JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Shri Ganganagar Camp at Sri Karanpur dated 23-9-1987 whereby the learned Judge has convicted the accused appellant Gurbux Singh under Section 302 IPC simpliciter and accused Veer Singh alias Balveer Singh and Ranjeet Singh alias Jassa Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 2. Aggrieved against this, the accused appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that PW 3 Gurmail Singh on 15-8-1985 at 3 P.M. filed a first information report at the Police Station, Keshrisinghpur (Ex. P 3) to this effect that he was a Conductor of Sri Ganganagar Roadways Depot of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and he along with driver Paras Ram in a Bus No. RRM 8814 was going to Sri Ganganagar from Sri Karanpur. When they reached near the Bus Stand on 6-0 then one Jonga Jeep bearing No. RJN 1457 came from behind and got the bus stopped. From that jeep two persons got down, one of them was jeep driver and climbed on the bus and insisted that one passenger Mst. Jito may be got down. It is alleged that he asked the name of the driver of the jeep and he stated that his name was Gurbux Singh and the remaining two persons were Ranjeet Singh and Balveer Singh and they wanted the passenger Mst. Jito to get down but she resisted. Thereupon the driver Paras Ram started the bus. This deprived these three persons to get into the bus. At about 2. 15 P.M. when the bus reached Kaminpura Bus stand and the passengers were getting down then these three persons came in the jeep and started beating driver Paras Ram. Gurbux Singh had a iron Kamani in his hand and he gave 2-3 murderous blows on the head of the driver Paras Ram. Veer Singh was exhorting him that the driver should be killed. On hearing this commotion Booking Clerk Parmanand and other passengers came down to intervene but they also' threatened them that no body should intervene as they will kill him. Paras Ram became unconscious on the spot. Gurmail Singh reached at the Police Station terrorised and filed the report. Veer Singh was exhorting him that the driver should be killed. On hearing this commotion Booking Clerk Parmanand and other passengers came down to intervene but they also' threatened them that no body should intervene as they will kill him. Paras Ram became unconscious on the spot. Gurmail Singh reached at the Police Station terrorised and filed the report. The police registered a case under Sections 332, 353 and 307 IPC and look up the investigation and also prepared the necessary site-plan and site memo and recovered the blood stained soil from the scence of the occurrence. The accused persons were arrested on the information of accused -Gurbux Singh the iron Kamani was recovered. The victim was removed to the Hospital and on 16-8-1985 Paras Ram expired and his post mortem was conducted. After completion of the necessary investigation the police filed a challan against all the accused persons under Sections 302, 332, 353 read with Section 34 IPC in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the accused Gurbux Singh under Section 302 simpliciter and the other accused persons, namely, Veer Singh and Ranjeet Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined about 10 witnesses and got about 16 documents exhibited and also produced 7 articles in support of its case. The accused denied the allegation and claimed for trial. Accused Gurbux Singh stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC that he has taken the Jonga on rent. On 15-8-1985 he was with his Jonga at the bus stand Kaminpura and he was taking the passengers. Meanwhile a bus came from Karanpur which was being driven by Paras Ram. He came down from the bus armed with a iron rod near his Jonga and demanded that the passengers from the Jonga should be got down. But he resisted and thereupon Paras Ram gave a blow with the rod on his head. But when he wanted to hit him second with the rod he also picked up a broken Kamani from the jeep & he in his defence hit him back. But he resisted and thereupon Paras Ram gave a blow with the rod on his head. But when he wanted to hit him second with the rod he also picked up a broken Kamani from the jeep & he in his defence hit him back. Paras Ram fell down and thereafter he took him in his Jonga to the Hospital at Keshrisinghpur. There, the Police arrested him. He has also deposed that Jassu and Veeru accused persons were not with him Accused Veer Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC has also stated that he is a driver and he drives the vehicle as per the directions given by his owners. He has stated that they took the passengers from Ganganagar to Karanpur and Karanpur to Padampur and some times the roadways officials object to it. He has stated that on the date of the incident he was not in the Jonga and he had gone along with his owner to different route. Accused Jassa Singh has also stated more or less the same facts as stated by Veer Singh. Learned Sessions Judge after due trial found the accused guilty and convicted the accused appellants as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. 5. The accused Veer Singh and Ranjeet Singh both of them remained on bail during the trial as well as they were enlarged on bail by this Court also after conviction. 6. Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel appearing for the accused Gurbux Singh, has taken us to the necessary evidence and has submitted that the accused had a right of private defence and the version given out by the accused person is fully established. Therefore, the accused persons are entitled to acquittal. 7. Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants Veer Singh and Ranjeet Singh has submitted that both these persons have been wrongly implicated by the prosecution and the learned Additional Sessions has wrongly convicted. As per the evidence on record there is no overt act of either of these two accused persons in the commission of this crime. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in convicting the accused appellants by invoking the provisions of Section 34 IPC.We have heard learned counsel and perused the records. 8. The prosecution in support of its case examined three eyewitnesses, namely, PW 1 Mst. Jito, PW 2. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in convicting the accused appellants by invoking the provisions of Section 34 IPC.We have heard learned counsel and perused the records. 8. The prosecution in support of its case examined three eyewitnesses, namely, PW 1 Mst. Jito, PW 2. Rajkumar and PW 3 Gurmail Singh, Conductor of the bus. PW 2 Rajkumar has been declared hostile and the whole prosecution case hinges on the testimony of PW 1 Mst. Jito a passenger for whom the whole controversy arose and PW 3 Gurmail Singh, the Conductor of the bus. PW 1 Mst. Jito has deposed that she had come to Karanpur Mandi for her domestic work. She was taking the food at the Hotel, one Jonga jeep stopped before that Hotel. All these three persons Veeru, Jassa, and the accused Gurbux Singh were in that jeep. She knew them before. They insisted that she should come in the jeep. She refused them and left the food for catching the bus which was going to Sri Ganganagar and she sat in that bus. When the bus stopped at 6-0 the Joonga jeep came before the bus and stopped it. All these persons got in the bus and insisted that she should come down. This she resisted and thereafter the bus started. This frustrated their attempt to climb in the bus and take her from that bus. When the bus reached near Kaminpura Bus stand the accused Gurbux Singh hit the driver of the bus on his head with an iron rod (Kamani.) She deposed that this driver gave 3 blows on the head of the deceased driver of the bus. Both the accused persons, namely, Veer Singh and Ranjeet Singh alias Jassa were with the accused Gurbux Singh and they exhorted him that be should be done away. Thereafter, it is alleged that she also reached along with the Conductor to the Police Station. She has been cross-examined at length but so far as the main story of the accused Gurbux Singh giving the deadly blows on the head of the deceased bus driver is concerned, she is consistent and she has not wriggle out from this story. PW 3 Gurmail Singh, Conductor of the bus has also repeated the same story. She has been cross-examined at length but so far as the main story of the accused Gurbux Singh giving the deadly blows on the head of the deceased bus driver is concerned, she is consistent and she has not wriggle out from this story. PW 3 Gurmail Singh, Conductor of the bus has also repeated the same story. He is the person who was the Conductor of the same bus and he has filed the first information report at Police Station. PW 7 Dr. Rajendra Gupta conducted the post mortem of the deceased and has deposed that the deceased had one lacerated wound 31/4 x 1/4" x bone deep on the right frontal region and he also had a lacerated wound 2" x ⅛" x bone deep on the right fronto-parietal region. He also had one lacerated wound 11/4" x ⅛" x scalp deep on the right frontal region above the injury No. 1. He has also deposed that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 9. The defence has also examined one witness in defence i.e. DW 1 Dr. Jaswant Singh, who has examined the accused Gurbux Singh and he found that Gurbux Singh was drunk and the smell of liquor was coming out from his mouth. He had also one injury 11/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the right parietal bone 4" from right pinna. 10. Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel for the accused appellant Gurbux Singh has streneously urged that the deceased was the assailant and the accused in his right of private defence has caused these injuries and drawn support from the corresponding injury received by the accused also. In support of his contention, learned counsel has invited our attention to a number of cases. It is not necessary to reproduce all of them here because in criminal cases the facts of each case are peculiar in itself. In the alternative, learned counsel has also submitted that the accused had no intention to cause death of the deceased and learned counsel submitted that it was a case of accidental happening at the spur of the moment. Therefore, the accused at best can be found guilty of Section 304 Part 11 IPC. 11. Likewise, Mr. In the alternative, learned counsel has also submitted that the accused had no intention to cause death of the deceased and learned counsel submitted that it was a case of accidental happening at the spur of the moment. Therefore, the accused at best can be found guilty of Section 304 Part 11 IPC. 11. Likewise, Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the accused appellants Veer Singh & Ranjit Singh has submitted that a perusal of the statements of both the eye-witnesses would show that this was a case of over implication and no overt act has been assigned to these accused appellants except that these persons were together. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that both these persons pleaded the plea of alibi as they were not with the accused Gurbux Singh. 12. We have given our best of the consideration to the arguments urged by the learned counsel and we are of the opinion that so far as the conviction of the accused Gurbux Singh is concerned, there cannot be two opinion as from the statement of PW 1 Mst. Jito and PW 3 Gurmail Singh it is established beyond doubt that the accused Gurbux Singh was the author of the deadly blows inflicted on the head of the deceased and this fact has not been disputed by Gurbux Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC. But he has put forward a plea of right of private defence which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved and rightly so. The story put forward by Gurbux Singh accused that it is the bus driver who came down and dealt the blow, that provoked the accused to retaliate. But this plea is far from truth as these three accused persons were together and if the deceased has come to attack these three persons then they were there to take care of the deceased and they could have contained him easily but from the facts it appears that Gurbux Singh who was admittedly drunk at that time tried to take the law in his own hand and wanted to retrieve his passenger from the bus i.e. Mst. Jito. This attempt was frustrated by the driver of the bus and that gave a cause to Gurbux to give these blows on the head of the deceased. Jito. This attempt was frustrated by the driver of the bus and that gave a cause to Gurbux to give these blows on the head of the deceased. Therefore, so far as the culpability of Gurbux singh in causing murderous assault on the deceased Parasram driver of the bus is concerned, it is established beyond doubt. 13. Next, so far as the part played by the accused Veersingh and Ranjit singh is concerned, there is no direct evidence either that of PW 1 Mst. Jito or PW 3 Gurmail Singh that they actively assisted the accused in the commission of the crime. All that these two witnesses have stated was that these two persons were together with the accused and they were standing at the time when the fatal blows were dealt by the accused Gurbuxsingh on the head of deceased Parasram. There is no specific overt act assigned to these two persons and the statements of both these witnesses that they exhorted the accused Gurbuxsingh to kill the driver of the bus appears to be a mere embroidery so as to lend more seriousness in the offence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that because of the fact that these accused accompanied the accused Gurbux Singh in the jeep and were present when the deadly blows were dealt by Gurbuxsingh in order to abduct Mst. Jito, therefore, he has invoked the provisions of Section 34 IPC. 14. But in the present case we are of the opinion that the testimony of these two witnesses is too weak a link to infer a common intention of both these accused persons to murder the deceased driver Parasram. It appears to be an individual act of Gurbuxsingh, to take out Mst. Jito PW 1 passenger from the bus and when his attempt was frustrated he retaliated by this deadly assault. More so, the accused was also in an intoxicated condition at that time which is apparent from the testimony of Dr. Jaswant singh. So far as the injury sustained by accused Gurbux Singh is concerned, it is of superficial nature. The injury itself is too superficial to support the version of the accused. More so, PW 1 Mst. Jito has deposed that this injury was caused to the accused by the window when the bus driver started the bus from 6-0. 15. So far as the injury sustained by accused Gurbux Singh is concerned, it is of superficial nature. The injury itself is too superficial to support the version of the accused. More so, PW 1 Mst. Jito has deposed that this injury was caused to the accused by the window when the bus driver started the bus from 6-0. 15. Thus, in the result, we dismiss the appeal of accused Gurbux Singh and uphold his conviction under Section 302 IPC and confirm the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, we accept the appeal of appellants Veer singh and Ranjitsingh and set aside their convection under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and acquit them of the charges. Both the accused appellants are on bail, therefore, they need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged.Order accordingly. *******