3 or 4 furlongs from the village, he rushed to the place and found Firanta (P.W.17), Ramsahai (P.W. 1) and others present there. He stated that he went towards Uderam along with Ramsahai (P.W. 1) after the assailants had gone away. We find no serious drawback in his testimony. Even the lower Court has not outright rejected his evidence. We place reliance on his testimony. 18. He stated that he went towards Uderam along with Ramsahai (P.W. 1) after the assailants had gone away. We find no serious drawback in his testimony. Even the lower Court has not outright rejected his evidence. We place reliance on his testimony. 18. Tijau (P.W. 6) is a short sighted fellow. Hence his evidence could not be used against the appellants, though he himself was an injured person and proved the presence of the appellant Ghanaram at the place of incident, because he had assaulted him. To this extent, his evidence could be accepted. 19. Milandas (P.W. 7) proved the presence of the appellants and their having assaulted the deceased. We find no ground to disbelieve his evidence. Whether stones were being hurled by men or women is not such a contradiction as would make his evidence totally unreliable. 20. Poonaram (P.W. 8) implicated the appellants Rikhiram, Takhatram, Ghanaram and Prabhu in the attack on Uderam. He stated in cross-examination that when he went near the house of Uderam, he saw him lying on the ground. This could not be construed to mean that he had arrived at the place of• incident after the marpit was over. He had seen the appellants assaulting Uderam after he had fallen down. His evidence was rejected on insufficient grounds. 21. Badriram (P.W. 10) also was the appellants at the time of assault and actually assaulting the deceased with lathis, tabbals ete; His evidence was rejected on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case started by the appellants. 22. The testimony of Kedar (P.W. 11) also implicates the appellants assaulting Uderam with tangias and tabbels. He appears to be an inimical witness. His field is at a distance of three furlongs. He came running and after seeing the assault, raised a hue and cry. His evidence could not be rejected simply because he did not go to irrigate the field and remained at his house. 23. Firanta (P.W. 17) has been believed because he had witnessed the assault from a short distance. He saw the assault by tabbal and lathis. Simply because Tijau (P.W. 6) and Ramsahai (P.W 1) are his relations, it does not make him an interested witness. To agree with the Court below that Firanta is an independent witness and his evidence was rightly disbelieved. 24. Dr. He saw the assault by tabbal and lathis. Simply because Tijau (P.W. 6) and Ramsahai (P.W 1) are his relations, it does not make him an interested witness. To agree with the Court below that Firanta is an independent witness and his evidence was rightly disbelieved. 24. Dr. Govinddani (P.W. 18) stated that he found eleven injuries of various dimentions on the dead body of the deceased which could be caused by sharp cutting weapon. On internal examination, he found dark blood beneath the scalp. There was a crack fracture in the skull on the joint of frontal and parietal bones at the centre. Left tibia was fractured into multiple pieces at middle 1/3 rd. These injuries could be caused by hard and blunt object. Death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage and fracture of the skull and left tibia bone. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Thus the appellants used dangerous weapons in inflicting injuries on vital parts of' the body of the deceased. 25. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is thus fully corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Govinddani (P.W. 18) who found incised and lacerated wounds on the person of the deceased, we doubt the eyes of the deceased were not actually pierced, but the medical evidence shows that there were more than one injury near the eyes of deceased and persons seeing the assault from a distance could have mistaken the attack as piercing the eyes of the deceased when the strokes were repeatedly given near both the eyes of the deceased. This inconsistency from the medical evidence does not discredit the prosecution evidence. Thus the medical evidence farther lent corroboration to the eye witness account. 26. We have narrated the eye witness account and are of the view that the additional Sessions Judge has rejected their evidence on insufficient grounds. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses could not be rejected purely on the ground of their being relations who would be the last persons to leave out the real culprits and would implicate innocent persons. (See Dalipsingh and others. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 , Bharti v. State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 839 and Angnoo and others v. Stale of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 296 . 21. (See Dalipsingh and others. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 , Bharti v. State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 839 and Angnoo and others v. Stale of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 296 . 21. The Additional Sessions Judge eiewed tile evidence of the prosecution witnesses with suspicion because they were partisan or interested witnesses, but this alone is not sufficient to reject their evidence. What would be necessary is that their evidence should be scrutinised with caution. In State of U.P. v. Iftikharkhan and others, AIR 1973 SC 863 it is held that merely because the witnesses are partisan or Interested. their evidence is not liable to be rejected. Also see Nankhesingh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 491 and Masalti and others v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 . 28. In view of the law as stated above, the evidence of the partisan or interested witnesses does not deserve outright rejection and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinise their evidence to find out the truth. In this case, as discussed above, the evidence of the interested and partisan witnesses is corroborated by the independent testimony of Firan'a (P.W. 17) and the medical evidence. Even a hostile witness, Premdas Kotwar (P.W. 2) admitted the presence of the appellants Jagdish and Purru at the place of incident. We are, therefore, not inclined to reject outright the testimony of interested or partisan witnesses. 29. The Additional Sessions Judge was influenced in rejecting the evidence of witnesses because of omissions and contradictions. Even if a part of the prosecution evidence is false or contains exaggerations or embellishments, that does not make the entire evidence untruthful, it is the duty of the Court to marshal the evidence and to find out truth out of falsehood. In this connection reference may be made to Abdul Gani and others v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 31 . 30. In Sohrab and another v. State of M. P., AIR 1972 SC 2020 it is held as under: "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. 30. In Sohrab and another v. State of M. P., AIR 1972 SC 2020 it is held as under: "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when asked about details, venture to give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed but that is not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautions scrutiny cannot be considered though where toe substratum of the prosecution case or material part of the evidence is disbelievable, it will not be permissible for the Court to reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest." (Also see Ugar Ahir and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277 . 31. It was contended that there are contradictions with respect to weapons possessed by the appellants or their use and also in regard to the parts of the body where the injuries were located. In our opinion where number of assailants take part in assaulting the victim, such contradictions are natural. In Baldeosingh and others v. Stale of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 464 . It is held that in a melee where several people gave blows to the victim at one and the same time, it is impossible to particularize the blows. If any witness attempts to do so, his veracity is doubtful. (Also see Bharatsingh v. State of U.P., AIR 1972 SC 2478 and Ramprasad and others v. State of U. P., AIR 1973 Patna 2673. In Masalti and other v. State of U.P. (Supra) it is held as under: "Where a crowd of assailants who are members of an unlawful assembly, proceeds to commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of the assailants. Besides if a large crowd or persons armed with weapon, assaults the intended victims, it may not he necessary that all of them have to take part in the actual assault. Besides if a large crowd or persons armed with weapon, assaults the intended victims, it may not he necessary that all of them have to take part in the actual assault. Where for instance, several weapons were carried by different members of the unlawful assembly, but it appear; that the guns were used and that was enough to kill 5 persons, it would be unreasonable to contend that because the other weapons carried by the members of the unlawful assembly were not used, the story in regard to the said weapons itself should be rejected" 32. In view of the law as stated above, contradictions in regard to use of weapons or the parts where the injures were located or non-use of such weapons does not discredit the prosecution evidence when the presence of the assailants with dangerous weapons has been testified by number of eye witnesses. 33. Shri Datt contended that the acquitted accused Mansingh was assigned the role of using a Sub al and other were also acquitted. Therefore, there could be no question of saddling common intention on the assailants. It will be pertinent to mention that number of assailants armed with dangerous weapons like tabbal, axe, knives etc assaulted the deceased; Therefore, there assailants must have the knowledge that by attacking the victim with these reapons, death would be caused. Hence because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, it does not negative the liability of the convicted accused, because they were together duly armed and participated in the attack with more than one dangerous weapon which was bound to attribute knowledge to them that death could be caused. 34. In B.N Srikantiah v. State of Mysore, AIR 1975 SC 672 it is held that all the parts of the body on which the injuries were caused, except perhaps the last, were vital parts of the body and the accused who caused those injuries with deadly weapons, must be fixed with the intention of causing such bodily injury or injuries as would fall within S. 300 of the Penal Code. 35. 35. In Bhajansingh and others v. State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 1564 it is held as under "From the commencement of the interception of the complainants party by the accused armed with deadly weapons and first accosting of the deceased with a challenging posture upto the running away of the accused together after causing fatal injuries on the deceased, there was no escape from the conclusion that all the accused came and worked with one design and object and they were definitely in the know of the fatal consequences that actually ensued as a reault of the conjoint attack to make them all vicariously responsible u/s 149. Even asisuming that the unlawful assembly was formed originally only to beat, it was clearly established in the evidence that the said object was well knit with what followed as the dangerous final of the beating. It was not a case where something foreign or unknown to the object took place all of a sudden. It was the execution of the same common object which assumed the fearful character implicit in the illegal action under taken by the accused" 36. In Masalti and others v. State of U. P. (supra), it is held that while determining this question, it becomes relevant to consider whether the assembly consisted of some persons who were merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly. In fact S. 149 makes it clear that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who. at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence; and that emphatically brings out the priciple that the punishment prescribed by S. 149 is in a sense vicarious and does not always proceed on the basis that the offence has been actually committed by every member of the unlawful assembly. 37. 37. We have scrutinised the prosecution evidence in the light of the law a, stated above Simply because a part of the prosecution evidence has been found to be false, it does not demand out right rejection of the entire evidence without cautious scrutiny. Besides this, there is positive evidence that Rikhiram and Prabhu used sharp edged weapons and contradictions on this point are immaterial. It is pertinent to mention that the acquitted accused were not alleged to have used lathis or tabbal, but the medical report shows that the serious injuries on the head of the deceased were caused by sharp edged weapons. In the aforesaid circumstances, acquittal of some of the accused persons will not affect the application of section 149 of the I.P.C. and will not absolve the members of the unlawful with the common object or killing their victim, more so when the weapons used, the number of assailants and the vital parts affected by the injuries manifestly indicated the knowledge that the victim could be killed in the attack. 38. In view of the discussion of the evidence as also the law, the omissions or contradictions relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge for rejecting the evidence were not of consequence. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses implicating the appellants was of uniform type and corroborated by the F.I.R. we bold participation of the appellants Jagdish, Makhion, Rikhiram Ghanaram, Takhatram, Purru and Prabhu in the attack on Uderam fully established. Though number of witnesses have named the appel1ant Babooram as an assailant, yet his name is missing from the F.I.R. and. therefore, we fed reluctant to hold him as a participator in the attack; we give benefit of, doubt to him and hold that he was not a member of the unlawful assembly, responsible for the death of Uderam. 39. For the reasons given above, Jagdish v. State of M P. (Cr. A. No. 933 of 1977) fail. and is hereby dismissed. Convictions of the appellant Jagdish under sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC with sentences thereunder are confirmed. The sentences shall run concurrently. 40. Makhan v. State of M. P. (Cr. A. No.941 of 1977) also fails and is hereby dismissed. Convictions of the appellant Makhan under section 148 and 302/149 of the IPC with sentences there under are confirmed. The sentences shall run concurrently. 41. The sentences shall run concurrently. 40. Makhan v. State of M. P. (Cr. A. No.941 of 1977) also fails and is hereby dismissed. Convictions of the appellant Makhan under section 148 and 302/149 of the IPC with sentences there under are confirmed. The sentences shall run concurrently. 41. Rikhiram and 5 others v. State of M. P. (Cr. A. No. 955 of 1977) partly succeeds and is allowed. Convictions of the appellant Babooram under section 148 and 302/149 of the IPC with sentences thereunder are set aside and he is acquitted of the offences charged with. He shall be released forthwith unless required to be detained in any other case. The appeal in respect of the other appellants Rikhiram, Ghanaram, Takhatram, Purru and Prabhu fails and is hereby dismissed. Their convictions under section 148 and 302/149 of the IPC with sentences thereunder are confirmed. The sentences shall run concurrently.