JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu dated July 28, 1977 by which the appellants Mansingh, Jhabar, Karansingh & Pratapsingh were convicted for the offence under section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo two months R.I. each. Appellants Gopi, Sheoprasad, Subesingh and Dariyasingh were convicted for the offence under section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to R. I. for one years and a fine of Rs. 100/- indefault to undergo R.I. for one month each Appellants Mansingh, Jhabar, Karansingh, Pratap Singh, Gopi, Sheoprasid, Subesingh and Dariyasingh were also convicted for the offences under section 304 Part-I read with 149 I.P.C, 307/149. 326/149, and 436/ 49 I.P.C. and sentenced to R I. for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo R I. for six months each on the first count; R.I. for six years & a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months each on the second count; R I. for five years and a fine of Rs 500/-, in default to undergo three moths R.I each on the third count and R I. for four years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default undergo three months R.I. on the fourth count. Dariyasingh was convicted for the offence u/s 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to three months R.P. The remaining seven appellants were convicted for the offence u/s 323/ 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for three months each. Appellant Gopi was convicted for the offence under section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for two years and the remaining seven appellants were convicted for the offence under section 325/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month each. Appellant Man Singh was also convicted for the offence under section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced to four years R.I. and a fine of Rs 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for three months. The three appellants viz. Smt. Bhateri, Smt. Sheo Kauri and Smt. Geeta were convicted for the offence under section 436/109 I.P.C. and sentenced to R I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for three months each. 2. The three appellants viz. Smt. Bhateri, Smt. Sheo Kauri and Smt. Geeta were convicted for the offence under section 436/109 I.P.C. and sentenced to R I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for three months each. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the trial of the appellants, their conviction and the present appeal are as under:The accused party and the complainant party are residents of village Sukhram-ka-Bas and are neighbours in the fields. There was a long standing enmity between them. A few years prior to the present incident in which Dharmpal has met his death and Roop Chand, Ram Karan Shrichand and Amarsingh sustained injuries, some persons from the complainant side were tried for the charge of murder of the son of Lachman. One Banwari son of Bujan was sentenced to imprisonment for life and certain other members of the complainant party were awarded sentences of various terms for various offences in that trial. On August 11, 1976 at about 7.00 p m. deceased Dharampal along with Roop Chand, Ramkaran, Shrichand, Smt. Sarbati, Smt. Dhanwati an I informant Amar Singh were returining to their houses through the way in Sukhram-ka-Bas after working at the southern field of Bujanram. Houre of Bujan Pam falls in the way of Sukhram ka-Bas. When the aforesaid persons reached near the house of Bujan Ram, the appellants, along with one Antar Singh (since acquitted by the trial court) Lachman, Raghunath, Jiwansingh and Harnarain (the four persons against whom the police did not file the charge-sheet) aimed with 'pharsis', 'Jelis' and 'lathis' were sitting hidden and attacked the complainant party. Dharampal, Roopchand, Shrichand Ramkaran and Amarsingh rushed towards the uninhab tted house of Bujanram nearby. Dharampal and Roopchand took shelter in one 'kotha' and Shrichand, Ramkaran and Amar singh io an other The accused party brought the bushes & set fire to the leaves of the shuttcrs.Being instigated by their companions, the three lady appellants Smt. Geeta,Smt. Bhatari and Smt. Sheokauri brought kerosene in buckets and sprinkled it on the doors and set fire.The miscreants also threw burnining clothes in the kothas through the doors & ventilators. Feeling suffocation because of the fire, the persons inside came out. Feeling suffocation because of the fire, the persons inside came out. Dharampal and Roopchand were given a beating with 'pharsis' and 'lathis' by the miscreants and were thrown in the fire Shrichand and Amarsingh came wielding 'kasis' they had with them. They were also injured by the miscreants but they succeeded in making good their escape on account of the 'kasis' they had with them. When Ramkaran came out the miscreants caused injuries to him and fell him down. Amarsingh (P.W. 4) immediately went to Police Station, Suratgarh and lodged the report Ex. P. 1 at 11.30 p.m. Case was registered on the basis of that information and Girdhari Singh 16) S.H.O. of that police station reached the site that very night. He found Dharampal, Roopchand and Ramkaran in serious condition Dharampal and Roopchand were also found burnt. Girdharisingh, S.H.O. took the injured to Suratgarh Hospital. Dharampal was declared dead. The condition of Roopchand and Ramkaran being serious they were sent to Jhunjhunu Hospital. 3. On August 2. 1976 Dr. M.R. Majumadar (P.W 7) Medical officer, Incharge P.H C., Suratgarh conducted autopsy over the dead body of Dharampal and noted as under : "The body of the decease] was well built, hairs of head burnt, antemortem staining present all over the body particulary on face, lips. Face was swollen and bulging of eye ball, tongue slightly protruding, penis was semi erected. Body was in state of pugilistic attitude, rigour mortis present". WOUNDS: 1. 10cm x 1.5 cm x upto bone depth about 7 cm above the left ankle joint on the left leg, caused by sharp weapon. 2. 8 cm x 1.5 cm x upto the bone depth at the junction of lower ⅓rd and middle ⅓rd of right leg, caused by sharp weapon. BRUISES : 1. 10 cm x 2 cm on the back transversely at the level of 8th thoroxis vertebra. 2. 7 cm x 1.5 cm on the left side of chest at the level of 7th inter-coastel space obliquely. 4. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. In the opinion of the Doctor the death was due to shock and asphyxia due to burn and multiple injuries. The injuries found on the dead body of Dharampal were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. He must have died about 12 hours before the time of post-mortem examination. In the opinion of the Doctor the death was due to shock and asphyxia due to burn and multiple injuries. The injuries found on the dead body of Dharampal were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. He must have died about 12 hours before the time of post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination report is Ex. P. 2. 5. On August 13, 1976 Doctor Majumdar examined the injuries of Amarsingh and noted following injuries on his person:- 1. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the dorsum of base of right thumb. 2. Abrasion 1.5 cm x .5 cm on the extensor surface of lower ⅓rd of right thigh. 3. Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm on the falxor surface of middle of left leg. The injury report is Ex.P.3. 6. On August 12,1976 Dr. K.L. Gupta (P.W.8) Medical Jurist, B.D. K. Hospital, Jhunjhunu examined Roopchand and noted following injuries on his person: 1. Burns over face, neck, left forearm, right forearm, left upper arm, right upper arm both hands, left and right foot, and left knee-joint. Skin of both the hands maserated and peeled off at places. Multiple blisters over the burnt areas found.About 35 percent burns of 2nd to 3rd degree. 2. Lacerated wound 1"x 1/4" x 1/4" right face below the right eye blunt and caused in simple nature. 3. Compound fracture right lower ⅓rd tibea and febula, fractured ends of the bones projecting from the wound. Caused by blunt' weapon and grevious in nature. 4. Lacerated wound 3" x 2" x 1/2" over the fracture site. 7. The Doctor noted the general condition of the patient to be serious due to multiple injuries and burns, blood pressure could not be recorded. General treatment was started. The duration of the injuries was about 12 to 14 hours. The Doctor further stated that when the patient was admitted his condition was serious and for that reason x-ray could not be taken at the time. He could have died in absence of treatment. X-ray taken on August 17, 1976 showed fracture of right tibia at lower ⅓rd and upper ⅔rd. Injury no. 3 was confirmed to be grevious, Injury report in Ex. P. 4. The x ray report is Ex P. 5 and x-ray plate is Ex. He could have died in absence of treatment. X-ray taken on August 17, 1976 showed fracture of right tibia at lower ⅓rd and upper ⅔rd. Injury no. 3 was confirmed to be grevious, Injury report in Ex. P. 4. The x ray report is Ex P. 5 and x-ray plate is Ex. P 6 The Doctor further stated that at the time Roopchand was brought to hospital he had burns on his face including eyes. The detailed examination of the eyes therefore, could not be made on account of swelling on eyes and also account of poor condition of the patient After some improvement in the condition of the patient, his eyes were examined by the specialist and according to him there was complete panophthalmpis of the right eye. The patient was unable to see. Hence it was taken as injury no 5 in the original report and it was grevious,caused by burns to face and lids, The reports of the eye-specialist are Ex. P. 8 and 9 were proved to be in the hand writing of Dr. A K; Sharma, Eye specialist by Dr. K.L. Gupta who claimed to be well acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of Dr A.K. Sharma. 8. On August 12, 1976 Dr. K.L. Gupta also examined Ramkaran and noted following injuries on his person : 1. Lacerated wounds 6 in number : (a) 2" 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/2" right frontal region of the scalp. (b) 2" x 1/4" x ⅓" right parietal of scalp. (c) 2" x 1/4" x ⅓" right temporal. (d) 2" 1/2 "x ⅓" x 1/4" right occipito parital junction. (e) 1" x 1/4" x ⅓" right temporal parietal junction. (f) 3" x 1/4" x //2" right occiptal region. 2. - Abrasion 1" x 1" tip of the nose. 3. Defused swelling encircling upper 1/2" right forearm. 4. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" right wrist. 5. Burns left elbow, left band, left shoulder 1st to 2nd degree in nature. 6. Incised wound 6" x 2" x 1, 1/2" mid line in way oblique vertically. 7. Incised wound 4" x 2" x 2" right his joint over greater protector. 8. Multiple abrasions over the left thigh. 9. According to Dr. Gupta the general condition of the patient was serious. Injuries Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were caused by sharp weapon and the rest were caused by blunt object. 7. Incised wound 4" x 2" x 2" right his joint over greater protector. 8. Multiple abrasions over the left thigh. 9. According to Dr. Gupta the general condition of the patient was serious. Injuries Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were caused by sharp weapon and the rest were caused by blunt object. The duration of the injuries was 12 to 14 hours. Injury report is Ex. P. 10. Because of the general condition of Ramkaran being serious the Doctor opined that there was danger to his life. X-ray plates for the various injuries were taken. Fracture of outer cortex of greater trochanter was detacted. 10. Shrichand was admitted in Military Hospital Jaipur on August 12, 1976. He was examined by duty Medical Officer Major H.S. Singh, who prepared the initial case sheet Ex. P. 28 and prepared admission card Ex.P.29 which were proved by Dr. Major S.K. Verma who was acquainted with the hand writing of Dr Major H.S. Singh. Dr. Verma on duty on August 13, 1976 examined Shrichand for his injuries and found that a few of his wounds had already been stiched in M.1. Room by the duty Medical Officer, Dr. Verma noted following injuries on the person of Shrichand:- 1. Lacerated wound on occipital area, which was stiched already. 2. Swelling over dorsum of right hand and fingers. He keeps right little and ring finger semi fixed. Movement painful and restricted at proximal inter phalangeal joints. 3. Severe contusion on right side of chest over 11th and 12 ribs. 4. Superficial burns over left side of face and ear. Para 5. Superficial burns over left hand and wrist. 6. Multiple abrasions over right leg and gluteal region. 7. Abrasions over left leg. 11. At the advice of Dr. Verma x-rays of right hand and wrist were taken which revealed fracture of proximal phalanx of right ring and little fiugers. The x-ray plate is Ex. P. 31. The x-ray reading report of Dr. Verma is Ex. P. 30. Dr Verma prepared the medical examination report Ex. P. 30. Shrichand was discharged on August 27, 1976 but was advised four weeks sick leave. 12. The Station House Officer prepared the panchayatnama of the dead body. He then went back to Sukhram-ka-Bas and inspected the site and prepared necessary memos. He found marks of setting fire at the doors of the two kothas of Bujan Ram. P. 30. Shrichand was discharged on August 27, 1976 but was advised four weeks sick leave. 12. The Station House Officer prepared the panchayatnama of the dead body. He then went back to Sukhram-ka-Bas and inspected the site and prepared necessary memos. He found marks of setting fire at the doors of the two kothas of Bujan Ram. There were also marks of the fire being thrust inside the kothas Blood stained earth was found at about eight places at the site which was taken in possession. The investigation was then entrusted to Assistant Sub-Inspector. Gordhan Lal (P.W. 17). During the course of investigation, the appellants and five others were arrested. In pursuance of the information furnished by Jhabar one 'burchhy' was recovered. In pursuance of the information furnished by Mansingh one 'pharsi' was recovered. 1 he remaining appellants furnished informations for getting recovered lathis and got the same recovered in pursuance of those information. Dhoti and shirt of Mansingh suspected of having blood stains were taken in possession and sealed. AB the articles taken in possession during the course of investigation were sent for Chemical examination. The report of the Chemical Analyser is Ex P. 68 and that of the Serologist is Ex. P. 67. 13. Upon completion of necessary investigation charge-sheet against 11 appellants and one Antar Singh was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chidawa. The learned Magistrate finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions committed the appellants to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu to face their trial. 14. The learned Sessions Judge, charge-sheeted the appellants for the various offences and recorded their plea. All of them denied the indictments and claimed to be tied. To substantiate its case prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all. The appellant s in their statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the allegations levelled against them. Karansingh Pratapsingh, Subesingh, Jhaber, Mansingh, Gopi, Smt. Bhotcri and Smt. Sheo Kauri took the plea of alibi. Smt. Greta stated that she had seen Dharampal, Roopchand and Ramkaran giving a beating to Sheoprasad. That on Sheoprasad raising a cry she went near him. She was also given blow on her head and therefore, returned to her house and could not say what happened thereafter. Smt. Greta stated that she had seen Dharampal, Roopchand and Ramkaran giving a beating to Sheoprasad. That on Sheoprasad raising a cry she went near him. She was also given blow on her head and therefore, returned to her house and could not say what happened thereafter. Appellant Sheoprasad stated that he was sitting in front of his house when Dharampal, Roopchand, Ramkaran and Antarsingh came there from towards 'dhabra' and started giving beating to him. On his raising a cry Smt. Geeta reached there. She was also given a beating. He also stated that there was a dacoity in the village prior to this incident and two participants of that dacoit were absconding. He through that dacoit might have come. That, he remained lying there on account of the injuries sustained by him. Mansingh stated that at about sun-set he was in his field when he heard the noise "MAR LO MAR LO". He rushed towards that direction and saw Sheoprasad being given a beating. He intervened and was given a heating. He therefore, gave beating to the assailants in order to save himself. The villagers under the impression that the dacoit had come, assemble there. The appellants admitted the previous litigation and some of the witnesses being convicted. Sheoprasad stated that Dharampal, Roopchand, Ramkaran and Antarsingh were convicted and sentenced in the the trial of murder of Ratansingh. Sheoprasad and Mansingh also stated about some prosecution witnesses being convicted for giving a beating to them. 12 witnesses were examined from the defence side. Ten of them were examined to substantiate the plea of alibi of Gapi, Maher, Antarsingh, Karansingh, Subesingh, Pratap Singh and Smt. Bateri. One witness was examined to prove the statement of Ramkaran. Lachhman (D.W. 11), a suspect in the present case against whom charge-sheet was not filed,appeared in the witness box to prove by documentary evidence that he was not there in the village on the relevant date rather had gone to his counsel in response to a letter received from the counsel. The learned Judge did not believe the defence evidence of alibi of any of the appellants. Placing reliance on the prosecution witnesses, the learned Judge held the appellants guilty for the various charges stated above and sentenced them by the judgment under appeal. 15. I heard Mr. The learned Judge did not believe the defence evidence of alibi of any of the appellants. Placing reliance on the prosecution witnesses, the learned Judge held the appellants guilty for the various charges stated above and sentenced them by the judgment under appeal. 15. I heard Mr. O.C. Chatterji, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr M.C. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and gave my anxious consideration to the material on record. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings of the learned trial Judge on the number of grounds. According to the learned counsel, the exaggeration in the testimony of the witnesses has been taken note of by the Court and one Antar Singh had been acquitted. Against four persons the police had not even submitted the challan and therefore, the conviction of the appellants based on the same evidence cannot be justified. The learned counsel took me through the statements of prosecution witnesses and referred to the inconsistencies in their statements before the police at the trial regarding the specific acts of the various accused. Advancing arguments on behalf of the three lady appellants the learned counsel emphasised that the prosecution case is about Lachhman instigating three ladies to bring kerosene oil and sprinkle on the doors ane set fire stands falsified by the fact that Lachhman has not been challaned by the police and therefore, the conviction of the three ladies under section 436 read with 109 1 P.C. cannot be said to be proved. The learned counsel also referred to the inimical relations between the parties and submitted in that even innocent person have been involved for the sake of taking revenge and as such in the absence of independent corroboration to the evidence of interested inimical witnesses, prosecution case should not believed. 17. At the very outset it may be observed that prosecution has duly established the inimical relations between the complainant party and the accused party. The trial of some of the accused in the case of murder of Ratansingh son of Lachhman and some of them being sentenced so imprisonment for different terms and one member of their party viz. Banwari suffering imprisonment for life in that case is not denied. 18. The trial of some of the accused in the case of murder of Ratansingh son of Lachhman and some of them being sentenced so imprisonment for different terms and one member of their party viz. Banwari suffering imprisonment for life in that case is not denied. 18. From the evidence on record, it stands duly established that the parties were not on good terms and in order to wreck vengeance committed the crime of setting fire to the kothas where Dharampal, Roopchand, Shri Chand, Antarsingh and Ramkaran had taken shelter. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the four surviving victims regarding the presence of the appellants at the site and their participation in the crime. T e reason for the learned Judge acquitting Antar Singh is that Manchand an independent witness to the occurrence has not stated about his presence at the site. Roopchand has stated about Antar Singh giving a lathi blow on his hand. Dr. Majumdar (P.W. 7) did not note any injury on the hand of Roopchand. Smt. Sarbati has also not stated about the presence of Antarsingh at the site. It was in vie" of this type of evidence that Antarsingh was not held guilty for any offence. Merely because one of the accused has been found innocent, it cannot be said Oat the evidence of the witnesses for the remaining accused may also be considered to he false. So far as the remaining appellants are concerned, their presence at the site has been duly proved not only by the injured witnesses and Smt. Barbaii and Smt. Dhaupati but also by independent witnesses viz. Mohar Singh and Manchand whose presence at the time of occurrence has been believed by the learned Judge in view of their cogent consistent statements and also because of their names being there in the F.I.R., promptly filed in the same night by Amarsingh (P.W. 41. There is force in the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that had these independent witnesses residents of another village, not been there, there could not have been the occasion for Amar Singh to mention their names in the F.I.R. under the hope that they would give evidence in their favour for having witnessed the occurrence. 19. There is force in the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that had these independent witnesses residents of another village, not been there, there could not have been the occasion for Amar Singh to mention their names in the F.I.R. under the hope that they would give evidence in their favour for having witnessed the occurrence. 19. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that four persons though named by the witnesses have not even been challaned by the police and therefore, the case of the present appellants should have treated on the same line is not appearing. Exaggeration in the statement of a witnesses in itself will not be sufficient to brush aside the whole of the version if on the material particulars reliance can be placed on those statements. The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in every case. All that is required is a careful scrutiny of such evidence in order to ascertain whether falsehood and truth is the statement in separable or not. 20. Upon careful examination of the statements of the four victims there is sufficient material available to substantiate the prosecution case regarding the incident. The statements of the witness even if may not be considered to be wholly reliable have been rightly relied on by the learned trial Judge because independent corroboration from the statements of uninterested witnesses like Mobar Chand and Manchand was available. The learned trial Judge, in my opinion has looked into the evidence in its proper respectily and properly discussed the same regarding the Individual acts of the miscreants and the weapons used by them and the injuries caused to the victims and therefore, no further discussion on the point is required. 21. So far as the case of the three lady appellants are concerned, there is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that their case is distinguishable from the remaining appellants. They have not been veld guilty of forming any unlawful assembly. The evidence of certain witnesses about their being armed with 'Raptas' and 'gandasi' etc. has been disbelieved by the learned trial Judge and in my opinion rightly so. They have not been veld guilty of forming any unlawful assembly. The evidence of certain witnesses about their being armed with 'Raptas' and 'gandasi' etc. has been disbelieved by the learned trial Judge and in my opinion rightly so. The only evidence against them believed by the trial Judge is that they at the instigation of the other miscreants brought buckets of the kerosene oil and sprinkled the same on the doors of the kothas which were set to fire. 22. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that Lachhman is said to be the main abetor to the ladies and when presence of Lachhman has been disbelieved even by the Investigating Agency and no challan has been filed against him, there arises no question of any abetment by Lachhman to the ladies and their bringing the buckets of the kerosene upon such instigation. 23. Lachhman is said to be the main person instigating the ladies. Amarsingh has stated only about Lachhman directing the ladies to bring kerosene. He was not at trial. He has appeared as a defence witness and his absence on the date of occurrence has been proved by him by documentary evidence. Different witnesses have given different version about the presence and overt-acts of the three ladies. 24. Roopchand has stated in the Court about these three ladies having 'Rapdas' and 'gandasi' with them. He could explain the omission of this fact in his police statement Ex D 1 Dhanpati (PW 3) could not explain why the names of Smt. Geeta, Smt. Sheokaurj and Smt. Bhateri are not mentioned in her police statement Ex D. 3. Her attention was also drawn to her police statement where she has not stated about these three ladies bringing kerosene. The witness could not tell the reason. In his statement at the trial Shrichand has stated about Smt. Sheokuri having gandsi and Smt. Geeta and Smt. Bhateri having 'rapdas' whereas in his police statement Ex. D 5 Smt. Sheokauri is said to be having 'rafada' and there is no mention of Smt. Geeta having 'rafada'. Moharsingh has stated in the Court about Smt. Sheokauri inflicting blows with 'gandasi' and Smt. Geeta and Bhateri with 'rapdas' to Ramkaran but this fact does not find place in his police statement Ex. D 6 and the witness could tell the reason for this omission. Moharsingh has stated in the Court about Smt. Sheokauri inflicting blows with 'gandasi' and Smt. Geeta and Bhateri with 'rapdas' to Ramkaran but this fact does not find place in his police statement Ex. D 6 and the witness could tell the reason for this omission. Ramkaran states about Smt. Sheokauri causing injuries to him with 'gandasi' but does not tell about Smt. Geeta and Smt. Bhateri inflicting blows to him with 'rapdas'. In his police statement Ex.P. 14 Manchand has not stated about these three ladies bringing kerosene The witness could not explain this omission. From this type of inconsistant evidence of the witnesses before the police and the court and one witness contradicting the other it would not be safe to hold these lady appellants guilty of any offence. The learned trial Judge has observed that they were residing near the place of occurrence I find myself unable to agree with the learned Judge that the omission about these appellants in the police statement of Roopchand may be because of his being inside and not recollecting because of his injuries. 'This analogy may be applied others also who were inside the kothas and all of them could not know who directed whom to being kerosene. 25. In view of the above discussion, I am inclinded to bold that prosecution could not establish any charge against appellants Smt. Sheokauri, Smt. Geeta and Smt. Bhateri beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, their conviction for the offence under section 436 read with 109 I P.C. is not sustainable. 26. Coming to the sentence awarded to the male appellants for the various offence, all the relevant factors have been taken into consideration by the learned Judge. The fact of there being no specific evidence as to who actually threw Dharampal in the fire and the nature of the injuries caused to him and the parts of the body affected thereby the learned trial Judge has already considered the case not falling within the ambit of Section 302 I.P.C. The individual acts of the appellants have been taken note of in view of the evidence regarding the weapons used by each of them, the statements of the witnesses and corroboration by the medical evidence. Hence there is no ground for any interference with regard to the quantum of sentence., awarded to the male appellants for the various offences. 27. Hence there is no ground for any interference with regard to the quantum of sentence., awarded to the male appellants for the various offences. 27. Consequently, the appeal filed by Smt. Bhateri, Smt. Sheokauri and Smt. Geeta is allowed and they are acquitted of the charge u/s 436/109 of the Indian Penal Code. They are on bail and need not surender to it. Their bail bonds stand discharged. The appeal filed by the remaining appellants viz. Mansingh, Gopi, Sheoprasad, Jhabar, Karansingh, Subesingh, Partap Singh and Dariyasingh is dismissed. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. The Chief Judicial An gistrate, Jhunjhunu shall issue warrants of arrest to effect their arrest and send them to custody to suffer the sentences awarded to them by the trial Court.Order accordingly. *******