JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal by seven appellants arises out of the judgment and order dated 9.7.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Sawaimadhopur, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellants in the manner stated below : Under Sec.148 IPC Each to undergo one years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default thereof, each to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Under Section 307/149 IPC Each to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default thereof, each to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment. Under Section 326/149 IPC Each to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default thereof, each to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. Under Section 325/149 IPC Each to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300/- each, in default thereof, each to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Under Section 324/149 IPC Each to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default thereof, each to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. Under Section 323/149 Each to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. Accused-appellant-Hemraj and Ramniwas were further convicted for offence u/s. 379 IPC and each was sentenced to undergo one year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of payment of fine, 15 days simple imprisonment to each of them. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The accused-appellants were tried for having committed the offence u/ss. 148, 307/149, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149, 379 & 379/149 IPC, for forming an unlawful assembly and causing such injuries to Brij Raj Singh which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and for other criminal acts. 4. The prosecution case in nutshell is that having received the Parcha Bayan, Ex.P/3 of PW-6 Brijraj Singh, recorded on 12.10.1994, the police registered a case vide FIR, Ex.P/27. In the Parcha Bayan, injured Brijraj Singh alleged that on the day of incident, at about 9.00- 10.00 a.m. he was on way from village Adhar to his Farm, on a motor-cycle. He had with him a 12bore licenced gun. He parked his motor cycle near `Nahar-ka-khura'. One Jairaj Singh was ploughing the land known as Todraji ke Balaji, which Jairaj Singh had taken for ploughing. He had with him a 12bore licenced gun. He parked his motor cycle near `Nahar-ka-khura'. One Jairaj Singh was ploughing the land known as Todraji ke Balaji, which Jairaj Singh had taken for ploughing. It was alleged that Jairaj Singh, Udaibhan, Sarupa Nai, Ram Prasad Kumhar and other were also ploughing the fields. In the mean time, accused-Karna, Ramdayal, Shambhu, Madhya, Ramniwas, Girraj Meena, Birbal son of Karna and 2-3 others came there duly armed with lathis and Gandasis and caught hold of him. The injured alleged that he, in his defence, fired gun in the air, but despite air firing, the accused attacked on him. Karna Meena and his son inflicted gandasi blows at his right armpit, while other accused collectively, with an intention to cause death, inflicted injuries on his head, left hand, left leg, right ear with their respective weapons. He further alleged that accused snatched his gun and motor cycle and having perceived that he is dead, they left the place with his gun and motor cycle. The villagers brought the injured to the hospital. 5. In the course of investigation, police prepared the site plan, Ex.P/28 and collected blood stained and controlled soil from the place of incident vide memo Ex.P/29. The police also collected the injury report (Ex.P/23) and X-ray report (Ex.P/24). Accused-Virbal, Ramphool, Girraj, Madholal, Ramniwas, Hemraj, Ramdayal and Ram Karan were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.P/13 to P/20, respectively. The accused-Ramniwas furnished information (Ex.P/30) as regards recovery of lathi, while accused-Virbal, Ramdayal, Ram Karan, Hemraj, Girraj and Hemraj furnished informations Exs. P/31 to P/36 and Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding recovery of lathi, lathi, lathi, kulhari, lathi and motor cycle, respectively. Pursuant to these informations, the police recovered five lathis at the instance of accused-Ramniwas, Virbal, Ramdayal, Ram Karan and Girraj and prepared memos Exs.P/4, 5, 6, 7 & 10. One axe and a motor cycle was recovered vide memos Exs.P/8 & P/9 at the instance of accused-Hemraj. One 12 bore gun was seized from the possession of accused-Ramniwas vide memo Ex.P/21. 6. PW-11 Dr. Pritam Chand Gupta, who examined the injured found following injuries on the person of Brijraj Singh:- 1. Lacerated wound clotted with blood 4.5 cm x 1 cm x 3/4 cm obliquely transvered on posterior aspect of central vault of scalp margins irregular and abraded; 2. 6. PW-11 Dr. Pritam Chand Gupta, who examined the injured found following injuries on the person of Brijraj Singh:- 1. Lacerated wound clotted with blood 4.5 cm x 1 cm x 3/4 cm obliquely transvered on posterior aspect of central vault of scalp margins irregular and abraded; 2. Red colour bruise with abrasion with clotted blood with swelling 10 cm x 2.5 cm vertically on left parietal region of scalp 4 cm above left ear; 3. Abrasion with clotted blood 1 cm x 1 cm irregular on left frontal region of scalp 2 cm above outer end of left eye brow; 4. Incised wound with compound fracture, 4 cm x 1 cm bone deep transversely on base of proximal phalynx of left thumb. Distal part of thumb is attached by skin tag; 5. Incised wound clotted with blood 10 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm transversely on posterior surface of right arm; 6. Abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm irregular on anterior medial surface of upper 1/2 of left leg; 7. Abrasion with clotted blood 12 cm x 1 cm vertically on anterior surface of left leg; 8. Abrasion with clotted blood 10 cm x 1/2 cm on postero-lateral surface of left shoulder; 9. Abrasion 3 cm x 1/4 cm transversely on left side of face; 10. Incised wound with clotted blood 2 cm x 1/2 cm x 3/4 cm transversely on left fronto parietal region of scalp margins smooth clean cut well defined angle sharp; 11. Stab wound with bleeding, margin clear cut clotted with corresponding cut in white half sleev baniyan 12 cm x 5 cm x depth leading inside thoresic cavity obliquely vertical on right lateral surface of chest muscle ribs and pleura cut. Margins smooth clean cut well defined bleeding profusedly; 12. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm vertically on external surface of right thigh middle part; 13. Abrasion with clotted blood 1 cm x 1 cm irregular on external surface of right knee joint; 14. Red colour bruise 8 cm x 2.5 cm obliquely transversed on antro-lateral surface of lower ⅓rd of right thigh; 15. Lacerated wound with clotted blood 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm vertically on posterior surface upper 1/4th of left fore-arm, and 16. Incised wound 10 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm obliquely vertical on posterior surface of left arm. 7. Lacerated wound with clotted blood 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm vertically on posterior surface upper 1/4th of left fore-arm, and 16. Incised wound 10 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm obliquely vertical on posterior surface of left arm. 7. The duration of injuries was stated to be within 12 hours. The doctor advised X-ray of Skull PA, AP and both lateral view, left thumb AP and lateral view, chest AP, PA right oblique view and left leg AP and lateral. On the basis of X-ray, injuries No. 4, 6, 7 and 15 were found to be grievous in nature. Injury No. 11 was found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 8. Having completed entire formalities, the police submitted a charge- sheet against 9 accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sawaimadhopur. The learned Magistrate having found the case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The case came to be tried by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Sawaimadhopur. 9. Since one of the accused namely Shambhu Singh was found to be minor, the trial Court vide its order dated 23.9.1996 directed the prosecution to submit charge-sheet against him in the Childrens' Court. Likewise, keeping in view the fact that accused-Ram Karan @ Karna was absenting himself for sufficiently long time, thereby causing delay in concluding the trial, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 12.12.1997 separated the trial under the provisions of Section 317(2) Cr.P.C. 10. On the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it and after hearing arguments of counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor, the trial Court framed charges against the appellants u/ss. 148, 307/149, 326, 325, 324, 323/149, 379 & 379/149 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited same documents. There- after, the appellants were examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused examined DW-1 Ram Narayan, DW-2 Ratanlal and DW-3 Gopi. 11. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the prosecution case as alleged proved and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinabove. Being dissatisfied with the conviction and sentenced, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 12. 11. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the prosecution case as alleged proved and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinabove. Being dissatisfied with the conviction and sentenced, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 12. We have heard Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. B.M. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and have carefully gone through the judgment under appeal and the evidence and material available on record. 13. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to have elaborate discussion of the prosecution evidence. 14. PW-1 Ram Prasad has been examined as an eye-witness of the incident. He has deposed that on the day of incident at about 9.00-10.00 a.m., one Pappu Bairwa was ploughing the field known as Balajiwala field. Jairaj Singh and Kushya @ Udaibhan Singh were also present there. He also went to them. He and Saroopa Nai were grazing cattle in the nearby fields. He saw Brijraj Singh coming on a motor-cycle from the side of village Achal. On seeing them, Brijraj Singh parked his motor cycle at `Nahar-ka-khura' and then came to them. He had a gun at his shoulder. In the mean-time, the accused persons and Ramphool duly armed with lathis and Gandasis came from the side of village Dolada and were abusing. Hemraj had a kulhari, while others had lathis with them. The accused first asked to remove the tractor from the field and then told to kill this advocate. The witness stated that on seeing the accused, they ran away from the scene. According to this witness, accused-Karna inflicted a lathi blow on the back of Jairaj Singh who was in the company of Brijraj Singh. The accused caught hold of Brijraj Singh in the field of Ratna Meena. Firstly, accused-Karna gave two lathi blows on the head of Brijraj Singh and struck one blow on his left arm. Thereafter Ramdayal struck Kulhari blows on the head and arm of Brijraj Singh. Accused-Heinraj struck two Kulhari blows, one on the chest and another on the right arm of Brijraj Singh. Madho inflicted lathi blow on the back of his right shoulder. Accused-Ram Niwas inflicted lathi blows at the back and front of left leg of Brijraj Singh. Birbal inflicted blows at the upper and lower part of right thigh of Brijraj Singh. Accused-Heinraj struck two Kulhari blows, one on the chest and another on the right arm of Brijraj Singh. Madho inflicted lathi blow on the back of his right shoulder. Accused-Ram Niwas inflicted lathi blows at the back and front of left leg of Brijraj Singh. Birbal inflicted blows at the upper and lower part of right thigh of Brijraj Singh. Accused-Girraj inflicted lathi blow on the right knee of Brijraj Singh and accused-Shambhu inflicted `gupti' blow on the left thumb of Brijraj Singh. The witness further stated that while standing at some distance they went on saying loudly `not to beat them' (Mat maro, Mat maro), but the accused did not pay any attention. According to this witness, when accused persons were coming towards Vakil Sahab (Brijraj Singh) abusing him, Brijraj Singh with a view to threaten the accused before they could start belabouring him, opened fire in air. After beating Brijraj Singh, Ramniwas took away the gun and Hemraj took away the motor-cycle. Witness Ram Prasad then stated that Hanumandas, Pujari of Balaji used to plough the field in question. In the relevant year, Hanumandas had given half of the share in the field to Jairaj Singh and Brijraj Singh for agricultural purposes. 15. PW-2 Jairaj Singh also claims, himself to be an eye-witness of the incident. He has deposed similar to what PW-1 Ram Prasad has deposed. Jairaj Singh has deposed that on the day of incident at about 9.00-10.00 a.m. he, his brother Udaibhan and his driver Pappu had gone to plough the field. Pappu Bairwa was driving the tractor, while he and his brother were sitting beneath `Khejara tree'. Saroopa Nai and Ram Prasad who were grazing their bulls nearby also came there and sat with them. After about half an hour Brijraj Singh came on a motor cycle from the aside of village Achad. He parked his motor cycle at `Nahar-ka-khura' and joined them. Brijraj Singh had a gun in his hand. In the meantime, 9-10 persons, namely, Karna, Phoolya, Ramniwas, Madho, Hemraj, Birbal, Shambhu and Ramdayal came there. Karana had a lathi, while Hemraj and Shambhu had kulhari and Gupti respectively in their hands. Accused-Phoolya, Birbal, Ramniwas and Madho had lathies in their hands and accused-Ramdayal had a Gandasi. The accused persons told to kill the Vakil (Brijraj Singh). After saying so, they proceeded further. Karana had a lathi, while Hemraj and Shambhu had kulhari and Gupti respectively in their hands. Accused-Phoolya, Birbal, Ramniwas and Madho had lathies in their hands and accused-Ramdayal had a Gandasi. The accused persons told to kill the Vakil (Brijraj Singh). After saying so, they proceeded further. Thereafter, Brijraj Singh opened fire in air, but the accused did not pay any heed and went on proceeding ahead. Then Brijraj Singh opened second fire in the air. On seeing the accused, Saroopa Nai, Ram Prasad and Udaibhan Singh who were sitting there left the place and stayed at some distance in the field. The witness further stated that accused persons encircled Brijraj Singh. Accused-Karna chased him also and struck a lathi blow on his back. He then ran away and stayed at some distance. According to this witness, first of all accused-Karna inflicted three lathi blows, two on the head and one on the left hand of Brijraj Singh. Phoolya struck two lathi blows on the forehead of Brijraj Singh. Hemraj struck Kulhari blow on his right armpit just above ribs, while Ramdayal inflicted a Gandasi blow on his head. He also inflicted injury on the hand. Ramniwas, Birbal and Madhu struck lathis blows on different parts of the body of Brijraj Singh. Accused-Shambhu inflicted `gupti' blow on the left thumb of Brijraj Singh. According to this witness, while standing at some distance, they were crying not to beat Brijraj Singh, but the accused did not pay attention to their request. After the incident, accused-Ramniwas took away the gun, while accused-Hemraj took away the motor-cycle and proceeded towards village Daulada. The witnesses stated that they brought the injured to Lahsoda and from Lahsoda they took him to Sawaimadhopur and admitted him in the hospital. He stated that an agreement, Ex.P/2 with respect to Balaji-wala-field was executed in his favour, which bears his signatures from A to B. He had given share in the field to injured Brijraj Singh. 16. PW-3 Pappu, PW-4 Ramswaroop and PW-5 Udaibhan Singh have also claimed to themselves to have witnessed the incident. These witnesses have stated almost similar to what PWs 1 & 2 have deposed in their examination in chief and thus PWs 3, 4 & 5 have supported the statements of PWs 1 & 2. 17. Injured Brijraj Singh has been examined as PW-6. These witnesses have stated almost similar to what PWs 1 & 2 have deposed in their examination in chief and thus PWs 3, 4 & 5 have supported the statements of PWs 1 & 2. 17. Injured Brijraj Singh has been examined as PW-6. He has stated that on 12.10.1994 at about 9.00-10.00 a.m. he was in the process of taking care of his fields in village Achar and was coming on his Rajdoot motorcycle. He had a 12 bore gun with him. Pappu was ploughing the field known as Todara-ke-balaji- wala-field by tractor. Jairaj Singh, Udaibhan Singh, Ram Prasad Kumhar and Saroopa Nai was sitting beneath Khejara tree. He parked his motor-cycle at Nahar-ka-khura and joined these persons already sitting there. After about 10-15 minutes of his reaching there, all the accused persons came there from the side of village Dolada. They came there saying `Is Vakil kojaan se maar do'. Out of the, accused persons, Ramdayal, Hemraj and Shabhu had as Gandasi, Kulhari and gupti, respectively in their hands, while other accused persons were armed with lathis. Having seen the accused persons coming near, Brijraj Singh in his defence and with a view to make them frighten, opened fire in air, but of no avail. He then escaped from the scene and just after running 5-7 steps, he fired second shot in the air. The accused chased him and caught him in the field of Ratna Meean. Accused-Karna inflicted a lathi blow on his head which struck in the middle of his head. He struck second lathi blow which struck on his fore-head. Karna also struck third blow, but he raised his hand and as a consequence thereof he sustained injury on his left hand. Ramdayal inflicted a gandasi blow on the left side of his head. When he aimed second blow on his head, he raised his left hand, thereby sustaining injury on the left arm. When Hemraj aimed Kulhari blow on his neck, he raised his right hand and as a consequence thereof, he sustained injury on his right arm. Suddenly Hemraj inflicted Kulhari blow, which struck on the right armpit, as a result of his two ribs and lungs were cut. The gupti blow by accused-Shambhu struck his left thumb. Accused-Ramniwas, Madho, Birbal, Phoolya, Girraj and Karna inflicted lathi blows on various parts of his body. Suddenly Hemraj inflicted Kulhari blow, which struck on the right armpit, as a result of his two ribs and lungs were cut. The gupti blow by accused-Shambhu struck his left thumb. Accused-Ramniwas, Madho, Birbal, Phoolya, Girraj and Karna inflicted lathi blows on various parts of his body. All the accused were saying that he should not be saved and kill him. 18. Injured Brijraj Singh further stated that Jairaj Singh, Udaibhan Singh, Saroopa Nai, Ram Prasad and Pappu were standing at the distance of about 30-40 steps from the place of incident. After the incident, Ramniwas took away his gun which had fallen down and accused-Hemraj took away his motor cycle which was lying parked at the Khura. After the accused left the place of incident, Jairaj Singh, Udaibhan Singh, Saroopa, Ram Prasad and Pappu came to him. 19. Having discussed the prosecution evidence, we now advert to the merits of the case. 20. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the accused- appellants, after reading the relevant part of the evidence both ocular and documentary adduced by the prosecution and the defence during trial, has strenuously argued that the appellants in exercise of their right of private defence of property inflicted injuries on the person of Brijraj Singh, who came on the place of incident with a 12 bore gun and other persons of complainant partly attempted to take possession of land by ploughing the same. On their protest, Brijraj Singh opened fire which resulted in injuries on the person of Shambhu and Hemraj. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Munshi Ram & Ors. us. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 SC 702 , wherein it was held by their Lordships that no one including the true owner has a right to disposses the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in due course of law, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. The complainant party, including one of the members being duly armed with deadly weapon, had gone to the field with a tractor with a view to intimidate Jamna and to assert their possession. Therefore, they were guilty of criminal trespass. The complainant party, including one of the members being duly armed with deadly weapon, had gone to the field with a tractor with a view to intimidate Jamna and to assert their possession. Therefore, they were guilty of criminal trespass. The appellants armed with sticks and spears asked the complainant party to clear out the field but when they refused, they pushed them and thereafter attacked them, as a result of which three persons sustained simple injuries. In the above fact situation, it was held that the appellants exercised their right of private defence. 21. We have given our earnest consideration to the above argument and have scanned the evidence oral as well as documentary adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, in the above context. 22. It is pertinent to observe that according to the prosecution, the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 361, measuring 9 bighas and 6 Biswas was in the Khatedari of Balaji temple and Hanumandas (PW-7) being Pujari of the temple was in possession of the land. On 16.7.1994, Hanumandas gave the land to Jairaj Singh for ploughing and handed over the possession and also executed an agreement, Ex.P/2. On the other hand, according to the defence, Hanumandas mortgaged the land to Karna and executed mortgage deed, Ex.D/10 in his favour and since then Karna and his family members are in possession of the land. DW-1 Ramnarayan is the scribe of the document. It is also an admitted fact that some litigation was also pending in the revenue Courts between Hanumandas and Karna and others. Copy of appeal was also filed on record as Ex.D/1. DW-2 Ratanlal and DW-3 Gopi have also stated that the disputed land is in possession of Ramkaran. It is thus clear that both the parties asserted their possession over the disputed land. However, Gulab Chand Sharma, Investigating Officer has admitted the possession of accused persons over the land in dispute. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material on record arrived at a conclusion that the disputed land was in possession of the accused. In our considered view, there seems to be no reason to differ with the above conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. 23. The prosecution case as narrated by the eye-witnesses of the incident is that at the time of incident, Pappu was ploughing the field with a tractor. In our considered view, there seems to be no reason to differ with the above conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. 23. The prosecution case as narrated by the eye-witnesses of the incident is that at the time of incident, Pappu was ploughing the field with a tractor. Jairaj Singh and others were sitting beneath `Khejra tree'. Injured Brijraj Singh came there on a motor cycle and joined them. He had a gun with him. Thereafter the accused-appellants came there duly armed with weapons. Having seen the accused persons moving in his direction, Brijraj Singh opened fire in air with a view to frighten them and ran from there and again fired second shot in the air. The accused chased Brijraj Singh and caught him in the field of Ratan Meena and inflicted blows indiscriminately on his person. By the time, other members of the complainant and eye-witnesses of the incident also rushed from the field. Therefore, so long as the accused persons were acting in exercise of their right of private defence of property, it cannot be said that they committed criminal act in prosecution of common object of the assembly because Section 9 of the Indian Penal Code makes it abundantly clear that nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of the right of private defence and as such, it can well be said that their object was not unlawful and as such there was no unlawful assembly 'and the appellants, in exercise of their right of private defence, were entitled to use such force as was considered necessary to maintain possession and to turn away the intruders. 24. Section 105 IPC lays down that right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences and it continues against criminal tress-pass as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal tress-pass. In the case at hand, evidently the complainant party including Brijraj Singh left the field and ran away but the appellants chased and caught Brijraj Singh in the field of Ratan Meena and then belabourd him. Therefore, by no stretch of argument can it be said that accused had any right of private defence against a person who had run away from the scene of occurrence. The assault on him could be wholly unjustified. Therefore, by no stretch of argument can it be said that accused had any right of private defence against a person who had run away from the scene of occurrence. The assault on him could be wholly unjustified. Therefore, in such circumstances, assembly of accused persons though lawful in its inception but once they exceeded their right, the assembly ceased to be lawful and became an unlawful assembly and the members of the assembly who shared the object of doing anything in excess of the exercise of right of private defence would be liable to be punished for the acts committed in prosecution of the common object or for their individual unlawful acts. However, in our considered opinion, the assemblage of accused persons, five or more in number, cannot wholly be held liable to conviction with the aid of Section 149 IPC unless the whole assembly shared the common object of doing anything in excess of the exercise of right of private defence. In the case in hand the object of the assembly was not to kill Brijraj Singh, but to protect their property. As the common object of the assembly is not discernible, it can be held that appellant-Hemraj intended to cause the fatal blow to Brijraj Singh and the other accused accompanied him for the protection of property or for teaching a lesson to him. 25. On appreciation of evidence, the common object of all the accused persons was not to cause death of Brijraj Singh. In our view, such an intention could be attributed only to appellant-Hemraj who used heavy sharp weapon like an axe so as to inflict injury on the chest of Brijraj Singh, which resulted in the fracture of 5th and 6th ribs. The doctor who examined the injured also found cut of muscles, ribs and pleura and opined that injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 26. From the testimony of eye-witnesses which stands in corroboration with the medical evidence, it reveals that : 1. Appellant-Ramdayal, inflicted a gandasi blow on the left side of head and left arm, thereby causing simple injuries by sharp weapon on the person of Brijraj Singh. Therefore, appellant-Ramdayal is held liable to be convicted for offence u/s. 324 IPC. 2. Appellant-Hemraj inflicted axe blows on the chest and right arm of Brijraj Singh. Appellant-Ramdayal, inflicted a gandasi blow on the left side of head and left arm, thereby causing simple injuries by sharp weapon on the person of Brijraj Singh. Therefore, appellant-Ramdayal is held liable to be convicted for offence u/s. 324 IPC. 2. Appellant-Hemraj inflicted axe blows on the chest and right arm of Brijraj Singh. The injury inflicted on the right arm was found simple and, therefore, Hemraj is liable to be convicted for offence u/s. 324 IPC. The injury inflicted by him on the chest resulted in fracture of 5th and 6th ribs and muscles ribs and pleuara were also found cut and according to the opinion of doctor, this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the intention to cause death of Brijraj Singh or to cause a injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death can well be attributed to Hemraj and thus appellant-Hemraj is also liable to be convicted u/s. 307 IPC. It also stands established that one motor cycle belonging to injured Brijraj Singh was recovered in pursuance to the information furnished by Hemraj from his possession and therefore, Hemraj is also liable to be convicted u/s. 379 IPC. 3. Appellant-Ram Niwas inflicted lathi blows on the left leg of Brijraj Singh, resulting in fracture of middle ⅓rd of shaft of tibia and therefore, he is liable to be convicted u/s. 325 IPC. He is also held guilty for offence u/s. 379 IPC as it is established that one gun belonging to Brijraj Singh was also sized from Ram Niwas. 4. Appellant-Madho, Birbal, Ramphool and Girraj inflicted lathi blows on the shoulder, thigh, forehead and knee respectively of Brijraj Singh and therefore, they are liable to be convicted for offence u/s. 323 IPC for causing simple injuries by blunt weapon to Brijraj Singh. 27. Having held the accused-appellants guilty for their individual act, the only question which now remains to be considered is as to whether appellant-Hemraj can be convicted u/s. 307 IPC simpliciter without the aid of Section 149 IPC, particularly in the absence of substantive charge u/s. 307 IPC. 27. Having held the accused-appellants guilty for their individual act, the only question which now remains to be considered is as to whether appellant-Hemraj can be convicted u/s. 307 IPC simpliciter without the aid of Section 149 IPC, particularly in the absence of substantive charge u/s. 307 IPC. To decide the controversy, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in Nallabothu Venkaiah v. State of A.P., (2002) 7 SCC 117 , wherein their Lord- ships considered the question of law "whether the appellant could be convicted u/s. 302 IPC (simpliciter) without the aid of Section 149 IPC in the absence of substantive charge u/s. 302 IPC and observed as under : "On an analytical reading of a catena of decisions of this Court, the following broad proposition of law clearly emerges : (a) the conviction u/s. 302 simpliciter without aid of Section 149 is permissible if overt act is attributed to the accused resulting in the fatal injury which is independently sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased and is supported by medical evidence; (b) wrongful acquittal recorded by the High Court, even if it stood, that circumstances would not impede the conviction of the appellant u/s. 302 r/w Section 149 IPC; (c) charge u/s. 302 with the aid of Section 149 could be converted into one u/s. 302 r/w Section 34 if the criminal act done by several persons less than five in number in furtherance of common intention is proved." 28. Keeping in view the above legal proposition set out by the Apex Court, in view of the evidence on record, appellant-Hemraj can be convicted u/s.307 IPC simpliciter in the absence of substantive charge. 29. Resultantly, this appeal stands partly allowed in the following manner: 1. The conviction of appellants-Ramniwas, Ramphool, Madholal, Ram Dayal, Birbal and Girraj u/s. 307/149 IPC is set aside and, they are acquitted of the charge u/s. 307/149 IPC. 2. The conviction of appellants-Ramphool, Madholal, Ramdayal, Birbal, Girraj and Hemraj u/s. 325/149 is set aside and they are acquitted of the same. 3. The conviction of appellants-11,amniwas, Ramphool, Madholal, Birbal and Girraj u/s. 324/149 IPC is set aside and they are acquitted of the same. 4. The conviction of appellants-Ramniwas, Ramdayal and Hemraj u/s. 323/149 is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge. 5. 3. The conviction of appellants-11,amniwas, Ramphool, Madholal, Birbal and Girraj u/s. 324/149 IPC is set aside and they are acquitted of the same. 4. The conviction of appellants-Ramniwas, Ramdayal and Hemraj u/s. 323/149 is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge. 5. All the appellants are acquitted of the offence u/ss.148 & 326/149 IPC. 6. The conviction of appellants-Hemraj and Ram Dayal u/s. 324/149 IPC is converted to that of Section 324 IPC simpliciter and they are sentenced to under go two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, each shall have to further undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment. 7. The conviction of appellant-Hemraj u/s. 307/149 IPC is converted to that of Section 307 IPC simpliciter. In the facts and circumstances of the case the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of life - imprisonment is reduced to the term of 7 years. Accordingly, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to appellant-Hemraj is altered to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default thereof, he shall further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 8. The conviction of Ram Niwas u/s. 325/149 is converted to that of Section 325 simpliciter and the conviction of appellants-Birbal, Madho, Ramphool and Girraj u/s. 323/149 is converted to that of Section 323 IPC simpliciter. Appellant-Ram Niwas is sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default thereof, he shall further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. Appellants-Birbal, Madho, Ramphool and Girraj are sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment for their conviction u/s. 323 IPC. 9. The conviction of appellants-Hemraj and Ram Niwas u/s. 379 IPC and the sentenced awarded to them thereunder by the trial Court are maintained. 30. The sentences awarded to the appellants shall run concurrently. 31. It is made clear that the appellants shall be entitled to get benefit of the period spent by them either during investigation or trial and the period so spend by them shall be set off from the sentences awarded by this Court. 32. Except appellant-Hemraj, other are on bail and therefore, appellants- Ramniwas, Ramphool, Madholal, Ramdayal, Birbal and Girraj will have to serve out the sentences awarded to them, if already not served.Appeal partly allowed. *******