V. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Uma Shanker Gupta, the then Sessions Judge, Non-Metropolitan Area, Kanpur while disposing of Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1976, vide, his order dated 23. 8. 1978 convicted Virendra Singh on a charge under section 302 of the I. P. C. , and Lalan Singh, Babu Singh and Sukhdeo Singh on a charge under section 302 read with section 34 of the I. P. C. Each one of them was awarded imprisonment for life. Feeling aggrieved, they have now come up through this appeal. ( 2 ) THE occurrence took place at about mid day on 15. 8. 1973 and the victim was Babulal who ultimately died as a result of injuries sustained by him allegedly at the hands of the present appellants. The occurrence took place in the premises of Primary School in village Sughar Deva which lies within the area of police station-Sheorajpur of district-Kanpur. It is contended that Virendra Singh was armed with a pharsa and inflicted as many as nine injuries upon the person of the deceased and one of these injuries, according to the testimony of the doctor could be independently fatal. It is further contended that Lalan Singh was armed with a spear and caused a single punctured wound-injury No. 9 which was chest wall deep on the middle part of the right side of back at the inferior angle of the scapula. The remaining two accused namely Baboo Singh and Sukhdeo Singh were armed with lathis and atleast four injuries with lathis had been caused on different parts of the body. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story, as it emerges from the testimony of the first-informant Gangadhar (P. W. 3) is that his younger brother Babulal was a Mumber of the Sughar Deva Education Committee. He was a Dhanuk (Harijan) by caste. There was an allegation against Lalan Singh-appellant regarding his having unlawfully grabbed land belonging to the Primary School and the Harijans of the village. Babulal bad in this connection moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate against him. There was an election for the Office of the Pradhan in the village. There were three candidates. Babulal was in support of Ram Narain Singh while Lalan Singh was supporting his own brother Sudarshan Singh. Ram Narain Singh ultimately won the election. Babulal bad in this connection moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate against him. There was an election for the Office of the Pradhan in the village. There were three candidates. Babulal was in support of Ram Narain Singh while Lalan Singh was supporting his own brother Sudarshan Singh. Ram Narain Singh ultimately won the election. An election-petition was filed at the instance of Sudarshan Singh which was pending when this occurrence took place and for this reason also Lalan Singh was bearing ill-will against Babulal. Most probably in connection with the Independence Day Celebrations, a function was being held in Sughar Deva Primary School on the date of this occurrence. Pasted was distributed. As soon as this was over, Lalan Singh who was present, called upon Babulal to explain as to why he was responsible for the moving of an application against him to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Babulal retorted that since Lalan Singh had grabbed the land belonging to the Primary School and of the Harijans, he was liable for action. This enraged Lalan Singh who left the place in a rage. Soon thereafter about 12 noon, he returned to the place of occurrence armed with a spear along with Virendra Sine;h armed with a Pharsa, and Sukhdeo Singh and Babu Singh armed with lathis. As soon as he came there, he called upon his associates to kill Babulal and immediately an attack was mounted on Babulal by the appellants with their weapons. Babulal received injuries. He could pick up a danda from the verandah of the School and with it he tried to save himself and in doing so caused injuries to Lalan Singh and Babu Singh. But he was himself very badly injured and he fell down and became unconscious. A large number of persons including Basant, Mullu, Ramnarain Singh, Rajpal Singh, Arjun and the first informant were present and they raised an alarm and the accused persons ran away. ( 4 ) THE victim was not vet dead. The first informant caught hold of Ram Narain Singh (P. W. 5) and got the First Information Report Ext. Ka-3 scribed. He then took it along with his injured brother in a bullock cart to the police station concerning a distance of five miles and lodged the report there at 15-45 hours. The first informant caught hold of Ram Narain Singh (P. W. 5) and got the First Information Report Ext. Ka-3 scribed. He then took it along with his injured brother in a bullock cart to the police station concerning a distance of five miles and lodged the report there at 15-45 hours. Necessary entries were made and Babulal was then taken from the police station to the Primary Health Centre Sheoraj Pur where Dr. Sukh Dayal Priyadarshi (P. W. 1) Medical Officer In charge examined him for his injuries, at 4-30 p. m. the same day. The doctor found following injuries on his person (vide memo Ext. Ka- 1): (1) Incised wound with depression of fracture and skull frontal bone and also bone cut by 2 cms could be seen 10 cms x 2 cms. bone cut, associated with depression from anterior posterior extending from fore-head to the backward margins regular. (2) Incised wound 35 cms x 1 cm scalp deep behind injury No. 1, 2 over the occipital bone. (3) Incised wound 4 cms x 2 cms bone deep on the middle of scalp, 2 right to injury No. 1 obliquely. (4) Incised wound 1. 5 cms x 1 cms. x scalp deep, 2 cms anterior to injury No. 3 margins regular. (5) Incised wound 2 cms. x 11/2 cms. scalp deep on the left parietal bone 3 cm left to injury No. 1. (6) Oval shaped incised wound 3 cms x 2 cms on the top of right partietal bone- margins sharp and regular. (7) Incised wound 2 cms x 1/2 cms x bone deep on the upper part of right eyebrow at its lateral end. (8) Incised wound 1. 5 cms. x 1/2 cms. bone deep on the right mastoid bone-margins regular. (9) Punctured wound 2 cms x 1/2 cm. x chest wall deep on the middle part of right side of back at the inferior angle or scapula. (10) Contusion 12 cms. x 2 cms. vertically on the lower junction of upper 1/3 and 2/3 left arms red in colour. (11) Contusion 12 cms. x 2. 5 cms. on the upper 2/3rd and 1/3rd lower of the right fore arm also red in colour. (12) Contusion 14 cms. x 2 cms. transversely in lower part of left half of back-red in colour. (13) Contusion 16 cms. x 2 cms. transversely, 4 cms. (11) Contusion 12 cms. x 2. 5 cms. on the upper 2/3rd and 1/3rd lower of the right fore arm also red in colour. (12) Contusion 14 cms. x 2 cms. transversely in lower part of left half of back-red in colour. (13) Contusion 16 cms. x 2 cms. transversely, 4 cms. below and parallel to injury No. 12. (14) Incised wound 3 cms. x 2 cms. Bone deep around the right thumb. ( 5 ) PERHAPS the doctor was of the opinion that proper medical treatment was not available to the injured in the Primary Health Centre and he therefore directed a reference to U. H. M. Hospital, Kanpur where the police brought the injured Babulal and got him admitted. It appears that Babulal could not survive the injuries and died on 17. 8. 1973 at about 8-20 p. m. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. R. K. Mehrotra on 18. 8. 1973 at 4-00 p. m. Most of the injuries had been stitched during treatment and the post mortem examination report is Ext. Ka-2. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to brain injury which was a result of injuries Nos. 1 to 5. The internal-examination showed that scalp and skull bones were broken under injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the left side. The temporal and frontal bones were also broken. The right parietal and temporal bones were fractured. Hembrances were contused under injuries Nos. 1 to 5 and there was contusion with laceration on the brain. ( 6 ) INITIALLY the Station Officer of Police Station - Sheorajpur Sri Gopi Chandra S. I. (P. W. 11) took up the investigation of the case and examined accused-appellant Babu Singh on 15. 8. 1973. Thereafter he reached the place of occurrence on 16. 8. 1973 and examined Gangadhar as well as other witnesses, inspected the scene of occurrence on 17. 8. 1973 and prepared site-plan etc. He could not find blood stains on the spot because earlier it had rained. He contacted Babulal in the Hospital on 16. 8. 1973, but since the injured was not in a position to give any statement, hence his statement could not be taken. 8. 1973 and prepared site-plan etc. He could not find blood stains on the spot because earlier it had rained. He contacted Babulal in the Hospital on 16. 8. 1973, but since the injured was not in a position to give any statement, hence his statement could not be taken. The case which was originally registered under section 307 of the I. P. C. on the basis of the report of the fist-informant was subsequently converted to one under section 302, I. P. C. on 20. 8. 1973. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet Ext. Ka-lo was submitted on 15. 9. 1973. ( 7 ) INQUEST proceedings had taken place in the U. H. M. Hospital, Kanpur on 18. 8. 1973 at 11-40 a m. , where the dead body was sealed and sent for post-mortem examination. ( 8 ) BESIDES Dr. Priya Darshi (P. W. 1), Dr. Raj Kishore Mehrotra (P. W. 2) and the first informant Gangadhar (P. W. 3), the prosecution also examined as eye-witnesses Mullu (P. W. 4), Ram Narain Singh (P. W. 5), Rajpal Singh (P. W. 6), Basant Lal Kuril (P. W. 7) and Arjun Prasad (P. W. 9 ). It may however, be mentioned here that P. Ws. 4 to 9 did not support the prosecution version and were allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution in view of their hostility. Besides them, two other witnesses Suraj Pal Singh (P. W. 10) and Gopi Chandra (P. W. 11) were formal. ( 9 ) THE contention of the appellants before the Court-below appears to be that the marpit was started by Babulal who attacked Lalan Singh-appellant with a lathi and when Virendra Singh went to save the situation, he was also attacked and then injured. Babu Singh and Sukhdeo Singh pleaded that they were not involved in the occurrence and had been falsely implicated. ( 10 ) ON behalf of the defence, one Sheopal Singh, Head Constable was examined as D. W. 1. He simply brought Register No. 8 of this village which showed that Babulal (deceased) was convicted in one case under sections 323/325, I P. C. and in another case under section 109, Cr. ( 10 ) ON behalf of the defence, one Sheopal Singh, Head Constable was examined as D. W. 1. He simply brought Register No. 8 of this village which showed that Babulal (deceased) was convicted in one case under sections 323/325, I P. C. and in another case under section 109, Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) BEFORE us the learned Counsel for the appellants took the plea of self defence of person as a ground seeking acquittal of the appellants and additionally also contended that the evidence at the best showed that it was the deceased Babulal who was an aggressor and who started the marpit causing injuries to Lalan Singh and Virendra Singh and it was when these two persons fen down, after receiving injuries, that the crowd that had collected on the spot, considering both of them dead, attacked Babulal and caused him injuries which ultimately resulted in his death. It may however be mentioned further that so far as the date, time and place of occurrence are concerned, there is no dispute about the prosecution version of the same. ( 12 ) BEFORE proceeding with the legal position and the factual position, as is obtainable, an the record it will be necessary to point out that out of the hostile witnesses P. Ws. Nos. 4 to 9, P. W. 5 Ram Narain Singh will require to be considered. The remaining witnesses are all useless because they simply say that they were not present on the spot or that they did not see the occurrence. Only relevance of P. W. 7 Basantilal Kuril and P. W. 9 Arjun Prasad is that according to them, on that date and at that time they were attending a DANGAL in Seorajpur. According to Basant Lal he had not seen the first informant of this case Gangadhar (P. W. 3) present amongst the spectators in the Dangal, but acceding to Arjun Prasad (P. W. 9) Gangadhar met him at about 12-noon in Sheorajpur at Dangal. ( 13 ) SO far as Ramnarain Singh is concerned, according to the prosecution story, the whole case revolves round him. He was the Sabhapati of the village. He contested the election for this post in the year 1972. There were three contestants of whom Sudarshan Singh was one. Ramnarain Singh won the election. ( 13 ) SO far as Ramnarain Singh is concerned, according to the prosecution story, the whole case revolves round him. He was the Sabhapati of the village. He contested the election for this post in the year 1972. There were three contestants of whom Sudarshan Singh was one. Ramnarain Singh won the election. Admittedly Virendra Singh who is nephew of Sudarsban Singh, filed an Election Petition which was pending on the date of the occurrence. It is also stated by him that deceased Babulal was a Mumber of the Sughar Deva Shiksha Samiti. Obviously it will be through Sabhapati that the Shiksha Samiti will send complaints etc. to the higher authorities. It is brought on the record from the testimony of Ramnarain Singh as well as from the documents on the record that on 13. 6. 1973 Ramnarain Singh gave a notice to Kuher Singh and Lalan Singh (Ext. Ka-4) calling upon them to desist from their nefarious acts of taking illegal possession of the land of Harijans and the Primary School. On 22. 7. 73 he complained about this matter in writing to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilhaur. Of course he has said that the deceased did not do any canvassing for him during election. He, however, admits that in the entire village, which is inhabited mostly by Thakurs, there are only two families of Dhanuks living, and the deceased was one of them. He also says that he was present in the school premises at the time of this occurrence on 15. 8. 1973. According to him-two hundred to two hundred fifty persons were present and Prasad was distributed to them. His version is that a quarrel started over the distribution of the sweets. But he is unable to say as to who caused this quarrel and since there was a chaos and marpit had already started he ran away from there, at about 10 a. m. or 12 noon. He says during cross-examination by the defence that the First Information Report Ext. Ka-3 is not scribed by him but it does bear his signatures in a corner and his explanation is that these signatures were obtained by the Head Constable in the Thana Sheorajpur a day or two after the occurrence. He says during cross-examination by the defence that the First Information Report Ext. Ka-3 is not scribed by him but it does bear his signatures in a corner and his explanation is that these signatures were obtained by the Head Constable in the Thana Sheorajpur a day or two after the occurrence. ( 14 ) IN this manner it will be apparent that as direct ocular testimony of the occurrence, there is the statement of P. W. 2 Gangadhar alone. No other witness has supported the prosecution case regarding the actual marpit or the manner in which it started. ( 15 ) LEGAL position may be made clear at this stage. In the case of Satya Paul v. Delhi ALLAHABAD Administration1, it has been observed: From the above conspectus it emerges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court by the party calling him, his evidence can not as a matter of law be treated as washed off the record altogether; It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case, whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited, or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may after reading and considering the evidence of the witness as a whole, with due caution and care, accept in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. ( 16 ) IN an earlier case of Masalti and others v. State of U. P. 2 it was laid down that under the Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be sufficient to convict an accused. ( 16 ) IN an earlier case of Masalti and others v. State of U. P. 2 it was laid down that under the Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be sufficient to convict an accused. The Supreme Court, this Court and other Courts of India have from time to time held that the testimony of a single witness can not be discarded merely because it is not corroborated and where there are no exceptional reasons and the evidence is found to be above reproach or suspicion or un interestedness and does not suffer from incompetence or subordination, it will be the duty of the Court to convict if it is satisfied that the testimony of that single witness is reliable, because there is no impediment in law in a conviction being based on the testimony of a single witness if he is found to be honest and trustworthy. The testimony should be sterling of a competent and honest man, although the rule of prudence may call upon the Courts to seek corroboration. ( 17 ) IN connection with the evidence of related witnesses also, it has been held a number of times that there can be no ground to discard the testimony of a related witness merely because he is related. On the contrary the very circumstance that the witness is related to the deceased would add to the value of his evidence because he would naturally be interested in ensuring that the real culprits are punished and not screened, and it will not be possible to hold that such a man will enter into the witness-box to give false evidence against innocent persons in place of the real culprits. ( 18 ) IN their statements, the appellants broadly said that they have been falsely implicated on account of ill-will. Specifically Lalan Singhs contention was that he had not received any notice from Babulal (deceased), though an election petition was pending and that it was Babulal who attacked him and injured him, although he did not make any police report about the occurrence. In other words, he admits the fact of his presence on the spot, the fact of his having taken part in the marpit and the fact that he sustained injuries at the hands of Babulal. In other words, he admits the fact of his presence on the spot, the fact of his having taken part in the marpit and the fact that he sustained injuries at the hands of Babulal. ( 19 ) ACCUSED Virendra Singh took the stand that he had filed the Election Petition in connection with the election of Ram Narain Singh as Pradhan which was pending on the date of this occurrence, but he says that he was not present at the time of the occurrence and Babulal (deceased) being a history sheeter and a man of bad-character had a number of other enemies. ( 20 ) APPELLANT Baboo Singhs contention is that he found babulal giving a beating to Lalan Singh and he rushed to gave him, but Babulal gave a beating to him also and injured him. ( 21 ) APPELLANT Sukhdeo Singh took the stand that he was not present on the spot and did not take part in the occurrence and was in his field. ( 22 ) THE post mortem examination report and the injury report as well as the statements of the two doctors will confirm this fact that Babulal sustained a large number of injuries, out of which atleast nine were caused by some sharp edged weapon like a Pharsa, one was caused by a pointed weapon like a spear and four were caused by some blunt objects like lathis. This means that Pharsa, spear and lathis were used to cause him injuries. All lathis were used to caused by a single man. It is contended that the entire crowd, on seeing Lalan Singh and Babu Singh down with injuries at the hands of Babulal (deceased), assaulted Babulal and caused him injuries. It should not by forgotten, however, that the occurrence took place on the Independence Day when a function was being held in people would reach the spot armed with deadly weapons like pharsa and spears. Of-course it is common knowledge that in villages, people movee with lathis, but it can not be believed with pharsas and ballams for no reason whatsoever. So the story that it was the crowd which was responsible for the causing of injuries to Babulal, is highly improbable and unbelievable. The testimony of the doctors clearly shows that the occurrence could have taken place at 12 noon and the injuries sustained by the deceased at that time. So the story that it was the crowd which was responsible for the causing of injuries to Babulal, is highly improbable and unbelievable. The testimony of the doctors clearly shows that the occurrence could have taken place at 12 noon and the injuries sustained by the deceased at that time. This fact is also not disputed and denied. The place of occurrence rao stands established beyond doubt. Not only the first informant Gangadhar (P. W. 3) speaks about the fact that the occurrences took place within the promised of the Sughar Deva Primary School after the distribution of the Parsad of sweets, the other witnesses including (P. W. 5) Ram Narain Singh have the same thing to say. Even the accused Lalan Singh and Baboo Singh do not deny this had picked up a dand from the verandah of the school and attacked him with it and caused him injuries and also to Babu Singh. The injuries of Babu Singh were also examined by Dr. Priyadarshi and the injury memo is Ext. Kha-1. This accused had only one abrasion pinna, one traumatic swelling on the lower 1/3 of the right fore-arm and one contusion on the lateral side of the upper part of the right thigh. All the injuries were simple. Injury No. 1 was by friction and injuries Nos. 2 and 3 could have been caused by a lathi blow of danda, but it will by clear that these injuries were so insignificant that on account of these injuries, Babu Singh could not have been knocked out completely. Similarly, about the injuries of Lalan Singh, there is only an oral statement though there is a mention of that fact in the First Information Report, his injury report has not been placed on the record, and the oral evidence is to the effect that he sustained a single injury on his foot. But the stage at which these injuries were sustained, was not the beginning of the fight. It was only during much in progress and a number of injuries had already been sustained by Babulal, that the picked up a danda from the verandah of the school and tried to defend himself by striking at Lalan Singh and Babu Singh. ( 23 ) THE point remains, as to how the occurrence could have taken place. In the First Information Report, the version of the occurrence has been set out. ( 23 ) THE point remains, as to how the occurrence could have taken place. In the First Information Report, the version of the occurrence has been set out. According to the prosecution evidence, it was prepared on the spot immediately after the occurrence, scribed by Ram Narain Sing at the dictation of Gangadhar (P. W. 3 ). Then it was lodged at the police station five miles away from the place of occurrence at 3. 45 p. m. There is sworn testimony of Gangadhar that Ram Narain Singh did write this report. In his cross-examination Ram Narain Singh (P. W. 5) has said that he did not document and he only put his signatures at the bidding of the Head Constable when he visited the Thana two day after the occurrence. It should not be forgotten, however, that during the cross- examination of Gangadhar, a suggestion was put by the defence to the effect the Ram Narain Singh had accompanied the first information to the police station and had bribed or tried to bribe the police personnel in connection with the institution of the case. During cross-examination with Gangadhar, there is a question to elicit that the First Information Report was not scribed by Ram Narain Singh. It is for the first time during cross-examination with Ram Narain Singh that such a question was put and his statement was obtained that he did not scribe the First-Information Report and he only put his signatures afterwards at the bottom lift hand side of First Information Report, The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with this aspect of the matter and he has come to the conclusion that Ram Narain Singh has changed sides, because he is a Thakur and the deceased was a Harijan. There are reasons behind this finding and one of these reasons is that it is not only in the left hand bottom corner of the paper Ext. Ka 3 that the signatures of Ram Narain Singh are there, but in the body-writing also where the names of the witnesses have been mentioned. Ram Narain Singhs name has been written and a comparison of these admitted signatures of Ram Narain Singh at the left hand bottom corner with this body writing of the name of Ram Narain Singh will clearly show that both names have been written by the same person. Ram Narain Singhs name has been written and a comparison of these admitted signatures of Ram Narain Singh at the left hand bottom corner with this body writing of the name of Ram Narain Singh will clearly show that both names have been written by the same person. ( 24 ) WE are in agreement with the learned Sessions Judge that Ram Narain Singh was an eyewitness of the. occurrence and he did scribe the First-Information Report Ext. Ka-3 and now during cross-examination he has assumed a different pose merely because he did not want to alienate his own caste fellows It means therefore, that the First Information Report Ext. Ka-3 was drawn out soon after the occurrence and without delay it was taken to the police station and lodged there. Therefore, no occasion of deliberation or concoction was there and hence this document has a very great corroborative value in the case. ( 25 ) UNDOUBTEDLY Babulal was a Mumber of the Education Committee of the village and Ram Narain Singh was the Pradhan or Sabhapati. From the documents on the record, it is undoubtedly established that there was some sort of complaint by the Mumbers of the Education Committee including Sabhapati to the effect that Lalan Singh and others had unlawfully taken hold of the land of the Harijans of the village and of the school. Applications had been given to that effect by Sabhapati in his capacity as such to the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilhaur, and a notice addressed to Lalan Singh as well as to another person was served. It appears that Babulal was taking interest in the school affairs and the Sabhapati was acting at his behest because it is undoubted that Babulal was a worker in the election of the Sabhapati. There was thus reason for Lalan Singh to have been angry with Babulal. Babulals association with Ram Narain Singh as his supporter has been established by P. W. 3 Gangadhar and his evidence in this respect has been accepted. The testimony of Gangadhar finds complete corroboration from the First Information Report as well as from the medical examination reports. From the testimony of Gangadhar; it appears that after the distribution of the Parsad, some sort of altercation took place between Babulal and Lalan Singh. The marpit did not start immediately. The testimony of Gangadhar finds complete corroboration from the First Information Report as well as from the medical examination reports. From the testimony of Gangadhar; it appears that after the distribution of the Parsad, some sort of altercation took place between Babulal and Lalan Singh. The marpit did not start immediately. Lalan Singh took the insult by a Harijan to heart and went away from the spot and soon thereafter at about 12 noon he re-appeared with- the other cc- accused armed with weapons of which a mention has been made earlier. ( 26 ) EXT. Ka-9 is the site-plan prepared by the Investigating Officer and it will show that houses of Lalal Singh, Babu Singh, Sukhdeo Singh and Virendra Singh were not very far away from the School. It also appears that except for Lalan Singh, no other accused was present in the school permises so long as the function was going on. They only came after wards along with Lalan Singh armed with weapons. This will indicate their intention and their concert. The evidence is that as soon as Lalan Singh came to the School again, and saw the deceased, he exhorted his associates to kill him. Gangadhar is a truthful witness and his testimony to this effect has to be believed. ( 27 ) IT is true that Gangadhar is the real brother of the deceased. But as we have already mentioned earlier, that is one of the reasons why for an occurrence which took place in broad day light, he would not implicate a totally innocent person or persons and screen the real culprits. If the occurrence had taken place as is suggested by the defence, and a large crowd had been responsible for causing injuries to the deceased, there is no reason why a large number of persons should not have been implicated as accused in this case. ( 28 ) AFTER considering the entire evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, we are in agreement with the learned Sessions Judge that appellant Lalan Singh armed with a spear, Virendra Singh armed with a pharsa, and Sukhdeo Singh and Baboo Singh armed with lathis fell upon Babulal (Deceased) and inflicted severe injuries to him at about 12 noon on 15. 8. 73 in the Primary School premises, as a result of which ultimately Babulal died in the hospital. 8. 73 in the Primary School premises, as a result of which ultimately Babulal died in the hospital. There is no doubt in our minds that since all the appellants cone together variously armed, mounted the assault together, and left the place after the at occurrence together they will be deemed to have come with the intention of causing the murder of Babulal and section 34 of the I. P. C. will clearly come into play. Virendra Singh caused injuries with pharsa and these injuries could be fatal. He has been rightly convicted under section 302, I. P. C. and Lalan Singh caused a single injury with spear on vital parts of the body and Babu Singh and Sukhdeo Singh who used lathis and caused injuries on different parts of the body of the deceased, would therefore be guilty under section 302 read with section 34 I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted them accordingly and the sentences awarded to them are perfectly justified. ( 29 ) IN the result, the appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed. ( 30 ) THE conviction of the appellant Virendra Singh under section 302 I. P. C. and of other appellants Lalan Singh, Baboo Singh and Sukhdeo Singh under sections 302/34, I. P. C. stands upheld and so also the sentence of Life Imprisonment awarded to each one of them. ( 31 ) THEY are on bail. Their bail bonds and sureties are hereby cancelled. They shall surrender and be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentences. ( 32 ) THE lower Courts record shall be transmitted forthwith. .