JUDGMENT 1. - This is a joint appeal directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Churu dated July 29,1983, by which eleven appellants-Rajendra Singh, Ram Chandra Singh, Mahendra Singh, Udaisingh, Sajjan Singh alias Surjansingh, Siwaisingh, Karnisingh, Man singh Bhanwarsingh, Durjansingh and Sajjansingh s/o Harisingh were convicted under sections 302/149, 307/149, 325/149,323/149, 148 and 447, I.P.C. and were sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1030/- on the first count (under section 392, I.P.C.) and to various terms of imprisonment on the remaining counts, the highest being of seven years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 307/149, I.P.C. The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 12.00 Hours (noon) on September 9, 1980 in Khasra Number 419 (measuring 34.15 Bighas) is Rohi Mauja Dhanaoo district Churu. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Khasra No. 419 is situated in Rohi Mauja Dhandoo in district Churu. It is a Johad (pond) with maltan (catchment area) and was being used by the inhabitants of village Dhanaoo for providing water to their cattle from time simmemorial. However, in the settlement which took place before 1978, the Settlement Department of the State Government entered it in favour of Phoolgiri Goswami and his brothers of village Dhanado in the Settlement Records. The inhabitants of village Dhanoo raised protests and objections against this entry and made representation in writing (Ex P.27) before the Revenue Minister of the State Government. But with no success. The Revenue Officers of the District also raised protests against the said entry made in the Settlement Records. The Naib Tehsildar Rajgarh presented report Ex.P.28 on July 19, 1978 before the Tehsildar for proper action in the matter. The inhabitants of the village presented an application before the Executive Magistrate. Rajgarh to initiate a proceeding under section 145, Cr.P.C. in respect of this Khasra number. The Executive Magistrate directed the police to make an enquiry and submit the report. The police, after enquiry, submitted a report stating therein that since the entry of Khasra Number 419 was wrongly made in favour of Phoolgiri and others in the Settlement Records and the inhabitants of the village were raising protests against it, there was a likelihood of the breach of peace between the two factions. The police, after enquiry, submitted a report stating therein that since the entry of Khasra Number 419 was wrongly made in favour of Phoolgiri and others in the Settlement Records and the inhabitants of the village were raising protests against it, there was a likelihood of the breach of peace between the two factions. The Executive Magistrate drew-up a preliminary order (Ex.P.25) on October 12, 1978 and issued notices to the the both parties to put in their written p statements, in support of their claims over this Khasra along with it finding it to be a case of emergency, and Executive Magistrate took the Khasra under attachment and appointed Tehsildar, Rajgarh as the Receiver. The Khasra 419 was eventually taken under attachment by the Receiver. 3. However, Phoolgiri and his brothers, disregarding the attachment sowed the crop of Gawar in Khasra No. 419 somewhere in July 1980. It is alleged that the"appellants and oher inhabitants of village Dhanaoo (twenty to twenty-five in number) took their cattle (two hundred or two hundred fifty in number) in the noon of September 9, 1980 and drove them in the standing crop of Gawar in Khasra Number 419. The cattle started damaging the standing crop. Phoolgiri (deceased-victim), his sons, brothers and the ladies of the family were there in Khasra No. 419 at that time. They resisted the damaging of their crop by the cattle and started collecting them to drive them away. The appellants and their companions, thereupon opened an assault on Phoolgiri and the other members of his family. Appellant Sawai Singh had a Barchhi and Karnisingh had a knife. Kishoresingh (acquitted accused) had a Joyee and Ramkishan (Acquitted accused) had Jelly. The rest had lathies. The appellants and their companions struck blows to Phoolgiri, Parwati (PW 1), Mst. Raj Kaur (PW 3), Rajveer (PW 4), Kalpergiri (PW 5), Magiram (PW 7). Mst. Paiwati (PW II) Dileepgiri (PWI4)and Ugmuam (PW 15) with the weapons they had with them. The beating resulted in multiples injuries to Phoolgiri and the above persons of the complainant party Some of the injuries were severe Phoolgiri left the place and ran for protection, but he fell down in a field nearby. He did not survive and passed away instantaneously on the spot. Before he fell down, his nephew Rajveer (PW4) left the place and went to Police Station. He did not survive and passed away instantaneously on the spot. Before he fell down, his nephew Rajveer (PW4) left the place and went to Police Station. Rajgarh, where he verbally lodged report Ex.P. 1 of the occurrence at about 7.00 P.M. on the same day. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The station House Officer Ramsingh (PW 21) arrived on the spot on September 10, 1980. Before that he was informed about the death of Phoolgiri. Section 302. I.P.C. was, therefore, added. The Station House Officer prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Pooolgiri inspected the site and prepared the site plan He also seized and sealed the blood-stained soil from the site. The post mortem examination of the deadbody of Phoolgiri was conducted on September 10, 1980 by PW 19 Dr. B. K. Deora the then Medical Officer Incharge Government Hospital, Churu. The post-mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex.P.32. In his opinion, the cause of death of Phoolgiri was internal haemorrhage and head injury. He also examined the injuries of the person of Raj Kaur, Maniram. Ugmiram, Dileepgiri, Kripalgiri, Mst. Parwati W/o Kripalgiri and Mst, Parwati W/o Ramswaroop. The injury reports prepared by him are Ex P 33, Ex.P.36. Ex.P.38, Ex.P.40, Ex.P.4', Ex P 42 and Ex.P.43. The injuries of Rajveer were examined by Dr. Megbsingh (PW20) and he prepared injury report Ex P 44 The x-ray examination of the injuries of the injured persons was made by PW 24 Dr Verma. The x-ray examination revealed that some of the injured persons had received grievous injuries being the fractures of bones. The appellants and their companions were rounded up. In consequence of the information furnished by them, some lathies and other weapons were recovered. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the appellants and twelve others persons in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, who, in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 325/149, 326/149, 323/149 and 447, I.P.C. Against all of them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The defence taken up by some of the appellants and others w-as that of complete denial and alibi. The Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 325/149, 326/149, 323/149 and 447, I.P.C. Against all of them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The defence taken up by some of the appellants and others w-as that of complete denial and alibi. It was alleged by some of them in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. that Khasra No 419 was under attachment and the complainant party had unlawfully cultivated it. On the day of incident they took their cattle to the pond for providing water to them.The cattle, being huge in number, stranded and entered Khasra No. 419. when they tried to collect the cattle to take them out of Khasra No 419, the members of the complainant party made an assault on them, and gave severe beatings to some of them. A report of the occurrence was lodged by one of them at Police Station, Rajgarh. The Police registered a case but took sides with the members of the complainant party and hushed up the matter. They denied that they had inflicted any injury to the deceased Phoolgiri or the other injured persons of the complainant party. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses and filed a number of documents. In defence, the accused also filed numerous documents and examined one witness Malchand (PW 1)- the Revenue Inspector in Tehsil Rajgarh. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found no incriminating material for any offence against twelve accused Ramkishan, Kishoresingh, Indersingh, Bhadersingh, Mahaveer, Bhabhootsingh Hawasingh. Amarsingh, Kishna, Amra, Sultan and Omsingh. They were consequently acquitted of the offences they were charged with. The charges against the appellants, were, however, held duly proved. They were consequently convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Aggrieved against their convictions and sentences, the appellants have taken this joint appeal. 6. We have heard M/s. S.R. Singhi and Suresh Kumbhat learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Gautam Mal Bhandari-learned Public Prosecutor for the State. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 7. Mr. Singhi, who mainly argued the case, did not challenge the cause of death of Phoolgiri and the number and nature of injuries found on the person of of eight injured victims. We have, also, carefully read the evidence of PW19 Dr. Deora, PW20, Dr. Meghsingh and PW24 Dr. Verma. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 7. Mr. Singhi, who mainly argued the case, did not challenge the cause of death of Phoolgiri and the number and nature of injuries found on the person of of eight injured victims. We have, also, carefully read the evidence of PW19 Dr. Deora, PW20, Dr. Meghsingh and PW24 Dr. Verma. We find no reasons of whatsoever nature to distrust the testimonies of these three doctors. The death of Phoolgiri was thus, not natural but homicidal. The other eight injured victims sustained multiple injuries, some of which were grievous in nature being the fracture of bones. 8. In assailing the conviction of the appellants, Mr. Singhi raised the the following contentions:- (1) Appellant Karni Singh has been wrongly convicted. Even if his presence is accepted on the scene of occurrence, he was merely a bye-stander. He should, therefore, be acquitted; (2) The possession of the complainant party over Khasra number 419 was unauthorised and unlawful because it was already under attachment. The sowing of the Gawar crop in it by the complainant party, thus, being unlawful, the members of the complainant party had no right to defend their possession and to drive away the cattle of the appellants and other acquitted accused persons; (3) It is a case of free fight where members of both the parties wielded weapons. Being a case of free fight, no unlawful assembly can be said to have been forged. As such the conviction of the appellants under section 147 and 302/149, I.P.C. is bad and unsustainable; and (4) Even if it is assumed or taken as proved that the appellants inflicted blows to the deceased victim Phoolgiri and eight other injured victims, the offence made out is neither covered by section 302 nor by section 307, I.P.C. The Sessions Judge was not correct in recording a finding that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder or to commit an attempt to murder. The offence made out does not travel beyond section 325, I.P.C. 9. Combating these contentions, it was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the possession of the complainant party over Khasra No. 419 may be unlawful or unauthorised but the fact remains that it were they who had sown the Gawar crop in it somewhere in July, 1980. The offence made out does not travel beyond section 325, I.P.C. 9. Combating these contentions, it was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the possession of the complainant party over Khasra No. 419 may be unlawful or unauthorised but the fact remains that it were they who had sown the Gawar crop in it somewhere in July, 1980. It is, therefore, a case of settled possession and the appellants had no right to drive their cattle to damage the standing crop of the complainant party. The members of the complainant party had a right to defend their possession and crop. The appellants had, therefore, no right to open an onslaught on the members of the complainant party. Since the injuries inflicted on Phoolgiri were numerous, it can be safely gathered that the object of the unlawful assembly, constituted by the appellants, was to commit murder. Appellant Karni Singh was there with the members of the unlawful assembly and his presence on the site should not be taken to be innocent as that of a bye-stander. The conviction of the appellants under sections 302 and 307 with the aid of section 149, I.P.C. and for various other offences is therefore perfectly justified and they were rightly convicted. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised before us and propose to dispose of them at seriatim.Re : 1-Accused Karni Singh : 10. The contention of Mr. Singhi is that accused Karni Singh has been wrongly convicted for the various offences. It was argued that according to prosecution, he had a knife and was a member of the unlawful assembly. It was argued that there is no prosecution evidence to show that he wielded the knife and indicted blow with it on any of the victims. The contention not is without force. 11. We have carefully gone through the statements of the eight injured victims and the other eye-witnesses PW 2 Mst. Vinod, PW 10 Om Prakash, PW 12 Mst. Chandgi and PW 16 Phadar. Except PW 4 Rajveer and PW 14 Dileepgiri, none the stated that accused Karni Singh had a knife. The testimony of Rajveer (PW 4) and Dileepgiri (PW 14) is also haulting aid vague on the point. PW 4 Rajveer did not state that accused Karni Singh used the knife and caused injury to any of the victims. According to Dr. Except PW 4 Rajveer and PW 14 Dileepgiri, none the stated that accused Karni Singh had a knife. The testimony of Rajveer (PW 4) and Dileepgiri (PW 14) is also haulting aid vague on the point. PW 4 Rajveer did not state that accused Karni Singh used the knife and caused injury to any of the victims. According to Dr. Deora (PW 19) only can decided wound was found on the dead body of Phoolgiri which was caused by some sharp-edged weapon. No injury to any other victim caused by sharp-edged weapon was noticed. According to PW 14 Dileepgiri, accused Sawai Singh had a Barchhi and it was accused Sawaisingh who struck a blow of his Barchhi to the deceased victim Phoolgiri. As such, it is accused Sawaisingh who is the author of the incised wound found on the body of the deceased-victim Phoolgiri, in his statement Ex. D.15 recorded under section 161, Cr. P.C., he did not state that accused Karni Singh had a knife with him. The position, therefore, emerges is that only one incised wound by Barchhi was caused to the deceased-victim, of which the author is accused Sawai Singh. No injury by any sharp-edged weapon was caused to any other injured victim. This leads to the conclusion that accused Karnisingh did not yield the knife and inflicted injury to none of the victims. His position is, thus, no different from those accused persons who have been acquitted by the trial Court. In the circumstances of the case, even if his presence is taken at the site, his presence is not sufficient to make him a member of the unlawful assembly. No overt-act like that of exhortation, investigation etc. has been attributed to him. His position is, therefore, of a silent bye-stander. His case stands at par with those who have been acquitted by the Sessions Judge. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the conviction of accused Karni singh is unsustainable and should be set-aside. He is entitled to acquittal.Re : 2 Possession of Khasra No. 419 - 12. Coming to the question of possession, it was argued by Mr. Singhi that the Court below crept into an error in holding that the possession of Khasra No. 419 was with the complainant party. It was argued that this Khasra was taken under attachment in a proceeding under section 145, Cr. Coming to the question of possession, it was argued by Mr. Singhi that the Court below crept into an error in holding that the possession of Khasra No. 419 was with the complainant party. It was argued that this Khasra was taken under attachment in a proceeding under section 145, Cr. P.C in pursuance to an order passed by the Executive Magistrate long back in 1978. The members of the complainant party disregarded this attachment and unlawfully sowed the crop in it. The possession of the complainant party was, thus, no possession in the eye of law. If the complainant party was not in possession of Khasra No. 419. no offence of trespass punishable under section 447, I.P.C. can be said to have been committed. 13. The contention raised by Mr. Singhi is no doubt attractive but renders no help to him It is true that Khasra No. 419 was a Johad and the inhabitants of village Dhandoo, including the appellants, used this johad for providing water to their cattle. When this johad was entered in the Settlement Records in favour of the complainant party, the inhabitants of the village raised objections and protests against it. They addressed the representation Ex. P 27 in writing to the Revenue Minister. It is also true that the Sub Divisional Officer had issued temporary injunction Ex. P 28 asking the concerned parties to keep status quo. The matter did not end there. Naib Tehsildar submitted report EX. P. 28 on July 19, 1978 to the Tehsildar mentioning therein that Khasra No. 419 was a Johad and had never been under cultivation. The Tehsildar forwarded it to the Sub-Divisional Officer. On July 20, 1978, the Naib Tehsildar visited the spot and prepared report EX. P. 26. He directed the members of the complainant part) not to trespass over it. All this proved futile. The inhabitants moved the Executive Magistrate to initiate an inquiry under section 145. Cr. P. C. The Executive Magistrate, by his order (EX. P. 29) dated October 12, 1978 drew up a preliminary order and thereafter attached Khasra No. 419 and appointed the Tehsildar as the Receiver. The effect of the order of attachment under section 146, Cr. The inhabitants moved the Executive Magistrate to initiate an inquiry under section 145. Cr. P. C. The Executive Magistrate, by his order (EX. P. 29) dated October 12, 1978 drew up a preliminary order and thereafter attached Khasra No. 419 and appointed the Tehsildar as the Receiver. The effect of the order of attachment under section 146, Cr. P. C. was that Khasra No. 419 did not remain in possession of the complainant party and was placed into custodia legis However, the members of the complainant party disregarded this attachment and sowed the crop somewhere in July. 1980 The crop had sufficiently grown and was standing on the day of occurrence. Though the sowing of the crop by the complainant party was unauthorised and unlawful, the fact remains that they were in possession of Khasra No. 419. The possession of the complainant party had, thus, ripened into settled possession on September 9,1980. The possession of the complainant party may be unlawful, but theirs was a settled possession in the eye of law. A party, even if trespasser, is entitled to protect its possession provided it has been in peaceful and continued possession for reasonable time so as to make its possession settled possession in the eye of Law. The trespass of the complainant party, over khasra No. 419 was not recent on September 9, 1980 when the incident took place. Their possession was a settled possession. The complainant party, therefore, had a right to defend its possession and the standing crop sown by it. The appellants had, therefore, no right to drive their cattle in the standing crop sown in Khasra No. 419 by the complainant party. The appellants, by driving the cattle into Khasra No. 419 committed the offence of criminal trespass punishable under section 447, IPC. We may reiterate that the question of possession over Khasra No. 419 is of paramount importance in the instant case. The complainant party, though trespasser, its possession over Khasra No. 419 had ripened into settled possession.Re : 3 Free fight- 14. It was contended by Mr. Singhi that since the possession of the complainant party over Khasra No. 419 was unlawful and both the sides i. e. the complainant party and the accused wielded weapons and members of both the parties sustained injuries, it should be taken to be a case of free fight. It was contended by Mr. Singhi that since the possession of the complainant party over Khasra No. 419 was unlawful and both the sides i. e. the complainant party and the accused wielded weapons and members of both the parties sustained injuries, it should be taken to be a case of free fight. In a case of free fight, there is no common object so as to make the group of one party as an unlawful assembly. It was argued that sections 147 and 149, I.P.C. had, therefore, ho applicability. 15. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission and find ho substance in it. It is not a case of free fight. We have held above under Re. 2 that the possession of the complaint party over Khasra No. 419 was a settled possession. The complainant party had sown the crop long before the incident. Since the complainant party was in settled possession of Khasra No 419, they had a right to defend their possession, however unlawful it may be. We are quite conscious that the enforcing a right of possession and defending a right of possession are quite different and distinct matters. If the complainant party was simply enforcing their right of possession, the matter could have taken another shape. But when its possession was a settled possession in the eye of law they had every fight to defend their possession. It is not a case where the Complainant party was enforcing a right of possession. It is a case of the Complainant party's defending a right of possession. When there is a case of deciding a right of possession, the question of free fight does not arise. The concept of free fight applies that both the sides are determined to fight from the start, challenge each other to fight and there is a pitched battle. But there can be no question of free fight in a case where one of the parties is in settled possession of the property in dispute. It is true that in a free fight there is no common object so as to render an assembly to be an unlawful assembly. Here in the instant case, the complainant party had a right to defend its possession over Khasra No. 419 by virtue of their settled possession over it. It is true that in a free fight there is no common object so as to render an assembly to be an unlawful assembly. Here in the instant case, the complainant party had a right to defend its possession over Khasra No. 419 by virtue of their settled possession over it. If the appellants drove the cattle, the complainant party had a right to drive away the cattle from Khasra No. 419. In doing so, they defended their right of possession. The accused party had no right to take-up are and strike blows to the members of the complainant party. The accused were the clear aggressors. Merely because some of the accused sustained injuries, it cannot be taken to be a case of free fight. We have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling the contention of Mr. Singh. In our considered opinion, it is not of free fight. The appellants by entering Khasra No. 419 and by driving their cattle in it committed the offence of unlawful assembly and criminal trespass. They were, therefore, rightly convicted under sections 148 and 447 of the Penal Code.Re : 4 offence made out - 16. The last question which now survives for consideration is as to what offence the appellants have committed? It was strenuously contended by Mr. Singhi that the complainant party was in unlawful possession of Khasra No.419. It had disregarded the attachment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and had illegally raised Gawar crop in it. The appellants being the inhabitants of village Dhandoo naturally felt annoyed and grieved. They drove their cattle to destroy the crop. If in this process violence was used by the appellants, it cannot be said that they had formed a common objects to kill any member of the complaint party. Some of the appellants had Barchhies and knives. Only one injury by Barchhi was inflicted. If the accused had a common object to commit murder, it was expected that Barchhies and Knives were freely used. The offence, therefore ,does not travel beyond section 325, IPC. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on State of Haryana v. Prabhu & others and Shambhunath Singh and others v. State of Bihar . The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, is that numerous blows were inflicted by the appellants to the deceased-victim Phoolgiri. The offence, therefore ,does not travel beyond section 325, IPC. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on State of Haryana v. Prabhu & others and Shambhunath Singh and others v. State of Bihar . The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, is that numerous blows were inflicted by the appellants to the deceased-victim Phoolgiri. It should, therefore, be inferred that the common object of the unlawful assembly constituted by the appellants was to commit murder. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions and we are of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are not without force. 17. The question whether an unlawful assembly was formed and what exactly was the common object of that assembly, is generally inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, as discussed earlier, though the complainant party was in settled possession of Khasra No. 419 their possession was unlawful. Khasra No. 419 was under attachment since long and remained under attachment on the day incident. Since the complainant party had disregarded the attachment and had unlawfully raised the crop therein, it was natural for the appellants to get annoyed. They drove nearly 200 to 250 cattle in Khasra No. 419 in order to destroy the standing crop therein. Nobody goes to commit murder with such a huge number of cattle. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the common object of the assembly was to commit the murder. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, what can be easily discorned is that the common object of the unlawful assembly constituted by the appellants was to commit trespass and to beat those who resisted the damaging of the crop. The common object, which can be attributed to the unlawful assembly, in the light of the circumstances discussed above, was only to cause grievous hurt and nothing further. The offence made out resulting from the death of Phoolgiri, thus, falls under section 325/149, I.P.C. The conviction of the appellants under sections 302/149 and 307/149, I.P.C. is bad and cannot be sustained. It would be useful to mention here that the appellants have also been convicted under section 325/149. I.P.C. We, therefore, set aside their conviction under section 302/149 and 307/149, but maintain their conviction under section 325/149, I.P.C. 18. It would be useful to mention here that the appellants have also been convicted under section 325/149. I.P.C. We, therefore, set aside their conviction under section 302/149 and 307/149, but maintain their conviction under section 325/149, I.P.C. 18. We may now take up the question of sentence. The age of accused Bhanwar Singh has been shown as sixty-five pears in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. He must be now seventy years old by this time. The age of accused Udaisingh has been shown fifty-five years in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. He is, thus, sixty years in age now. The age of accused Sajjansingh alias Surjansingh S/o Maghsingh, in his arrest memo, has been shown as twenty-one years. The age of accused Mansingh, as shown in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. is twenty two years. Looking to the advance age of accused Bhanwar Singh and Udaisingh and the young age of accused Sajjansingh alias Surjansingh and Mansingh, it would not be proper to send them again in Jail. No previous conviction stand at their discredit, we are, therefore, incline to extend the benefit of Probation of Good Conduct to them under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, each of them should pay a sum of Rs. 1000,/-(rupees one thousand only) as compensation to the heirs of the deceased Phoolgiri. 19. No interference in the sentence of other appellants is called for.In the result- (1) The appeal of accused Karni Singh is hereby allowed. His convictions and sentences for the various offences are set aside and he is quited. He is already on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled; (2) the appeal of the remaining appellants Rajendrasingh, Ramchandra Singh, Mahendra Singh, Udaisingh, Sajjan Singh alias Surjansingh, Sawaisingh, Mansingh, Bhanwarsingh, Durjansingh and Sajjan singh S/o Harisingh is partly allowed. Their convictions and sentence under section 302/149 and 307/149, I.P.C are set-aside. Their conviction for the remaining offences, namely, under sections 148, 447, 323/149 and 325/149 is maintained; (3) the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded by the court below to appellants Ramchandra Singh, Mahindra Singh, Sawai Singh, Sajjan Singh s/o Harisingh, Durjan Singh and Rajendra Singh under sections 148, 447, 323/149 and 325/149 I.P.C. are maintained. Their conviction for the remaining offences, namely, under sections 148, 447, 323/149 and 325/149 is maintained; (3) the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded by the court below to appellants Ramchandra Singh, Mahindra Singh, Sawai Singh, Sajjan Singh s/o Harisingh, Durjan Singh and Rajendra Singh under sections 148, 447, 323/149 and 325/149 I.P.C. are maintained. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently; (4) accused Ramchandra Singh, Mahendra Singh and Sawai Singh are in custody since September, 1980. In case they have served out the full term of their sentences, they shall be immediately set forth at liberty if not wanted in any other case; (5) accused Sajjansingh S/o Harisingh, Durjan Singh and Rajendra Singh were on bail during the pendency of appeal. They are directed to surrender themselves within a month before the Sessions Judge, Churu to serve out the unexpired portion of their sentences. In case they fail to surrender within the aforesaid period, the sessions Judge, Churu shall proceed against them in accordance with law; and (6) Instead of sentencing accused Bhanwarsingh, Surjansing alias Sajjansingh S/o Meghsingh, Mansingh and Udaisingh to any punishment, we hereby direct that each of them will be released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his entering into a bond in a sum of Rs. 3000/- together with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Churu to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of two years and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. They are allowed one month's time to submit the aforesaid bonds. Each of them will deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand only) as compensation under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Churu within one month. The amount so deposited shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased Phoolgiri. In case any of them fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the time allowed, the Sessions Judge will proceed against him according to law. The appeal shall accordingly stand disposed of. Order accordingly. *******