TEJ SHANKAR, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals have arisen out of Sessions Trial No. 56 of 84. Accused- appellants of both the appeals have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, Datia, on 31. 7. 1989, under Sections 304 (Part I) read with Section 149 IPC, for a term of 10 years, under Section 147 IPC for a term of 1 year, under Section 323 IPC read with section 149 for a term of one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY narrated, the prosecution case is thaton 17. 9. 1984, at about 10. 00 a. m. , Pahlu alias Pahalwan was busy in his field and his brother Gaya Prasad (now deceased) and Banmali (P. W. 10) were also there. Prakash, Bhagirath, Bhagiraths mother Smt. Rajpati were cutting grass and he was taking Chara from Jawar field. His son Badam was weeding Jawar. Accused persons Pejsingh, Deosingh, Vijaysingh, Kamta, Dhanaram, Pulchand and Kalicharan stopped his son from weeding the Jawar. Accused Deosingh had Kholuwa, Vijaysingh too had Kholuwa, Kamta had Luhangi and rest of the accused persons had lathis with them. They formed an unlawful assembly. They claimed Rasta from that field and said as to why Jawar was sown there. Pehlwansingh claimed that it was his field and not a Rasta. He will not permit anybody to pass through it. All the accused persons thereafter forming an unlawful assembly started attacking Gayaprasad with their arms, causing injuries on his head and back, as a result of which Gayaprasad fell down and became unconscious. His son as well as Banmali, Prakash, Bhagirath and Smt. Rajpati rushed to save him. Accused Fulchand and Kamta attacked them and caused injuries. Gaya Prasad was taken to Hospital. F. I. R. Ex. P 18 was lodged by Pahalwan singh (P. W. 3), which was prepared by Headconstable Kaluram (P. W. 8), who sent injured persons Gayaprasad, Pahalwan, Prakash, Banmali, Smt. Rajpati, Bhagirath for medical examination through Constable Habib Khan after preparing Memos Ex. P 3, P 8, P 10, P 12, P 14 and P 16. In the Hospital Dr. Han Mohan Dixit (P. W. 2) examined the injured persons, vide his report Ex. P 4. P 3, P 8, P 10, P 12, P 14 and P 16. In the Hospital Dr. Han Mohan Dixit (P. W. 2) examined the injured persons, vide his report Ex. P 4. He found the following injuries on the person of Gayaprasad: (1) Bruise 6 c. m. x 4 c. m. on fronto perietal region of right side of head extending up to temporal region. (2) Incerted wound on top of the head 3 c. m. x 1/4 x 1/4 c. m. There was bruise 4 c. m. x 3 c. m. around the injury No. 2. (3) Bruise 8 c. m. x 6 C. m. on left fronto parietal region including temporal region. Fracture of skull bones was suspented in all the three injuries. On the same day, i. e. 17. 9. 1984, P. W. 14: I. B. Singh Bhadoriya recorded the statements of Pahalu alias Pahalwan, Prakash, Banmali and Badam. On the same day he also recovered safe and blood stained Saluka from the custody of Pahalu and prepared Memo Ex. P 2. On 18. 9. 1984, he recorded the statements of Beersingh, Gulab Singh, Baghirath and Rajaram and prepared sight-plan (Ex. P1 ). He arrested accused persons Pejsingh, Deosingh, Kalicharan, Dhanaram and Fulchand on 20. 9. 1984. Gayaprasad succumbed to injuries in the same night and in this regard Ex. P 5 intimation was received from the doctor of the Indergarh Hospital. Constable Kaluram (P. W. 8) reached Hospital thereafter and prepared Panchanama Ex. P 21. The Investigating Officer I. B. Singh Bhadoriya (P. W. 14) arrested accused persons Pejsingh, Deosingh, Kalicharan, Dhanaram and Fulchand on 20. 9. 1984, vide Panchanama Ex. P 22. On the same day these accused persons gave information that they had lathi and Kholua in their house, respectively. He thereafter Prepared memos Ex. P 25, P 27, P 29, P 23, and P 31 and seized Lathis (Articles Nos. 3, 7, 6 and 5 respectively) and prepared seizure memos Ex. P 26, P 28, P 30, P 24 and P. W. 32 accordingly. On 23. 9. 1984, he recovered the clothes of the deceased brought from Indergarh Hospital in a sealed condition and prepared its memo Ex. P 19. On25. 9. 1984, he arrested accused Vijaysingh and Kamta Prasad and prepared memo Ex. P 33. On information given by Vijaysingh and Kamta Prasad vide memos Ex. P 34 and Ex. On 23. 9. 1984, he recovered the clothes of the deceased brought from Indergarh Hospital in a sealed condition and prepared its memo Ex. P 19. On25. 9. 1984, he arrested accused Vijaysingh and Kamta Prasad and prepared memo Ex. P 33. On information given by Vijaysingh and Kamta Prasad vide memos Ex. P 34 and Ex. P 36, respectively he got recovered from them Kholuwa, vide Panchanama Ex. P 35, Luhangi from accused Kamta Prasad vide Ex. P 37. He recorded the statement of Smt. Rajpati on 14. 10. 1984. After completing the investigation a chargesheet was submitted against all the accused persons. ( 3 ) ACCUSED persons denied the charges. Accused appellant Pejsingh claimed that he had a dispute with Rajaram Patel. He got him removed from Patdi. He had also opposed his son in Panchayat elections and hence he bore enmity. Gaya Prasad and others were beaten by the personnel of Ghansa Gang, but a report was got lodged against him and other accused persons by Rajaram. When personnel of Ghansa Gang committed marpit, Bhagwansingh and Badamsingh were present. Similar plea has been taken by accused-appellants Devsingh, Kalicharan, Dhana Ram, Foolchand, Vijaysingh and Kamatprasad. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined Rajaram (P. W. 1), Ramcharan (P. W. 10), Gulabsingh (P. W. 13) as witnesses of fact, and Pahalwan (P. W. 3), Gayaprasad (P. W. 4), Bhagirath (P. W. 11) and Mst. Rajpati (P. W. 12) the injured persons, Dr. Harisingh Dixit (P. W 2) who examined the injured persons, Nathuram Patwari (P. W. 6), who prepared sight-plan, Bhartu (P. W. 5), Kunwarlal (P. W. 7), Constable Habib Khan (P. W. 9), who are all formal witnesses. P. W. 14, I. B. Singh Bhadoriya conducted investigation and relied upon Exs. P 1 to P 37 in support of its case. ( 5 ) LEARNED trial Court after considering the entire material on record and hearing the parties, convicted the appellant-accused persons as aforesaid. Accused-appellants Pejsingh, Devisingh, Kalicharan, Dhanaram, Foolchand and Vijay Singh filed Criminal Appeal No. 239/89, whereas accused Kamta Prasad filed Criminal Appeal No. 241/89. As both the appeals have arisen out of the same crime and arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together hence his common judgment shall govern both the appeals. Accused-appellants Pejsingh, Devisingh, Kalicharan, Dhanaram, Foolchand and Vijay Singh filed Criminal Appeal No. 239/89, whereas accused Kamta Prasad filed Criminal Appeal No. 241/89. As both the appeals have arisen out of the same crime and arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together hence his common judgment shall govern both the appeals. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant firstly contended that there was right of private defence of property in the accused persons and even if any occurrence had taken place, it was in right of defence of property. The evidence on record shows that the land in respect of which the occurrence had arisen belonged to the appellants. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no evidence on record that there were more than 4 persons involved in the incident as a result of which the occurrence took place and as such the provisions of Section 149 IPC arc not attracted. Lastly, it has been contended that oral evidence on record does not prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt and in any case if it is found to have been proved, the offence made out is under Section 325 IPC only and not under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. The incident took place about 16 years back and it is not a case of sending back the accused persons to jail after such a long period. On behalf of other accused learned counsel contended that they have been falsely implicated, in the case. Appellant Kam taprasad was not even present on the spot. It is common knowledge that in a case of rioting even friends and relations are also ropped in. The learned contended that in any case accused Kamtaprasad is entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 7 ) THE first point that needs consideration is whether the occurrence took place as claimed by the prosecution. Facts have already been narrated above which show that the,occurrence according to the prosecution took place with respect to a piece of land, which was claimed by the accused party to be a Rasta, whereas the complainant party claimed itto be theirland. Pahalu (P. W. 3) is the first informant. He narrated the prosecution story as mentioned above, when he stated that on the date of occurrence, he was in his field. His brother Gayaprasad was there. Pahalu (P. W. 3) is the first informant. He narrated the prosecution story as mentioned above, when he stated that on the date of occurrence, he was in his field. His brother Gayaprasad was there. Banmali, Prakash, Bhagirath and Bhagiraths mother Smt. Rajpati were cutting grass on the Mend, while he was taking Chara in his field and his son Badam was weeding Jwar. Accused Pejsingh, Deosingh, Vijaysingh, Kamta, Dhanaram, Foolchand and Kalicharan went there and stopped his son Badam from weeding Jwar, though he was weeding it in his field. Where upon Badam called him and Gayaprasad. Accused persons said that they will pass through the Jwar field. On this all the 7 accused persons attacked Gayaprasad and caused injuries. Accused Vijaysingh said that Gayaprasad be finished and Pahalu be also finished. Accused Deosingh and Vijaysingh had Kholuwa, Kamta had Luhangi and rest of the accused persons had lathis. Banmali and Rajpati went to save him, whereupon the accused persons beat them also. He received 3 injuries on the head and one on the hand. Gayaprasad fell down unconscious. Beersingh, Gulabsingh and Rajaram also witnessed the occurrence. The accused persons thereafter escaped. In cross-examination, he stated that he and others were taking Chara at a distance of 10 paces from the Mend. The dispute took place with respect to Jwar crop and it was incorrect to say that there was no Jwar crop. He also denied the suggestion that 10 Kadi land was found to be of the share of Pejsingh. There was no dispute prior to the occurrence with Pejsingh. He further stated that initially there were talk with his son Badam. Pejsingh said he will not allow to weed the Jwar crop, and on hearing this talk he and Gaya Prasad reached there. First of all, accused Dhanaram and Fukhand best him. Dhanaram beat with Lathi. He received two lathi blows. The first hit him on the head, second also hit him on the head. Kamta attacked with Luhangi on his head which hit him on his head. Fulchands lathi blow also hit him, but he did not remember the number. He had four injuries. Firstly, he was beaten and thereafter accused persons attacked Gayaprasad with lathis, Kholuwa and Luhangi. He specifically stated that Vijaysingh, Deosingh, Pejsingh hit Gayaprasad on the head. Kamta attacked with Luhangi on his head which hit him on his head. Fulchands lathi blow also hit him, but he did not remember the number. He had four injuries. Firstly, he was beaten and thereafter accused persons attacked Gayaprasad with lathis, Kholuwa and Luhangi. He specifically stated that Vijaysingh, Deosingh, Pejsingh hit Gayaprasad on the head. He further stated that Kamtaprasad and Fulchand and Dhanaram too attacked Gayaprasad on head with lathi and Luhangi. When Gayaprasad was being beaten, Bhagirath, Rajpati reached there. Dhanaram and Kalicharan beat them as well. Further, Banmali and Prakash were also beaten by all the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that Banmali, Prakash, Rajpati, and Badam were beaten by Fulchand and Kamal alone. Initially Fulchand beat Banmali, Prakash, Bhagirath and Rajpati and thereafter all the accused persons beat them. As soon as accused persons started running after marpit, Rajaram reached there. It is to be noted that the name of Rajaram does not figure in the FIR Ex. p 18 and much has been argued on this point about the presence of Rajaram. ( 8 ) P. W. 1, Rajaram claimed that he had his field and by the side of his field there was a field of Pahalu and Gayaprasad. Pajsingh, Vijaysingh, Deosingh, Dbanaram, Mamta, and Deosinghs son, whose name was not given and Kalicharan were working in their fields. There were talks between accused persons and deceased Gayaprasad with respect of the Mend which lay in between the land of the fields of Gayaprasad and Pejsingh. He has also stated that accused persons were variously armed with instruments as stated by P. W. 3, Pahalwansingh, the first informant. His other statement is also similar to him. He denied the suggestion that there were two parties in the village and he had been in the party against the accused-appellants. There was only one field in between his field and the field where the occurrence took place. He first heard the hot exchange of talks and thereafter saw the marpit. Soon after the exchange of hot words, marpit started. All the 7 accused persons attacked Gayaprasad. Initially 4 accused persons namely Vijaysingh, Dhansingh, Kalicharan and Pejsingh attacked Gayaprasad and thereafter the other 3 accused persons went there and attacked him with Luhangi. First of all, Gayaprasad was beaten and then Pahalwan, Banwari etc. rushed and thcy too were beaten. Soon after the exchange of hot words, marpit started. All the 7 accused persons attacked Gayaprasad. Initially 4 accused persons namely Vijaysingh, Dhansingh, Kalicharan and Pejsingh attacked Gayaprasad and thereafter the other 3 accused persons went there and attacked him with Luhangi. First of all, Gayaprasad was beaten and then Pahalwan, Banwari etc. rushed and thcy too were beaten. First of all, he reached the place of occurrence. Thereafter Gulab reached there. ( 9 ) PRAKASH (P. W. 4) is another witness of occurrence and he too has corrobonited the prosecution story. Banmali (P. W. 10) is an injured witness. He is the brother of the deceased Gayaprasad. He deposed that he was cutting grass and along with him Smt. Rajpati, Bhagirath Prakash were also cutting the grass. Pahalu alias Pahalwan is his real brother, Bhagirath and Prakash are his nephews i. e. , sons of Gayaprasacl. Rajpati is wife of Gayaprasad. Rajaram was at his field, which lay after one field. His nephew Gulabsingh was also there. Beersingh was grazing bullocks in the neighbourhood of his field. He too has givcn similar statement as that of his nephew and stated that he received injuries Oil his head and shoulder, leg, toe etc. Pehalu lodged report. His injuries were also medically examined. Marpit started with Gayaprasad. Initially all the 7 accused persons attacked together. He could not say whose lathi, Kholuwa, Luhangi hit first and whose did not hit. He could not say as to how many attacks were made by Luhangi by Mamta. P. W. 11 Bhagirath is another injured witness. He received injury on the left hand and he was medically examined. P. W. 12 Rajpati wife of deceased Gayaprasad also received injuries and was medically examined. P. W. 13, Gulabsingh is another witness. His name finds place in the FIR which shows that he had reached the place of occurrence and had seen the victims. All these wiblesses have supported the prosecution story as mentioned above. ( 10 ) INITIAL contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the occurrence took place with respect to a piece of land which belonged to accused persons and as such accused persons had a right of private defence of property. All these wiblesses have supported the prosecution story as mentioned above. ( 10 ) INITIAL contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the occurrence took place with respect to a piece of land which belonged to accused persons and as such accused persons had a right of private defence of property. Myattention has been drawn to the statement of the witnesses wherein it was stated that the accused persons claimed their Rasta from the disputed land, whereas the complainant claimed that it was their field. As there was Rasta of the accused paity, they had a right of private defence with respect to that Rasta. This contention of the learned counsel does not appear to have legs to stand for the simple reason that no such case was ever taken by the defence. I am conscious of the fact that even if no case of private defence is taken and if it is found from the material on record, accused persons are entitled to raise it. But in the present case, the situation is clearly different. Here the case of the defence is that of complete denial of the occurrence. They did not claim that the dispute arose on the Rasta as contended. A perusal of the case, taken by the defence in the statement of the accused persons, goes to show that it is a complete denial of the prosecution case. The suggestion made by the accused persons in their statement is that marpit of Gayaprasad was done by the persons of Ghansa Gang and accused persons have been falsely implicated, whereas entirely a different stand is taken by the defence. It is not open to contend lateron that there was any right of private defence. They claimed no such right whatsoever. However, it may be mentioned that in the cross-examination of P. W. 3, Pahlu, a suggestion was thrown that out of the field of the witness 10 Kodi land was found to be of Pejsingh, which was denied by the witness. The accused persons could have very well brought on record material in this regard, but nothing has been brought on record in defence, rather this case also does not appear to have been taken by accused Pejsingh in his statement. When a question was put to him in his statement under Section 313, Cr. The accused persons could have very well brought on record material in this regard, but nothing has been brought on record in defence, rather this case also does not appear to have been taken by accused Pejsingh in his statement. When a question was put to him in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. with respect to it, the accused appellant specifically stated that he did not know anything, and it was wrong. He also denied the existence of quarrel specifically in his statement. In this way, to my mind, the plea relating to the right of private defence does not stand. ( 11 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there was no premeditation and the evidence on record clearly goes to show that there was no meeting of minds of the accused persons and as such provisions of Section 149 IPC cannot apply. The learned counsel referred to the decision of Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Nathu. It has been held by the Apex Court that in order to attract the provisions of Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must establish that there was an unlawful assembly and that the crime was committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. ( 12 ). My attention has been drawn to the statement of Rajaram (P. W. 1), wherein he stated that initially Vijaysingh, Dhansingh, Kalicharan and Pejsingh were there and they started marpit. Immediately thereafter the remaining 3 accused persons came running and started attacking Gayaprasad. On the basis of this statement, the learned counsel contended that it excludes the application of Section 149 IPC. It is significant to mention here that in one breathe it has been contended that the presence of Rajaram should not be accepted, as his name does not figure in the FIR and he has appeared against the accused persons on account of enmity. He is a man of opposite party, whereas, on the other hand, it is contended that his testimony than initially four persons were there should be accepted. If his statement is taken out of consideration on the ground that his name does not figure in the FIR, in that case no value can be attached to this part of his statement, as well. If his statement is taken out of consideration on the ground that his name does not figure in the FIR, in that case no value can be attached to this part of his statement, as well. On the other hand, if it is taken into consideration, in that case too, this part of the statement cannot be relied upon, ignoring the statement of other injured witnesses, who have unequivocally stated that all the accused persons were there together at the time of occurrence. ( 13 ). It has also been contended that the deceased Gayaprasad received only 3 injuries on his person, as found by Dr. H. M. Dixit (P. W. 2), as mentioned above. It goes to show that at the most 3 persons might have caused the 3 blows on him. In the FIR Pahalwan singh (P. W. 3) had stated that Deosingh and Vijaysingh had Kholuwa and rest of the accused persons were armed with lathis. This version appears to be merely exaggerated, because had all the seven persons caused injuries to the deceased, there should have been minimum seven injuries on the person of the deceased. It suggests that 4 persons have been falsely implicated. This contention of the learned counsel sounds well on the face of it, but if we go deep in it and scrutinize the evidence on record this contention cannot be accepted. ( 14 ). It is true that Gayaprasad, the deceased, received 3 injuries, but there were other persons as well, who had received a number of injuries, as is evident from the injury reports of Gayaprasad, Ex. p 9 of Pahalwan, Ex. p ii of Prakash, Ex. p 13 of Banmali, Ex. p 16 of Smt. Rajpati and Ex. P 17 of Bhagwati, and that Gayaprasad had 3, Pahalwan had 6, Prakash had 6, Banmali had 7, Rajpati had 1, and Bhagirath had 2 injuries respectively. The fact that so many persons received injuries on their person goes to show that it corroborates the statement of the prosecution witnesses that all the accused persons took part in the marpit and caused so many injuries. It cannot therefore be said that there were only 4 persons. Rather witnesses have stated as mentioned above, that all the accused persons had assembled there and were present at the time of occurrence with arms. It cannot therefore be said that there were only 4 persons. Rather witnesses have stated as mentioned above, that all the accused persons had assembled there and were present at the time of occurrence with arms. The evidence shows that all the persons were there together at one place armed with weapons and took part in the marpit, causing number of injuries to several persons and they also went together after the occurrence. I do not find any infirmity in the statements of the witnesses, which are fully corroborated by the medical evidence. ( 15 ). The learned trial Court in a detailed and reasoned judgment has also believed the prosecution story. There is no reason to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court, relating to the occurrence. The variation in assignment of weapons between FIR and the statements of the witnesses on oath or from the statement of one witness to that of other, does not got to show that the prosecution story is not correct. Rather, to me, it appears that is a natural statement because there cannot be two statements just similar to each other, unless the statement is crammed up. There must be some variance when statements are untutored. Taking into consideration the totality of the fact and circumstances, I agree with the learned trial Court that occurrence had taken place, as claimed by the prosecution, in which all the seven accused persons took part, causing death of Gayaprasad and injuries to the aforesaid persons. ( 16 ). The question as to what was the common object of this assembly shall be dealt with hereinafter while forming an opinion that what offence was committed. For the present, it is sufficient to mention that there were more than 5 persons at the time of occurrence, as stated by the witnesses and all of them took part in the marpit with a common object. Thus, the provisions contained in Section 149 IPC are certainly attracted. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, cannot derive any benefit from the aforesaid fact, as it is proved from the oral evidence on record mentioned above, corroborated by the medical evidence, that there was an assembly of more than five persons having common object and the crime was committed in prosecution of common object. ( 17 ). Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, cannot derive any benefit from the aforesaid fact, as it is proved from the oral evidence on record mentioned above, corroborated by the medical evidence, that there was an assembly of more than five persons having common object and the crime was committed in prosecution of common object. ( 17 ). Learned counsel for the appellant Kamta Prasad centered his argument relating to the injury caused to Gaya Prasad and appears to have ignored the fact that injuries were caused to other persons as well. Of course, it has come in evidence that all the seven accused persons attacked Gayaprasad and he received only three injuries. There may be an exaggeration to that extent, but it cannot be said to be sufficient to rule out the presence of other accused persons at the time of occurrence, because in face of the evidence that all accused persons were there and they caused injuries to other persons as well, his contention cannot be accepted. ( 18 ). He also referred to the statement of Prakash (P. W. 4), who stated that Kamta caused injuries by Kholuwa. On this basis, learned counsel urged that the prosecution evidence is not straight forward and should nor be accepted. Luhangi is nothing but a lathi having some wire roiled at its one end, and observed by the learned trial Court as well. Apart from it Ex. p 37 shows that Lathi of 7 Gathan in length like Luhangi was recovered on the pointing of Mamta. It, therefore, corroborates the prosecution story and the contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant Kamta loses its importance. ( 19 ). The next question which has to be seen is as to what offence has been committed. In order to find out as to what was the common ob jeet of the unlawful assembly we have to take into consideration the nature of the participation, weapon used and the injuries caused. They are relevant for the purpose of drawing an inference relating to the nature of common object. In a similar case reported in Silmar Behera and others v. State of Orissa the Apex Court observed that: The nature of participation, the weapons used and the injuries caused would also be relevant to infer the nature of the common object. They are relevant for the purpose of drawing an inference relating to the nature of common object. In a similar case reported in Silmar Behera and others v. State of Orissa the Apex Court observed that: The nature of participation, the weapons used and the injuries caused would also be relevant to infer the nature of the common object. T In that case, the accused persons were convicted under Section 304 (Part 11)/149 IPC. Taking into consideration the circumstances, it was held that: The members of the unlawful assembly must be held to have knowledge that some of them are likely to cause injuries and thereby likely to cause death. In other words, they had the knowledge that atleast an offence of culpable homicide was likely to be committed. Consequently, conviction of the accused persons under Section 302/149 IPC was altered to Section 304 (Part II) read with Section 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to 7 years R. I. ( 20 ). In the facts and circumstances of the present case as well, I conclude that it can safely be inferred that all the accused persons who were armed with aforesaid weapons had atleast the knowledge that an offence of culpable homicide was likely to be committed and hence they can safely be convicted under Section 304 (Part II) IPC/149 IPC as held in the aforesaid authority. The learned trial Court has convicted the accused persons under Section 304 (Part I) and has sentenced them to 10 years R. I. each. In this view of the matter, the appeal must succeed partly to that extent. Hence instead of convicting the accused appellants under Section 304 (Part 1)/149 IPC their conviction is altered to one under Section 304 (Part 11)1149 IPC and the sentence is reduced to a term of 7 years R. I. Rest of the convictions and sentences passed by the learned trial Court are affirmed. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part. The appellants, who are on bail, shall surrender forthwith for serving out the remaining sentence. Appeals allowed in part. 1. AIR. 1970 S. C. 27. 2. 1993 (2 U. ]. (SC) 723. .