Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1146 (JHR)

Krim Singh v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2002-10-31

LAKSHMAN URAON, VISHNUDEO NARAYAN

body2002
JUDGMENT Lakshman Uraon, J.-The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6.7.91 and 8.7.91 respectively, passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge. Gumla. in S.T. No. 173/1988 (G.R. No. 370/88), convicting and sentencing them under Section 302/149, IPC, to go R.I. for life and the appellant, Krim Singh had further been convicted and sentenced under Section 307, IPC, to go R.I. for 10 years. In the case of Krim Singh it was ordered that both the sentences will run concurrently. 2. P.W. 1, Chamra Singh, informant, alleged that he alongwith his family JT members was at home at village Rakamsera and was taking meal alongwith Rambilash Singh. The appellant, Sadhu Singh went to him and asked that all the three brothers have to go to attend a meeting scheduled to be held in the house of the appellant, Mohan Singh. The informant alongwith his younger brother, Rambilash Singh (since deceased) went to the house of Mohan Singh. He saw that Titangu Singh and Mohan Singh were quarrelling there. When they reached there then the appellants, Sadhu Singh, Krim Singh and Mohan Singh said that "they have come; assault them". When the informant heard, then he, his younger brother, Rambilash Singh, Titangu Singh and Sibu Singh fled away. They were chased by Krim Singh, Sadhu Singh, Mohan Singh, Shankar Singh, Radhe Singh, Deo Mohan Singh, Kameshwar Singh, Kaleshwar Singh, Kalinga Singh and Balo Singh. The appellant, Sadhu Singh had Balua who gave Balua blow on the right upper knee of Rambilash Singh, cutting the leg completely. The appellant, Krim Singh, assaulted with Tangi on the head of Nanhku Singh causing bleeding injuries. Both the injured fell down. Thereafter, Mohan Singh, Shankar Singh, Radha Singh, Deo Mohan Singh, Kameshwar Singh, Kaleshwar Singh, Kalinder Singh and Balo Singh gave Lalkar to assault. But when they saw the villagers, they fled away. The informant brought his injured brother, Rambilash Singh to his home where he died within half an hour. The alleged occurrence took place only because Nanku Singh had a maid-servant who was allured by Mohan Singh to work in his home. Due to that maid-servant, Sibu Singh, son of Nanku Singh and Mohan Singh had altercation on the last Thursday. Due to that reason appellants armed with deadly weapons assaulted Rambilash to his death. They also assaulted Nanku Singh. 3. Due to that maid-servant, Sibu Singh, son of Nanku Singh and Mohan Singh had altercation on the last Thursday. Due to that reason appellants armed with deadly weapons assaulted Rambilash to his death. They also assaulted Nanku Singh. 3. The prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses. PW-1, Chamra Singh, is the informant. PW-2, Lurka Singh, is the brother of PW-1, Chamra Singh. P.W.-3, Nanku Singh had also sustained injury on his head and arm. P.W.-4, Ganesh Singh, claims to be the eye-witness as claimed by PWs-1, 2, 3 & 9. P.W.-7, Fulo Devi, is the mother of the deceased, Rambilash Singh. PW-5, Titangu Singh, is a tendered witness. PW-6, Dr. R. P. Agrawal, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Rambilash Singh, Ext. 1 and PW-7, Dr. R. K. Beck, examined the injured, PW-3, Nanku Singh and issued injury report. Ext. 2. PW-8, Dileshwar Singh, is a seizure-list witness who deposed that on 6.7.88, the I.O. searched the house of Krim Singh and Sadhu Singh. From the house of Krim Singh, Tangi and from the house of Sadhu Singh, Balua, having bloodstain, were seized and seizure-list was prepared on which he gave his L.T.I. He is also the witness of the seizure of bloodstained soil. 4. In this present case the eye-witnesses are PW-1 , informant, Chamra Singh, PW-2, Lurka Singh, PW-3, Nanku Singh, PW-4, Ganesh Singh and PW-9, Fulo Devi, mother of the deceased. PW-1, Chamra Singh, in the FIR which was not brought into record by proving it, has stated that as soon as he alongwith his brother, Rambilash Singh, reached to the house of Mohan Singh, then he found Titangu Singh and Mohan Singh quarrelling. Sadhu Singh, Krim Singh and Mohan Singh saw the informant and his brother and then they said that "the informant and his brother have come assault them". Hearing this, the informant and his brother fled away who were chased by Krim Singh, Sadhu Singh, Mohan Singh, Shankar Singh, Radha Singh', Deo Mohan Singh, Kameshwar Singh, Kaleshwar Singh, Kalinder Singh and Balo Singh. He has alleged only against Sadhu Singh who had Balua and assaulted Rambilash Singh on the upper part of the right knee, completely cutting the leg of Rambilash Singh. When the leg of Rambilash Singh was completely cut he fell down and was tossing. He has alleged only against Sadhu Singh who had Balua and assaulted Rambilash Singh on the upper part of the right knee, completely cutting the leg of Rambilash Singh. When the leg of Rambilash Singh was completely cut he fell down and was tossing. Krim Singh gave Tangi blow on the head of Nanku Singh who sustained bleeding injury and fell down. The other appellants, Mohan Singh, Shankar Singh, Radhe Singh, Deo Mohan Singh, Kameshwar Singh, Kaleshwar Singh, Kalinder Singh and Balo Singh were simply giving a Lalkar to assault but due to arrival of the villagers no further assault could be made on the person of Rambilash Singh and Nanku Singh. PW-1, informant, Chamra Singh, in his evidence has deposed that when they were fleeing away the appellants chased them. The appellant, Sadhu Singh, gave a Balua blow on the leg of Rambilash Singh cutting the leg completely. The injured, Rambilash Singh, fell down then Krim Singh gave a Tangi blow on his head. Thereafter, he became unconscious. The informant, PW1, has not alleged anything against the appellant, Krim Singh, regarding any Tangi blow given by him on the head of Nanku Singh. He has further deposed that Mohan Singh had Lathi who is non-assailant either to the deceased, Rambilash Singh or Nanku Singh. The appellant, Krim Singh had Tangi and the appellant, Sadhu Singh had Balua. The other eight appellants were emptyhanded. After assaulting Rambilash Singh and Nanku Singh all the appellants fled away. Subsequently the informant, PW-1, has stated that Krim Singh gave a Tangi blow of Nanku Singh. As per the evidence of this witness a meeting was called in the house of Mohan Singh. All the male members of the village had assembled there. As soon as the informant and his brother, Rambilash Singh, entered into the house of Mohan Singh, then there was a Lalkar to assault them. All the persons who had assembled there including the informant, his deceased brother, Rambilash Singh, Nanku Singh and others fled away. In which direction they fled, it cannot be said as it was dark night. He also could not see as to who fell down and where. Again he has stated that when the informant, his brother, Rambilash Singh and Nanku Singh were near the house of Nanku Singh then Nanku Singh was given a Tangi blow by throwing the Tangi. In which direction they fled, it cannot be said as it was dark night. He also could not see as to who fell down and where. Again he has stated that when the informant, his brother, Rambilash Singh and Nanku Singh were near the house of Nanku Singh then Nanku Singh was given a Tangi blow by throwing the Tangi. Again he has deposed that at that time Rambilash Singh snatched the Balua from the hand of Sadhu Singh. Next day the informant took the Tangi and the Balua and handed over to the Police. This informant has admitted that the appellant, Mohan Singh, had also instituted a case against Sibu Singh Lurka Singh and others which is still pending regarding the alleged assault given by Sibu Singh with Tangi to Mohan Singh, PW-2, Lurka Singh, brother of the informant, had also gone to the house of Mohan Singh to attend the meeting. As soon as they reached there the appellants gave an order to assault them. This witness has also stated that when he and other brothers inCluding the informant started fleeing away then the appellant, Sadhu Singh, Krim Singh, Mohan Singh, Shankar Singh, Kameshwar Singh, Kaleshwar Singh, Dev Mohan Singh, Kalindi Singh, Balo Singh and Radhe chased them. When Rambilash Singh fell down in course of running then Sadhu Singh gave a Balua blow on the leg of Rambilash Singh which cut completely. The appellant, Krim Singh, gave a Tangi blow to Nanku Singh. Nanku Singh also fell down on being injured. Injured, Rambilash Singh, was taken to home who died within half an hour. He has also stated that the genesis of the alleged occurrence was only due to alluring of the maid-servant of Nanku Singh by the appellant Mohan Singh to do his domestic work. This witness had also disposed that the. I.O. went to the village, prepared the inquest report, seized bloodstained soil and prepared the seizure-lis, of blood-stained Tangi ard Balua on which this witness gave his L.T.I. About 50-100 persons were attending the meeting. When an order of assault was given, then, all persons started fleeing away towards their respective homes as it was dark night. The informant and his other brothers went to the home and were standing outside the door. When an order of assault was given, then, all persons started fleeing away towards their respective homes as it was dark night. The informant and his other brothers went to the home and were standing outside the door. When Nanku Singh came out of his house then he was given a Tangi blow by the appellant, Krim Singh, by throwing the Tangi, resulting injury on his head. PW-3 is the injured, Nanku Singh, who had also gone to attend the meeting called by Mohan Singh in his house. All the appellants were present there among the other villagers. The appellant, Mohan Singh, ordered to assault them. Then this witness and other brothers including the informant fled away. They were chased by the appellants, Dev Mohan Singh, Kaleshwar Singh, Kameshwar Singh, Mohan Singh, Shankar Singh, Sadhu Singh, Krim Singh, Kalinda Singh, Balo Singh and Radha Singh. The appellant, Sadhu Singh, gave a Balua blow on the leg of Rambilash Singh. On being injured Rambilash Singh fell down. This witness Nanku Singh was given a Tangi blow by Krim Singh on his head and eye. On being injured he also fell down and became unconscious. He has not stated that Krim Singh assaulted him with Tangi by throwing it on his person. Thus, he contradicts the evidence of his brothers, PWs- 1 & 2. Moreover, if the Tangi had been thrown then this witness would have sustained only one Tangi injury on his person but, PW-7, Dr. R. K. Beck, examined this witness, Nanku Singh on 6.7.88 at 6.30 A.M. and found (1) Incised wound 1.5" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the forehead and (2) Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/2" on the left elbow. Both the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapons such as Balua and Tangi within six hours from the time of examination. He issued injury-report, Ext.2 and found both the injuries to be simple in nature. The Doctor opined that both the injuries are possible by fall on thorny bush. Thus, the ocular evidence regarding the Tangi blow given once by the appellant, Krim Singh on the head of Nanku Singh, PW-3, does not get support as to whether Nanku Singh sustained injury by throwing Tangi on his person or he was assaulted by Krim Singh twice at his door when he came out from his house. Thus, the ocular evidence regarding the Tangi blow given once by the appellant, Krim Singh on the head of Nanku Singh, PW-3, does not get support as to whether Nanku Singh sustained injury by throwing Tangi on his person or he was assaulted by Krim Singh twice at his door when he came out from his house. PW-4, Ganesh Singh, had also gone to the house of Mohan Singh to attend the meeting called by Sadhu Singh alongwith Nanku Singh, PW-3, Titangu Singh, PW-5, Sibu, Chamra Singh, PW-1, Rambilash Singh (deceased) and Lurka Singh, PW-2. When they reached there, Mohan Singh ordered to assault them. Then all of them started fleeing away. They were chased by the appellants, Krim Singh, Mohan Singh, Sadhu Singh Radhe Singh, Deo Mohan Singh, Kameshwar Singh, Kaleshwar Singh, Balo Singh. He has further deposed that Rambilash Singh When fell down then the appellant, Sadhu Singh, assaulted him with Balua on his thigh. The appellant, Krim Singh, gave Tangi blow on the head of Nanku Singh. Rambilash Singh died at the spot. This witness has deposed that the meeting regarding the maid-servant took place for about 10 minutes. Thereafter, the alleged occurrence took place. Some of the villagers were standing and some of them were sitting. The informant and others started fleeing away. It was dark night. This witness was running ahead of all the other witnesses. He reached to his home and stood there as the door was closed from inside. As soon as he reached near the door, Marpit started. Towards the East of his door the alleged Marpit took place and Rambilash Singh fell down. Rambilash Singh was surrounded by the witnesses. Nanku Singh had fallen at another place at a distance of' about 8-10 hands from Rambilash Singh. He could not see as to who assaulted Nanku Singh and from which side. Another witness., PW-5, Titangu Singh, who had also gone to attend the meeting, is a tendered witness. He has simply deposed that it was a dark night. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is wholly illegal and vitiated in law and as such it is liable to be set aside. The appellants have been seriously prejudiced due to non-examination of the I.O. There is no evidence for conviction under Section 149, IPC. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is wholly illegal and vitiated in law and as such it is liable to be set aside. The appellants have been seriously prejudiced due to non-examination of the I.O. There is no evidence for conviction under Section 149, IPC. Moreover, there is no evidence regarding any overt act alleged against the appellants No. 3-10. There is no evidence that they had formed any unlawful assembly to commit any crime or murder. The learned . Court below had not considered the vital contradiction on the statement of the alleged eye-witnesses, PWs-1, 2, 3, 4 & 9. Similarly PW-1 in Para 10 has deposed that the deceased, Rambilash Singh, had snatched away the Balua and the Tangi and threw there. On the next day, PW-1, produced the said Balua and Tangi at the Police Station whereas, PW-2 has stated that when the Police came to the village, he recovered the Balua and the Tangi. 6. In this case the I.O. has not been examined hence the prosecution could not establish the P.O. where these appellants assaulted 'Rambilash Singh and Nanku Singh. The manner of the alleged occurrence as to whether Krim Singh injured Nanku Singh by throwing Tangi or by assaulting with Tangi, is also contradicted. The informant, Chamra Singh, PW-1, Lurka Singh, PW-2, Nanku Singh, PW-3, Ganesh Singh, PW-4 and Titangu Singh, PW-5, had gone to the house of Mohan Singh to attend the meeting. The evidence of PW-1 is that as soon as they reached to the home of Mohan Singh then, he ordered to assault them. He himself gave a Balua blow causing complete cut of the leg of Rambilash Singh. He fell down. The appellant, Krim Singh, is alleged to have given Tangi blow on his head when he fell down. The informant has not alleged that Krim Singh gave a Tangi blow to Nanku Singh but when they were chased all the witnesses fled away as per the evidence of PW-4, Ganesh Singh. He claims that the meeting was held for about 10 minutes. Some villagers were sitting and some were standing. It also contradicted the statement of the informant, PW-1, Chamra Singh, that as soon as they reached the home of Mohan Singh, he ordered to assault them and then they started fleeing away. He claims that the meeting was held for about 10 minutes. Some villagers were sitting and some were standing. It also contradicted the statement of the informant, PW-1, Chamra Singh, that as soon as they reached the home of Mohan Singh, he ordered to assault them and then they started fleeing away. As per the evidence of PW-4, Ganesh Singh, he was fleeing away and was ahead of the other witnesses. He went to his door and stood there as the door was closed from inside. In the eastern side of his door, Rambilash Singh was given Balua blow by Sadhu Singh, who fell down after complete cut of his leg. He could not see as to who assaulted Nanku Singh, who had also fallen down at a distance of 8-10 hands from Rambilash Singh. If the appellant, Krim Singh, had injured Nanku Singh by throwi1g Tangi then he would have sustained only one injury. But Nanku Singh had sustained two injuries on his person. PW-1, Chamra Singh (informant) has also deposed that as it was dark night all of them fled away arid went to the door of Nanku Singh and stood there. He was alongwith Nanku Singh, Ganesh Singh, Lurka Singh and Rambilash Singh. On hulla the villagers also assembled there. He says that the quarrel started at the home of Mohan Singh but the injured were assaulted near the house of Nanku Singh.• This witness has specifically stated that Krim Singh assaulted Nanku Singh by throwing Tangi whereas Rambilash Singh snatched the Balua from Sadhu Singh. Both those weapons i.e., Balua and Tangi were handed over to the Police on the next day. The evidence of this informant is contradicted by the seizure-list witness, PW-8, Dileshwar Singh, who has deposed that on 6.7.88 the I.O. had gone to his village and searched the house of the appellants, Krim Singh and Sadhu Singh. From the house of Krim Singh one blood-stained Tangi and from the house of Sadhu Singh, one blood-stained Balua were recovered. The evidence of this informant is contradicted by the seizure-list witness, PW-8, Dileshwar Singh, who has deposed that on 6.7.88 the I.O. had gone to his village and searched the house of the appellants, Krim Singh and Sadhu Singh. From the house of Krim Singh one blood-stained Tangi and from the house of Sadhu Singh, one blood-stained Balua were recovered. The I.O. seized both the weapons and prepared seizure-list on which he gave his L.T.I. The I.O. also seized the blood-stained soil and seizure list was prepared on which he gave his L.T.I. If the evidence of this seizure-list witness is believed then the evidence of the informant and other alleged eye-witnesses, PW-1, Chamra Singh, PW-2, Lurka Singh, PW-3, Nanku Singh and Ganesh Singh, PW-4 are belied on the point of recovery of Balua and Tangi as they have deposed that the said weapons were lying in front of the door of Nanku Singh and Balua was snatched by the deceased, Rambilash Singh, himself which were handed over to the Police on the next day. As I have stated that due to non-examination of the I.O., the P.O. could not be established. It is also doubtful as to from where blood-stained Tangi and Balua were recovered. If the seizure-list witness, PW-8, Dileshwar Singh, is believed then both the blood-stained weapons i.e., Tangi and Balua were recovered from the house of Krim Singh and Sadhu Singh respectively. 7. The manner of the alleged assault has also been contradicted as to whether Rambilash Singh was assaulted with Balua and Tangi when he fell down while fleeing away or Rambilash Singh was assaulted with Balua when he was chased alongwith others and had reached near the door at' Nanku Singh. If the evidence of PW-1, Chamra Singh, is believed then Rambilash Singh is alleged to have snatched the Balua who had fallen down after complete cut of his leg. Nanku Singh was also assaulted in front of the house of Lurka Singh, PW-2. 8. All the interested witnesses have stated that it was dark night. They could not see as to who assaulted whom. Simply they have tried to allege against the appellant, Sadhu Singh that he gave Balua blow on the right leg above the knee to Rambilash Singh, completely cutting his leg. 8. All the interested witnesses have stated that it was dark night. They could not see as to who assaulted whom. Simply they have tried to allege against the appellant, Sadhu Singh that he gave Balua blow on the right leg above the knee to Rambilash Singh, completely cutting his leg. In the FIR which could not be proved by any of the prosecution witnesses there is allegation against the appellant, Krim Singh, that he assaulted Nanku Singh with tangi on his head. In the FIR and in the evidence of the witnesses there is no allegation of any overt act against the remaining eight appellants, namely, Mohan Singh, Shankar Singh, Radhey, Deo Mohan Singh, Kameshwar Singh, Kaleshwar Singh, Kalinder Singh and 8alo Singh. Mohan Singh had called a meeting in his home in the evening of the alleged date of occurrence. The villagers had! assembled in his home to settle the dispute regarding the maid-servant. Some were standing and some were sitting in the home of Mohan Singh. If the meeting was called then the assembly cannot be said to be an unlawful assembly. All the eight appellants except Krim Singh and Sadhu Singh were emptyhanded. They have said that they had simply chased the prosecution party. Attending of meeting at the home of Mohan Singh by the villagers who had assembled there and some were standing there and some were sitting there, is also contradicted by PW-3, Nanku Singh, who has deposed that he alongwith Ganesh Singh, Chamra Singh, Lurka Singh, Rambilash Singh and Sibu went to home of Mohan Singh to attend the meeting, called by Sadhu Singh, then they found only ten persons in the house of Mohan Singh. This witness asked Mohan Singh as why the other villagers did not come to attend the meeting then, Marpit started. The independent villagers did not come to the P.O. where the meeting was being held or where Rambilash Singh and Nanku Singli were assaulted, causing injury on their persons by Balua and Tangi. The statement of PW-9, Fulo Devi, mother of the deceased, was not recorded by the I.O. in course of investigation. She had got a poor sight. She did not send anyone to Thana. At the time of• the alleged occurrence this witness and others were taking meal. They came out on hearrg hulla alongwith Rambilash Singh and others. The statement of PW-9, Fulo Devi, mother of the deceased, was not recorded by the I.O. in course of investigation. She had got a poor sight. She did not send anyone to Thana. At the time of• the alleged occurrence this witness and others were taking meal. They came out on hearrg hulla alongwith Rambilash Singh and others. Her evidence shows that Rambilash Singh was also taking meal alongwith her mother, PW9, Fulo Devi, and came out of his home on hearing hulla and the alleged assault took place after two houses of her home. She did not have a talk with any villager about the alleged occurrence. None of the villagers had gone to the P.O. where the alleged assault took place. Even she had not a talk with the wife of Rambilash Singh. Thus, the evidence of this witness, PW-9, Fulo Devi, that when she came out from her home then she saw her son, Rambilash Singh, running away followed by Sadhu Singh, who gave a Balua blow on the right leg of Rambilash Singh, cutting his leg completely, could not be corroborated by other witnesses. 9. In view of my above discussions I come to the conclusion that due to non-examination of the I.O., the P.O. could not be established. The night was dark that is why the prosecution witnesses could not see as to who assaulted whom. It is also not clear as to whether Rambilash Singh and Nanku Singh alongwith the other witnesses including the informant when reached to attend the meeting at the house of Mohan Singh then Mohan Singh, Sadhu Singh and others asked to assault them. It is also not clear as to whether there was some assault on the way or when Rambilash Singh, Chamra Singh, Lurka Singh and Ganesh Singh fled away and reached near the house of Lurka Singh then the appellant, Sadhu Singh followed and assaulted Rambilash Singh with Balua and the appellant, Krim Singh followed and assaulted Nanku Singh by throwing Tangi. The mother of the deceased, PW-9, Fulo Devi, has deposed that she and her son, Rambilash Singh, were taking meal inside the home. When they heard hulla then she came out from her house.Rambilash Singh also came out from his house. Then Rambilash Singh was given Balua blow by Sadhu Singh and Tangi blow was given by Krim Singh on the person of Nanku Singh. When they heard hulla then she came out from her house.Rambilash Singh also came out from his house. Then Rambilash Singh was given Balua blow by Sadhu Singh and Tangi blow was given by Krim Singh on the person of Nanku Singh. On the other hand, PW-1, Chamra Singh, who is the informant, has deposed that Rambilash Singh snatched the Balua which is not possible as his right leg was completely cut by Balua and he had fallen down. It is not cleaf in my mind that how Balua was snatched by the injured, Rambilash Singh and how the Tangi was found in front of the house of Nanku Singh which is alleged that it was thrown at Nanku Singh, causing injury on his head and arm. On the other hand, the seizure-list witness, PW-8, Dileshwar Singh, gives a different picture that the I.O. on the next day i.e. on 6.7.88 searched the house of Sadhu Singh and Krim Singh. He recovered the bloodstained Balua and Tangi from the houses of Sadhu Singh and Krim Singh respectively and prepared the seizure-list. This fact has also not been proved by the prosecution as to whether Balua and Tangiwere recovered from the house of the appellants, Sadhu Singh and Krim Singh respectively or on the next day the informant took the blood stained Balua and Tangi and handed over it to the Police at Thana. Thus, I find that there is vast contradictions on each point in the prosecution case. The manner of the alleged occurrence, the place of the alleged occurrence, and the participation of these appellants in assaulting the injured, Rambilash Singh and Nanku Singh also could not be proved as the prosecution witnesses have admitted that there was dark night. In the darkness they fled away hither and thither. They could not see as to who fled away in which direction. This shows that due to darkness they were not in a position to identify the assailants. The genesis of the alleged occurrence was ragarding the maid-servant which was simply alleged by the prosecution. But as to whether it was a real dispute regarding the maid-servant or Panchaiti was called in the house of Mohan Singh, was also not proved. This shows that due to darkness they were not in a position to identify the assailants. The genesis of the alleged occurrence was ragarding the maid-servant which was simply alleged by the prosecution. But as to whether it was a real dispute regarding the maid-servant or Panchaiti was called in the house of Mohan Singh, was also not proved. The allegation against the appellants Sadhu Singh and Krim Singh that they gave Balua blow and Tangi blow, causing injury to Rambilash Singh and Nanku Singh respectively, is also doubtful. The meeting was called in the house of Mohan Singh hence the assembly was not unlawful. It is also not clear as to whether all the male members of the village had attended the meeting or only these 10 appellants were present in the house of Mohan Singh when the informant and other witnesses reached there. 10. When considered these facts, I come to the conclusion that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below against these appellants under Section 302/149, IPC and against the appellant, Krim Singh, further under Section 307, IPC, can not be sustained. 11. In the result this criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against all these appellants in S.T. No. 173/ 88 (G.R. No. 370/88) is hereby set aside. As all the appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail-bonds furnished in this case. Vishnudeo Narayan, J.-I agree.