JUDGMENT 1. - There was some longstanding dispute about land between the accused appellants Keshra and other on the one hand and Shankerlai and Sadasukh on the other side. A few years before the present incident Sadasukh and his son Devilal had been murdered and Mukhtiyarsingh and Malkiyatsingh uncle and father respectively of Paramjeet Kaur, the first informant, were being tried in connection with those murders. 2. On 18.7.1980 in the morning Paramjeetkaur d/o Malkiyatsingh resident of 82 L.N.P. along with her maternal grand-father Malsingh and maternal grandmother Nihalkaur as also one Tehalsingh a distant relation of Malsingh had left 82 LNP for 78 LNP in order to get a bus for Ganganagar from 78 LNP bus Stand. It is alleged that they boarded a bus for Shri Ganganagar from 7s L.N.P. and when the bus had gone a little distance from the but stand the accused persons Keshra, Om Prakash, Kiniya, Bhomla and Langaria all residents of 82 L.N.P. alongwith some 5 or 10 other persons who have not been named came on the way and got the but stopped. They were armed with fore guns and pistols and when the passengers of the bus got down these persons started tiring at Paramjeetkaur. Malsingh, Nihalkaur and Tehalsingh. Paramjeetkaur received gunshot injury on her belly and according to her Malsingh, and Nihalkaur as also Tehalsingh received gun shot injuries. The other passengers of the bus alongwith the driver and conductor ran away Tehalsingh also fled away from the spot. The accused persons are said to have followed Tehalsingh. When these persons had thus left the spot the driver and the conductor of the bus came back and took the injured Paramjitkaur, Malsingh and Nihalkaur to Ridamalsar Police out-post. There Paramjitkaur lodged a verbal report at 9 a.m., A case under sections 147 .48, la9 307 I.P.C. and under sections 25 and 27 Arms Act appeared to be made. Out and therefore the report lodged by Paramjeetkaur was sent to police station Ghan.udwali where the case under the aforesaid sections was registered. 3. It appears that P.W. 16 Laxmansingh S.H.O. Ghamudwali was at that time at Ganganagar in connection with some duty. On receiving message of this incident he alongwith Addl. Out and therefore the report lodged by Paramjeetkaur was sent to police station Ghan.udwali where the case under the aforesaid sections was registered. 3. It appears that P.W. 16 Laxmansingh S.H.O. Ghamudwali was at that time at Ganganagar in connection with some duty. On receiving message of this incident he alongwith Addl. S, P , Ganganagar reached the spot and by that time the in-charge of the police station had also reached the spot, Shri Laxmansingh found the dead body of Tehalsingh lying in Kila No. 14 of Sq no. 15 of 78 L.N.P. He got the inquest report prepared vide Ex- P-24 as also a memo Ex. 25. He also took the cash and ornaments (Murki) and safe of the deceased in his possession vide Ex.P. 27 Site was also inspected by him and certain empties and wads found lying near the spot were also taken in possession. Post mortem examination of the dead body of Tehalsingh was got conducted and thereafter the accused persons were arrested Certain recoveries are said to have been made at the instance of some of the accused persons to which reference will be made as & when necessary. After completion of the investigation challan for the aforesaid offences were filed against 12 accused persons including the present appellants. They were committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar. Charges under sections 120-B, 302 302/149, 307, 307/149, 148 I.P.C. and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were framed against Keshra, Krishna, Omprakash, Prithvi, Thanaram, Dilip and Karnailsingh whereas charges under sec 120-B.02/149.307,307/149,148 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act were framed against Bhomla, Bhoopram, Ramswaroop, Hanuman and Puranram It may be stated here that initially a case was registered under sections 307 and others only but when the Superintendent of Police with Shri Laxmansingh had reached the spot and found Tehalsingh dead, the case had been converted under sections 302 and 302/149 I.P.C. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 20 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused maintained their denial of the incident in their statements under sections 3)3 Cr P.C and alleged that they had falsely been implicated on account of the animosity but they did not produce any evidence in defence. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 20 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused maintained their denial of the incident in their statements under sections 3)3 Cr P.C and alleged that they had falsely been implicated on account of the animosity but they did not produce any evidence in defence. 5. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused persons, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar convicted Thanaram, Prithvi, Omprakash and Krishan under section 25(1) of the Arms Act, he further convicted accused Keshra under section 27 of the Arms Act. he also convicted Keshra and Omprakash u/sec- 302, and 307/34 I.P.C. The other accused Hanuman, Bhomla, Bhoopram, Karnailsingh, Dilip. Ramswaroop and Puranaram were acquitted. He sentenced Kashra and Omprakash to imprisonment for life for offence under sections 302/34 I.P.C. however he did not pass any separate sentence for offence under section 307/34 I.P.C. against both of them in view of the fact that they had already been sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 30 /34 I.P.C. He further sentenced Keshra to two years rigorous imprisonment on each of two counts under section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act Omprakash was also sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and the accused Prithvi was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under section 25 of the Arms Act only. 6. Aggrieved of these convictions and sentences, all three appellants; Keshra, Omprakash and Prithvi filed this appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record. It may at once be stated that so far as the convictions of the appellants Keshra and Omprakash under sections 307/34 I.P.C. are concerned the learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged them. He has also not challenged the convictions of all the three appellants under the Indian Arms Act sections 25 or 27. He has only urged that offence under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. is not made out against Kesnra and Omprakash, therefore, they should be acquitted of these charges and so far as the offences under sections 25 or 27 of the Arms Act are concerned he has only prayed that the sentences be reduced. 8. He has only urged that offence under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. is not made out against Kesnra and Omprakash, therefore, they should be acquitted of these charges and so far as the offences under sections 25 or 27 of the Arms Act are concerned he has only prayed that the sentences be reduced. 8. As already stated above although the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants Keshra and Omprakash under section 307/34 I.P.C. he has not passed any operate sentence for this offence on the ground that the sentence of imprisonment for life had already been passed against them under section 302/34 I.P.C. We were of the opinion that if conviction under section 307/34 I.P.C. was recorded a separate sentence ought to have been passed and the may have been made to run concurrently with the sentence u/section 302 I.P.C. Since this was not done we issued notice to the learned counsel or the appellants to show cause why a separate sentence may not be awarded for offence under section 307/ 34 I.P.C. if the conviction of the appellants under that section is maintained. Shri M.L. Garg accepted this notice and frankly conceded that a separate sentence ought to have been passed. 9. Since the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants Keshra and Omprakash is that their conviction under section 302/34 I.P.C. cannot be maintained, we have to concentrate upon his part of the case only. The prosecution story with regard to the murder of Tehalsingh has been unfolded by P.W. 1 Paramjokaur and P.W. 2 Malsingh, Paramjitkaur has stated that when the accused persons got the bus stopped they asked that residents of 82 L.N.P. should get down from the bus but when he passengers did not get down they asked all the passengers to come down from the bus When all those passengers came down and the accused saw Paramjitkaur and others they cried out that the severe the enemies and started firing of them According to her it was Keshra accused who had fired at her hiting her in the chest. She then states that her Nana and Nani that is Malsingh and Nihalkaur had also received injuries but Tehalsingh ran away from the spot and the accused went in his pursuit She however does not state that she had seen any injury being caused to Tehalsingh nor does she know what had really happened to him after he had run away from the spot. It may also be stated that she has not specifically named the accused on had run after Tehalsingh and therefore from her statement it cannot be ascertained as to which of the accused had run after Tehalsingh and whether any one of them had caused him injuries resulting into his death. Similarly Malsingh also merely states that after opening fire and causing injuries to Paramjitkaur as also to himself and his wife the accused had run after Tehalsingh who had filed from the spot but he also does not name the persons who had run after Tehalsingh and only gives an omni bus statement that those accused had run after Tehalsingh. There is no other direct evidence with regard to the fact of the injuries being caused to Tehalsingh. From the statement of Paramjitkaur as also Malsingh it does not appear that they bad seen all the accused persons or some of them at least reaching right upto Tehalsingh and causing him injuries, therefore, the possibility that when Tehalsingh escaped from the spot and ran away for safety the accused persons may also have run away out of fear after causing injuries to Paramjitkaur, Malsingh and Nihalkaur and it cannot necessarily be concluded that they had run in pursuit of Tehalsingh Further, even if it is assumed that some of the accused persons ran after Tehalsingh then it is not known which of the accused has thus ran after Tehalsingh. Further, possibility that even if some of them had run after Tehalsingh a few of them may have given up the idea of pursuing him and may have stayed back also cannot be ruled out. Further, possibility that even if some of them had run after Tehalsingh a few of them may have given up the idea of pursuing him and may have stayed back also cannot be ruled out. It may be stated here that according to Paramjitkaur and Malsingh this incident bad taken place initially at a little distance from the bus stand of 78 L.N.P. A perusal of the site plan and the site inspection note would go to show that as a matter of fact the incident with Paramjitkaur, Malsingh and Nihalkaur must have taken place on the boarder of Sq. no. 14 and 15 as blood was found lying at spot E in kila no. 1 of sq 15 and an empty was also lying at place`Nin Kila no. 1. So also a was at spot `M and another piece of cartridge was found at spot 'L in Kila no 1 where as the dead body of Tehalsingh was found at spot X in kila no. 14. which is at a long distance from kila no. 1 of Sq. No. 15. It has not been stated by any of the eye-witnesses that the place X where the dead body of Tehalsingh had fallen was (visible from the Boarder of Sq. 14 and 15 or in any case from kila no. 1 of Sq. no. 15. It will no' be out of place here to mention that in the F.I.R. Paramjitkaur had stated that Tehalsingh had also received injuries at the time when she herself as also Malsingh and Nihalkaur had received injuries but, she does not state so before the Court and therefore it must be taken that Tehalsingh had not been injured while he was in the Company of Paramjitkaur, Malsingh and Nihalkaur, He must therefore have been injured later while he was in kila no. 14 of Sq no. 15 and there is no evidence before the Court to show that he had been injured by any one of these accused appellants or their associates. It will also be worth while to point out that in between kila no. 1 and kila no 14 of Sq no.15 neither there is any trail of blood nor any other incriminating article has been found except a live cartridge of 3 knot 3 in Kila no. 9 which is adjacent to kila no. 1 but is away from kila no. 1 and kila no 14 of Sq no.15 neither there is any trail of blood nor any other incriminating article has been found except a live cartridge of 3 knot 3 in Kila no. 9 which is adjacent to kila no. 1 but is away from kila no. 14 and in this state of affairs it will be difficult to come to the conclusion that the accused persons who had got the bus stopped and bad caused injuries to Paramjitkaur, Malsingh and Nihalkaur had really followed Tehalsingh up to kila no 14 and had caused him injuries. 10. The matter does not rest here as stated above the dispute was between Keshra and the other accused persons on the one hand with Shankarlal, Sadasukh and others on the other. They had not direct enmity with Tehalsingh who was no even a near relation of any of Malkiyatsingh etc. Even at the time when tie bus was got stopped, according to the prosecution the accused had asked only the residents of 82 L.N.P. to come down but Tehalsingh was not a resident of 82 L.N.P. or a close relation or associate of any of the resident of 82 L.N.P. Paramjitkaur of course is the daughter of Malkiyatringh and they may have some grouse against her being the daughter of Malkiyatsingh and also against Malsingh and Nihalkaur who were father-in-law and mother-in-law of Malkiyatsingh but they could not have any grouse against Tehalsingh who was a distant relation of Milkiyatsingh and therefore when he had on away from the spot the accused need nit necessarily have followed him with the intention of killing him. Tehalsingh was the resident of a village about 150 miles away from 82 L.N.P. as has been admitted by Paramjitkaur herself. 11. Another set of evidence place before the court is by way of the statements of P.W. 4 Chhindarsingh and P.W. 12 Dayalsingh. These two witnesses have stated that on the day of this incident at about 8.30 or 8.40 a.m. when they were in their fields Keshra, Omprakash, Krishan, Karnailsingh. Prithvi, Thanaram and Dilip came there armed with guns & distoles and Keshra told them that they had already killed four of their persons at 78 L.N.P. and asked Chhindersingh to bring their bodies. Prithvi, Thanaram and Dilip came there armed with guns & distoles and Keshra told them that they had already killed four of their persons at 78 L.N.P. and asked Chhindersingh to bring their bodies. Chhindersingh also states that those accused had also told him that he also would not be spared & had fired at him and on this threat he ran away and went to village Dhola where he stayed for 8 days and later disclosed this fact to the police. Dayalsingh P.W. 12 however states that when the accused persons themselves told Chhindersingh that they had killed four of their persons he went to 78 L.N.P. alongwith Surjitkaur, Nasheebkaur, Triloksingh, Nakshtrasingh, Balvindersingh and a poon of Court on a tractor and he found the dead body of Tehalsingh lying about 2 kms away from the road. He stayed there near the dead body and the others went away and by that time police had also arrived at the spot. Now so far as this evidence is concerned the statement of Chhindersingh P.W. 4 does not inspire confidence at all inasmuch as he appears to be highly inimical towards the accused persons He admits that a case for firing a firearm at Bhomla is going on against his father He also admits enmity with the accused party for the last about 6-7 years father in the court, of course he states that Keshra called out that they had murdered four of his persons but before the police he does not name Keshra and only gives a omnibus statement vide Ex. P 3 and when confronted with this he could not give any satisfactory explanation. Then his conduct appears to be most unnatural. P 3 and when confronted with this he could not give any satisfactory explanation. Then his conduct appears to be most unnatural. After having come to know through the accused persons themselves about the murder of four of his men he does go to the spot in order to verify the facts but proceeds to village Dhaba and stayed there for eight days without informing the police He, of course, says that he had disclosed this fact to one Bahadursingh in whose jeep he had gone to village Dhaba but this Bahadursingh did not come forward to corroborate him He was examined by police on 27.7.1980 after about 9 days of the incident In the court he states that he stayed at Dhaba for eight days but in his statement Ex-P-3 in portion C to D he had stated that he had come to his village only after two or three days If that was so there was no reason for him to not to inform the police of the fact that the accused persons had come to him and had told him that they had killed four of his persons and in these circumstances were not inclined to rely upon him at all. 12. So far as Dayalsingh P.W. 12 is concerned he only states to have heard Keshra telling Chhindersingh that four of his persons had been murdered by them, whereupon Chhindersingh ran away towards the village Dhaba and this witness came to 82 L.N.P. from where he had taken Surjitkaur, Nasheebkaur, Triloksingh, Nakshtrasingh. Balvindersingh and a peon of Court and came to 78 L.N.P. Name of these witnesses have however come forward to corroborate him. This witnesses is of ?course a motbir to various memos prepared by the police therefore it appears that he had of course came to the spot after the police bad reached but in the absence of any corroboration independent of the statement of Chhindersingh about the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused persons he cannot be relied upon. 13. 13. So far as the evidence of these two witnesses is concerned it is further of no consequence is as much as according to them Keshra had stated that they had killed four of their persons and asked Chhindersingh to collect their dead bodies but as a matter of fact four murders had not taken place at all Paramjitkaur, Malsingh and Nihalkaur had only received injuries and were very much alive, only Tehalsingh was later found to be dead. It is also important t o point out that these witnesses do not state that Keshra or his companion had told Chhindersingh specifically that they had killed Tehalsingh, .therefore, according to us this evidence does not at all inspire confidence and it cannot be of no avail to the prosecution. 14. Another set of evidence consists of the statements of P.W. 14 Ishar Singh and P.W. 15 Hari Ram. According to these witnesses they had been deputed on guard duty at 82 L.N.P. at the House of Sada Sukh as there was tension between Bisbnoia and Sardara and according them some of the accused persons namely; Thana Ram, Karnail Singh, Ram Ratan, Krisban & Kana used to come to the house of Keshra, Hanuman and Omla used to talk to lshar Singh sometimes and once he had told him that Hanuman Bhomla, Keshra etc. had engaged them for a particular work and would pay them for it & if work would be accomplished they would give feast to the constables also. However, lshar Singh does not clearly state for what work they have been engaged So also is the statement of Hari Ram They also stated that on the day of this incident they had seen accused person going towards Bhinya Rams Dhani armed with guns and thereafter some ladies of Sardars had come to then and had stated that their men had been killed in 78 L.N.P. The statement of these two witnesses also do not inspire any confidence. In the first place there was no occasion for the accused persons to have given this information to these witnesses. In the first place there was no occasion for the accused persons to have given this information to these witnesses. In the second place the purpose had not at all been clearly disclosed and had been left to be guessed In the third place although this incident had taken place on 18.7 1980 and these witnesses had been meeting the Investigating Officer since then they did not disclose this fact to the police till 21.7.1980 and this late examination of these witnesses is enough to discard their testimony. 15. Apart from the above there is no other evidence connecting any of the accused persons with the death of Tehalsingh The firearm said to have been recovered from the accused Keshra and Omprakash have not been proved to be connected with the injuries found on the person of Tehalsingh. In these circumstances we are clearly of the opinion that the of Lence under section 302/34 I.P.C. has not at all been brought home to the accused Keshar and Omprakash and therefore their conviction under that Section deserves to be set aside. 16. The conviction under section 307/34 I.P.C. against both the accused Omprakash and Keshra had not been challenged before us The trial court did not pass any sentence for this offence, as stated above, and, therefore we have to pass a proper sentence Looking to the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each will be sufficient. 17. So far as the accused Prithvi is concerned he has been convicted under section 25 I Indian Arms Act. He has already undergone a sentence of more than 6 months and in our opinion that would be sufficient in the e circumstance It will not be proper to send him back to jail now after the expiry of about 8 years. 18. The appeal is partly accepted The convictions of Keshra and Omprakash u/sec. -02/34 IPC and sentences of imprisonment for life passed against them are set-aside. Their convictions under section 307/34 IPC are maintained and they are sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-each, in default of payment of fine they will undergo three months further imprisonment The time they spent in custody during investigation and trial shall be set off against the sentences awarded to them. Their convictions under section 307/34 IPC are maintained and they are sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-each, in default of payment of fine they will undergo three months further imprisonment The time they spent in custody during investigation and trial shall be set off against the sentences awarded to them. The conviction of the appellant Kashra under section 5 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act is maintained, the sentences passed against him on this count shall run concurrently with the sentence passed under section 307/34 IPC. The conviction of the appellant Omprakash under section 25 of the Arms Act is also maintained and the two years sentence passed against him is made concurrently with the sentence passed under section 307/34 IPC, The conviction of the appellant Prithvi under section 25 of the Indian Arms Act is maintained but his sentence is reduced to that already undergone. He is already on bail, he need not surrender.Appeal partly allowed. *******