G. P. MATHUR, J. Criminal Appeal No. 2007 of 1997 has been preferred by Gajadhar Singh, and Criminal Appeal No. 1963 of 1997 has been preferred by Janardan Singh, Sarvajit Singh, Suresh Singh, Umesh Singh, Mritunjai Singh and Haribhan Chaudhury against the judgment and order dated 20-10-1997 of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, in S. T. No. 298 of 1995 and S. T. No. 33 of 1996. By the impugned judgment and order Gajadharu Singh was convicted under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC and was sentenced to two years RI, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000 and imprisonment for life, respectively, under the three counts. In default of payment of fine, he had to undergo a further sentence of six months RI. The appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 1963 of 1997 were convicted under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC and were sentenced to one year RI, imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000 and imprisonment for life, respectively, under the three counts. In default of payment of fine, the appellants had to undergo a further sentence of six months RI. The sentences imposed upon the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, as stated in the FIR and as unfolded in the evidence, in brief, is that the accused Gajadhar Singh, Umesh Singh and Suresh Singh are real brothers being sons of Ram Vichar Singh while Sarvajit Singh accused is son of Janardan Singh. Janardan Singh is first cousin of Ram Vichar Singh as their fathers were real brothers. The remaining two accused, namely, Mritunjai Singh and Haribhan Chaudhury belonged to their group. Janardan Singh was earlier the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Bankara Saiyed Bukhara. In the election scheduled to be held in April, 1995, the office of Pradhan of the said Gaon Sabha was reserved for a person belonging to backward caste. Janardan Singh then set up Haribhan Yadav (Chaudhury) while the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh set up Ramakant Yadav as candidates for the office of Pradhan. Janardan Singh himself filed his nomination papers for the membership of Block Development Committee while Chandra Bhan Singh deceased proposed the name of Sri Ram Bhar for the said office. Janardan Singh then set up Haribhan Yadav (Chaudhury) while the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh set up Ramakant Yadav as candidates for the office of Pradhan. Janardan Singh himself filed his nomination papers for the membership of Block Development Committee while Chandra Bhan Singh deceased proposed the name of Sri Ram Bhar for the said office. The election for the office of Pradhan commenced in the morning of 7-4-1995 and the polling station was in the primary school of the village. Chandra Bhan Singh was also the polling agent of Ramakant Yadav Shortly after commencement of the polling, Janardan Singh and some persons of his group started creating disturbance and resorted to rowdyism. Chandra Bhan Singh asked them not to create any disturbance and to allow the poll to be conducted in a peaceful manner. Janardan Singh then exhorted his companions that he should be beaten. Thereafter Janardan Singh and Sarvajit Singh each caught one hand of Chandra Bhan Singh and Gajadhar Singh fired from a country- made pistol upon him and the shot hit upon his chest. Shivjit Yadav, Deedan Singh and Keshav rushed forward to save him but the appellants Suresh Singh, Umesh Singh, Mritunjai Singh and Haribhan assaulted them with lathis. Chandra Bhan Singh fell down and died on the spot. The injured Keshav Singh, Shivji Yadav and Deedan Singh thereafter went to PHC Siyar where medical aid was given to them and they were also medically examined. Keshav Singh got the FIR of the incident scribed by Raghav Singh and lodged the same at 12. 40 p. m. at P. S. Ubhav which is at a distance of 4 miles from the place of occurrence. 3. PW 6 Udai Bhan Singh, clerk-constable, registered a case in the general diary on the basis of FIR lodged by Keshav Singh. CW 2 Subhash Chandra Sonkar, SI commenced investigation of the case and immediately proceeded for the spot. The dead-body of Chandra Bhan Singh was lying in front of the building of primary school in village Bankara Saiyed Bukhara. He found blood on the spot and collected plain and bloodstained earth from there and prepared its recovery memo. He also prepared a site-plan with the assistance of Keshav Singh and his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was also recorded by him. After completing other formalities, the body was sealed and was sent for post-mortem examination. He found blood on the spot and collected plain and bloodstained earth from there and prepared its recovery memo. He also prepared a site-plan with the assistance of Keshav Singh and his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was also recorded by him. After completing other formalities, the body was sealed and was sent for post-mortem examination. Subsequently, the investigation was handed over to PW 7 T. P. Nanda, who recorded statements of some other witnesses. Thereafter, the investigation was completed by Umesh Chandra Jaiswal, S. O. of PS Ubhav who submitted charge-sheet on 26-6-1995 against all the accused except Mritunjai Singh. The charge-sheet against Mritunjai Singh was submitted subsequently on 25-10-1995. 4. The CJM, Ballia, took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Session. The Ist Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with 149 against Gajadhar Singh and charges under Sections 147, 302 and 307 both read with Section 149 IPC were framed against the accused Janardan Singh, Sarvajit Singh, Suresh Singh, Umesh Singh and Haribhan on 4-11-1995. Mritunjai Singh was also charged under Sections 147, 302 and 307 both read with Section 149 IPC on 22-2- 1996. The charges were explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 7 witnesses including 3 eye-witnesses of the incident and filed some documentary evidence. The accused examined one witness in their defence. At the direction of the Court, three persons were examined as Court witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge believed the case of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. 5. We have heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, S/sri G. P. Dixit and Viresh Misra for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and have examined the entire record. 6. PW 1, Keshav Singh, is the real brother of the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh and is the first informant of the case. In his examination-in-chief, he has given details of the inter se relationship of appellants Gajadhar Singh, Umesh Singh, Suresh Singh and Janardan Singh and his son Sarvajit Singh and has further stated that Mritunjai Singh belonged to their group. In his examination-in-chief, he has given details of the inter se relationship of appellants Gajadhar Singh, Umesh Singh, Suresh Singh and Janardan Singh and his son Sarvajit Singh and has further stated that Mritunjai Singh belonged to their group. He has deposed that Ramakant Yadav been set up by the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh while Haribhan Yadav (Chaudhury) had been set up by Janardan Singh for contesting the election for the office of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. Regarding the main incident he deposed that polling started at 7 a. m. on 7-4-1995 in the primary school. The members of the group of Janardan Singh resorted to rowdyism which was objected to by Chandra Bhan Singh who asked them to allow the polling to be completed peacefully. Hearing this, Suresh Singh, Mritunjai Singh and Haribhan, who were all armed with lathis ran forward exhorting that he should be shot dead. Janardan Singh and Sarvajit Singh then caught hold of one hand each of Chandra Bhan Singh and Gajadhar Singh fired upon his chest from a country-made pistol. The witnesses Shivji Yadav and Deedan Singh moved forward but the four accused armed with lathis assaulted them, and thereafter, they ran away. Chandra Bhan Singh fell down and dies on the spot. He further stated that he and other injured persons then went to PHC Siyar where they were medically examined. Thereafter, he dictated an FIR of the incident to Raghav Singh and took the same to the police station and delivered it to the concerned clerk-constable. 7. PW 2 Shivji Yadav is son of Ramakant Yadav who had been set up by deceased Chandra Bhan Singh and was one of the candidates in the election. He has stated that polling had started at 7 a. m. and at about 7. 45 a. m. Janardan Singh and others resorted to rowdyism in order to disturb the voters. Chandra Bhan Singh came there and asked them that the polling may be done peacefully, on which all the accused rushed towards him in order to kill him. Janardan Singh and Sarvajit Singh caught one hand each of Chandra Bhan Singh while Gajadhar Singh fired from a country-made pistol upon his chest. When he along with Keshav Singh and Deedan Singh tried to save him (Chandra Bhan Singh), the remaining four accused assaulted them with lathis. 8. Janardan Singh and Sarvajit Singh caught one hand each of Chandra Bhan Singh while Gajadhar Singh fired from a country-made pistol upon his chest. When he along with Keshav Singh and Deedan Singh tried to save him (Chandra Bhan Singh), the remaining four accused assaulted them with lathis. 8. PW 4, Dayanand Sharma, is a constable who was posted on duty at the polling station. Besides him, one more constable and some homeguards and chowkidars were also posted on duty. He deposed that polling commenced at 7 a. m. and at about 7. 45 a. m. he heard a commotion and saw some people running helter-shelter. In order to secure the ballot box he asked the homeguards and chowkidars to stand inside the room and he stood outside at the door after closing the same. Shortly thereafter he heard sound of gunfire and then came to know that a person had been murdered. He, however, stated that he only saw the body lying near the polling booth did not see as to who had caused his murder. 9. PW 3 Dr. S. R. Prasad was Medical Officer in-charge of PHC Siyar at the relevant time. He examined Shivji Yadav at 9 a. m. on 7-4-1995 and found the following injuries on his person. (1) Lacerated injury 8 cm x 0. 5 cm over the superior aspect of scalp in mid line. 14 cm above and behind the root of nose. Bone deep with fresh blood. (2) Abrasion 2 m x 1/2 cm over the lower part of back 12 cm above the lumbo-saccral joint in line with fresh blood. (3) Traumatic swelling 6 cm x 3 cm. over the lower part of back in mid line 9 cm above the lumbo saccral joint. (4) Bruises 4 cm x 3 cm over the lower part of back on the right side; 12 cm above the lumbo saccral joint red colour. (5) Complaint of pain over the middle part of left thigh. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were simple and had been caused by blunt object and their duration was fresh. 10. The same doctor examined Deedan Singh at 12. 10 p. m. on 7-4- 1995 and found the following injury on his person: (1) Lacerated injury 1 cm x 0. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were simple and had been caused by blunt object and their duration was fresh. 10. The same doctor examined Deedan Singh at 12. 10 p. m. on 7-4- 1995 and found the following injury on his person: (1) Lacerated injury 1 cm x 0. 25 cm over the posterior part of scalp in mid line; 20 cm above and behind the root of nose with fresh bleeding bone deep. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury was simple in nature had been caused by a blunt object and was fresh in duration. PW 3 also examined Keshav Singh at 12. 20 p. m. on 7-4-1995 and found the following injuries on his person : (1) Lacerated injury 2 cm x 0. 5 cm over the lateral aspect of scalp on the left side bone deep with fresh blood 4 cm above the left ear. (2) Lacerated injury 0. 5 cm x 0. 25 cm over the lateral aspect of upper part of face on the left side 2. 5 cm anterior left ear skin deep with fresh blood. (3) Contused swelling 3 cm x 2 cm over the upper part of lateral aspect of face on the left side I cm anterior to left ear. (4) Abrasion 1 cm x 0. 5 cm over the injury No. 3 with fresh blood. (5) Abrasion 2 cm x 0. 5 cm over the posterior and lateral aspect of left elbow joint. (6) Abrasion 2 cm x 0. 5 cm over the lateral aspect of the upper part of left upper arm 9 cm below the tip of shoulder joint of left side. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were simple in nature, had been caused by blunt object and were fresh in duration. 11. PW 5 Dr. J. P. Singh, M. O. of District Hospital, Ballia, performed the post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Chandra Bhan Singh at 4 p. m. on 8-4-1995 and the following ante- mortem injuries were found on his persons. (1) Fire-arm wound of entry of 5 cm x 4 cm inverted martin abraded colour blackening present, on the right side chest 4 cm above the right nipple. Clotted blood present around wound. (2) Contused swelling on the right side face and right forehead. (1) Fire-arm wound of entry of 5 cm x 4 cm inverted martin abraded colour blackening present, on the right side chest 4 cm above the right nipple. Clotted blood present around wound. (2) Contused swelling on the right side face and right forehead. The internal examination showed fracture of right third rib, right lung was badly lacerated and there was three litres of blood in right thoracic cavity. Seventeen metallic pellets were found in the right lung. The doctor has opined that injury No. 1 could have been caused by a firearm like country-made pistol and the death could have occurred at 7 or 8 a. m. on 7-4-1995. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante- mortem injuries. 12. CW 1, Raj Bahadur Verma, Gram Panchayat Adhikari, brought the papers relating to the election held on 7-4-1995 of Gram Panchayat of Bankara Saiyed Bukhara of booth Nos. 150 and 151. He has stated that the papers brought by him did not show that Chandra Bhan Singh, Keshav Singh and Shivji Yadav were agents of any candidate. He further stated that Haribhan accused was a candidate for the office of Pradhan and his name had been proposed by Gajadhar Singh accused on 27-3-1995. CW 3 Swami Nath Rai, Assistant Development Officer, produced some papers on the direction of the Court. He, however, stated that the envelopes in which the papers had been brought were not in sealed condition and all the papers relating to the election could not be found in the store of the department where they had been kept. 13. PW 6 Udai Bhan Singh was clerk-constable at PS Ubhav and he registered a case in general diary at 12. 40 p. m. on 7-4-1995 on the basis of the FIR lodged by Keshav Singh. He also prepared the chick FIR and has proved the copies of the same. CW 3, Subhash Chandra Sonkar, SI of PS Ubhav was initially entrusted with the investigation of the case and had proceeded for the spot soon after the FIR was lodged. He stated that he found the body of the deceased lying in front of the building of the primary school in between booth Nos. 150 and 151. He had found blood on the spot and had collected the plain and bloodstained earth from there. He stated that he found the body of the deceased lying in front of the building of the primary school in between booth Nos. 150 and 151. He had found blood on the spot and had collected the plain and bloodstained earth from there. He has proved the inquest report prepared by him and has given details of the various steps by him. PW 7 T. P. Nanda had been entrusted with the investigation of the case on 24-5-1995. He recorded statement of PW 2 Shivji Yadav on 1-6-1995. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to Umesh Chandra Jaiswal, S. O. of PS Ubhav who submitted the charge- sheet against the accused. The witness has proved the hand-writing of the said witness on the charge- sheet and other papers. 14. DW 1, Ram Dhani Ram was judicial assistant in collectorate, Ballia. He deposed that he had made a search for the special report of the present case (Crime No. 46 of 1995) but the same could not be found. 15. We have given the details of the evidence which has been produced by the prosecution, the defence and also the evidence which has come on record throught the testimony of the Court witnesses and the documents produced by them. 16. The evidence establishes beyond any shadow of doubt that the election for the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Bankara Saiyed Bukhara took place on 7-4-1995 and the polling station was in the primary school in the said village. The contestants were Ramakant Yadav and Har Bhan Yadav (Chaudhury ). Previously Janardan Singh accused was the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and, as in the ensuing election the seat had been reserved for a candidate of backward community, he himself could not contest the election but had set up Haribhan Yadav. Chandra Bhan deceased had set up the rival candidate Ramakant Yadav. There is hardly and dispute regarding the time and place of the occurrence. The body of the deceased was found in between the two polling booths and was at a distance of 7 paces towards west of polling booth No. 151. In the site- plan (Ext. 22) prepared by CW 2 Subhash Chandra Sonkar, SI he has given the distance of the place where the dead-body was found. He also collected blood from the said spot. In the site- plan (Ext. 22) prepared by CW 2 Subhash Chandra Sonkar, SI he has given the distance of the place where the dead-body was found. He also collected blood from the said spot. PW 4 Dayanand Sharma, constable, who was posted on the duty at the polling station has also stated about the place where he saw the dead-body after he heard the sound of the gunfire. Thus, it is fully established that the incident took place at about 7. 45 a. m. on 7-4-1995 in the compound of primary school in front of booth Nos. 150 and 151. 17. Though the prosecution examined three eye-witnesses of the incident, but PW 4 Dayanand Sharma in his statement did not say anything about the actual firing upon the deceased and has not named any accused. PW 1 Keshav Singh and PW 2 Shivji Yadav both have stated that Janardan Singh resorted to rowdyism in order to disturb the voters and when the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh asked him to allow the polling to be completed peacefully, the accused rushed towards him to kill him and then Janardan Singh and Sarvajit Singh each caught hold of one hand of Chandra Bhan Singh and Gajadhar Singh fired upon his chest by a country-made pistol. The role of causing injuries has been specifically assigned to Gajadhar Singh who is said to be armed with a pistol. The presence of the two eye-witnesses is not only natural and probable on the spot but is also established by the injuries which they sustained in the incident when they were assaulted by Suresh Singh, Umesh Singh, Mritunjai Singh and Haribhan by lathis. It is noteworthy that PW 1 Keshav Singh is brother of Chandra Bhan Singh and PW 2 Shivji Yadav is son of Ramakant Yadav who was contesting the election and, therefore, both were vitally interested in the result of the election and must have been present at the polling booth. Their injuries were medically examined at 9 a. m. and 12. 20 p. m. by PW 3 Dr. S. R. Prasad at PHC Siyar. The blunt weapon injuries on their bodies establish their presence on the spot beyond any shadow of doubt. The post-mortem report of the deceased shows that he sustained a fire-arm injury on his chest. Their injuries were medically examined at 9 a. m. and 12. 20 p. m. by PW 3 Dr. S. R. Prasad at PHC Siyar. The blunt weapon injuries on their bodies establish their presence on the spot beyond any shadow of doubt. The post-mortem report of the deceased shows that he sustained a fire-arm injury on his chest. The testimony of the eye- witnesses that Gajadhar Singh fired upon Chandra pistol, thus, finds complete corroboration from the medical evidence. A contused swelling was also found on the face and forehead of the deceased, but this could be as a result of fall after he had received the fire-arm injury on his chest. CW 1 Raj Bahadur Sharma has stated in paragraph 6 of his statement that Gajadhar accused had proposed the name of Haribhan accused on 27-3-1995. This shows that Gajadhar accused was vitally interested in the success of Haribhan Yadav accused and he must have been hostile to Chandra Bhan Singh deceased who had set up the rival candidate Ramakant Yadav. The FIR of the incident was promptly lodged at 12. 40 p. m. where role of firing upon the deceased was assigned to Gajadhar Singh accused. It is noteworthy that before going to the police station the complainant PW 1 Keshav Singh and other had gone Primary Health Center where some time was spent in their medical examination and treatment. Thereafter, PW 1 had dictated the FIR to Raghav Singh which he took to the police station. Some time have been spent in medical examination of the injured, giving them medical aid and the dictation of the FIR. Therefore, the FIR has been very promptly lodged. The promptness with which the FIR was lodged wherein the main role of causing injury to the deceased by a fire-arm was assigned to Gajadhar Singh lends further assurance to the prosecution case. Thus, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that Gajadhar Singh appellant had fired upon the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh at 7. 45 a. m. on 7-4-1995 in front of the building of primary school which resulted in his instantaneous death. 18. The next question which arises for consideration is whether Janardan Singh and Sarvajit Singh had caught hold the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh when he was fired upon. 45 a. m. on 7-4-1995 in front of the building of primary school which resulted in his instantaneous death. 18. The next question which arises for consideration is whether Janardan Singh and Sarvajit Singh had caught hold the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh when he was fired upon. PW 1 Keshav Singh is the real brother of the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh who had set up Ramakant Yadav who was contesting the election. PW 2 Shivji Yadav is son of Rama Kant Yadav aforesaid. It has come in evidence that Janardan Singh had set up the rival candidate Haribhan Yadav and Gajadhar accused had proposed his name. Sarvajit Singh accused is the son of Janardan Singh. On account of election rivalry, both PW 1 and PW 2 must have been hostile to Janardan Singh and they cannot be termed as wholly independent witnesses. PW 4 Dayanand Sharma, constable, who was deputed on duty and was present on the spot, did not state anything regarding the main commission of the crime, namely, the firing done upon Chandra Bhan Singh or the assault made upon the three injured. The testimony of this witness shows that another constable, namely, Ram Lakhan Singh, three homeguards and two chowkidars had also been posted on duty at the polling station. PW 1 has stated in paragraph 9 of his statement that Janardan Singh, by resorting to rowdyism, was threatening the voters to go away. In normal course of events, the people of the village must have been present in the campus of the primary school during the time of the election. In the FIR it is mentioned. "yeieo[ cee ieeer, meye ueesie peeve yeeeke j Yeeieves ueies" This shows that independent persons were present and had witnessed the crime. However, they have not been examined as witnesses by the prosecution. Janardan Singh and Sarvajit Singh accused are not alleged to have been armed with any weapon nor they are alleged to have caused any injury. The role attributed to them is that each of them caught hold of one hand of the deceased. There is no corroboration of the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 in so far as the role alleged to have been played by those two accused is concerned. The role attributed to them is that each of them caught hold of one hand of the deceased. There is no corroboration of the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 in so far as the role alleged to have been played by those two accused is concerned. Normally in a case where shorting is done by a fire-arm, the victim is not caught by any other persons as there is always a risk to such persons (these who are catching hold of the victim) getting some fire-arm injury. Learned Counsel for the complainant and learned AGA have submitted that there was blackening present on the right side of the chest of the deceased and this shows that shooting had been done from a close range, and in such a case, catching hold of the victim by some of the assailants cannot be said to be improbable or unnatural. According to the case of the prosecution, Gajadhar Singh was not armed by a factory-made weapon but was armed with a country- made pistol and with such weapon no one can be sure that pellets would not go astray. The blackening around the injury shows that the firing may have been done from a distance of 3 to 5 ft. Certainly it is not a case where firing may have been done after keeping the barrel of the weapon pressed on the chest as in such a case wadding pieces would have been found inside the body. The size of the injury is 5 cm x 4 cm which shows that it was not a case of a very close range firing but the weapon was at some distance. Where the firing is being done from a distance, the catching hold of victim appears to be highly unnatural and also risky for those who have caught hold of the victim. The deceased was about 40 years old and he was bound to use all his strength in order to release himself and to go out of the firing range. When Gajadhar Singh took out his pistol and pointed towards him and in this process these who had caught hod of him would not have remained static but would have been disbalanced endangering their own life. When Gajadhar Singh took out his pistol and pointed towards him and in this process these who had caught hod of him would not have remained static but would have been disbalanced endangering their own life. On overall consideration of the matter, this part of the prosecution story that Janardan Singh and Sarvajit Singh each caught hold of one hand of the deceased at the time when he was fired upon, looks artificial and unnatural and does not inspire complete confidence. We are therefore, not inclined to believe that part of prosecution case wherein the role of catching the hands of the deceased has been assigned to Janardan Singh and Sarvajit Singh. We may clarify that we are not doubting the correctness of the main part of the prosecution case, namely, their presence on the spot, the rowdyism done by Janardan Singh and also the firing by Gajadhar Singh upon the deceased, but we are giving benefit of doubt to a limited extent to these accused by way of abundant caution regarding their alleged role of catching hold of the hands of the deceased. 19. Coming now to the participation of the remaining four appellants, namely, Suresh Singh, Umesh Singh, Mrityunjai Singh and Haribhan Yadav (Chaudhury) it may be stated at the very outset that they are not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh. These accused were also armed with lathis and could have easily given blows to the deceased but they chose not to do so. They are alleged to have caused the injuries to three persons but all the injuries caused by them were found to be simple in nature. PW 2 Shivji Yadav is the son of rival candidate Ramakant Yadav and except for one lacerated injury on the scalp, the remaining injuries were on his back. Deedan Singh sustained only one lacerated wound while Keshav Singh sustained one lacerated injury on the scalp, one lacerated injury and one contused swelling on face and three abrasions. Thus, the injuries caused by these four accused do not show that they intended to cause any serious or grievous injury. The version given in the FIR is that on the instigation of Janardan Singh, these four accused and Sarvajit Singh rushed forward to assault. Thus, the injuries caused by these four accused do not show that they intended to cause any serious or grievous injury. The version given in the FIR is that on the instigation of Janardan Singh, these four accused and Sarvajit Singh rushed forward to assault. However, PW 1 changed his statement in Court and stated that these four accused exhorted and said that he (Chandra Bhan Singh) should be shot. PW 2 Shivji Yadav stated in examination- in-chief that all the accused rushed forward to kill Chandra Bhan Singh. However, he has stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his statement that he rushed forward when Chandra Bhan Singh had taken out a pistol and at that time he was assaulted by lathis. This version is at variance with his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. wherein he had stated that after Chandra Bhan Singh had been shot, he, Keshav Singh and Deedan Singh rushed forward to save him and at that time the four accused armed with lathis assaulted them. PW 4 Dayanand Sharma (constable on duty) in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. had stated that there was a fight between both the parties. The exact words used by him, which have been proved by CW 2, Subhash Chandra Sonkar, investigating Officer of the case are, "oesveew He#eew cew Peie[e Meg nes ieee" which means that there was fight between both the parties. PW 2 Shivji Yadav has stated in paragraph 5 of his statement that he does not remember whether he had seen lathis or country- made pistol in the hands of any of the accused at the time when Janardan Singh was disturbing the voters and was asking them not to cast vote in favour of Ramakant Yadav. He has further stated that Gajadhar Singh took out the country-made pistol. This shows that the pistol had been concealed and it was not visible to anyone. As mentioned earlier, it was Gajadhar Singh who had proposed the name of Haribhan Yadav on 27-3-1995, i. e. prior to the occurrence and he must have been very keen to see that his candidate won the election. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not establish that the remaining accused had any knowledge that Gajadhar Singh was carrying a country-made pistol, or that he could go to the extent of shooting Chandra Bhan Singh. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not establish that the remaining accused had any knowledge that Gajadhar Singh was carrying a country-made pistol, or that he could go to the extent of shooting Chandra Bhan Singh. The testimony of P. W. 2 shows that Janardan Singh was initially asking the voters not to cast vote for Ramakant Yadav but to vote for his candidate, and, subsequently, he had resorted to rowdyism in order to disturb the voting process so that Ramakant Yadav may not win the election and, with that end in view, simple injuries were caused by blunt weapon to three persons. The common object of the assembly was not to commit murder of Chandra Bhan Singh and it was the solitary act of Gajadhar Singh which resulted in his death. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants, other than Gajadhar Singh, under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC cannot be sustained and must be set aside. 20. The learned Sessions Judge has also convicted all the 7 accused under Sections 307 read with 149 IPC. We have already discussed the nature of the injuries sustained by the three injured. They were not assaulted by any deadly weapon. They did not receive a single serious or grievous injury and all the injuries received by them were simple. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that common object of the assembly was to cause injuries to the three injured with such intention and under such circumstances that if they had caused their death they would have been guilty of murder so as to bring the case within the clutches of Section 307 IPC. The appellants conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC has to be set aside and instead they are liable to be convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC for which a sentence of six month RI will meet the ends of justice. 21. In the result, Crl. Appeal No. 2007 of 1997 filed by Gajadhar Singh is partly allowed. His conviction under Section 148 and 302 IPC as well as the sentences imposed thereunder by the learned Sessions Judge are affirmed. His conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed thereunder is, however, set aside. Appeal No. 2007 of 1997 filed by Gajadhar Singh is partly allowed. His conviction under Section 148 and 302 IPC as well as the sentences imposed thereunder by the learned Sessions Judge are affirmed. His conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed thereunder is, however, set aside. He is instead conviction under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and is sentenced to six months RI. All the sentences imposed upon him shall run concurrently. 22. Crl. Appeal No. 1963 of 1997 is also partly allowed. The conviction of Janardan Singh, Sarvajit Singh, Suresh Singh, Umesh Singh, Mritunjai Singh and Haribhan Chaudhury under Sections 302 and 307, both read with Section 149 IPC and the sentences imposed thereunder are set aside. They are instead convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and are sentenced to six months RI thereunder. The conviction of these appellants under Section 147 IPC and the sentence of one year R. I. imposed thereunder by the learned Sessions Judge is affirmed. The sentences imposed upon those appellants shall run concurrently. The appellant Gajadhar Singh is in jail. He shall serve out the sentences imposed upon him. All other appellants, namely, Janardan Singh, Sarvajit Singh, Suresh Singh, Umesh Singh, Mritunjai Singh and Haribhan Chaudhary are on bail. The bail granted to them is cancelled. They shall surrender forthwith to undergo the sentences imposed upon them. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgement to CJM, Ballia, who shall report compliance of this order within three months. Appeals partly allowed. .