JUDGMENT U. K. Varma, J. 1. This is a Government Appeal against the judgment and order of Sri G. C. Mogha, I Additional Sessions Judge Meerut dated 5-10-78 acquitting the respondents Neelu, Kalu, Babu and Mahraj Singh in respect of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the Sessions Trial No. 2/78. Neelu respondent died during the pendency of the appeal and as such it has abated against him 2. The respondents Neelu and Kalu were brothers. Babu is their sister's son and Mahraj is the brother in law of Neelu. the complainant Mehkar Singh is the uncle of Neelu and Kalu. Mehkar Singh and his son Lakshman deceased were not agreeable to permit the respondents Neelu and Kalu and their father Sri Ram to irrigate from a tube-well which they claimed to be theirs exclusively. The latter asserted that it belonged to them jointly more so as its electric connection was in their joint name. The strained feelings led to an incident resulting in injuries. Laxman Mehkar Singh, Ram Jeet, Jai Karan and the wife of Mehkar were being prosecuted by Sri Ram in respect of it. On 27-9-77, the prosecution witnesses and been examined in this case. At the time of the incident not only hat criminal case was going on but proceedings for partition had also been initiated by the complainant where in Sri Ram, the father of the respondents Neelu and Kalu, had filed objection. The prosecution case is that in the morning of 3-11-77 Lakshman deceased and his wife Smt, Kamlesh PW 3 had gone to their 'jwar' field on a cart to bring a few heaps of it for their cattle. When they had loaded two bundles of it on the cart and each of them was bringing a bundle more, the respondeat Neelu armed with gun Kalu and Babu with country made pistols and Maharaj Singh with knife-emerged suddenly near the cart. Lakshman at first was shot with the gun and pistols and when he fell down, he was inflicted injuries with knife. He had been fired upon five or six times. On his wife trying to save him, she was given a push. Her weeping and veiling attracted Balvir, Shiv Charan, Resham, Satkari and Jograj. They were at the time of the incident on their agricultural fields nearby. He had been fired upon five or six times. On his wife trying to save him, she was given a push. Her weeping and veiling attracted Balvir, Shiv Charan, Resham, Satkari and Jograj. They were at the time of the incident on their agricultural fields nearby. The respondents terrifying them with their fire arms made good their escape. The report had been lodged at the police Station Daurala within an hour and a half of the incident at 12 45 P.M. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence has been shown to be 4 Kms. 3. The investigation of the case was entrusted to the Sub-Inspector Sultan Singh. He reached the scene of occurrence at 2 P.M. and with the aid of the par.ch.es Mahkar Singh, Yad Ram, Saheb Singh, Ganga Saran and Richpal completed the inquest report. He has mentioned there in about the field of Balvir Singh on the boundary of which the dead body of Lakshman was found twenty one steps from the 'Khajoor' tree which stood on the dividing line of the fields of Balvir Singh and Ganga Saran. The cart of the deceased was parked at a distance of five steps from the 'khajoor' tree. 4. The dead body was despatched to the head quarters for post mortem examination. It is shown in the challan of the - dead body to have reached the head quarters at 10 P.M. The distance of the head quarters from the place of incident is mentioned to be 15 K.Ms. The post mortem examinations bad been conducted by Dr. N. K. Pandey (PW 10). He found the following ante-mortem injuries having been sustained by the deceased Lakshman. 1. Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on the back of left inner part just below the wrist joint. 2. Gun-shot wound of entry 1 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on the back of the left hand 1/2 cm. away from the injury no. 1 towards the thumb, blackening and tattooing present around the injuries nos. 1 and 2. Direction towards thumb. 3. Gun-shot wound of exit 10 cm. x 10 cm. between the thumb and index finger, margins everted. No blackening and tattooing present. Bones underneath fractured into multiple pieces communicating with the injuries nos. 1 and 2. 4. 1 towards the thumb, blackening and tattooing present around the injuries nos. 1 and 2. Direction towards thumb. 3. Gun-shot wound of exit 10 cm. x 10 cm. between the thumb and index finger, margins everted. No blackening and tattooing present. Bones underneath fractured into multiple pieces communicating with the injuries nos. 1 and 2. 4. Nine Gun-shot wounds of entry in an area of 7 cm. x 5 cm. x chest cavity deep on the left side of chert 113 cm. below the nipple directed medially and backward, each measuring 1 cm. :x 1 cm. No blackening and tattooing present. Margins lacerated and inverted. 5. Grasing gun-shot wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm. x skin deep directed from below to upwards on the left side of chest 4 cm. below and out to injury no. 4. No blackening or tattooing present. One pellet removed. 6. Grassing gun-shot wound 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. x skin deep directed from below to above. No blackening and tattooing present, just near out to injury no. 5. 7. Gun-shot wound of entry 3 cm. x 3 cm. x communicating with injury no. 8 on the junction of the buttock and thigh on the left side. Blackening and tattooing present around the wound, margins lacerated and inverted. 8.Gun-shot wound of exit 8 cm. x 5 cm. on the outer aspect of the left buttock (margins everted). No tattooing and blackening. 9.Gun-shot wound of entry 2 cm. x 2 cm. x muscle deep on the left side of neck just below the angle of mandiable, directed medially and backward. Blackening and tattooing present around the wound. 10.Gun-shot wound of entry 2 cm. x 2 cm. x muscle deep on the left side of neck 2 cm. below the injury not 9. directed medially and backward. Blackening and tattooing present around the wound. 11.Incised wound 'V shaped 4 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep on the middle of chin. 12.Incised wound 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x through and through on the middle right pinna of ear. 13.Three gun-shot wound of entry in an area of 4 cm. x 3 cm. on the inner aspect of the right arm upper part measuring 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep directed outward and backward. 14.Incised wound 5 cm. x 1 cm x muscle deep on the back of the right shoulder. 15.Incised wound 3 cm. 13.Three gun-shot wound of entry in an area of 4 cm. x 3 cm. on the inner aspect of the right arm upper part measuring 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep directed outward and backward. 14.Incised wound 5 cm. x 1 cm x muscle deep on the back of the right shoulder. 15.Incised wound 3 cm. x 1 cm, x muscle deep on the right suprascapular region directed down and medially. 16.Incised wound 6 cm. x 2 cm. x muscle deep on the back of right thigh directed forward and downward. 17.Incised wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on the front of the right leg upper part bone cut underneath. 18.Incised wound 3 cm. x 1.5 cm. x muscle deep on the front of right leg 3/4 cm. medial to injury no. 17. 19.Incised wound 2 cm. x 1.5 cm. x muscle deep on the front of right leg lower part. 5. In connection with the internal examination of the dead body, the Medical Officer found fracture beneath the injury no. 7 and laceration of the left side jugular, pleura, larynx, trachea, bronchi; lung, peritoneum, Oesophagus, stomach small and large intestines and gall bladder. IN the stomach he found partially digested food material weighing about 150 grams. Eighteen bit shots and eighty pellets and wadding pieces were shown to have been recovered from the different parts of the body of the deceased as described hereunder :- 1. Nine big shots from the chest and abdominal cavity. 2. Two big shots and thirty pellets from the neck. 3. Three big shots from the right arm. 4. Four big shots and forty eight pellets from the left thigh. 5. Two pellets from grasing wounds on the left side chest (skin-deep). 6. Wadding pieces recovered from the left thigh and neck. 6. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the respondents to them had examined Smt. Kamlesh (wife of the deceased) PW 3, Balvir Singh, PW 2, Shiv Charan PW 4 and Satkari PW 5i as the witnesses of the occurrence. Before proceeding to test their statements, I would first present relevant portions of their statements and the statements of the other witnesses which have bearing over the case as the Addl. Sessions Judge curiously enough has not dealt with them in his judgment. Before proceeding to test their statements, I would first present relevant portions of their statements and the statements of the other witnesses which have bearing over the case as the Addl. Sessions Judge curiously enough has not dealt with them in his judgment. Smt. Kamlesh gave out in her examination in chief that when she and her husband each with their second bundle of jwar were near to their cart, the first; shot was fired at her husband. The bundles of jwar fell down. She noticed Neelu with a gun, Kalu and Babu each carrying a pistol and Mahraj Singh with a knife. Her husband limped towards the 'rahat' to the south-west; Hardly had he reached the boundary of the field of Balvir, Neelu, Kalu and Babu again fired at him. He fell down and thereafter Mahraj Singh inflicted injuries on him with knife. Neelu had fired six to seven times. She had raised alarm which attracted Balvir, Shiv Charan, Satkari, Jograj and Rezham THEy also had seen the incident. In her cross-examination she reaffirmed that she had seen the accused immediately after the first firing. THEy were at a distance of 1 1/2 haths from her husband when the first shot was fired at him. The second shot was pointed to have been fired from a distance of six to seven steps. At no time Lakshman while sustaining the fire-arm injuries was on the cart or on the Khajoor tree. The accused Neelu, Kalu and Babu each had once reloaded their fire-arms during the incident. Each of them had fired twice. Mahraj Singh had a knife nine to ten inches long. Lakshman while being assaulted with knife was throbbing. The assault with knife continued for half a minute to one minute. He was on his right side when he breathed his last. Neelu had given her a push when she stepped towards her husband. She did not dare to catch any accused or to save her husband by taking the assault on herself. She did not even sustain a scratch. Her clothes also had not got torn. Balvir Singh (PW 2) pointed that while irrigating his field about 11.15 a.m. he heard the sounds of firing and also the weaping. Shiv Charan Jograj, Sotkari and Kesham had also arrived at the scene of occurrence. Lakshman on sustaining the fire-arm injury was limping. She did not even sustain a scratch. Her clothes also had not got torn. Balvir Singh (PW 2) pointed that while irrigating his field about 11.15 a.m. he heard the sounds of firing and also the weaping. Shiv Charan Jograj, Sotkari and Kesham had also arrived at the scene of occurrence. Lakshman on sustaining the fire-arm injury was limping. He was reshot and he fell down near the boundary of the field of Balvir, son of Ganga Saran. During fall he was shot at twice. Mahraj Singh thereafter inflicted injuries with knife. In the cross-examination be pointed out that the firings in all numbered five to six. The accused during the incident had reloaded their gun and pistols. Neelu had fired once before him. Babu and Kalu had also been seen firing by him. Neelu had a single barrel gun. The pistols of Kalu and Babu were 10 inches long, He could not say whether the knife of Mahraj Singh was double edged or not. Lakshman had been fired from the southern side. The accrued at that time were two steps from him. The repeated firings had been done from a distance of three to four steps. None else besides the above witnesses armed as they only were present near by. Mehkar Singh reached the scene of occurrence soon after. He had informed him of the details of the incident. His statement had been recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence: of the Station House Officer and twenty to twenty five other persons of the village including the witnesses of this case. The Investigating Officer did not obtain his thumb-impression on the statement given by him. 7. Sheo Charan PW 4 stated that while he was going to his field which was at a distance of 50 to 6)) steps from the place of incident by the chak road, hs saw Neelu, Kalu and Maharaj Singh attacking Lakshman. Kamlesh was crying. Neelu bad a single barrel gun, Babu and Kalu had pistols and Mahraj Singh had a knife. He saw Kalu and Babu firing at Lakshman. After sustaining fire arm injury Lakshman limped upto the boundary of the field of Balbir. Tie accused again shot at him and he fell down. Mahraj Singh thereafter inflicted knife injuries on him. The witnesses Resham, Balvir, Satkari and Jograj besides him had seen the occurrence. He saw Kalu and Babu firing at Lakshman. After sustaining fire arm injury Lakshman limped upto the boundary of the field of Balbir. Tie accused again shot at him and he fell down. Mahraj Singh thereafter inflicted knife injuries on him. The witnesses Resham, Balvir, Satkari and Jograj besides him had seen the occurrence. They could not save Lakshman as the aroused terrified them by their firearms. He had told Mehkar Singh about the incident. He was a witness for Neelu in the criminal case which he had instituted against the deceased Lakshman and others. In the cross-examination, he gave out that he had not been examined till then in the case against Lakshman and others. Lakshman deceased, alone had caused injuries to Neelu, Kalu and Sri Ram by lathi. He denied the causing of any injury by a spear in that case. He refuted the suggestion that he had been won over through money. He also denied that he was friendly to Mehkar complainant and had been exchanging visits with him. He pointed out that on the date of the incident, he could not go to his field to see whether it was fit for being ploughed. He went there next morning. There was only one field intervening his field and the field where in the incident took place belonging to Ganga Saran. He admitted that he had not seen the first shot being fired. He, however, gave out that he saw five shots having been fired on Lakshman. He also stated about the push given to Kamlesh when she wanted to save her husband. The Investigating Officer was not pointed by him to have obtained his signature on any document. He admitted being an accused in connection with the murder of a lawyer Vinod. The case was still pending. He pleaded ignorance about the suggestion that Neelu respondent was a witness against him in that murder case. 8. Satkari PW 5 gave out that Lakshman had been murdered 8 to 9 months back between ten and eleven in the morning. All the accused had murdered him but he merely remembered the names of Neelu and Kalu. Amongst the remaining two accused, one was the sister's son of Neelu and the other was his brother-in-law and they all were present inside the courtroom. Balvir, Sheo Charan, Resham and Kamlesh besides him had seen the incident. All the accused had murdered him but he merely remembered the names of Neelu and Kalu. Amongst the remaining two accused, one was the sister's son of Neelu and the other was his brother-in-law and they all were present inside the courtroom. Balvir, Sheo Charan, Resham and Kamlesh besides him had seen the incident. In the cross-examination, he denied that he was going along with Resham and Jograj to Lawad at the time of the incident as recorded in his statement under section 161 CrPC on the other hand, he pointed that he was going to see the field of his brother Rajendra Singh. He could not tell its boundary. He further admitted that he had no work on that field. He only had been going to watch it. At the scene of occurrence, persons had told him the names of the sister's son and brother in law of Neelu whom he had seen on one or two occasions in the village. He denied having been the servant of Mehkar Singh and having taken his cart to the place of occurrence where he found Lakshman lying dead. It was also suggested to him that it was he who had given information about Lakshman's death in the village. The witness did not admit the suggestion. Having reproduced the material portions of the statements of the eye witnesses I shall now deal with the medical evidence lead for the proper scrutiny of the oral evidence. In the instant case the Additional Sessions Judge, without caring to examine the postmortem report in the back ground of all the likely situations of the case and without confronting them to the medical expert relied upon part of hiss statement in isolation and virtually discarded the occular evidence lead by the prosecution. Dr. N K. Pandey in the examination inchief had proved the post-mortem report already reproduced extensively. The injuries inflicted according to him were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. He pointed that it was likely that the injuries to Lakshman had been caused at 11.15 a m. on 3-11-77. The incised wounds he pointed had been inflicted by knife. In the cross-examination he stated that the injuries nos. 5 and 6 of the post-mortem report could not have been caused if both the deceased and the person or persons shooting him were standing on the same plane. The incised wounds he pointed had been inflicted by knife. In the cross-examination he stated that the injuries nos. 5 and 6 of the post-mortem report could not have been caused if both the deceased and the person or persons shooting him were standing on the same plane. He explained that the injuries nos. 5 and 6 had been caused from a lower level as the pellets had moved upwards. He further had given out that all the incised injuries could not have been caused by a single sharp edged weapon because of the difference in their width. He had expressed inability to tell by what sort of weapon the injury no. 11 which was 'L' shaped had been caused. 9. We are now left with the statement of the complainant Mehkar Singh PW 1 and the I. O. Sub-Inspector Sultan Singh PW 8 Mehkar Singh PW 1 deposed that Neelu and Kalu were the sons of his brother Sri Ram. Babu was the son of the sister of Neelu and Mahraj Singh was his wife's brother. The relations between him and Lakshman on the one hand and Neelu, Latu and their father Sri Ram on the other were strained from five to six years before the incident, as Kalu, Neelu and their father Sri Ram wanted to make use of their tube weld and asserted it to belong to them jointly. Lakshman was involved in the marpeet in connection with it in the year 1973, The criminal case against: him and Lakshman and a few others was still pending in respect of it. Lakshman was very healthy. Lakshman had been murdered between 11 and 11.30 A.M on 3-11-77 in the jungle. On learning about it, he went to the scene of occurrence. Smt. Kamlesh, wife of Lakshman and the witnesses Shiv Charan. Balvir, Resham, Satkari and Jograj told him about the incident. He, thereafter dictated the report to Mahipal which he recorded faithfully. He proved his signature on this report Ext. ka. 1. He pointed to have sent the report Ext ka 1 to the police Station Daurala through Yad Ram, father of Mahipal He also proved his signature on the inquest report In the cross-examination Mehkar Singh gave out that application for electric connection of the tube-well had been given in the name of Sri Ram, Har Karan and himself. ka. 1. He pointed to have sent the report Ext ka 1 to the police Station Daurala through Yad Ram, father of Mahipal He also proved his signature on the inquest report In the cross-examination Mehkar Singh gave out that application for electric connection of the tube-well had been given in the name of Sri Ram, Har Karan and himself. The connection still continued to be in the name of the three. Sri Ram had taken loan to instal a pumping set two years before the installation of the tube-well. The pumping set had been sold of by him. The land on which the tube-well was installed continued to be common. They were doing their agriculture separately. Sri Ram had no pumping set at the time when he applied for electric connection. Sri Ram had irrigated from the tube-well in the previous year but had not paid Rs. 753/- due from him as water charge. He had not participated in the marpeet which bad taken place in the year 1973. Sri Ram, Kalu and Neelu had sustained injuries. He was not aware whether any one else had also joined Lakshman in the assault, or Lakshman was all alone on his side. The 'parpeet' had taken place in the jungle near the tube-well. Lakshman, Jai Karan, Lallu (son of Har Karan) and he had to remain in jail for some time in connection with that incident He had filed a suit for partition two and a half years back but after the death of Lakshman, did not prosecute it. At the time of the incident he was on his field at a distance of 1 1/2 furlongs to the south. It bore number 722 where as Lakshman was killed on the plot no. 720. None else was with him in the field at that time. He went to the scene of occurrence on hearing the sound of firing and the weeping of his daughter-in-law. He could not explain as to why it was not recorded by the Investigating Officer in his statement under section 161, CrPC, that on hearing the sound of firing and the weeping of his daughter-in-law, he arrived at the scene of occurrence. The prosecution witnesses Balvir and Shiv Charan had their field near the place of 'he incident. He could not explain as to why it was not recorded by the Investigating Officer in his statement under section 161, CrPC, that on hearing the sound of firing and the weeping of his daughter-in-law, he arrived at the scene of occurrence. The prosecution witnesses Balvir and Shiv Charan had their field near the place of 'he incident. He had not indicated in the report that all the witnesses Balvir, Shiv Charan, Resham, Faqura, Satkari Singh and Jograj arrived at the scene of occurrence from their fields When the investigating Officer reached the scene of occurrence he, Shiv Charan and Smt. Kamlesh were; present there along with many other persons of the village. The dead body of Lakshman was despatched for post mortem examinations on a tractor between half past five and six P M. He did not accompany the dead body. The Investigating Officer had made enquires from him Shiv Charan and Smt. Kamiesh. Satkari had told him that he had seen the incident Neelu had no licenced gun. He did not go to the police station for lodging the first information report as he was very up-set. Yad Ram had taken the report for lodging it in the police station. Yad Ram is also a witness of the inquest report. He denied that Satkari was serving him at the time of the incident and that the report had been drafted after preparation of the inquest report It was suggested to him that Satkari had gone with cart to his field where he found Lakshman dead and informed him of the incident. He denied the suggestion. It was also put to him that his son Lakshman had been teasing, molesting or indulging in rape and hi' victims included the daughter in law of Hoti, daughter of Hashim named Fahmida, daughter of Alia Mian named Ifrazo, daughter of Asho Nai named Muuni, daughter of Raghubir Dhiver named Suresh, daughter in law of Mehar Singh Dhiver and daughter of Mani Lohar named Rukhsana. He denied these suggestions. 10. It now may be seen as to what the Sub-Inspector Sultan Singh (PW 8) had said about the investigation. He pointed to have reached the scene of occurrence on the date of the incident at 2 p.m. and prepared the cheek report Ext. ka 4. He denied these suggestions. 10. It now may be seen as to what the Sub-Inspector Sultan Singh (PW 8) had said about the investigation. He pointed to have reached the scene of occurrence on the date of the incident at 2 p.m. and prepared the cheek report Ext. ka 4. He claimed to have recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses Mehkar Sinsh, Kamlesh and Shiv Charan at that very time and with the help of Kamlesh and Shiv Charan prepared the site plan of the scene of occurrence marked Ext. ka 7. He corroborated the fact that he found a cart at a distance of four steps from the body of the deceased besides two bundles of 'Jwar'. He had also seen blood stained earth which he sealed in a container. He claimed to have picked up plain earth in another container. He thereafter went to the village and examined Balvir. He also pointed to have tried to search the accused and the weapons used in the crime but without success. In the cross-examination he gave out that the crime number of this case earlier was written as 4230 but was later corrected as 423 and initialled. He denied the suggestion that the above mistake had crept in because till the preparation of the inquest report, the first information report bad not been written. The attention of this witness was also invited to the fact that in the check report, the distance of the police station from the scene of occurrence had been shown to be 4 Km. Where as in the inquest report it had been noted to be 5 Kms. He admitted that he had not sent copy of the FIR along with the inquest report and other documents to the Medical Officer as it had been kept by him in the case diary. He acknowledged that he had not shown the places from where the witnesses had seen the crime in question. He also admitted that he did not notice blood drops between the places where Lakshman was first shot and where he was found lying dead. He had also not shown in the site plan the place where he found the jwar crop cut. He also admitted that he did not enquire the time when Lakshman had started from his house. He also admitted that he did not notice blood drops between the places where Lakshman was first shot and where he was found lying dead. He had also not shown in the site plan the place where he found the jwar crop cut. He also admitted that he did not enquire the time when Lakshman had started from his house. He denied to have obtained the thumb-impressions of Smt. Kamlesh on any document as given rut by her. He conceded that he had not made any enquiry about the character of Lakshman deceased. He admitted that he had not shown the place in the site plan where from he took the blood stained earth but stated to have picked it from the place by the side of the dead body. The respondents in their statements had denied their capacity in the crime in question. Neelu pointed that he had been falsely implicated due to the criminal case pending against the complainant and others Shiv Charan, he did not dispute, was a witness on his behalf in that case but Mehkar Singh PW-1, was pointed to have won him over to his side by bribing him. Shiv Charan according to Mm was a professional witness Satkari was stated to be a servant of Mehkar Singh and continued to be so : The dead body of Lakshman, he gave out, had been found by Satkari when he went by cart to his field. He was shown to have passed on information about the murder of Lakshman, by unknown persons. Kalu and Mahraj Singh pointed that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Babu gave out that he had been roped in this case for he happened to be a relative of Neelu and Kalu. 11. He was shown to have passed on information about the murder of Lakshman, by unknown persons. Kalu and Mahraj Singh pointed that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Babu gave out that he had been roped in this case for he happened to be a relative of Neelu and Kalu. 11. Adverting now to the discussion of the evidence by the Additional Sessions Judge, we find him to have prefaced his discussion with this observation that, if the accused had a motive to commit the murder, the complainant could also have an equally strong motive to falsely implicate them and as such the prosecution evidence had to be examined with caution." While dealing with Smt. Kamlesh PW 3 generally but without examining what she had stated he has remarked that "Ordinarily a woman would stake her life to save her husband and as she did not do so or made any attempt to protect her husband and further because she had not received a scratch her presence was doubtful at the scene of occurrence'. In respect of Balvir PW 2 he observed that he seems to have taken extra-ordinary interest for the prosecution for he lied that he had shown to the Investigating Officer his irrigated field which he denied. Besides he has been held to be an interested witness also for the reason that he happened to be the son of Yad Ram who was a surety for Shiv Charan PW 4 along with Mehkar Singh. The prosecution witness number 4 Shiv Charan has been held by him to have been won over by Mahkar Singh as on being questioned with regard to the criminal case initiated by Sri Ram, Neelu and Kalu accused against Mehkar Singh and the deceased and others he pointed that Lakshman alone had participated in that crime although fifteen injuries were alleged to have been inflicted in that case. Satkari PW 5 had been considered unworthy of reliance because he had departed from his statement under section 161 CrPC that while going to Lawad with Jograj and Resham he had. seen the incident. Satkari PW 5 had been considered unworthy of reliance because he had departed from his statement under section 161 CrPC that while going to Lawad with Jograj and Resham he had. seen the incident. He did not consider the investigation to be fair for Smt. Kamlesh had deposed that the investigating Officer had taken her thumb-marks on certain papers and Balvir pointed that the Station House Officer and twenty to twenty five persons were accompanying the Investigating Officer when he recorded his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Additional Sessions Judge having so rejected the prosecution evidence went on to record that an important feature of this case was that the oral evidence of eye witnesses was not in conformity with the medical evidence. In this connection he has dealt with the statements of Dr. N. K. Pandey that all the incised wound could not have been inflicted by a single weapon because of the difference in the width of the incised wounds. He further has observed that the direction of the injuries nos. 5 and 6 had been found to be from below to upwards and so they could not have been sustained if the assailants and the victims were on the same plane as follows from the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He saw the above discrepancies to quote his own words to be going a long way to discredit the prosecution version.' 12. The Additional Sessions Judge did not at all apply his mind to the questions whether the incident occurred at the time and place alleged and whether the prosecution witnesses were natural and could have been present at the scene of the occurrence and witnessed the crime in question. He further has not discussed whether the statements of the prosecution witnesses bang together and have a ring of truth or there are material contradictions in their statements. He has not dealt with the statements of the prosecution witnesses and pointed out the infirmities there in on the touch stone of probabilities or on the ground of inconsistency with each other. He has not dealt with the statements of the prosecution witnesses and pointed out the infirmities there in on the touch stone of probabilities or on the ground of inconsistency with each other. In fact there is no discussion of the prosecution evidence in his judgment and he sweepingly rejected the prosecution case to have not been established because the witnesses in his view ware not independent and on superficial misguided examination, he found the medical evidence to be in conflict with the oral evidence adduced in the case. The approach of the Additional Sessions Judge in rejecting the statements of the witnesses out right because they did not pass his tests for independence alone without weighing their worth on merits is wholly unjustified. A witness may not be independent but still may be held to be speaking the truth. The inference of the Additional Sessions Judge on even the facts given by him could not be said to be justified at all. Balvir Singh PW 2, son of Yad Ram, pointed that he was irrigating his field to the immediate west of the field of Balbir son of Ganga Saran at the time of the incident. The Investigating Officer has shown the field of wad Ram, father of Balbir PW 2 in the site plan where it was stated by him. It being the month of November, Balvir, could be on his field at the time of the incident for irrigating it. The incident could have been seen from the tube-well in it. Simply became the Investigating Officer did not go to his field which he stated to be irrigating at the time of the incident, his statement could not be rejected. It would further be not justifiable to doubt his independence because his father Yad Ram stood surety for Shiv Charan PW 4 along with Mehkar Singh because Shiv Charan was a witness of Neelu and Kalu in the case against the complainant and the deceased. Balvir PW 2 appears to me to be both a natural and quite independent witness. Similarly, it would not be justified at all to deny the presence of the* wife of the deceased at the scene of occurrence simply for the reason that she had not sustained any injury The accused Kalu and Neelu in this case were the first cousins of the deceased. Similarly, it would not be justified at all to deny the presence of the* wife of the deceased at the scene of occurrence simply for the reason that she had not sustained any injury The accused Kalu and Neelu in this case were the first cousins of the deceased. There is nothing to show that Smt. Kamlesh, the wife of the deceased, had on any occasion earlier given any cause to them. So of the accused did not cause any injury to her, it would be perverse to hold that for this reason alone she was not likely to have been present. The murder of Lachman had been committed during the day. It is obvious that the assailants did not bother whether they were being seen or not and so could not have attempted to murder all those who could have seen the incident to eliminate evidence against them Further the place chosen by them was also not lonely which too shows that they had no fear of being witnessed. The shots then it may be noted bad been fired at the deceased in quick succession. There was hardly any opportunity for the wife of the deceased to come in between when accused Neelu is pointed to have pushed her aside. Besides it was very difficult for Smt. Kamlesh to sacrifice her life more so when inspite of it there could be no hope of saving her husband. It is not at all intelligible as to how the Additional Sessions Judge felt that Smt. Kamlesh if present would necessarily have sustained injuries. Further it will not be right to presume that a lady in the situation of Smt. Kamlesh was certain to take the shots on herself before her husband could be shot at. It may so happen but in most cases it will not The Additional Sessions Judge thus, allowed herself to be completely misguided when the ruled out her presence at the scene of occurrence because she had not sustained any injury, or her clothes did not get torn. So far as Satkari PW 5 is concerned the accused Neelu gave out that he was servant of Mehkar Singh and he had found the dead body of Lakshman on his field when he went by cart. It was not put to Mehkar Singh that Satkari was her servant. Satkarl dented that he was servant of Mehkar Singh. So far as Satkari PW 5 is concerned the accused Neelu gave out that he was servant of Mehkar Singh and he had found the dead body of Lakshman on his field when he went by cart. It was not put to Mehkar Singh that Satkari was her servant. Satkarl dented that he was servant of Mehkar Singh. Besides if cart was to be taken to the jwar field, it was more likely that Lakshman deceased would have himself taken it. Satkari pointed to have seen the incident while going to his brothers field, He may not be as natural a witness as Balvir Pw 2 and Smt. Kamlesh PW 3 but his statement is not unworthy when we find Neelu respondent not disputing that he did reach the place of the incident and it only remained to be seen as to when did he arrive. The only witness who could be held to have been inimical is Shiv Charan if it was shown that Neelu accused was a witness against him In the charge-sheet Ex. Kha 2, however, the name of Neelu is missing from the list of witnesses against him. Shiv Charan then it has to be noted was admittedly a witness for Neelu in the criminal case which had been initiated against the complainant and the deceased. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that he had any ill will towards the accused respondents and his statement was liable to rejection as partisan. Having dealt with the almost perverse presumptions of the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the unworthiness of the prosecution witnesses, I proceed to discuss whether the ocular account given by the prosecution witnesses Balvir PW 2, Kamlesh PW 3, Shiv Charan PW 4 and Satkari PW 5 could be discarded on this basis of the medical evidence which he has referred to in his judgment. The investigating Officer had found the dead body of Lakshman near the 'mend' of Balvir Singh close to the path. The recovery memo Ex. ka 8 shows that he had picked blood stained and plain earth from there. Besides he had found cart of the deceased nearby and also two bundles of 'jawar' fallen on the field of Kripal Singh, a few steps; from the cart. Smt. Kamlesh had pointed that the bundles of jwar fell when Lakshman was fired upon. ka 8 shows that he had picked blood stained and plain earth from there. Besides he had found cart of the deceased nearby and also two bundles of 'jawar' fallen on the field of Kripal Singh, a few steps; from the cart. Smt. Kamlesh had pointed that the bundles of jwar fell when Lakshman was fired upon. The field from which jwar was cut and was being brought has also been shown in the site plan Ex. ka 7 to the east of! field of Mehraj Sin eh wherein there was sugarcane crop. The 'Khajoor' tree almost on the border of the field of Ganga Saran and Balvir Singh has also been shown. It is quite likely as given out by Smt Kamlesh that a bundle of jwar was being brought by her and another by Lakshman by the 'mend' in between the field of Mahrai Singh and Ganga Saran and (thereafter by the beaten track in this field of Kripal Singh. The fact that there were two fallen bundles shows that the probabilities are that two persons side by side were bringing the same as is the prosecution case or else only one bundle would have been lying in the field and the remaining would already have been loaded in the cart. It appears that the deceased had almost crossed the field of Kripal and was near his cart when he was shot at from a distance of one 'hath' or so. It was only natural for the deceased then to have moved towards the tube-well. The bundles of jwar very naturally would have fallen on account of the firing In could never have been possible for the deceased to go beyond the point 'A shown at a distance of four steps or so from the cart when he was facing a volley of shots. In the site plan there is nothing which indicates nor is then any such evidence that the fields of Kripal Singh, Balvir, Ganga Saran and Mahraj Singh were not of the same level. The buggi path in between the field of Kripal Singh and Balvir Singh, however, could be taken to be slightly mighter and paths normally are so. In the statement of Mehkar there is mention of this fact that the deceased Lakshman was well built His statement in this regard has not been disputed. The buggi path in between the field of Kripal Singh and Balvir Singh, however, could be taken to be slightly mighter and paths normally are so. In the statement of Mehkar there is mention of this fact that the deceased Lakshman was well built His statement in this regard has not been disputed. It could be that he was taller then the accused who caused the chest injury and it was for this reason that the pellets were found to have travelled from lower to a higher direction.; It could as well be that the shot had actually struck him in the chest when) he had fallen on the ground with his leg towards the person shooting at him. It would be expecting too much from the witnesses to precisely say Whether after the fall, the pellets of the shot hit him or while falling they landed on him in the chest and in the inner aspect of his right arm. The incident having taken place where it was alleged to be as is clear from the discussion above, the conclusion of the additional Sessions Judge that this Oral evidence was inconsistent with medical evidence in respect of the chest injury is nothing but absurd and he should have exercised his mind and hot accepted the statement of Dr. N. K. Pandey thought lessiy as gospel truth particularly when the above situation had not been posed to him and the scene of occurrence where these was no high and low lend had been established beyond any shadow of doubt and further because it appears to be totally lout of question that Lachman could receive the single ore arm injury on the chest while on cart or tree as was denied also when put to the witness. The deceased Lakshman had sustained nine sua shot wounds of entry. The doctor had described in the post-mortem report groups of wounds as single injuries. Such groups of wounds are shown to be nine wounds of entry spread order from thigh to neck. Some of the injuries had blackening and tatooing around them where as others had not. In two of the injuries wadding pieces had been found. The doctor had also noted the fire arm exit wounds in respect of the left forearm injury and the front thigh wound. Some of the injuries had blackening and tatooing around them where as others had not. In two of the injuries wadding pieces had been found. The doctor had also noted the fire arm exit wounds in respect of the left forearm injury and the front thigh wound. It appears probable in view of the above features that fire arms of different strength had been used from different distances as is the prosecution case. 13. So far as the knife injuries are concerned it can be visualized without any difficulty that the width of injuries caused by slanting knife or as a result of knife hitting tangently was likely to be more than the injuries inflicted at the right angle. The difference in width further could have been occasioned because of some of the injuries being on fleshy parts where as others being on bony base. The Additional Sessions Judge did not discuss there very relevant points His opinion thus, that they could not have been caused by a single person is unwarranted. The fire arm injuries obviously had been caused from different distances and also by sat least two persons if not more because a single person was not likely to cause so many injuries which in all probability are from different weapons and from different angles and distances. Smt. Kamlesh stated that the first injury had been fired from a very close range. It could be the injury on the left hand or thigh or neck. The injuries nos. 4. 5, 8 and 13 appear to have teen caused by shots from a distance at the time when Lakshman was falling or had fallen. The medical report in my opinion is fully consistent with the oral evidence with regard to the time and manner of assault as has been disclosed in the statements of the prosecution witnesses dealt with above and the finding of the Additional Sessions judge to the contrary is perverse. 14. Coming now to the oral evidence of Smt. Kamlesh PW 3, it looks very probable that she had gone with the deceased for cutting and bringing jwar. The fact that the jwar had been cut cannot be doubted as the Investigating Officer too had found two bundles of jwar on the ground. Smt. Kamiesh stated that two bundles had been placed earlier on the cart. The fact that the jwar had been cut cannot be doubted as the Investigating Officer too had found two bundles of jwar on the ground. Smt. Kamiesh stated that two bundles had been placed earlier on the cart. Lakshman in cutting the jwar and loading it certainly would have needed the assistance of atleast one more person and he was likely to have taken his wife when he had gone to his field on his cart The prosecution witness Mehkar Singh PW 1 had given out that Lakshman was his only son. This also is a circumstance which shows that Smt. Kamlesh was likely to have accompanied her husband. The statement of Smt. Kamlesh except for the fact that she gave out that Neelu had fired six or seven shots and that the I.O. had obtained her thumb impression on certain papers does not suffer from any infirmity or inconsistency with the other witnesses examined by the prosecution. Smt. Kamlesh because of slip of tongue or inalertness of mind or because she meant to convey that in all six to seven firings had been done by Neelu and his men attributed six or seven shots to Neelu. Nothing however, turns on this statement because as discussed above fire arms of different kinds and strength had been used from different distances and angles and it does not appear likely that all the fire arm injuries had been caused by one weapon in the hand of Neelu, the deceased-respondent. Smt. Kamiesh it may next be pointed appears to have stated about her thumb-impression having been taken by the investigating officer not as a fact but under the belief that when he interrogated her it was likely that her thumb-impression would also have been obtained on her statement Smt. Kamiesh due to the gruesome murder of her husband in her presence was likely to have been in a state of shock and as such her memory might not have been clear at that time on the point whether she really had signed any paper in the presence of the Investigating Officer. She appears to have given statement about the signing of papers from imagination which she believed to be true in the sequence of events. She appears to have given statement about the signing of papers from imagination which she believed to be true in the sequence of events. The signing of document by Smt. Kamlesh then could have been material only if from the evidence on record such an inference followed that she had given another account about the facts of the case. There is, however, no such suggestion made to Smt. Kamlesh. The Investigating Officer denied to have taken the thumb-impression of Smt. Kamlesh. I am under the circumstances, unable to draw any inference against the prosecution because Smt. Kamlesh gave out that the Investigating Officer had got a document signed by her and that document is not forth coming. Her statement that she did not see the first shot being fired is quite natural because with the bundle of 'jwar' on her head protruding forward, her vision was likely to have been obstructed partially. Coming now to the testimony of Balvir son of Yad Ram PW 2, I have already observed that he is a fairly independent witness. It has not been challenged that his father's field was not near the scene of occurrence. If the Investigating Officer who happened to be a second Officer in his police station due to either lack of experience or because he thought it unnecessary did not note that he had irrigated his field to confirm his presence, it would be unjustified to disbelieve him particularly when his statement inspires confidence. This witness has given out that the second firing by Neelu, Kalu and Babu had been done from the eastern side where as the first firing by Kalu and Babu had been done from the southern side. The distance from which the first shot had been fired was given out to be about two steps where as the distance from which the second shot had been fired by the accused aforesaid had been given to be three to four steps. The statement of this witness shows that in all six shots had been fired and of them five were within his view. He had also stated about the reloading of the fire-arms by Neelu, Kalu and Babu. The statement of this witness shows that in all six shots had been fired and of them five were within his view. He had also stated about the reloading of the fire-arms by Neelu, Kalu and Babu. The chest and right arm injury as noted in the post-mortem report could result to Lakshman if he had been shot at from the northeastern side with his head towards south-west and leg towards north east- facing the shooters. The prosecution witness Balvir was not shown to have any grudge whatsoever with the respondents He could not be presumed to be close to the complainant because his father was a surety for Shiv Charan PW 4 along with Mehkar Singh. I have already discussed above that Shiv Charan had been cited as a witness by the accused Neelu, Kalu and their father Sri Ram against Mehkar complainant and the deceased Lakshman in the 'marpit' case against them. Balvir's account in as much as the respondents Neelu, Kalu and Mahraj Singh are concerned appears to be absolutely reliable and on the statements of Balbir and Smt Kamlesh alone they could safely be convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC. The witnesses Shiv Charan and Satkari though not as natural as Balvir, could be held to have witnessed the incident. There is no improbability in Shiv Charan going towards his field at a short distance from the place of the incident. The suggestion made to him was that he had been won over by the money of Mehkar Singh. Although no such suggestion was made to Mehkar Singh. The Addl. Sessions Judge was not justified in presuming that he had been so won over on the basis of bis statement that Lakshman alone was responsible for the injuries in respect of the criminal case against him and his parents and others. The respondents however, had not questioned Shiv Charan about the facts of this case. There is thus, no contradiction between his statement and those of Balvir and Smt. Kamlesh. !So far as Satkari PW 5 is concerned I have already pointed above that the accused Neelu had given out that he had reached the scene of occurrence with the cart of Lakshman after he had been murdered. Satkari pointed that he saw the incident as he had gone to his brother's field. !So far as Satkari PW 5 is concerned I have already pointed above that the accused Neelu had given out that he had reached the scene of occurrence with the cart of Lakshman after he had been murdered. Satkari pointed that he saw the incident as he had gone to his brother's field. Satkari could not tell the boundary of the field of his brother and it could surely create a doubt whether fee really had gone to his brother's field when he also had admittedly do work to do there but then his presence at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time, cannot be ruled out although he certainly is a chance witness and as such his statement requires greater scrutiny. It may be noted however, that Satkari too was not cross examined with regard to the details of the incident in question. The tact that Satkari could merely tell the names of the respondents Neelu and Kalu shows that he had not been tutored or was not completely under the influence of the prosecution. The respondents in order to show that Satkari could not be relied upon at all had to satisfy that it was improbable for him to have seen the incident or that his statement suite red from certain infirmities. These having not been demonstrated the Addl. Sessions Judge, was not justified in discarding his statement altogether. 15. Having discussed the evidence of the eye witnesses, I now proceed to deal with the testimoney of Mehkar Singh, PW 1 who had lodged the first information report on information provided to him by the eye witnesses Balbir PW 2, Smt. Kamlesh PW 3, Sheo Charan PW 4 and Satkari PW 3 and the statement of the Investigating Officer Sultan Singh PW 8 to ascertain whether they had moulded the evidence and there could be a reasonable doubt as to the miscarriage of justice thereby. Mehkar singh had himself not gone to lodge the report. He had sent the report through yad Ram after it had been scribed on his dictation by his son Mahipal Singh. He also stated about the motive of the crime which had not been challenged seriously by the accused and which the Sessions Judge had also not rejected. Mehkar singh had himself not gone to lodge the report. He had sent the report through yad Ram after it had been scribed on his dictation by his son Mahipal Singh. He also stated about the motive of the crime which had not been challenged seriously by the accused and which the Sessions Judge had also not rejected. Too accused however, had suggested to Mehkar Singh that his deceased son was a debauch and had looted the honour of a number of women and could have been murdered by any one of the relatives of those ladies. The accused respondent, however, had not filed any document or led any evidence whatsoever beyond making the above suggestion. They, therefore, can only be held to be not probable at all. In the cross-examination of Mehkar Singh it has not been shown that Balbir Singh, Sheo Charan and Satkari were under his influence. It had not been put to him that Satkari was his servant as was the suggestion made to satkari when he had entered the witness box. No question Had also been asked about his being in a position to prevail upon Balbir to falsely implicate the respondents. Similarly if he had bribed sheo Charan to be a witness against the respondents as was suggested to sheo Charan, Mehkar Singh was the person who should primarily have been questioned in this regard. 16. Coming now to the statement of Sultan Singh S.I. PW 8 it may make one wonder at the first sight as to way he did not send copy of the FIR to the Medical Officer who was to conduct the post-mortem examination and why he made a mistake in noting the distance of the police station from the scene of occurrence as 5 Km. when it was actually 4 Kms. He had also been questioned as to why he first made a mistake in nosing the number of the crime in question, Sultan Singh PW 8 explained that he had not sent the copy of the FIR as he had kept it in his diary. when it was actually 4 Kms. He had also been questioned as to why he first made a mistake in nosing the number of the crime in question, Sultan Singh PW 8 explained that he had not sent the copy of the FIR as he had kept it in his diary. The non sending of the copy of the FIR cannot lead to the inference that till the post-mortem examinations it had not been decided as to who were to be the accused as m the copy of the G. D. which had been sent to the Medical Officer the names of the accused found mention and the body of the deceased had not been withheld but promptly despatched as follows from the challan of the dead body. Sultan Singh I.O. admitted that in noting the distance of the police station from the place of incident he had made a mistake and he had also similarly committed mistake in writing the correct crime number at first which he pointed to have immediately rectified. I examined the inquest report. It appears that while wilting the distance of the place of the incident from the police station, the S. I. bad not taken care to record it with the help of the copy of the check report with him. He after making correction had written it as five. Similarly he had corrected the crime number. These mistakes on the part of the Sub-Inspector do not seem to be mischievous but on account of his inexperience as he was only a Second Officer. It appears to be the reason why the Station House Officer had accompanied him when he recorded the statement of Balbir. It however, will be unjustified to draw this inference that the Station House Officer had accompanied the I.O. to interfere with the investigation. The incident having taken place in the forenoon in the presence of witnesses at a place established by the fall of blood and the presence of the bundles of Jwar and the empty cartridges etc., the I.O. was hardly required to do much. I am satisfied that he neither over zealously nor unfairly did anything to somehow fasten the guilt upon the respondents. I am satisfied that he neither over zealously nor unfairly did anything to somehow fasten the guilt upon the respondents. It last of all is to be examined whether the participation of ail the four respondents in the crime in question could be held to have been established beyond all reasonable doubts, in the background of this circumstance that this being an appeal against acquittal the responsibility is further greater on this count to see that each point which the trial court took into account for recording acquittal or could be raised had been examined and no substance at all had been found in them, i have pointed above, that the four eye witnesses Balbir PW 1, Smt. Kamlesh PW .3, sheo Charan PW 4 and Satkari PW 5 have consistently stated that Neelu and Kalu had participated in the crime in question. Satkari PW 5, however did not state by name that Babu and Mahraj Singh Were involved in the crime in question. He had stated that the sister's son of Neelu and his brother in law were involved, that he had seen them in village on one or more occasions, that their names had been taken at the scene of the incident and that the sister's son of Neelu resided at a distance of ten miles in village jainpur and the brother in law of Neelu in Bapugarh at a distance of 30 miles. The fact that Babu is the sister's son of Meelu and Mahraj singh is his brother in law had not been denied but if the prosecution wanted to rely upon the statement of Satkari it was arguable for the respondents, that he should nave been called upon to identity Babu and Maharaj Singh in an identification parade more so when he had only seen them earlier on one or two occasions as given out by him. sheo Charan PW 4 at first stated that he only bad seen Neelu, Kalu and Mahraj Singh attacking Taxman, it was only later when questioned with regard to details that he pointed that Babu had also fired at Laxman besides Meelu. The conduct or Satkari in not naming him and the failure of Sheo Charon to state in the first instance that he was attacking Laxman along with the three other accused do false a doubt about his participation although Balbir PW 1 and smt. The conduct or Satkari in not naming him and the failure of Sheo Charon to state in the first instance that he was attacking Laxman along with the three other accused do false a doubt about his participation although Balbir PW 1 and smt. Ramesh PW 3 both did state that Neelu, Babu and Kalu each had fired twice at Laxman. The respondent Baboo in his statement demed his participation in the crime. He had given out his age to be 16 years and tired to show that he was a child at the time of the incident but it was estimated to be 20 years by the trial Judge on 19-8-78. The incident having taken place on 3-11-77, he was between eighteen and nineteen years on the estimate of the trial judge at the time of the incident, though the same had not been father confirmed by medical report. The fact nonetheless remained that he being the sister's son of Neelu, was of a lower generation than the accused Kalu who was the elder brother of Neelu and Meharal Singh who was his brother-in-law. 1 had a very close look at the post-mortem report. Although, there is no improbability in the injuries having been caused by six shots as is the prosecution story but it could not be absolutely ruled out that all the injuries could as well have even been caused by merely four shots the injuries no. 1, 2 and 3 by one shot, the injuries no. 4, 5, 6 and 13 by another shot, the injuries no 7 and 8 toy still another shot and the injuries nos. 9 and 10 also by another single shot. If only four shots had caused all the fire arm injuries I, would without hesitation hold that Neelu and Kalu had caused them because they had greater motive to do so, because the evidence against them is more unambiguous and further because Babu being comparatively much younger in age and belonging to a lower generation and living in a different village was not lilkely in comparison to Neelu and Kalu to have been responsible therefor. So, as a measure of abundent caution in this appeal against acquittal, I feel inclined to give the benefit of doubt to Babu. The result is that the appeal' fails against Babu but was to be allowed against Kalu and Mahraj Singh. So, as a measure of abundent caution in this appeal against acquittal, I feel inclined to give the benefit of doubt to Babu. The result is that the appeal' fails against Babu but was to be allowed against Kalu and Mahraj Singh. The appeal so far as Neelu is concerned has already been held to have abated because of his death ORDER 17. This Government appeal against. Babu respondent is dismissed. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 18. This appeal, however, is allowed against Kalu and Mahraj Singh respondents. Their acquittal under section 302 read with section 34 IPC is set aside. They are held guilty and convicted of the charge under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. Since I am sentencing them to the lesser punishment under section 302 IPC. I am not calling them to make submissions with regard to sentence. They are each sentenced to imprisonment for life. They are on bail. They shall surrender to serve out the sentence awarded by this Court. Neelu having died, this appeal stand abated. Palok Basu, J. 19. I would prefer to agree with the above judgment of my brother and adopt the reasonings. Appeal allowed.