Judgment 1. By this judgment we dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 477-DB of 1999 filed by Indraj, Gulzari and Om Parkash, appellants who are real brothers and sons of Ranjit Singh. Crl. Appeal No. 531-DBA of 2000, filed by the State of Haryana against Smt. Kela wife of Indraj, Smt. Meena wife of Gulzari and Smt. Shakuntla wife of Shri Om Parkash and also against the three convict- appellants referred to above, as the State has made a prayer that respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. three ladies should also be convicted and sentenced in the same manner as conviction and sentence has been awarded to their husbands with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Similar is the prayer made in Crl. Revision No. 380 of 1999, filed by Shri Hoshiar Singh complainant, who has also made a prayer that three ladies accused aforesaid should also be convicted and sentenced in the same manner in which the conviction and punishment has been awarded to their husbands respectively. 2. Indraj, Gulzari and Om Parkash (convict-appellants). Smt. Kela, Smt. Meena and Smt. Shakuntla (since acquitted) were charge-sheeted by the trial Court on the allegations that on 2.11.1998, at about 7.00 P.M. in the area of Pathawara, they formed an unlawful assembly and common object of which was to commit the offence of rioting and at that time they were armed with deadly weapons like lathi, Kulhari, Danda and stones and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Second charge was that on the same day time and place and in furtherance of the common object of the said unlawful assembly Indraj caused Kulhari blow on the head of Matu Ram and caused his death and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The third charge against them was that they also committed an offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and the fourth charge against the accused was that they in prosecution of their common object caused simple hurts to Sadhu Ram, Daya Kishan, Jagdish and Mahabir and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. 3. The three appellants Indraj, Gulzari and Om Parkash are the real nephews of Matu Ram deceased and they are the first cousins of Hoshiar Singh complainant who is the son of Matu Ram 4. The story of the prosecution goes that on 2.11.1998 A.S.I. Ranbir Singh of Police-Station, Satnali along with other members of the police-party was present near Saraswati Bal Mandir School, Satnali in connection with patrol duty when PW-4 Shri Hoshiar Singh met him and gave a statement to the effect that he is resident of village Pathawara and he works as Cashier in Punjab National Bank in Delhi for the last about 12/13 years. He has four more brothers; eldest one is Mahabir (injured), then the complainant, next to him are Sadhu Ram and Jagdish injured and Vijendar is the youngest. Mahabir resides separately while the remaining brothers used to reside jointly with his parents. The complainant party and their Tau (fathers elder brother), meaning thereby, the father of the accused, had 6-1/2 acres of land and a tube-well jointly. Electric connection and sprinkler set had been installed on the well after taking a loan in the name of Shri Matu Ram. The instalment of the loan for the sprinkler set has not been paid so far. The room of the tube well was jointly locked and key of that lock used to remain in the custody of his father Matu Ram. Another lock was put on that lock by Indraj son of Ranjeet appellant. The well is lying closed for the last six months. Indraj and others told to his father Shri Matu Ram that since the tube-well is situated on the joint land, therefore, neither they will use it nor they will allow to anybody else to use the same. Now, instalments of sprinkler set and electric bills had been received upon which Matu Ram told to Indraj and others that they should deposit the half of the instalment and the remaining half would be deposited by him. On Account of this reason, the parties exchanged hot words. 5. On the day of occurrence, at about 9 A.M. Jagdish (injured) the real brother of the complainant told him on telephone at Delhi that a Panchayat is going to be organised to settle the dispute of the well and that the complainant should also reach the village. On Account of this reason, the parties exchanged hot words. 5. On the day of occurrence, at about 9 A.M. Jagdish (injured) the real brother of the complainant told him on telephone at Delhi that a Panchayat is going to be organised to settle the dispute of the well and that the complainant should also reach the village. On receipt of this message, the complainant came to his house from Delhi at bout 5.00 P.M. where his maternal uncles Salag Ram and Dev Karan (they are also the maternal uncles of the appellants) had arrived from their village Navan Bhainsali in order to settle the dispute. The complainant alleges that when he was talking with his father Matu Ram and maternal uncles Salag Ram and Dev Karan, in connection with the payment of the electric bills and instalments, at about 7.00 P.M. Indraj, Gulzari and Om Parkash sons of Ranjit Singh, Shakuntla wife of aforesaid Om Parkash, Smt. Kela wife of Indraj aforesaid and Meena wife of Gulzari and Dharam Pal son of Maru Ram caste Harijan residents of the village came in front of their house with their common intention and they started hurling abuses to them. Thereupon, the complainant, his father Matu Ram, his brothers Mahabir, Sadhu Ram, Jagdish and Vijender came out of their house. Indraj and Gulzari appellants were armed with Kulhari at that time. Indraj gave a kulhari blow on the left side of the head of his father above the left ear and Gulzari gave a Kulhari blow on the left side of the neck below the ear, upon which his father Matu Ram fell on the ground and that all the six persons named in the FIR then started pelting stones upon the complainant party. It was further alleged by the complainant that all the accused were also holding lathis and Dandas in their respective hands and they further caused injuries to Maliabir, Sadhu Ram, Jagdish and Vijender Singh. It may also be mentioned here that there is no injury on the person of Vijender but there is one injury on the person of Daya Kishan who has been examined in this case as PW-3. 6. It may also be mentioned here that there is no injury on the person of Vijender but there is one injury on the person of Daya Kishan who has been examined in this case as PW-3. 6. The story of the prosecution further goes that on hearing the noise of the quarrel, Daya Kishan and Sombir sons of Siri Chand, came at spot and they rescued the complainant party including the deceased Matu Ram from the accused. Further, it has been averred in the statement Ex. PA that the complainant party had also caused injuries to Indraj and others in their self-defence. Thereafter, Sombir and Daya Kishan brought Shri Matu Ram in the Primary Health Centre, Satnali in Fitter Rehra for treatment. As soon as the complainant party along with injured Matu Ram reached Primary Health Centre, Shri Matu Ram expired due to the injuries sustained by him. The complainant finally alleges that he along with Daya Kishan and Sombir had seen the occurrence. After leaving Daya Kishan and Sombir near the dead body of Matu Ram, he proceeded towards Police-Station Satnali for lodging the report but on the way, near Saraswati Bal Mandir School, Satnali, the police party met Shri Hoshiar Singh PW.1 and he gave statement Ex. PA before ASI Ranbir Singh who recorded the same. It was read over and explained to Shri Hoshiar Singh who signed the statement in Hindi in token of its correctness and was was attested by the said Thanedar who made endorsement Ex. PA/1 underneath the said statement and it was sent to Police-Station, Satnali for the registration of the case under Sections 302/323/148/149 IPC. This statement was sent by the Thanedar at 8.50 P.M. and on the basis of the endorsement Ex. PA/1 formal FIR No. 121 dated 2.11.1998 (Ex. PA/3) was recorded in the Police-Station. The FIR was recorded at 9.05 P.M. and the special report of this case reached the area Magistrate, whose seat is at a distance of 25 kms from the Police-Station, at 3.0 A.M. on the night of 2/3.11.1998. 7. Thereafter the police-party along with the complainant went to Primary Health Centre, Satnali. The Thanedar Shri Ranbir Singh (PW-10) prepared the inquest report Ex. PC/1. He drafted an application Ex. 7. Thereafter the police-party along with the complainant went to Primary Health Centre, Satnali. The Thanedar Shri Ranbir Singh (PW-10) prepared the inquest report Ex. PC/1. He drafted an application Ex. PC and made a request to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mohindergarh, for conducting the post-mortem examination and the dead body of Shri Matu Ram was sent in the custody of Sushil Kumar and Om Parkash. The dead body was identified by Shri Hoshiar Singh and Sombir. Thereafter, Shri Satyavir SHO, Police-Station, Satnali, came to the Primary Health Centre and he took over the investigation of this case from Shri Ranbir Singh A.S.I. 8. PW-13, S.I. Satyavir who took over the investigation of this case from A.S.I. Ranbir Singh on 2.11.1998 took into possession a sealed parcel containing a blood-stained earth on 3.11.1998 when it was produced before him along with one piece of cloth and some pieces brick-bats. This Officer made the sealed parcel of the brick-bats and on return to the police-station, he deposited the case property with seals intact. On the same day, after the post-mortem examination, constable Om Parkash produced a parcel containing the clothes of the deceased before this office and this parcel was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PG. The said constable also produced the copy of the post-mortem report, inquest report and the application which were earlier handed over to the said constable. 9. The third Investigating Officer in this case is Mr. Pohp Singh PW-16, who, on 2.11.1998, received a wireless message to the effect that a murder had taken place in village Pathawara and he was directed to reach there. On receipt of this message, he reached the place of occurrence at 12.05 A.M. on the night intervening 2/3.11.1998, where, Satyavir Singh SHO, Police Station. Satnali was already present with the members of the police-party and he had guarded the place of occurrence. 10. At about 5.30 or 5.45 A.M. on 3.11.1998, this officer lifted blood- stained earth and made a sealed parcel thereof. He also took into possession Safi Ex. P.9 stained with blood. One brick bat stained with blood and all these articles were taken into possession vide Memo Ex. PB. The Inspector made a sealed parcel. He also prepared rough site plan Ex. PB. of the place of occurrence at the instance of Sushil with correct marginal notes. He also took into possession Safi Ex. P.9 stained with blood. One brick bat stained with blood and all these articles were taken into possession vide Memo Ex. PB. The Inspector made a sealed parcel. He also prepared rough site plan Ex. PB. of the place of occurrence at the instance of Sushil with correct marginal notes. Thereafter, he went to the hospital at Mohindergarh where the injured persons of both the parties were admitted. 11. On reaching Mohindergarh on 3.11.1998, Inspector, Pohp Singh submitted application Ex. PC/10 before the Medical Officer seeking the opinion about the condition of the injured Sadhu Ram, Jagdish and Mahabir and the doctor declared them fit to make the statement vide report Ex. PC/11. Then he moved an application Ex. PC/12 before the same doctor seeking his report about the condition of Daya Kishan injured and the doctor declared him fit to make a statement vide report Ex. PC/13. Resultantly, the statements of these injured were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. On 6.11.1998 all the accused were arrested by this Police Officer in Civil Hospital, Mohindergarh, when they were produced by Dharampal Subedar. On 7.11.1998, Indraj Gulzari, Om Parkash, Kela, Meena and Shakuntla were interrogated about their weapons of offence and they suffered disclosure statements Exs. PJ, PK, PL, PM, PN, PO, respectively. These disclosure statements were attested by Chhotu Ram and Mahender Singh. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, Indraj accused got recovered axe Ex. P.3 from the place of concealment and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PJ/2. Shri Gulzari got recovered axe Ex. P4 and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PK/2. Om Parkash in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered lathi Ex. P.5 and it was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PL/1. It is the case of the prosecution that at the instance of Smt. Kela, Lathi Ex. P.6 was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PM/1 and at the instance of Smt. Meena Lathi Ex. P.7 was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PN/1 and similarly at the instance of Smt. Shakuntla, a part of wooden frame Ex. P.8 was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PO/1. The Inspector prepared the sealed parcel of these articles. This Officer also recorded the statements of some of the PWs. under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PN/1 and similarly at the instance of Smt. Shakuntla, a part of wooden frame Ex. P.8 was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PO/1. The Inspector prepared the sealed parcel of these articles. This Officer also recorded the statements of some of the PWs. under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. PW-5 Dr. Sanjay Bishnoi on 3.11.1998 at 9.00 A.M. conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Shri Matu Ram, which was brought by the police of P.S. Satnali along with application Ex. PC and police papers Ex. PC/1 and the dead body was identified by Hoshiar Singh and Sombir. It was the body of moderately built and moderately nourished male person and the doctor found the following injuries on the dead body. There was an incised wound over left parieto-temporal region reddish in colour 10 cm x 3 cm in dimension 4 cm lateral to midline and 4 cm above left pinna of ear. On handlens examination and deep dissection, underlying tissues were found cut smoothly including scalp and skull bone. The brain matter was coming out from the wound. There was an extravsation in various parts of tissues. No other injury was seen on any part of the body of the deceased. All other organs of the deceased were found hale and healthy. The sheet of the injury was shown in pictorial diagram given in the PMR. 14. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to extensive injury to skull and brain. The injury was ante-mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the normal course of life. The carbon copy of the PM is Ex. PC/2 and pictorial diagram is Ex. PC/3 showing the spot of sole injury of the deceased. The doctor handed over the copy of the post-mortem report along with police paper to the police. The duration between the injury and the death was instantaneous and duration between death and post-mortem examination was within 36 hours. 15. This doctor Sanjay Bishnoi, on 3.11.1998 at 7.30 A.M. medically examined Sadhu Ram, aged 30 years and found the following two injuries on his person: 1. 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound red in colour situated in mid parietal region of skull 8 cm above bridge of nose X-ray of skull A.P. and lateral was advised. 2. 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound red in colour situated in mid parietal region of skull 8 cm above bridge of nose X-ray of skull A.P. and lateral was advised. 2. 3 cm x 2 cm bruise red in colour situated on the postro- lateral aspect of left forearm 8 cm below elbow joint. Injury No. 1 was kept under observation and x-ray was advised while injury No. 2 was declared simple according to the opinion of the doctor, both the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon within probable duration of 24 hours and Ex. PC/4 is the carbon copy of the Medico-legal report of Sadhu Ram. 16. On the same day at 7.30 A.M. this very doctor medically examined Shri Mahabir son of Matu Ram aged 40 years and found the following two injuries on his person : 1. 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound situated on left parietal region of skull 1 cm lateral to midline and 8 cm in front of nuccal region. Advised x-ray skull AP and lateral. 3. cm x 2 cm bruise situated on anterior aspect of left thigh 8 cm below hip joint. The injury No. 1 was kept under observation and x-ray was advised while injury No. 2 was declared simple. In the opinion of the doctor, both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon within probable duration of 24 hours and Ex. PC/5 is the carbon copy of the MLR. 17. On the same day this very doctor medically examined Shri Jagdish son of Matu Ram aged 25 years and found the following five injuries on his person: 1. 2 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound brownish red in colour situated on the anterior aspect of right leg 10 cm above ankle joint. 2. 3 x 2 cm bruise situated on antero-lateral aspect of right arm 8 cm above elbow joint. 3. 3 cm x 1.5 cm bruise situated on anterior aspect of left arm 4 cm above elbow joint. 4. 2 cm x 1 cm bruise red in colour with 1 cm abrasion over it situated on the left eye brow. 5. 2 cm x 1 cm bruise red in colour situated over right eye brow. All the injuries were simple in nature caused by a blunt weapon, within probable duration of 24 hours. Ex. 4. 2 cm x 1 cm bruise red in colour with 1 cm abrasion over it situated on the left eye brow. 5. 2 cm x 1 cm bruise red in colour situated over right eye brow. All the injuries were simple in nature caused by a blunt weapon, within probable duration of 24 hours. Ex. PC/6 is the carbon copy of the MLR. Again this doctor examined Daya Kishan a young boy of 19 years, at 9.45 A.M. and there was one injury on his body which runs as follows : 1.2 cm x 0.5 x 0.5 cm lacerated wound red in colour situated on parieto-occipital region of skull or right side 4 cm lateral to midline. 18. The injury was simple in nature, caused by blunt weapon, within probable duration of 24 hours and Ex PC/7 is the carbon copy of the MLR. 19. This doctor informed the police of Police-Station, Mohindergarh vide rukkas Exs. PC/8 and PC/9 about the arrival of the injured in the hospital. Pohp Singh Inspector PW-16 submitted an application Ex. PC/10 seeking the opinion of the doctor regarding the condition of the injured whether they were fit to make statement or not and vide PC/11 the doctor Sanjay Bishnoi (PW-5) declared Sadhu Ram, Jagdish, Mahabir sons of Matu Ram fit to make the statement. In the same way Shri Pohp Singh Inspector moved an application Ex. PC/12 seeking the report regarding the condition of Daya Kishan who was also declared fit to make the statement vide memo Ex. PC/13. In the cross- examination, the doctor stated that he observed only, one injury on the person of the deceased. It was from front side to back side of the head and that he had not seen any injury on the left side of the neck of the deceased below the left ear. 20. On 2.11.1998 at 10.20 P.M. PW-5 examined Indraj accused son of Ranjit aged 47 years and found the following five injuries on his person : 1. 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm lacerated wound red in colour situated on right parietal region of skull 4 cm lateral to midline and 6 cm above right ear advised x-ray skull AP and lateral. 2. 1.5 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound red in colour situated on upper part of left pinna of ear. 3. 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm lacerated wound red in colour situated on right parietal region of skull 4 cm lateral to midline and 6 cm above right ear advised x-ray skull AP and lateral. 2. 1.5 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound red in colour situated on upper part of left pinna of ear. 3. 3 cm x 2 cm bruise situated on right side of chest I cm lateral to midline at the level of 3rd, 4th and fifth ribs. Advised x-ray chest A.P. lateral. 4. 4 cm x 2 cm bruise red in colour situated on right shoulder. 5. 4 cm x 2 cm bruise situated on lateral aspect of left forearm 6 cm below elbow joint advised x-ray left hand. Injuries No. 1, 3 and 5 were kept under observation and advised x-ray. Injuries No. 2 and 4 were simple. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon within a probable duration of 24 hours. Ex. DB is the attested copy of the MLR of Indraj. 21. On the same day, i.e. on 2.11.1998, at 10.25 P.M. this doctor medically examined Gulazri son of Ranjit aged 29 years and found the following three injuries on his person : 1. 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm incised wound, spindle shaped clean cut edges red in colour situated on lateral aspect of left shoulder. Advised x-ray left shoulder joint. 2. 3 cm x 2cm x 0.2 cm lacerated wound red in colour situated on anterior aspect of right hand at the base of thumb. X-ray was advised AP and laterally. 3. 6 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound situated on right parietal region of skull 3 cm lateral to midline 6 cm above the right ear. Advised x-ray AP and lateral. All the injuries were kept under observation. Injury No. 1 was caused with sharp-edged weapon and injuries No. 2 and 3 were caused with blunt weapon within a duration of 24 hours. Ex. DC is the attested copy of the MLR of Gulzari. 22. On the same day at 10.40 P.M. the doctor also medically examined Om Parkash son of Shri Ranjit Singh, aged 38 years and found the following three injuries on his person : 1. 4 cm x 0.7 cm incised wound horizontally situated on left side of forehead 1 cm lateral to midline and 6 cm above left ear. 22. On the same day at 10.40 P.M. the doctor also medically examined Om Parkash son of Shri Ranjit Singh, aged 38 years and found the following three injuries on his person : 1. 4 cm x 0.7 cm incised wound horizontally situated on left side of forehead 1 cm lateral to midline and 6 cm above left ear. X-ray was advised. 2. Complains of pain over right shoulder Advised x-ray right shoulder. 3. 4 cm x 2 cm bruise red in colour situated on right side of back 2 cm lateral to midline at the level of T. 6, 7 and 8 vertebra. Advised x-ray of back. The injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 were kept under observation and advised x-ray. Injury No. 1 was caused with sharp-edged weapon and injuries No. 2 and 3 were caused with blunt weapon within a probable duration of 24 hours. Ex. DD is the attested copy of the MLR. 23. The doctor also deposed that these accused were admitted in the hospital and were examined by him and he sent rukka Ex. DE to the SHO, Police Station. Mohindergarh and informed him about the arrival and admission of Indraj. Gulzari and Om Parkash in the hospital and this rukka was received in the Police-Station at 11.40 P.M. on 2.11.1998. 24. The sealed parcel of the blood-stained earth brick, clothes of the deceased, Kulhari, lathi and dandas were sent to the office of Chemical Examiner who noticed, blood on the blood-stained earth, Saafi, brick, Dhoti, two lathis and the contents were sent to the office of Director Forensic Science Laboratory who vide report Ex. PF/2 declared human blood on parna, brick, stone, Doti, Banian, Shirt but he could not determine human blood on one of the lathis. Regarding one of the lathi, the opinion of the Director, FSL, was that material were disintegrated. 25. On the completion of the investigation of the case, the accused were challaned in the Court of Area Magistrate who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused as required under the law and relied upon by the prosecution and vide commitment order dated 16.12.1998 the accused were committed to the Court of Session to face their trial. 26. On the completion of the investigation of the case, the accused were challaned in the Court of Area Magistrate who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused as required under the law and relied upon by the prosecution and vide commitment order dated 16.12.1998 the accused were committed to the Court of Session to face their trial. 26. As we stated earlier, at the trial stage, vide order dated 18.1.1999, the learned trial Court, framed charges against the accused under Sections 148, 302/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 27. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW-1 Shri Hoshiar Singh who is the complainant in this case. The prosecution sought corroboration to the statement of PW-1 from Shri Jagdish PW (injured) who appeared as PW-2. PW-3 is Mr. Daya Kishan. He is also an injured witness. PW-4 is Shri Chanda Ram who joined the investigation on 3.11.1998 and in his presence Pohp Singh Inspector lifted the blood-stained earth and pieces of bricks stained with blood from the place of occurrence and these were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB attested by this witness. This witness also testified that Inspector also lifted one scarf from the place of occurrence and made a sealed parcel thereof. 28. PW-6 is Shri Krishan Kumar Clerk, P.L.D. Mohindergarh who brought accounts statement and loan file of Matu Ram. According to this witness Shri Matu Ram obtained a loan of Rs. 37,600/- on 6.1.1996 for the purchase of sprinkler set. On 31.3.1996, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been credited on account of subsidy. Remaining amount of Rs. 22,600/- of the principal and Rs. 11,084/- of the interest up to 31.3.1999 was outstanding against Matu Ram deceased, Ex. PD is the statement of account. PW-7 Shri Satender Kumar constable gave his statement on affidavit Ex. PE. PW-8 HC Vir Singh also tendered his statement by way of affidavit Ex PF. PW-9 constable Rohtash is the person who took the special report of this case and handed over the same to the area Magistrate on the night of 2/3.11.1998 at 3.00 A.M. PW-10 ASI Ranbir Singh who started with the investigation of this case and then passed over the same to Mr. Satyabir Singh SHO. PW-9 constable Rohtash is the person who took the special report of this case and handed over the same to the area Magistrate on the night of 2/3.11.1998 at 3.00 A.M. PW-10 ASI Ranbir Singh who started with the investigation of this case and then passed over the same to Mr. Satyabir Singh SHO. PW-11 is Shri Om Parkash constable who identified the dead body of Matu Ram at the time of the post-mortem examination PW-12 is Shri Anoop Singh Photographer who on 3.11.1998 went to village Pathawara and took the photographs of the place of occurrence Ex. P.1 is the photograph and Ex. P.2 is the Negative. PW-13 is Satyavir Singh one of the Investigating Officers. His role of investigation has already been discussed by us. PW-14 is Constable Mahesh Kumar Draftsman who prepared scaled site plan Ex. PH of the place of occurrence at the instance of Vijender and Sadhu Ram. PW-15 is Chliotu Ram in whose presence the accused were interrogated about the weapons of offence and according to this witness, Indraj suffered disclosure statement Ex. PJ to the effect that he had kept concealed an axe underneath the kothi of grain lying in his house and he could get the same recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. This disclosure statement was made before the Inspector Pohp Singh. It was also disposed by this witness that accused Indraj and PW Mahender Singh appended their signatures and it was also attested by this witness. The witness also deposed that Gulzar appellant also suffered a disclosure statement Ex. PK to the effect that he had kept concealed an axe under the beddings lying on the and of his room and he could also get the same recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. His disclosure statement was read over and explained to him and he thumb-marked the same in token of its correctness. As per the statement of Shri Chhotu Ram, Om Parkash appellant also suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept concealed a lathi on the northern eastern corner of his house underneath the window and he could get the same recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. Smt. Kela suffered her disclosure statement Ex. As per the statement of Shri Chhotu Ram, Om Parkash appellant also suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept concealed a lathi on the northern eastern corner of his house underneath the window and he could get the same recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. Smt. Kela suffered her disclosure statement Ex. PM that she had kept concealed a lathi in the Chhappar meant for storing fodder and that she could get the same recovered from the place of concealment. Her disclosure statement is PM Stilt. Meena also auffered a disclosure statement Ex. PN to the effect that she had kept concealed a lathi in her kitchen and she could get the same recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. Smt. Shakuntla also suffered a disclosure statement Ex. PO that she had kept concealed an arm of a wooden frame of the door underneath the box in her house in a room and she could get the same recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. Further it has come in the statement of this witness that all the accused persons along with the police party and the witnesses went to village Pathawara in a Govt. vehicle and first of all accused Indraj left the police party and the witnesses to the place of concealment and got recovered axe Ex. P.3 and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PJ/2. thereafter accused Gulzari led the police party and the witness to the specified place of concealment and got recovered the axe P4 and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PK/2. Thereafter, Om Parkash got recovered lathi P.5 and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PL/2. Subsequently, Smt. Kela led the police party and she got recovered lathi P.6 and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PM/1. Then Smt. Meena led the police party to the specified place of concealment and got recovered lathi Ex. P.7 and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PN/1 and lastly Smt. Shakuntla took the police party and the witnesses to the specified place of concealment and got recovered an arm of wooden frame Ex. P.8 and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PO1. 29. PW-16 is Pohp Singh Inspector. P.7 and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PN/1 and lastly Smt. Shakuntla took the police party and the witnesses to the specified place of concealment and got recovered an arm of wooden frame Ex. P.8 and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PO1. 29. PW-16 is Pohp Singh Inspector. He is also the Investigating Officer who visited the place of occurrence and took into possession the blood-stained brick bats etc. and also interrogated the accused. His investigation part has also been described by us in the earlier portion of this judgment. Some witnesses were given up as unnecessary. The witnesses Norang and Salag Ram were given up by the prosecution on the plea that they have been won over by the accused. Finally the prosecution tendered into evidence the reports Exs. PF/1 and Ex. PF/2 of the Assistant Chemical Examiner and closed the case of the prosecution. 30. On the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances, appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. The plea of Indrai appellant is as follows : "I am innocent. I have been involved falsely in this case. In fact, on 2.11.1998 at about 7 P.M. when Om Parkash was going from his Nohra to his house after cutting the fodder. Mahabir and Jagdish armed with Kulhari. Matu Ram deceased armed with lathi, Sushma, Bala and Risal armed with lathis chased Om Parkash, when Om Parkash was passing in the street in front of the house of Matu Ram. Matu Ram raised a lalkara that Om Parkash should not be spared and the aforesaid persons i.e. Mahabir, Jagdish, Mathu Ram, Sushma Bala and Smt. Risal chased Om Parkash and entered into his house. Jagdish caused a kulhari blow on the forehead of Om Parkash from its sharp side and when Jagdish tried to inflict an other kulhari blow, on the head of Om Parkash, he reiterated himself to save the blow and in that process the axe blow of Jagdish struck against the head of Matu Ram and he died because of that injury and Om Parkash raised a noise. Gulzari and I came to the house of Om Parkash to save him. Jagdish, Mahabir, Sushma, Bala and Rishal caused injuries to me and Guljari with kulhari and lathis. Gulzari and I came to the house of Om Parkash to save him. Jagdish, Mahabir, Sushma, Bala and Rishal caused injuries to me and Guljari with kulhari and lathis. This occurrence had been witnessed by Jagdish son of Chhaju Ram and Mam Chand Chowkidar, of our village and Dev Karan my maternal uncle. PW Hoshiar Singh Daya Kishan had not seen the occurrence. That accused Shakuntla Smt. Kela and Smt. Meena were not present at the time of alleged occurrence and they had not participated in the occurrence. Shri Gulzari appellant took the following plea before the learned trial Court : "I am innocent. I have been involved falsely in this case. In fact, on 2.11.1998, at about 7 P.M. when Om Parkash was going from his Nohra to his house after cutting the fodder. Mahabir and Jagdish armed with Kulhari, Matu Ram deceased armed with lathi. Sushma, Bala and Smt. Risal were armed with lathis chased Om Parkash, when he was passing in the street in front of the house of Matu Ram. Matu Ram raised a Lalkara that Om Parkash should not be spared and the aforesaid persons i.e. Mahabir, Jagdish, Mathu Ram, Sushma, Bala and Smt. Risal Chased Om Parkash entered into his house. Jagdish caused a kulhari blow on the forehead of Om Parkash from its sharp side and when Jagdish tried to inflict another Kulhari blow, on the head of Om Parkash, he reiterated himself to save the blow and in that process the axe blow of Jagdish struck against the head of Matu Ram and he died because of that injury and Om Parkash raised a noise. I myself and Guljari came to the house of Om Parkash to save him. Jagdish, Mahabir, Sushma, Bala and Rishal caused injuries to me and Indraj with Kulharis and lathis. This occurrence had been witnessed by Jagdish son of Chhaju Ram and Mam Chand Chowkidar of our village and Dev Karan my maternal uncle. PW Hoshiar Singh Daya Kishan had not seen the occurrence. That accused Shakuntla Smt. Kela and Smt. Meena were not present at the time of the alleged occurrence and they had not participated in the occurrence. This occurrence had been witnessed by Jagdish son of Chhaju Ram and Mam Chand Chowkidar of our village and Dev Karan my maternal uncle. PW Hoshiar Singh Daya Kishan had not seen the occurrence. That accused Shakuntla Smt. Kela and Smt. Meena were not present at the time of the alleged occurrence and they had not participated in the occurrence. Similarly the stand of Shri Om Parkash appellant at the trial stage was as follows : "In fact on 2.11.1998, at about 7 P.M. when I myself was gong from my Nohar to my house after cutting the fodder. Mahabir and Jagdish armed with Kulhari, Mathu Ram deceased armed with lathi. Sushma Bala and Smt. Risal were armed with lathis chased me (Om Parkash) when I was passing in the street in front of the house of Matu Ram. Matu Ram raised a Lalkara that Om Parkash should not be spared and the aforesaid persons i.e. Mahabir, Jagdish, Mathu Ram Sushma, Bala and Smt. Risal chased Om Parkash entered into his house, Jagdish caused a Kulhari blow on the forehead of Om Parkash from its sharp side and when Jagdish tried to inflict an other kulhari blow on the head of Om Parkash he reiterated himself to save the blow and in that process the axe blow of Jagdish struck against the head of Matu Ram and he died because of that injury and Om Parkash raised a noise. I myself and Guljari came to the house of Om Parkash to save him. Jagdish Mahabir, Sushma Bala and Rishal caused injuries to me and Indraj with kulhari and lathis, this occurrence had been witnessed by Jagdish son of Chhaju Ram and Mam Chand Chowkidar of our village and Dev Karan my maternal uncle. PW Hoshiar Singh, Daya Kishan had not seen the occurrence. That accused Shakuntla Smt. Kela and Smt. Meena were not present at the time of the alleged occurrence and they had not participated in the occurrence. I am handicapped by right hand". 31. The joint stand of three ladies was that they were not present at the time of the alleged occurrence and they have been falsely implicated in this case. 32. I am handicapped by right hand". 31. The joint stand of three ladies was that they were not present at the time of the alleged occurrence and they have been falsely implicated in this case. 32. When called upon to enter into their defence accused examined Dev Karan DW-1, the maternal uncle of the parties who tried to show that the complainant party acted as aggressor while the accused party caused the injuries to the complainant party in the right of their private defence. DW-2 Shri Jagdish who deposed that he saw the occurrence in front of the house of accused Om Parkash. S/Shri Mahabir, Jagdish, Sadhu Ram, Matu Ram and three ladies were quarrelling with Om Parkash who was running towards his house and at that time Jagdish had an axe. Mahabir had also an axe. Matu Ram and Sadhu Ram had lathis and ladies were also having lathis and dandas and they inflicted the injuries to the accused party. 33. DW-3 is Dr. Narveer Singh who stated that on 3.8.87 a disability certificate was issued declaring the disability of Om Parkash as 50% because his four fingers of right hand had become non-functional after sustaining injury. Ex. DF is the certificate to that effect. 34. The learned trial Court believed the story of the prosecution in part by holding that three appellants, Indraj, Gulzari and Om Parkash were the aggressors and they committed the murder of Matu Ram and also caused injuries to Shri Mahabir, Sadhu Ram Jagdish and Daya Kishan and they were convicted and sentenced in the manner as stated above. The learned trial Court also came to the conclusion that these appellants were aggressors. However, the participation of Smt. Kela; Smt. Meena and Smt. Shakuntla, appeared to be doubtful. 35. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, Crl. Appeal No. 477-DB- 1999 has been filed by lndraj, Gulzari and Om Parkash, three real brothers, State was not satisfied with the finding of the learned trial Court and it also filed Crl. Appeal No. 531-DBA of 2000 and has made a prayers that Smt. Kela, Menna and Shakuntla should also be convicted like their respective husbands with the aid of Section 149 IPC and the complainant Shri Hoshiar Singh also remained dissatisfied with the finding of the trial Court and lie was also filed Crl. Appeal No. 531-DBA of 2000 and has made a prayers that Smt. Kela, Menna and Shakuntla should also be convicted like their respective husbands with the aid of Section 149 IPC and the complainant Shri Hoshiar Singh also remained dissatisfied with the finding of the trial Court and lie was also filed Crl. Revision No. 380 of 1999 seeking the conviction and sentence of three ladies aforesaid. 36. We have heard Shri K.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri D.P. Singh, learned DAG, Haryana, appearing for the respondent assisted by Shri T.P.S. Mann, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 37. Mere is a case where the death of Shri Matu Ram had taken place and besides that there are four injured on the side of the complainant. The injuries of S/Shri Mahabir, Sadhu Ram, Jagdish and Daya Kishan had already been described by us. Similarly, all the three appellants are injured and they had received total 11 injuries on their person. Their injuries have also been referred to by us. 38. The learned counsel for the appellants though tried to convince us that the genesis of the occurrence has been withheld by the prosecution as the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries of the accused yet. We are not convinced with this submission because in the statement Ex. PA, there is a mention by the complainant that they also caused injuries to Indraj and others in their self-defence but of course, what type of weapon has been used by the complainant party has not been mentioned. An effort was also made by the learned counsel for the appellants to show that the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of the accused party and to that extent also we are not convinced with his submission because it is established on the record that the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of Matti Ram from where the blood-stained earth was lifted. Apart from that there is an independent witness namely PW-4 Shri Chanda Ram who deposed that Inspector Pohp Singh on 3.11.1998 lifted the blood-stained earth, pieces of bricks etc. stained with blood from the place of occurrence. Also, it is the versos of the complainant that the occurrence had taken place in front of their house. Apart from that there is an independent witness namely PW-4 Shri Chanda Ram who deposed that Inspector Pohp Singh on 3.11.1998 lifted the blood-stained earth, pieces of bricks etc. stained with blood from the place of occurrence. Also, it is the versos of the complainant that the occurrence had taken place in front of their house. Also it is established on the record that the houses of the appellants Indraj, Gulzari and Om Parkash were not adjoining to the houses of the complainant party. Rather their houses are at the back side of the houses of the complainant party. There are other certain proved facts on the record, firstly that Matu Ram and the father of the appellants were real brothers and secondly the members of the complainant party are the first cousins of the accused. It is also established on the record that there was a dispute with regard to the repayment of the loan and the same is also proved from the documentary evidence by the statement of the clerk of the Bank. 39. Now, story of the prosecution proceeds that the father of the complainant and father of the accused had six and half killas of agricultural land on which a joint tube-well was installed. Electric connection and the sprinkler set had been installed on the well after obtaining the loan which was taken in the name of Shri Matu Ram and the instalments of the loan were yet to be paid. This fact is also established from the statement of PW-6 Krishan Kumar, clerk, PLD who deposed that this amount was outstanding against Shri Matu Ram. Brother is the biggest friend of his brother if the things go smooth in the family and he becomes the biggest enemy if the relations between the two become sore. This has exactly happened in the present case. This jointness of the property has created trouble. It is the version of the complainant that the room of the tube well was jointly locked by both the parties by putting their lock and the well was lying closed for the last six months before this occurrence. Further it has come that the tube well was situated on the joint land and the instalments of the electric bills and the sprinkler set had not been cleared off. This jointness of the property became the motive for this crime. Further it has come that the tube well was situated on the joint land and the instalments of the electric bills and the sprinkler set had not been cleared off. This jointness of the property became the motive for this crime. As we have stated earlier the complainant and the accused party are first cousions. Therefore, it was very natural oil the part of the both the complainant and the accused party to settle their disputes. The story of the prosecution further proceeds that on the day of occurrence at about 9.00 A.M. Shri Jagdish PW-2 informed his real brother Hoshiar Singh at Delhi that a Panchayat is going to be held for the settlement and on receipt of the message, Shri Hoshiar Singh came to the village at about 5.00 P.M. for the settlement of the dispute where his maternal uncles Salag Ram and Dev Karan who incidentally are also maternal uncles of the accused had come for the settlement of the aforesaid dispute. 40. Now, the story of the prosecution further proceeds that at about 7.00 P.M. accused came in front of the house of the complainant and at that time they were armed with weapons such as axe and lathis. It is the version of the complainant that Shri Indraj gave an axe blow on the left side of the head of Shri Matu Ram and that Shri Gulzari also gave an axe blow hitting on the neck of the deceased. 41. Let us examine this aspect of the case at the first instance. As per the version of the prosecution, the occurrence took place at 7.00 P.M. The FIR was registered in the police-station at 9.05 P.M. and yet the police takes six hours for the dispatch of the special report which reached the area Magistrate at 3.00 A.M. to cover a distance of 25 kms, within six hours, by a police official who has also all the means of conveyance at his command, itself suggests that FIR in this case, though labelled as prompt, but it is not so giving chance to the prosecution to coin out a story. Reading of the inquest report would show that the investigating officer had given two injuries in column No. 10 by stating that there was a cut mark on the left side of the head above the left ear and there was injury mark on the left side besides one cut of the neck below the ear. Is it so, this is a point to be seen because it appears that on account of the accumulation of the blood a confusion took place in the mind of the Thanedar who tried to show that there were two injuries on the person of Shri Matu Ram but in fact there was only one injury as is evident from the post-mortem report conducted by PW-5 Dr. Sanjay Bishnoi who stated that he only noticed one incised wound on the left parieto temporal region reddish in colour 10 cm x 3 cm in dimension, 4 cm lateral to midline and 4 cm above the left pinna of the ear. There was no second injury on the body of Shri Matu Ram as it has been cleared by the doctor in his cross- examination when he deposed that there was only one injury on the persons of the deceased and that injury was horizontally placed which was from front side to back side of the head. He was very categorical in saying that he had not seen any injury on the left side of the neck of the deceased below the left ear. The Thanedar realised the mistake which he committed in the inquest report and in this regard it will be useful for us to refer to the statement of Ranbir Singh PW-10 who deposed in the cross-examination that though he mentioned two injuries in column No. 10 of the inquest report Ex. PC/1 but he did not seek any clarification from the doctor as to why he has mentioned only one injury when according to this witness there were two injuries. He also admitted that he did not take any action against the doctor nor he brought the matter to the notice of his superiors. 42. PC/1 but he did not seek any clarification from the doctor as to why he has mentioned only one injury when according to this witness there were two injuries. He also admitted that he did not take any action against the doctor nor he brought the matter to the notice of his superiors. 42. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that there was only one injury on the person of Shri Matu Ram and as per the version of the prosecution Shri indraj opened the score and this injury is attributable to him suggesting that Shri Gulzari never caused injury to Shri Matu Ram. Furthermore, the case of the prosecution is that they also caused injuries to the side of the accused in the right of private defence. We have already stated above that the nature of the weapons used by the complainant party have not been elaborated. This aspect of the case was considered at the trial Court. PW-1 Shri Hoshiar Singh in his cross-examination has stated that he did not see any injury on any of the accused. He and his brother had simply thrown the stones on the members of the accused party in their defence but he does not know as to-whether any injury with whose stone was caused to any members of the accused parry. This explanation furnished by PW-1 Hoshiar Singh appears to be wrong and we will try to show in the subsequent portion of the judgment but at this stage let us refer further to the statement of PW1 Hoshiar Singh who stated that the complainant party had caused some injuries to sonic of the members of the accused parry but he does not know to whom they caused injuries. The complainant even went to the extent by saying so that he threw only two or three stones and other members of their party also threw the stones suggesting that only the stones were used by the complainant party in their right of private defence. PW-3 Shri Daya Kishan who is also an injured witness has stated in the cross-examination that the complainant party did not see any injury being caused by the complainant party to the accused party. However, the complainant party pelted stones on the accused party in their defence and those stones were lifted by Sadhu Ram. PW-3 Shri Daya Kishan who is also an injured witness has stated in the cross-examination that the complainant party did not see any injury being caused by the complainant party to the accused party. However, the complainant party pelted stones on the accused party in their defence and those stones were lifted by Sadhu Ram. Hoshiar, Jagdish and Mahabir and were thrown upon the accused party. This version too, given by PW-1 and PW-3 does not appear to be sound in view of the injuries of the accused. As per PW-5 Dr. Sanjay Bishnoi who medically examined Gulzari, there was a incised wound measuring 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm spindle shaped clean cut edges red in colour on lateral aspect of left shoulder. This injury was caused by sharp edged weapon. Similarly, this very doctor examined Shri Om Parkash accused and injury No. 1 is again incised wound 4 cm x 0.7 cm situated on the left side of the forehead suggesting that these two injuries could not be caused with the pelting of the stones but have been caused in a different manner. 43. In this view of the matter, there is no difficulty on our part to hold that there can be every anxiety on the part of Hoshiar Singh and his real brothers to inflate the number of the accused persons from the opposite side and conceal some portion of the occurrence. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that if the complainant party and allegedly pelted stones which were admittedly used in this case, there should be some injuries on Smt. Kela, Smt. Meena and Smt. Shakuntla. Strange enough that there was not even a single injury on the person of these ladies. 44. On the contrary from the evidence we have come to this conclusion that these ladies might have come in front of the house of Matu Ram on coming to know that their husbands had a quarrel with the family of Matu Ram and his sons. With this idea they might have come in front of the house of Matu Ram but we are very certain that they had not participated in the occurrence but they have been implicated just to inflate the number of the accused. 45. With this idea they might have come in front of the house of Matu Ram but we are very certain that they had not participated in the occurrence but they have been implicated just to inflate the number of the accused. 45. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the genesis of he occurrence has been withheld by the complainant party as they have not explained the injuries caused by sharp edged weapon on the side of the accused, therefore, Shri Indraj, Gulzari, and Om Parkash are entitled to acquittal. 46. We are not convinced with this submission. It is established on he record that there was a dispute over the joint land and regarding the joint payment of the bills of the electricity and the sprinklers set. As there was a dispute between two close families, it was very natural on the part of the both of them to settle their dispute with the intervention of their common maternal uncles. It is also established that the occurrence took place, in front of the house of the complainant party. There are five injured including Shri Matu Ram. The law Courts cannot shirk their responsibility in arriving at the truth after grappling with the facts. We have pondered upon the evidence of the prosecution and have come to this conclusion that this occurrence had taken place on account of the fact that the parties could not arrive at a particular settlement when the parties assembled in the house of Matu Ram. They exchanged hot words as it is the case of the prosecution. With the disposal of the Panchayat when the sentiments of both the parties were very high they came out in the lane where suddenly the dispute flared up further an violence was committed by S/Shri Indraj, Gulzari and Om Parkash who started with the show upon which the complainant party must have thrown the stones as well as caused injuries with a sharp edged weapon upon S/Shri Gulzari, and Om Parkash. We are doubtful whether Gulzari and Om Parkash had shared the common intention with their co-accused Indraj. Equally, it is possible that Shri Indraj might have picked up a weapon from the house of the complainant party and gave one solitary injury to Matu Ram which was sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature. We are doubtful whether Gulzari and Om Parkash had shared the common intention with their co-accused Indraj. Equally, it is possible that Shri Indraj might have picked up a weapon from the house of the complainant party and gave one solitary injury to Matu Ram which was sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature. It is equally possible that Shri Indjraj might be carrying an axe with him when he came to the house of the complainant party for a dialogue. As the occurrence has taken place in front of the house of the complainant party, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the complainant party acted as an aggressor and caused injuries at the first instance to Indraj, Gulzari and Om Parkash. 47. Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted in the alternative that every appellant should be held responsible for individual liability and in this case the provision of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code shall not be attracted. We have the reasons to believe the submission raised by Shri Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the appellants, firstly Shri Indraj gave only one axe blow on the person of Matu Ram. This injury was on the vital part of the body like head and was responsible for the death of Matu Ram and otherwise also the doctor has stated that this injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Though it was alleged against Shri Gulzari that he also gave an axe blow on the neck of Matu Ram but this part of the story of the prosecution is disbelieved and stands believed by the medical evidence of Sanjay Bishnoi who categorically deposed that there was only one injury on the person of Shri Matu Ram. Om Parkash admittedly did not cause any injury to Matu Ram. Since, there is no injury attributed to Gulzari and Om Parkash in these circumstances we have come to this conclusion that the common intention was hardly shared by these two appellants along with their brother Indraj whose are blow alone was sufficient for the murder of Shri Matu Ram. It is however, established that Gulzari and Om Parkash caused injuries to Mahabir, Sadhu Ram, Jagdish and Daya Kishan. These injuries are simple in nature. They were allegedly caused with lathi. It is however, established that Gulzari and Om Parkash caused injuries to Mahabir, Sadhu Ram, Jagdish and Daya Kishan. These injuries are simple in nature. They were allegedly caused with lathi. Even the perusal of these injuries would show that these can also be caused by the pelting of the stones which were admittedly lying at the spot. The possibility cannot be ruled out that Gulzari and Om Parkash must have picked up the stones and pelted the same upon the complainant and other injured witnesses. 48. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that S/Shri Gulzari and Om Parkash would be guilty for the offence under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurts with blunt weapons upon Mahabir, Sadhu Ram, Jagdish and Daya Kishan etc. 49. In the light of above discussion, first of all we dismiss the Crl. Appeal No. 531-DBA of 2000 filed by the State against the acquittal as well as the Criminal Revision No. 380 of 1999, filed by the complainant. 50. We further partly allow Crl. Appeal No. 477-DB of 1999 and acquit Gulzari and Om Parkash appellant of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC while appellant Indraj is convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and he shall also pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further R.I. for a period of six months. Further S/Shri Gulzari, Om Parkash and Indraj appellant are convicted under Section 323/34 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. Gulzari and Om Parkash appellants by this time must have served their respective sentence of six months. Therefore, they are ordered to be released forthwith if not required or wanted in any other case. If they have not served the sentence of six months each, they shall do so now. Let intimation about the decision of this case be sent to the jail authorities and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. The case property stands confiscated to the State and shall be destroyed according to rules.