JUDGMENT Anand Prasad Sinha, J. Both the appeals arise out or the same judgment and that being so they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All the ten Appellants of Criminal Appeal no. 7 of 1982 have been found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 216 and 353 of the India Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Penal Code), out of whom appellants Muneshwar Mahto alias Bhuneshwar Mahto, Bundi Yadav, alias Bunni Gope, Yadu Yadav, Maho Yadav alias Lal Bahadur Mahto, Shatrughan Mahto and Bairagi Mahto have been sentenced to undergio rigrous imprisonment for two years under section 216 of the Penal Code and the remaining three appellants, namely, Jawahar Mahto, Badri Mahto and Brahmdev Mahto have been released on their furnishing bond of Rs.2000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. Appellant Sadhu Gope of Criminal Appeal No.98 of 1982 has been found guilty for the offences punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. In addition, he has also been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. However the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. It appears that along with the appellants, three more persons were put on trial but they have been acquitted of the charges have been levelled against them. 3. The prosecution, case. briefly stated is that Krishna Prasad (P.W.12) who then happened to be the Officer Incharge of Barh Police station had gone to village Phulelpur within Barh Police station for apprehending appellant Sadhu Gope who was wanted in a dacoity case being Barh P.S. Case No. 24(10)78 of which Sidheshwar Prasad Singh (P.W.11) who is the informant of this Case happened to be the informant and in his house, a dacoit had been committed. At about 4 P.M. Krishna Prasad (P.W.12) along with the two constable Bhuneshwar Mahto (P.W.8) and Tejnandan Singh (P.W.9) and also the informant Sidheshwar Prasad Singh (P.W.11) and his brother Janardan singh (deceased) and many other villagers were chasing appellant Sadhu Gope who in order to escape had entered into the house of appellant Badri Mahto. On seeing the police party, the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1982 started pelting stones and that had caused injuries to Bhuneshwar Mahto and Tej Nandan Singh. At that very moment Sadhu Gope had fired from his rifle which had hit Janardan Singh causing his instantaneous death the fardbeyan was recorded at about 4:45 P.M. of sidheshwar Prasad Singh by Krishna Prasad (P.W.12) and he took up the investigation. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has mainly confined arguments on the appreciation of evidence. Mr. Jagtanand Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. of 1982 has stated that, as a matter of fact, the appellants had been falsely implicated on account of enmity and further it has been stated that there is no firm and clear evidence that they had, in fact participated in the Act, of assault as claimed by the prosecution leading to the charge and conviction under section 216 and 353 of the penal Code. 5. Miss R. Usha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Sadhu Gope, in addition to the appreciation of evidence has argued that appellant Sadhu Gope may not be found guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code because he had never meant to kill Janardhan Singh. 6. I will first proceed to take up the case of appellant Sadhu Gope. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses, namely, Ram Naresh Singh (P.W.1). Shambhu Sharan (P.W.3), Surendra Kumar (P.W. 4), Bhagwan Bishnu Singh (P. W. 6), Deonandan Singh (P.W.7). the injured constable Bhuneshwar Mahto (P.W.8) and the informant Sidheshwar Prasad Singh (P.W.11) that Sadhu Gope bad been chafed and be bad entered into the house of appellant Badri Mahto and then he fired from his rifle causing death of Janardhan Singh instantaneously. The evidence adduced, as indicated above involving the appellant Sadhu Gope with the Act, of killing or janardhan singh could not be dispelled by the force of cross-examination. The evidence adduced, as indicated above involving the appellant Sadhu Gope with the Act, of killing or janardhan singh could not be dispelled by the force of cross-examination. From the evidence of Krishna Prasad (P.W. 12) it appears that the place of occurrence is exactly the same which has been claimed by the prosecution and he himself being the member of the raiding party has further supported the overtact attributed against appellant Sadhu Gope and that could not be substituted by any other material what so ever to have any suspicion and doubt that he allegation attributed against appellants Sadhu Gope is either suspicious or un-acceptable. 7. The contention of the learned counsel that Sadhu Gope had not meant killing of janardan Singh and thus charge under section 302 of the Penal code may not be applicable is not correct. It is because, when the gun had been used and it had been aimed at the crowd, definitely the intention was to kill some one or to cause such bodily injury which would definitely result into death. The strike and when a gun is used it is not necessary at all for an offence under section 302 of the Penal Code that a definite or specific person ought to have been meant for killing. Or course in certain case, a definite Person is meant that he be killed but not necessarily when a definite person is not in the mind, the Act, of killing will not be culpable homicide. Thus when a gun is aimed, fired and the fact and circumstances lead to the conclusion that an intention and knowledge to kill is established on the themes that a striker must know the result of the strike, the killing is murder. A plain reading of section 300 of the penal code explains the situation very clearly. 8. Definitely the intention or Sadhu Gope was that some one be killed, whoever he may be amongst the chasers and that was with that intention either to escape from being apprehended or to Create such a fear and terror that the chasers may be refrained from chasing when be had fired from a rifle, definitely ho had meant killing and under these circumstance, appellant Sadbu Gope is definitely guilty of culpable homicide and rightly he bas been convicted and sentenced under section 302 of the Penal Code 9. The injuries having been caused by fire arm have been perfectly substantiated by the evidence of the Dr. Panchanand Das (P.W.2). He had found the following injury on the person of deceased Janardhan Singh :- "Lacerated injury with scorched - margins on the left side of the skull. The size was 10”x5”. Left temporal bono and nearly whole or the left parietal bone were blown up with expulsion of the brain matter." This is quite consistent with the prosecution case that Janardan Singh had been hit by a bullet and accordingly the charge and allegation of shooting attributed against appellant Sadhu Gope is complete and acceptable 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the allegation of murder and charge under section 302 of Penal Code is valid. 11. Accordingly the appeal of appellant Sidhu Cope has no merit fails and is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence against him under section 302 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, is affirmed. 12. So far the complicity of the order appellants, namely. Muneshwar Mahto alias Bhuneshwar Mahto, Bhuneshwar Yadav, Bundi Yadav, alias Bunni Gope, Yadu Yadav, Maho Yadav, Lal Bahadur Mahto, Lal Bahadur Yadav, Shatrughan Mahto alias Shatrughan Yadav, Bairagi Mahto and Brahamdeo Mahto with the overt Act, of pelting stones, that also appears to be completely established. They had definitely pelted stones upon the raiding party. Three or the appellant, namely Jawahar Yadav, Badri Mahto and Bairagi Mahto alias Bairagi Yadav has been apprehended by the raiding party. The injury caused to constable Bhuneshwar Mahto (P.W. 8) has been examined by Dr. Shankar Prasad Deokulier (P.W. 10) and appears from his evidence that, in fact, Bhuneshwar Mahto had been injured. Similarly, Tej Nandan Singh had been injured and he has been tendered. The evidence of Bhuneshwar Mahto is Firm with respect to fact that he was a member of the raising and chasing party and brick bats etc had been pelted upon them and he had been pelted upon them and he had been injured. These appellants have been named. 13. The evidence of Bhuneshwar Mahto is Firm with respect to fact that he was a member of the raising and chasing party and brick bats etc had been pelted upon them and he had been pelted upon them and he had been injured. These appellants have been named. 13. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the calc and also looking to the allegations put forward, the offence under section 216 of the Penal Code is not applicable It is because, absolutely there is no evidence to indicate that these appellant had knowledge that appellant Sadhu Gope was an accused in a calc or be had escaped from lawful custody or any competent authority bad ordered for his arrest. According to the prosecution case appellant Sadhu Gope while running away bad entered into the house of Badri Mabto and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that appellant Badri Mahto bad knowledge that appellant Sadhu Gope was an absconder or bad escaped from lawful custody and thus it cannot be said that he was harbouring a person. Coupled with this, it would appear that there is no evidence to indicate that appellant Seetlu Gope was in fact, an accused in the dacoity case which had occurred in between the night of 25th and 26th October, 1978 in the house of Sidheahwar Prasad Singh. It was be appreciated that according to the prosecution case he was simply being chased at that time and in absence of any evidence that be bed been taken into custody earlier, it cannot be said that he bad escaped from lawful custody and there was any order of his arrest and these appellants had knowledge that such order of existed against appellant Sadhu Gope. Further from the evidence it appears that probably Sadhu Gope had not been named in that dacoity case and, therefore, the ingredients of section 216 of the Penal Code is not applicable against these appellants. Absolutely, there is no evidence that these appellants Sadhu Gope in Furtherance of that Krishna Prasad and raiding party had been restrained from apprehending Sadhu Gope. Therefore, the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1982 are not found guilty for the offence under section 216 of the Penal Code and charge. 14. Absolutely, there is no evidence that these appellants Sadhu Gope in Furtherance of that Krishna Prasad and raiding party had been restrained from apprehending Sadhu Gope. Therefore, the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1982 are not found guilty for the offence under section 216 of the Penal Code and charge. 14. However, as indicated above, there is consistent and firm evidence that stones and brick bats had been pelted over the raiding party consisting of the officer incharge of Barh Police station and constables have been identified firmly by the informant who been identified firmly by the informant who was competent to identify being known from before. The plea of enmity or alibi does not appear to be of any avail as absolutely the firm evidence regarding the complicity of the appellants in hurling stones etc. could not be dispelled. In this view of the matter, the appellants of Criminal Appeal No.7 of 1982 have been rightly convicted under section 353 of the Penal Code. 15. It appears that appellants Jawahar Yadav, Badri Mahto and Brahamdeo Mahto have been released under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, after furnishing bond of Rs.2000/- for a period of one year. However, we are inclined to consider on the question of sentence with regard to other appellant, as argued by the learned counsel. They have lived in jail for about three months. It appears that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1978 and about seven years have passed since then and also considering the fact that some of them are the members of the same family engaged in cultivation, in our opinion, the ends of justice will be-sufficiently met if they are sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. Accordingly, appellants Nos. 1 to 7 of Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1982 are sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them for the offence under section 353 of the Penal Code. In other words, now they are not required to go Jail again in the instant case. 16. In the result, the appeal or appellant Sadhu Gope i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1982 rails and is dismissed. In other words, now they are not required to go Jail again in the instant case. 16. In the result, the appeal or appellant Sadhu Gope i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1982 rails and is dismissed. The appeal of Muneshwar Mahto alias Bhuneshwar Mahto, Bhuneshwar Yadav, Bundi Yadav, alias Bunni Gope, Yadu Yadav, Maho Yadav alias Lal Bahadur Mahto, Lal Bahadur Yadav, Shatrughan Mahto alias Shatrughan Yadav, Badri Mahto and Brahmdev Mahto i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1982 is also dismissed with modification and sentence, as indicated above. Cr. App, 98/82 dismissed. Or. App. 7/82 dismissed with modification.