Judgment : S.K. Phaujdar, J. 1. THE present four appeals and the death reference No. 6 of 1994 arise out of S. T. No. 390 of 1992 in which the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar by his judgment and order dated 9.11.1994 convicted the different appellants variously under Section 302, I.P.C. and lesser offences and sentenced two of them to death, while the others were given other various punishments. THE four sets of appellants preferred the present four appeals while the reference was made by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence. 2. CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1857 of 1994 has been filed by Malkhan and Risal, both sons of Karan Singh, against their order of conviction under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentence thereunder for one year as also against their conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of death by hanging thereunder and against their conviction under Section 307/149, I.P.C. and sentence of five years' R.I. therefor. The death reference relates to these two accused persons. CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1737 of 1994 has been preferred by Pramod, son of Risal Singh, Inder, son of Karan Singh, Rajveer son of Inder Singh and Brahmapal son of Risal Singh for their conviction under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentence of R.I. for one year ; for conviction under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and the sentence of Life Imprisonment therefor as also for conviction under Section 307/149, I.P.C. and the sentence of five years' R. I. thereunder. CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1769 of 1994 has been preferred by Satendra Singh son of Risal for his conviction under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentence of one years' R. I., conviction under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and sentence of Life Imprisonment thereunder as also for conviction under Section 307/149, I.P.C. and sentence of five years' R. I. thereunder. CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1858 of 1994 has been preferred by Om Veer, son of Inder for his conviction under Section 148 and sentence of one years' R. I. thereunder, for conviction under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and sentence of Life Imprisonment thereunder as also for conviction under Section 307, I.P.C. read with Section 149 thereof and sentence of R. I. therefor. CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1858 of 1994 has been preferred by Om Veer, son of Inder for his conviction under Section 148 and sentence of one years' R. I. thereunder, for conviction under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and sentence of Life Imprisonment thereunder as also for conviction under Section 307, I.P.C. read with Section 149 thereof and sentence of R. I. therefor. Before we open the prosecution case and state the findings against the individual accused persons, we feel that the family genealogy of the deceased may be given at the outset as the three deceased persons, the eight accused persons and the two eye-witnesses-all belong to the same family : Karan Singh Risal Inder Malkhan Iqbal Kiran Mohar (accused) (accused) (accused) (deceased) (P.W. 1) (pre-deceased his father) Wife, Mahendri (P.W. 2) Om Veer Raj Veer (accused) (accused) Yashveer (deceased) Satendar Brahma Pal Pramod (accused) (accused) (accused) Brajpal Kallu Desh Pal 3. THE patriarch of the family, Karan Singh, had 175 blghas of land. He gave away 25 bigha of land to each brother of his six sons. His son Mohar had pre deceased him. It is stated in the prosecution case that Brij Pal was living the life of a vagabond and, accordingly, in the branch of Mohar only Kallu and Deshpal were given together the 25 bighas of land that was to be given to the branch of Mohar. Shares of the branches of the six sons accounted for 150 bighas. THE rest 25 bighas were kept by this nonagenarian Karan Singh for his own maintenance with a clear stipulation that on his death the same would go equally to the branches of his six sons. Karan Singh allegedly used to give 22 bighas on "theka" to any son with whom he proposed to live and the rest 3 bighas were left under the cultivation of that son. According to the materials available on record, Karan Singh was aged about 90 years at the time of the incident. His son, deceased Iqbal, was aged about 60 years at the time of the incident and the third deceased, Yashveer, son of Iqbal, was a young man. THE note of ages of the accused persons at the time of their examination under Section 313, Cr. His son, deceased Iqbal, was aged about 60 years at the time of the incident and the third deceased, Yashveer, son of Iqbal, was a young man. THE note of ages of the accused persons at the time of their examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C. indicated that Brahma Pal was aged about 30 years in 1994 and Pramod was 23, Rajveer 27, Omveer 20, Malkhan 70, Satyendra 26, Inder 70 and Risal 74. 4. ACCORDING to the prosecution story, Karan Singh, his sons Kiran and Iqbal, wives of Kiran and Iqbal, namely, Mahendri and Rajkali, and Yashveer, son of Iqbal, were engaged on the land of Karan Singh since the morning of 28.11.1991 to make a 'nali' thereon. At about 11.00 a.m. Malkhan, Satyendra, Brahma Pal, Promod, Risal, Rajveer, Omveer and Inder came there and asked as to why they were digging a "nali" on the land. The F.I.R. indicates that on such protest, Kiran had stated that he had taken the land on "theka" from their father, Karan Singh and, accordingly, the "nali" was being dug. The above-named 8 persons then became ready for a quarrel and, in furtherance of their common intention to kill, Malkhan had uttered, "Salon ko goli mar do. Sab rar hi khatam ho jaigi" (kill the rascals, all dispute would be over). The F.I.R. further stated that Malkhan had with him a katta (country made pistol) and he opened fire on Iqbal. Risal had a tabal and he gave 'Tabal" blows on Karan Singh. At this Jasbeer took to his heels. He was chased by Malkhan, Satyendra, Om veer and all the three surrounded him and opened fire on him from their Kattas and killed him. The others also took part in the attack. Karan Singh, Iqbal and Jasbeer died on the spot. The informant, Kiran and his wife, Rajkali and Mahendree, wife of Iqbal, had seen the incident. Informant came to the police station and made a report. According to the formal F.I.R. drawn at the police station, the time of report to the police station is noted as 12.30 a.m. while the distance of the police station is about 5 kilometre from the land of occurrence. During investigation, the police took charge of the dead bodies and got the autopsy done on them. According to the formal F.I.R. drawn at the police station, the time of report to the police station is noted as 12.30 a.m. while the distance of the police station is about 5 kilometre from the land of occurrence. During investigation, the police took charge of the dead bodies and got the autopsy done on them. The police also visited the spot, made a rough sketch map with explanatory notes on the identification of the informants Kiran, and certain incriminating articles, blank cartridges were allegedly recovered from the spot. 5. ONLY two alleged eye-witnesses were examined during the trial. They were P.W. 1, Kiran Singh, the person who had lodged the F.I.R. and P.W. 2, Mahendri, wife of Iqbal who also, according to the F.I.R., was present at the spot. Rajkali, wife of Kiran, was not examined during the trial. The other witnesses examined during the trial were P.W. 3, Dr. S. S. Somani, who held post-mortem examination on the three dead bodies, P.W. 4, Kamal Singh a constable at P. S. Garipokhta who had accompanied the dead-bodies for post-mortem examination, P.W. 5, Meer Singh. Head Moharrir at P. S. Garipokhta who had recorded the F.I.R., P.W. 6. Daya Shankar Singh, who was S. I. of Police at Garipokhta, on the date of incident and who had investigated into the matter in part, P.W. 7, Babu Ram Singh who was the Station Officer at P. S. Garipokhta on the date of incident and P.W. 8, Man Singh, who was an S. I. of police at P. S. Shamali on the date of the incident. It may be mentioned here that although the F.I.R. was lodged at P. S. Garipokhta, there was no officer of the rank of S. I. at that moment at P. S. Garipokhta and the F.I.R was sent to the neighbouring P. S. Shamali so that the S. I. there might proceed to initiate an investigation. 6. AFTER closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and the circumstances that came against them in evidence were put to them. No specific defence, barring denial, was taken during their statements under Section 313, Cr. P.C. It was, however, stated by Inder and accepted by others that Kiran Singh had six sons of whom Mohar Singh had pre-deceased him. P.C. and the circumstances that came against them in evidence were put to them. No specific defence, barring denial, was taken during their statements under Section 313, Cr. P.C. It was, however, stated by Inder and accepted by others that Kiran Singh had six sons of whom Mohar Singh had pre-deceased him. AFTER the death of Mohar Singh, Karan Singh had given away to each of his sons' branches 25 bighas of land. Mohar had three sons of whom Brijpal had become wayward and he was disinherited and only two other sons of Mohar were given 25 bighas of land that was due to Mohar. Karan Singh had retained 25 bighas of land for himself. It was stated that by Inder in his examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C, in answer to the question if he had anything more to say, that Brijpal had always been giving pressure on Karan Singh for his share and had always been quarrelling with him whenever he happened to come to the village. No defence witness was examined. The feeble defence that was proposed to be make out was that it was quite possible that Brijpal alone or with assistance of some others might have committed the murders. It was argued that there was no motive for the present accused persons to kill the head of the family when they had got their shares of the land and possessed them peacefully. From what has been stated above, it is clear that the prosecution case would stand or fall on the acceptance or rejection of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. The statement of the other P.Ws. would only be relevant to test the veracity of the statements of these two witnesses. There is no denial that the three deceased had died due to the ante-mortem injuries caused on their persons by katta and tubal. There is no denial further of the relationship between the parties and it is also accepted that Kiran Singh had divided his lands in equal shares to all the branches of his six sons. The evidence of the two alleged eye-witnesses who also happened to be the members of the same family are to be judged in the background of this family situation. The evidence of the two alleged eye-witnesses who also happened to be the members of the same family are to be judged in the background of this family situation. If at all we are to search for a motive for these accused persons to kill Karan Singh and his son and grandson, we must not be oblivious of the fact that there should be some strong reason for the other members of the family to implicate the sons and grandsons of Karan Singh in a false case leaving aside the real assailants. 7. THE learned counsel for the appellants took us through the F.I.R. and scrutinised the same to point out certain improvements made in the prosecution story from the stage of F.I.R. to the stage of trial. It was stated that in the F.I.R., Kiran had stated that he had taken the land in "theka" from his father, Karan Singh, while at the trial a case was made out that it was Iqbal who had taken the land in "theka" from Karan Singh. It was further pointed out that no specific role was attributed in the F.I.R. barring a general allegation "others also assaulted" to Brahmapal, Pramod, Raj veer and Inder and no weapons were put in their hands as per the allegations in the F.I.R. But definite allegations were levelled against them at the trial and they were alleged to have held definite and specific weapons. THE learned counsel submitted that Karan Singh or Jasbeer had not spoken a word to retort to the challenge of Malkhan and others and there was no reason why they would be assaulted and as to why Kiran, who had come out with an explanation for their stay in the land, would be spared. THE learned counsel also attacked the credibility of the prosecution story stating that it was impossible for Kiran to stay there to watch every incident of assault and still remain untouched by anyone of the 8 accused persons who were allegedly in a rage of temper and had already killed three persons. THE learned counsel contended that the very presence of Kiran is to be doubted and once his presence at the spot is negatived, the F.I.R. becomes dobt ful and the basis of the prosecution case is shaken. THE learned counsel contended that the very presence of Kiran is to be doubted and once his presence at the spot is negatived, the F.I.R. becomes dobt ful and the basis of the prosecution case is shaken. THE credibility of the prosecution case was also questioned on the ground that in the sketch map that was prepared by the Investigating Officer on identification of the spot by Kiran (P.W. 1), no place was indicated as to where from the accused persons had opened fire, as to where the deceased were standing or as to where from the witnesses had seen the incident. It was stated further that the Investigating Officer had admitted that he did not find any newly dug "nali" on the land. THE learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out to another alleged infirmity in the prosecution case. It was alleged that several rounds were fired from different guns but only one blank cartridge was found at the spot. Yet another point of attack was levelled against the prosecution case on the ground that although the deceased were allegedly clad with chadar and khes, no such wrapper was found at the spot, either blood stained or plain. THE statement of P.W. 1 was also criticised on the ground that his description of the injuries did not tally with the medical evidence. 8. IN reply to this attack on the prosecution story, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted before us that even if the statement of Kiran Singh is discarded on the ground that his presence at the spot is not free from doubt, there still remains the statement of Mahendri, wife of Iqbal and conviction may be maintained, of all the accused persons, even on the uncorroborated testimony of Mahendri. We are, therefore, confronted with the question : whether Mahendri could be believed and relied upon and whether the conviction could be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of Mahendri. The learned counsel placed reliance on several case-laws touching the present point. It was contended on behalf of the defence that while it is true that even an uncorroborated testimony of a single witness could form the basis of conviction, such witness must be above board and the evidence must be wholly reliable. 9. The learned counsel placed reliance on several case-laws touching the present point. It was contended on behalf of the defence that while it is true that even an uncorroborated testimony of a single witness could form the basis of conviction, such witness must be above board and the evidence must be wholly reliable. 9. THE learned counsel for the defence relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 CrLJ 1000 : parallel to AIR 1957 SC 614 . It was observed herein that the Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exception to the general rule recognised under Section 134, Indian Evidence Act which by laying down that no particular number of eye-witnesses shall in any case be required for proof of any fact as enshrined, the well-recognised maxim that "evidence has to be weighed and not counted". THE Supreme Court categorised evidence in three classes : (1) wholly reliable ; (2) wholly unreliable ; and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It was held that in the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way and it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subordination. In the second category, according to the submission, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion as in such cases no account of corroboration could improve an otherwise unreliable evidence. It is only in the third category of cases that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony. THE learned counsel for the defence submitted, in respect of the evidence of P.W. 2, Mahendri, that it was not above reproach and it suffers from intrinsic infirmities and before accepting her evidence, care must be taken to look for corroboration in material particulars. 10. THE learned counsel further relied on another decision of the Supreme Court (and that also of the year 1957) in the case of Bhagwandas and another, 1957 CrLJ 889 : parallel to AIR 1957 SC 589 . In this case, a witness had named another as a person present at the spot and the presence of this second man was doubtful. In this case, a witness had named another as a person present at the spot and the presence of this second man was doubtful. THE Supreme Court observed that when the witness who is sought to be believed without corroboration, could go to the extent of mentioning another as an eye-witness who was really not present, it would be dangerous to accept his testimony and to base conviction thereon. It was contended with reference to the present case that if Kiran's presence at the spot is disbelieved, then the very assertion of Mahendri in her evidence that Kiran was also there at the spot would make her evidence tainted and she must not be believed. On behalf of the complainant, reliance was placed on certain other decisions of the Supreme Court. In the case Beti Padia v. State of Orissa, AIR 1981 SC 1163 , the Supreme Court relied on the testimony of an unsophisticated advasi woman although in her evidence, there were minor and normal discrepancies. 11. LEARNED counsel for the complainant further relied on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kamataka v. Rama Reddy, JT 1993 (4) SC 350. In this case, the High Court had acquitted the respondent, Rama Reddy, of the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. It was a case of patricide. The accused had cut the throat of his father. Witnesses to the incident were the sister and mother of the accused. There was no infirmity in their evidence. The appeal of the State was allowed and Rama Reddy was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. confirming the order of conviction of the Court of the first instance. 12. THE learned counsel for the complainant also relied on a third decision of the Supreme Court as State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki. AIR 1981 SC 1390 . THE High Court had found the accused not guilty but the Supreme Court reversed the finding and found her guilty under Section 302, I.P.C. relying on the evidence of the widow of the deceased who was held to be a natural witness and was further held not to be an interested witness although a related one. THE High Court had found the accused not guilty but the Supreme Court reversed the finding and found her guilty under Section 302, I.P.C. relying on the evidence of the widow of the deceased who was held to be a natural witness and was further held not to be an interested witness although a related one. It was contended that Mahendri was a natural witness as it is common for the womenfolk to Join in cultivation work in the fields with their husbands and she might not be branded as interested as she had no reason to implicate her only relations next to her husband and her evidence could not be discarded on a comparison with that of Kiran. On the last submission, our attention was drawn to the case law relied upon by the defence in the case of Bhagwan Das (supra). Although the Supreme Court had disbelieved witness Hazari Lal for some other reason, it was held that a witness may not be contradicted on the basis of the statement of another who was in all probabilities not present on the spot. Upon a careful reading of the case-laws and the material before us in the case record, we come to a conclusion that because of variations in the F.I.R. and his statement before the police, because of his conduct at the spot and because of absence of any injury on the persons of Kiran, together with the fact that the land in question was not given in "theka to him", his presence at the spot remains doubtful. The land in question was given in "theka" to Iqbal. It was really a land in the share of Kiran Singh. The work to be done was of a minor nature, i.e., digging of a nali, any other brother of Iqbal had not joined him and so it is hard to believe that Kiran and his wife should be there to render help to an otherwise insignificant work. Once we disbelieve Kiran to be present at the spot or look with suspicion to the claim that he was present there, we get an explanation for the discrepancies in the F.I.R. and the police statement for the absence of the details of location of the dead-bodies' witnesses and accused at the place of occurrence as shown in the sketch-map. Once we disbelieve Kiran to be present at the spot or look with suspicion to the claim that he was present there, we get an explanation for the discrepancies in the F.I.R. and the police statement for the absence of the details of location of the dead-bodies' witnesses and accused at the place of occurrence as shown in the sketch-map. We are also required not to contradict Mahendri by any piece of statement of Kiran as observed by the Supreme Court (as discussed in the last few lines of the preceeding paragraphs). We are left with the statement of Mahendri and Mahendri alone and we are to see if she was a natural witness and if her statement can be accepted without any corroboration. In other words, we are to see if there are intrinsic infirmities in her statement. 13. THE statement of Mahendri was recorded at the trial court on 26.11.1992 and she was cross-examined by the present appellant. She described herself as widow of deceased Iqbal, which is an admitted fact. She gave her age as 40 years, which was not challenged. According to her statement, she had gone to the land on the date of the occurrence for making a nali over it along with Iqbal, Kiran and Yashveer. Rajkali and her father-in-law Karan Singh were also there and all reached at about 8.30 a.m. THE incident took place at about 11 a.m. she described in details how the accused-persons came there, what were the weapons carried by them, what talks went between them and the accused- persons and how the murders took place. According to her, Iqbal had taken the land in "theka" from his father and when the accused-persons had come and objected to the construction of nali, Iqbal had told them that he had taken "theka" of the land from his father. This statement does not vary from the first information report, but the first information report was made by Kiran and we have already given reasons for doubting the presence of Kiran at the spot and accordingly, Mahendri's quotation of the words of the deceased Iqbal cannot be contradicted by the averments in the first information report. This statement does not vary from the first information report, but the first information report was made by Kiran and we have already given reasons for doubting the presence of Kiran at the spot and accordingly, Mahendri's quotation of the words of the deceased Iqbal cannot be contradicted by the averments in the first information report. She was also proposed to be contradicted by another version in the first information report touching Brijpal, While the first information report spoke of a strained relationship of Brijpal with the others in the family, this lady stated that he had an amiable relationship with Karan Singh and Kiran and others. She also denied that Brijpal had become wayward. We have already stated that we may not go for seeking a contradiction between her statement and that made in the first information report by Kiran, whose presence at the spot is doubtful. We may look to this averment of Mahendri from another angle. In our villages, an aunt always looks to a nephew with the same affection as she shows to her son. Brijpal's attitude, whatever it may be, might have annoyed the male folk in the family but she being an aunt of Brijpal, always had affection for him and accordingly she found no wrong in the actions of Brijpal. Thus her statement, although different from that given in the first information report regarding the conduct of Brijpal, is of little consequence to the prosecution story. In her cross-examination, there is a statement that the nali was made for 4 minutes and by that time the accused- persons arrived. At a subsequent stage, in answer to a Court question, she indicated that four metres of the nali was dug before the accused-persons had come. She explained that she did not say 4 minutes at the early stage of her statement. This explanation appears to be an acceptable one because it is difficult for any person to say with exactitude that only 4 minutes had passed since their arrival and even if some one proposed to describe such a short period of time, he would speak it giving a round figure like 5 minutes or 10 minutes or like. It must be presumed, therefore, what is stated about the working at the nali was 4 metres and not 4 minutes. It must be presumed, therefore, what is stated about the working at the nali was 4 metres and not 4 minutes. THE defence lay stress on this aspect with a view to say that if the accused had arrived within 4 minutes of arrival of the complainant's party, the incident must have taken place round about 8.30 a.m. and not at 11 a.m. If we accept the explanation that they had worked for 4 metres, i.e., about 12 feet, we could find a consistency in the statement as digging up more than 12 feet of nali would certainly take a few hours. There is, therefore, no intrinsic improbability in this version of Mahendri. 14. THE defence also questioned the veracity of this witness when she stated that there was a heavy firing and the accused persons Were going on firing and re-loading their weapons. THE defence pointed out to the statement of the first Investigating Officer who found only one blank cartridge at the spot. Certainly the presence of more than one fired cartridge would have lent a better support to this claim of Mahendri. But not finding more than one fired cartridge was an action of the Investigating Officer and if he was slack in his duties, that could not be a ground to discard the claim of Mahendri. Moreover, it is a common knowledge that there is always a tendency of some exaggeration by a witness which, although not praiseworthy, is a common fact of life. THE courts are, therefore, required not to discard an evidence simply for exaggeration if they can reach the core of truth in the statement of a witness piercing through the exaggerated shell. THE presence of gun-shot injuries on two deceased persons amply speak of use of gun-shot more than once and absence of recovery of more than one fired cartridge is, therefore, of little consequence. The defence further took us through the statement of this witness Mahendri in comparison with the medical evidence. She had stated that her father-in-law suffered two tabal blows, her husband received two gun-shots on his head and Yashveer received tabal blows from five accused-persons in addition to gun-shot. Referring to the medical evidence, we find that Yashveer had incised wounds on the head and three gun-shot injuries. She had stated that her father-in-law suffered two tabal blows, her husband received two gun-shots on his head and Yashveer received tabal blows from five accused-persons in addition to gun-shot. Referring to the medical evidence, we find that Yashveer had incised wounds on the head and three gun-shot injuries. There is certainly some difference between the medical evidence and the evidence of Mahendri but it could not be stated to be such a variation as would make her unreliable. She was engaged in the fields. A quarrel ensued between her husband and son and father-in-law on one side and her husband's brothers and others on the other side. She could not have expected such a ghastly end to a family quarrel and before the killing of Yashveer, her husband and father-in-law had already been done to death. It is difficult to expect a graphic detail of the attack on Yashveer at that juncture of time from this witness. If she gave the names of the persons who attacked and if she stated the weapons they were carrying and the weapons that were used in killing Yashveer, that would be sufficient in the context of the incident to accept her version. 15. P.W. 2, Mahendri, in our view was a natural witness whose presence at the spot was only normal. She must also be described as a non-interested witness as the accused persons are also equally dear ones to her. There is no reason why she would implicate these near relations of her husband if the assailants were somebody else. Absence of seizures of chadar and khes is not such a circumstance that would cast any shadow of doubt on the version given by this unlettered village woman. 16. FROM the above discussion, we are of the view that reliance is to be placed on the uncorroborated testimony of Mahendri, the wife of deceased Iqbal, mother of Yashveer and daughter-in-law of deceased Karan Singh. The manner in which the accused persons came upon the land being armed and dealt with weapons, sufficiently indicate that there was a common object of killing the deceased persons. There is no doubt of it that they had formed an unlawful assembly with the above common object. The charge under Section 148, I.P.C., is, therefore, proved and conviction thereunder is sustained. There is no doubt of it that they had formed an unlawful assembly with the above common object. The charge under Section 148, I.P.C., is, therefore, proved and conviction thereunder is sustained. Someone or others in the unlawful assembly had committed murder which was the common object of assembly and the charge under Section 302/149, I.P.C. is also proved and the conviction thereunder is sustained. The charge under Section 302, I.P.C. proper against Satendar, Om veer, Malkhan and Rlsal for having caused the murder of three deceased is also proved and the conviction thereunder is sustained. Regarding the charge under Sections 307, I.P.C. and 307/149, I.P.C. the prosecution story is that a murderous attempt was made on Kiran Singh. We have doubted the presence of Kiran Singh at the spot and once we hold that Kiran might not have been there, we have to hold that these charges under Sections 307 and 307/149, I.P.C. must fail for the reason of the above doubt. We hold that these charges have not been proved beyond doubt and we acquit the appellants of these two charges and set aside their conviction for the same. 17. WE may now look to the sentences for the convictions under Sections 148, 302 and 302/149, I.P.C. Two of the appellants Malkhan and Risal have been sentenced to death. The charge under Section 302. I.P.C. proper was framed against four persons and all were convicted. Two of them were given death sentence, namely, Malkhan and Risal, while two others, namely, Omveer and Satendra were sentenced to life imprisonment. WE find no special reason to differentiate between the cases of Malkhan and Risal from that on Omveer and Satendra. The death sentences of Malkhan and Risal, therefore, are commuted to life imprisonment at par with the other two. The sentences for conviction of all the appellants for the conviction under Section 148, I.P.C. and of all the other appellants for the charge under Section 302/149, I.P.C. remain unaltered. 18. THE appeals accordingly fail subject to the above finding of acquittal only on the charge under Section 307/149, I.P.C. while retaining the other convictions and sentences subject to the commutation of death sentence into one of life imprisonment. THE death reference is also answered accordingly and not confirmed. THE accused-persons who are on bail must surrender immediately to serve out the imprisonment.