U. S. TRIPATHI, J. The above two ap peals have been preferred against the judg ment and order dated 28-6-1980 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions trial No. 10 of 1980 convicting the appellants of both the appeals under Sec tion 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to life imprison ment. 2. The prosecution story, briefly staled, was that appellant Rayces Addha is the son of appellant Siddiq, appellants Sardar and Rayces Pitaroo are nephews of said Siddiq and Bhoora deceased was Siddiqs sisters son. One Latif nephew of appellant Siddiq and Inayat husband of niece of Siddiq were living as tenant in the house of Bhoora deceased. Some 20 days before the occurrence of this case quarrel had taken place between wives of Bhoora deceased and Inayat. Inayat and Latif caused injuries to the wife of Bhoora and when Bhoora deceased tried to save her, Inayal inflicted knife injuries and Latif kicks and fists injuries on him (Bhoora ). Bhoora deceased had lodged a report against Latif and Inayat regarding the said occurrence at police station Ganj district Rampur on 24-9-1979 and a criminal case was pending. Inayat was in jail in connec tion with the said case. On account of above incident and lodging of report by Bhoora deceased appellant Siddiq, his family members and relatives were having grudge with him and had also threatened to kill him. The deceased also moved an application to the City Magistrate, Ram pur regarding threats extended to him by appellant Siddiq and others. 3. On 13-10-1979 Bhoora deceased and his real brother Nanha (P. W 1) were repairing their house. In the after noon at about 2-2. 15 p. m. Bhoora deceased and Nanha (P. W. 1) were going to Bazaria Khansama tri-crossing in Rampur city to take tea at a tea stall. When they reached near and tri-crossing appellant Sardar, Siddiq, Rayees Pitaroo and Rayees Addha me, them. Observing them the appellants told that Bhoora posed himself a great litigant. Appellant Sardar told that he had sent his brother Latif to jail and he should be finished. In the mean time Jalil Ahmad (P. W.), Anwar (P. W. 4), Gulam Rasool (P. W. 5) and others also came there. Bhoora deceased ran towards east, towards Munshi ji ka masque. Appellant Sardar told that he had sent his brother Latif to jail and he should be finished. In the mean time Jalil Ahmad (P. W.), Anwar (P. W. 4), Gulam Rasool (P. W. 5) and others also came there. Bhoora deceased ran towards east, towards Munshi ji ka masque. The appel lant chased him and surrounded him at a distance of about 35 paces in front of gate of Munshi Maszid. Nanha (P. W. 1) and others witnesses also followed the appel lants. After surrounding Bhoora deceased, appellant Siddiq caused Sariya (iron rod) injuries, Rayees Pitaroo lathi injuries and Sardar and Rayees Addha knives injuries. Bhoora deceased fell down and the appel lants again caused injuries on his falling down. On the intervention of the witnesses the appellants ran away towards north leaving one blood stained Sariya, one blood stained lathi, one blood stained knife and one shoe on the spot. 4. Condition of Bhoora deceased was serious. Nanha (P. W. 1) took him to hospital in a rickshaw where his injuries were examined by Dr. S. K. Gupta (P. W. 7), who found following injuries on his person :- 1. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x depth could not be probed, on right side of chest. 2. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep in front of right knee. 3. Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep over from of left elbow joint. 4. Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep below left axilla. 5. Incised wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep over left ring finger on palmer aspect. 5. The injuries were found dangerous to life caused by sharp object and were fresh in duration. 6. While taking with the doctor during examination of the injuries the deceased died. 7. Nanha (P. W. 1) came to police sta tion Ganj district Rampur where he lodged oral report (Ext. Ka-1) Chik F. I. R. (Ext. Ka. 1) was prepared by Head Moharrir Chandra Pal Singh (P. W. 3) who made an endorsement of the same at G. D. report (Ext. Ka. 2) and registered a case against the appellants under Section 302 I. P. C. The investigation of the case was taken up by S. I. Surat Singh (P. W. 8 ). Ka. 1) was prepared by Head Moharrir Chandra Pal Singh (P. W. 3) who made an endorsement of the same at G. D. report (Ext. Ka. 2) and registered a case against the appellants under Section 302 I. P. C. The investigation of the case was taken up by S. I. Surat Singh (P. W. 8 ). He interrogated Nanha (P. W. 1) at the police sta tion and thereafter, reached the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Exl. Ka. 5 ). He found one blood stained Lathi, one knife, on Sariya (iron rod) and one shoe on the spot, took into possession the above articles including blood stained coaltar of the road, sealed it separately and prepared recovery memo (Ext. Ka. 6 ). The I. O. searched the appellants but they were not traceable. He conducted inquest of dead body of Bhoora deceased at District Hospi tal, Rampur and prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka.-9) and other relevant papers (Ext. Ka. 10 and Ka. 11), sealed dead body and sent it for post-mortem. He interrogated Jalil Ahmad (P. W. 2) and Anwar (P. W. 4) and others and apprehended appellants Sardar, Siddiq and Rayees Addha at 8. 30 p. m. near Panwariya Chungi. 8. Autopsy on the dead body of Bhoora deceased was conducted on 14-10-1979 at 11. 30 a. m. by Dr. O. N. Gupta (P. W. 6) who found following antc-morlem in juries on his person:- 1. Incised wound 6 cm. x 2. 5 cm x chest cavity deep on right side chest 7 cm below right nipple horizontally oblique direction right to left and downwards. 2. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on front and inner side right knee joint vertically oblique. 3. Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep horizontally just below left axilla on posterior axillary line. 4. Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on from side left elbow joint, horizontally oblique. 5. Incised wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep palmer side left ring finger of left hand, lower 1/3 horizontally. 6. Incised wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep palmer side left middle finger of left hand lower 1/3 horizontally. 7. Multiple abrasions in area 8 cm x 5 cm. front side left knee joint. 8. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0. 6. Incised wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep palmer side left middle finger of left hand lower 1/3 horizontally. 7. Multiple abrasions in area 8 cm x 5 cm. front side left knee joint. 8. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x skin deep on front side left leg upper 1/3. 9. Incised wound 5 cm x 1. 5 cm x muscle deep on left side back infra scapular region horizontally oblique. 10. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep vertically on left side back 8 cm below injury No. IX. 9. On internal examination ri in pleura was found cut under injury No. i Right pleura! cavity contained about 1 pint blood. Righl lung cut-through and through under injury No. 1. Stomach contained 6 ounce pasty material. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as result of injuries to vital organs. The Doctor prepared post-mortem report (Ext. Ka. 3 ). 10. On 14-10-1979 the I. O. examined Gulam Rasool (P. W. 5) and other wit nesses. During investigation Nanha (P. W. 1) handed over a copy of report lodged by Bhoora deceased on 24-9-1979 (Ext. Ka". 12 ). Appellant Rayees Pitaroo was absconding. Processes under Section 82 and 83 Cr PC. were taken and on comple tion of investigation the I. O. challaned the appellants. 11. Appellants Rayees Pitaroo and Rayecs Addha set up their defence that on the date and time of occurrence they came at the tri-crossing of Bazaria Khansama. Nanha (P. W. 1) and Bhoora deceased were seen syanding there. Nanha (P. W 1) was having a stick and Bhoora a knife. Observ ing them Nanha (P. W. 1) and Bhoora told that they should be dealt with and pounced on them. The appellants Rayees Addha and Rayees Pitaroo receded back but Nanha (P. W. 1) and Bhoora deceased at tacked on them near the gate of Mushi Ji. Rayecs Pitaroo appellant picked up a Sariya (iron rod) and Rayecs Addha wielded knife in their self defence due to which Bhoora deceased sustained injuries. Sariya and shoe were left on the spot. Appellants Sardar and Siddiq pleaded alibi contending that they were not present on the spot. 12. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined Nanha (P. W. 1), Jalil Ahmad (P. W. 2), H. M Chandra Pa! Sariya and shoe were left on the spot. Appellants Sardar and Siddiq pleaded alibi contending that they were not present on the spot. 12. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined Nanha (P. W. 1), Jalil Ahmad (P. W. 2), H. M Chandra Pa! Singh (P. W. 3), Anwar (P. W. 4), Gulam Rasool (P. W. 5), Dr. O. N. Gupta (P. W. 6), Dr. S. K. Gupta (P. W. 7), S. I Surat Singh, (P. W. 8) and filed affidavits of other formal witnesses. Nanha (P. W. 1), Jalil Ahmad (P. W. 2), Anwar (P. W. 4) and Gulam Rasool (P. W. 5) were the witnesses of the fact. The appellants did not adduced any evidence in their defence. 13. The learned Sessions Judge on considering the evidence on record held that prosecution has been able to make out its case against all the four accused/appel lants beyond shadow of doubt. With these findings he convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 14. Both the appeals arise out of same judgment in which common ques tions of fact and law are involved. There fore, both the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. 15. During pendency of the appeals, appellant Siddiq died and the appeal preferred by him stood abated vide order dated 30-11-1999. 16. We have heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and the learned AG. A. and have carefully perused the evidence on record. 17. The case of the prosecution was that on 24-9-1979 quarrel had taken place between the wives of Bhoora deceased and Inayat brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of appel lant Sardar. In the said quarrel Inayat and his brother-in-law (Sala) Latif wh. o is also brother of appellant Sardar had caused knife injuries on Bhoora deceased. Bhoora deceased lodged report of the said occur rence on same day. Latif was in jail in connection with above case. Enraged with the above incident on the after noon of 13-10-1979 when Bhoora deceased and his brother Nanha (P. W. 1) were going to take tea at tri-crossing of Bazariya Khansama the appellants Sardar and Rayees Addha armed with knife, appellant Rayees Pitaroo armed with lathi and appellant Siddiq armed with Sariya (iron rod) chal lenged Bhoora deceased who on their challenge started running towards east. The appellants chased and surrounded him in front of gate of Kothi of Munshi Maszid and caused injuries on him with their respective weapons. On account of above injuries Bhoora deceased died in the hospital at about 2. 30 p. m. 18. On the other hand the case of appellants Rayees Addha and Rayees Pitaroo was that on the date and time of occurrence appellants Rayees Addha and Rayees Pitaroo came to Bazariya Khansama Tri- crossing. Nanha (P. W. 1) and Bhoora deceased were present there. Nanha (P. W. 1) was having a stick and Bhoora deceased a knife. Observing them the above persons (Nanha and Bhoora) told that the matter be settled. Bhoora deceased attacked on them who retreated back. When they reached near the gate of Munshi Maszid both Nanha and Bhoora attacked on them. In their self defence Rayees Pitaroo wielded Sariya and Rayees Addha wielded knife due to which Bhoora sustained injuries. 19. In this way date, time and place of occurrence and injuries on the person of Bhoora deceased are admitted to the ap pellants Rayees Addha and Rayees Pitaroo. Therefore, we have to consider whether the occurrence took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution or in the manner suggested by the appellants and whether appellants Rayees Addha and Rayees Pitaroo had got right of self-defence and they caused injuries on deceased in their self-defence. 20. Regarding motive the prosecu tion alleged that due to altercation be tween the wives of Bhoora deceased and Inayat, Latif and Inayat had caused in juries on Bhoora deceased on 24-9-1979. Nanha (P. W. 1) was eye-witness of the said occurrence also. He has stated in detail about the said occurrence. Bhoora deceased had also lodged report of the said occurrence. The above report (Ext. Ka. 12) has also been proved. It was also stated by Nanha (P. W. 1) that after lodging the report dated 24-9-1979 Bhoora had also sent an application to the City Magistrate, Rampur regarding threat extended by ap pellants to Bhoora deceased. No cross-ex amination made on that point. Contrary to it a suggestion was given to Nanha (P. W. 1) that on account of incident which took place 20 days before the occurrence Bhoora deceased and Nanha (P. W. 1) wanted to take revenge. Thus, indirectly the appellants have also admitted that an incident took place on 24-9-1979. No cross-ex amination made on that point. Contrary to it a suggestion was given to Nanha (P. W. 1) that on account of incident which took place 20 days before the occurrence Bhoora deceased and Nanha (P. W. 1) wanted to take revenge. Thus, indirectly the appellants have also admitted that an incident took place on 24-9-1979. In the said incident Latif was arrested and sent to jail. It is not disputed that Latif is real brother of appellant Sardar and Rayees Pitaroo, nephew of appellant Siddiq and cousin brother of Rayees Addha. As such prosecution has established the motive. 21. Death of Bhoora deceased on ac count of injuries on his person which he sustained in the occurrence is also not disputed. The medical evidence of Dr. S. K. Gupta (P. W. 7) and Dr. O. N. Gupta (P. W. 6) proved that deceased died on account of knife injuries on his person. 22. As mentioned date, time and place of occurrence is also not disputed. The ocular witnesses Nanha (P. W, 1), Jalil Ahmad (P. W. 2), nwar (P. W. 4) and Gulam Rasool (PAY 5) had categorically stated that occurrence took place in front of gate of Munshi Maszid near tri-crossing of Bazariya Khansama. Appellants Rayees Addha and Rayees Pitaroo have also ad mitted in their statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that the occurrence took place there. The I. O. had collected blood from spot which was sent to Chemical Ex aminer. The report of Chemical Examiner (Ext. Ka. 13) shows that tarcoal (item No. 1) collected from the spot contained blood. Presence of blood on the spot again confirms the place of occurrence alleged by the prosecution. 23. On the manner of occurrence al leged by the prosecution the prosecution relied on ocular testimony of Nanha (P. W. 1), Jalil Ahmad (P. W. 2 ). Anwar (P. W. 4) and Gulam Rasool (P. W 5 ). Nanha (P. W. 1), admittedly, is real brother of Bhoora deceased. He is also sisters son of appel lant Siddiq. He was with the deceased from the very beginning. The witnesses as ell as Bhoora deceased were repairing their house on the date of occurrence. AT about 2. 15 p. m. the witness along with Bhoora deceased was going to take tea at Bazaria Khansama tri-crossing when the appellant met them and occurrence took place. He was with the deceased from the very beginning. The witnesses as ell as Bhoora deceased were repairing their house on the date of occurrence. AT about 2. 15 p. m. the witness along with Bhoora deceased was going to take tea at Bazaria Khansama tri-crossing when the appellant met them and occurrence took place. Except the relationship of the witnesses with the deceased there is nothing in his cross- ex amination to disbelieve his testimony. The appellants Rayees Addha and Rayees Pitaroo had also admitted the presence of Nanha (P. W 1) on the spot. It is true that the witness was closely related with the deceased but in this case relationship is immaterial as the parties are related to each other. 24. Jalil Ahmad (P. W, 2) claimed that on the date and time of occurrence he was present at Bazaria Khansama tri-crossing and observed the occurrence. He stated as stated by Nanha (P. W. 1 ). His name also found place in the F. I. R. The witness is also resident of mohalla Bazariya Khansama where the occurrence took place. No doubt the witness is brother-in-law (sala) of Nanha (P. W. 1) and Bhoora deceased but on account of his above relationship his testimony cannot be discarded as presence of witness on the spot is natural and probable. As mentioned above relationship in this case is not vary much material as deceased Bhoora was also closely related with the appellant. The trial Court had not relied on the testimony of Jalil Ahmad (P. W. 2), on account of certain contradictions in his evidence such as the witness stated that 2 to 3 blows of lathi and Sariya (Iron rod) were caused on the deceased and it means that the deceased must have sustained 4 to 6 blunt injuries but the medical evidence shows that there was only two blunt injuries. When the deceased was being attacked by as many as 4 persons it was not possible for the wit ness to count each and every blow given by the each accused and if the witness gave numbers of lathi and Sariya blows it was nothing but his speculation and this ac count his entire testimony cannot be" dis carded. 25. When the deceased was being attacked by as many as 4 persons it was not possible for the wit ness to count each and every blow given by the each accused and if the witness gave numbers of lathi and Sariya blows it was nothing but his speculation and this ac count his entire testimony cannot be" dis carded. 25. Anwar (P. W. 4) claimed that on the date and time of occurrence he had come to Bazariya Khansama tri-crossing for realising transportation charges 01" meat as he used to supply meat to the customers at mohalla Bazariya Khansama. No doubt the resident of the witness was at a distance of one mile from the place of occurrence but he had given probable ex planation for his presence on the spot. The witness has stated about the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. No enmity ill-will or grudge has been shown with the witness. The trial Court had treated the witness as a chance witness simply because he was residing at a distance of one miles from the spot. But this aspect alone is not sufficient to treat the witness a chance witness as he had categorically stated that he has come to Bazariya Khansama for realising transportation charges from his customers. It was no where suggested to the witness that he did not use to supply meat to the customers in mohalla Bazaria Khansama. The witness was knowing the deceased as well as appellants by their names and parentage as he belonged to the same Biradari to which the appellants and deceased belonged. Therefore, the witness cannot be treated as a chance witness. 26. The last eye-witness of the occur rence was Gulam Rasool (P. W. 5) who is resident of mohalla Bazaria Khansama. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the witness to disbelieve his presence and testimony. An attempt was made from the side of appellant that his father had sold his residential house to one Gulam Hazarat Khan for Rs. 700/- and sub sequently father of the appellant Rayees Pitaroo purchased the said house from Gulam Hazarat Khan and the witness was pressurising father of appellant Rayees Pitaroo to return back the house and therefore, witness was having enmity with the appellant Rayees Pilaroo. 700/- and sub sequently father of the appellant Rayees Pitaroo purchased the said house from Gulam Hazarat Khan and the witness was pressurising father of appellant Rayees Pitaroo to return back the house and therefore, witness was having enmity with the appellant Rayees Pilaroo. But the wit ness had showed ignorance about the said transaction and denied the suggestion that he was pressurising father of Rayees Pitaroo to return back his house. The ap pellant had not filed any document or evidence to prove the above fact and there fore, there was no ground for the witness to depose falsely against the appellants. 27. The testimony of above ocular witnesses is also supported by F. I. R. which was promptly lodged as well as the medical evidence and other circumstances of the case. It was contended by learned-counsel for the appellants that according to evidence of Dr. S. K. Gupta (P. W. 7) who examined the injuries of deceased while he was alive, there were only 5 incised wounds on the person of deceased while according to evidence of Dr. O. N. Gupta (P. W. 6) who conducted post-mortem, there were 8 in cised wounds on the person of deceased besides multiple abrasions and one lacerated wound. It is true that in injury report only five incised wounds were found on the person of deceased and in the post mortem report and the evidence of Dr. O. N. Gupta (P. W. 6) besides 8 incised wounds one multiple abrasion in an area of 8 cm x 5 cm was found on front side left knee joint and one lacerated wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x skin deep was found on front side of left leg. But Dr. O. N. Gupta stated that injury No. 7 and 8 (abrasion and lacerated wound) could be caused by some blunt object. The evidence of ocular witnesses shows that Bhoora deceased fell down on sustaining injuries and again injuries were caused on him. The nature and seat of injuries 7 and 8 suggest that they could be caused by fall on and by friction on hard Mibstance. The deceased had fallen on metalled road as the l. O. had taken blood stained coaltar from the spot. Moreover, Dr. The nature and seat of injuries 7 and 8 suggest that they could be caused by fall on and by friction on hard Mibstance. The deceased had fallen on metalled road as the l. O. had taken blood stained coaltar from the spot. Moreover, Dr. S. K. Gupta (P. W. 7) has also explained that the deceased died while he was ex amining his injuries and therefore, he could not complete his examination. Therefore, the difference in number of injuries in injury report and post-mortem report has been explained by Dr. O. N. Gupta that he could not examine entire injuries of the deceased. Therefore, there is no variance in the oral testimony of ocular witnesses and the medical evidence. 28. Regarding defence version the ap pellants had not adduced any evidence. No F. I. R. was lodged by any of the appellant or their relatives. The ocular witnesses have categorically stated that neither the deceased nor any of the witness had any weapon or caused any sort of injury on any of the appellants. There was no medical examination of any of the appellants. This suggests that none of the appellant had sustained any injury in the occurrence. According to defence version deceased Bhoora was having knife and Nanha (P. W. 1) was having stick. The ocular witnesses stated that neither deceased nor any of the witness had any weapon. On Sariya and one knife was recovered from the spot by the I. O. The ocular witnesses also stated that the appellants while running from the spot left one Sariya and one knife. Appel lants Rayees Addha and Rayees Pitaroo stated that knife and Sariya left on the spot belonged to Bhoora deceased and Nanha (P. W. 1 ). But except the bald suggestion given to the witnesses there is no evidence to prove the same. The presence of above weapons on the spot also suggests that the appellants side had gone to the spot fully prepared to take revenge from Bhoora deceased. If they had innocently gone to the spot they had no occasion to take weapons with them. Thus, the defence ver sion is belied by the evidence of ocular witnesses, medical evidence and other cir cumstances of the case and there was no occasion for the appellants Rayees Addha and Rayees Pitaroo to act in self defence. If they had innocently gone to the spot they had no occasion to take weapons with them. Thus, the defence ver sion is belied by the evidence of ocular witnesses, medical evidence and other cir cumstances of the case and there was no occasion for the appellants Rayees Addha and Rayees Pitaroo to act in self defence. In this way the appellants were not able to show even the preponderance of prob abilities from material on record that they had right to act in self defence. 29. Appellant Siddiq and Sardar had pleaded alibi but ocular witnesses proved their presence on the spot. Except bald suggestion from the side of above appel lants that they were not present on the spot, there was no evidence to prove it. Therefore, plea of alibi can not be ac cepted. 30. The evidence on record clearly shows that appellants side came to the spot fully armed to take revenge of the occur rence which took place on 24-9-19, attack ed on the deceased and caused injuries on the deceased with intention and knowledge that it was likely to cause his death and that they had no right to act in self defence. 31. Regarding participation of appel lants the ocular witness categorically stated that appellant Sardar and Rayees Addha caused knife injuries on Bhoora deceased. Their above version is also proved be medical evidence. Therefore, participation of appellants Sardar and Rayees Addha in the offence is proved beyond doubt. 32. So far the case of Rayees Pitaroo is concerned, he allegedly used lathi. Nanha (P. W. 1) stated that none of the appellants causedlfl?/n injury on deceased. Jalil (P. W. 2) and Anwar (P. W. 4) have not stated that Bhoora sustained Lathi injury. However, Gulam Rasool (P. W. 5) stated that Sariya and lathi injuries were caused on deceased. As held above injuries 7 and 8 (Abrasion and Lacerated wound) could also be caused by fall on road. In these circumstances there is no corroboration of evidence of Gulam Rasool (P. W. 5) regarding Lathi injury on deceased and participation of appellant Rayees Pitaroo. Therefore, participation of Rayees Pitaroo appears doubtful and he is entitled to benefit of doubt. 33. In these circumstances there is no corroboration of evidence of Gulam Rasool (P. W. 5) regarding Lathi injury on deceased and participation of appellant Rayees Pitaroo. Therefore, participation of Rayees Pitaroo appears doubtful and he is entitled to benefit of doubt. 33. In view of above discussions and observations we are of the view that con viction of appellants Sardar and Rayees Addha under Section 302 read with Sec tion 34 I. P. C. and sentence of imprison ment for life is to be confirmed and appel lant Rayees Pitaroo be given benefit of doubt and acquitted. The appeal preferred by appellant Siddiq has already abated. 34. We, accordingly, partly allow Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 1980 set aside conviction and sentence of appellant Rayees Pitaroo and acquit him of the of fence to which he stood charged with. He is on bail granted by this Court. His bail bond are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. The appeal preferred by appellant Rayees Addha is dismissed and his conviction under Sec tion 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and sentence of imprisonment for life under said sections are confirmed. Criminal Ap peal No. 1426 of 1980 is dismissed and conviction of appellant Sardar under Sec tion 302 read with 34 I. P. C. and sentence of imprisonment for life under said sections are hereby confirmed. Appellants Rayees Addha and Sardar are on bail granted by this Court. They shall surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur imme diately to serve out the sentence. 35. Office is directed to send copy of this order to C. J. M. , Rampur who shall secure the arrest of appellants Sardar and Rayees Addha to send them jail to serve out the sentence and submit compliance report within one month. Appeal No. 1427/80 partly allowed. .