P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS are A-1 to A-6 in Sessions case No. 353 of 1993 on the file of the additional Sessions Judge, Khammam. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that Al is the son of A-2, while A-3 and A-4 are the brothers of A-1. A-5 is paternal uncle of a-1, and A-6 is the cousin of A-1. It is also the version of the prosecution that A-1 was the accused in Crime No. 120 of 1992 under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for outraging the modesty of one Pakalapati savitree of Garlaoddu. Alia Pitchamma is the eye-witness in the said case and she was willing to depose in the Court against A-1, and hence, A-1 bore grudge and decided to take revenge on her by killing her husband and sought the assistance of his relatives a-2 to A-6 in the plan of killing the husband of the said Alia Pitchamma by narrating his case and the consequences of deposition of alia Pitchamma. It is also the version of the prosecution that all of them planned to do away with the life of the husband of the said alia Pitchamma at an appropriate time. On 07-03-1993 at about 6. 00 p. m. in pursuance of their common intention of killing the Alia satyanarayana @ Satyam (hereinafter referred to in short as the deceased), A-1 armed with an axe and A-2 to A-6 armed with sticks (cart pegs) and attacked the deceased when he was passing in front of the shop of anantharamaiah of Garlaoddu. A-1 beat on the head of the deceased with blunt side of the axe and caused fatal bleeding injury, while A-2 beat on his stomach with a stick causing injury, A-3 beat with a stick on the back side of the deceased, while A-4 beat on his side body, A-5 beat him on the right ear while A-6 beat him on the middle of the head with the stick, and caused injuries, and the same was witnessed by P. Ws. 1 to 4 and that during the course of investigation, the injured was referred to the Government Hospital, kothagudem and since the Medical Officer of the said Hospital was not available, the injured was taken to Government, Hospital, palvancha, where the Medical Officer examined him and declared him as dead. 1 to 4 and that during the course of investigation, the injured was referred to the Government Hospital, kothagudem and since the Medical Officer of the said Hospital was not available, the injured was taken to Government, Hospital, palvancha, where the Medical Officer examined him and declared him as dead. Hence, the accused were charged with section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty and the learned additional Sessions Judge, Khammam to whom the case was made over by the Court of Session, recorded the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 12 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-17 and Exs. D-1 to D-3 and M. Os 1 to 10 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the charge under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC as such had not been established, but however, convicted A-1 under section 304-1 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and tocriminal Appeal No. 691 of 1997 pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for four months, and convicted A-2 to A-5 under section 304-1 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, and convicted A6 under section 304-1 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. ( 3 ) SRI Ella Reddy, Counsel representing the appellants/accused would submit that the motive part had not been established and the episode that all the accused planned to do away with the life of the deceased inasmuch as A-l apprehended that Alia pitchamma, the wife of the deceased may depose in a case registered against him for the offence under Section 354 IPC. This episode itself is unbelievable. The learned counsel further would contend that even otherwise in the light of the clear evidence of p. W. 4, the presence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 at the scene of offence, itself is highly doubtful. The learned Counsel would further contend, that ex. This episode itself is unbelievable. The learned counsel further would contend that even otherwise in the light of the clear evidence of p. W. 4, the presence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 at the scene of offence, itself is highly doubtful. The learned Counsel would further contend, that ex. P-1 is devoid of particulars and even the overt acts, which had been attributed to the accused specifically had not been consistent and the medical evidence does not corroborate with the so called direct evidence available on record. The learned Counsel also would contend that no blood stains were found on the weapons and when it is the version of the prosecution that the axe had been used, it should be taken that the sharp edge alone had been used by A-1 and not the blunt side and if the prosecution intended to establish otherwise, it is for the prosecution to prove the same, in view of the fact that there is no incised injury as spoken to by doctor-P. W. 12, and it creates grave doubt in relation to the participation of A-1 in the commission of the offence. The learned counsel also would submit that the distribution of overt acts to several accused had not been done by the prosecution witnesses, which had not been narrated in Ex. P-1 and also in ex. P-3 and the same had been spoken to before the Court. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on Hallu v. State of m. P. At any rate, the learned Counsel would submit that in view of the political rivalry between the parties, the foisting of the case against the accused cannot be totally ruled out and hence, benefit of doubt to be given to the accused. ( 4 ) PERCONTRA, the learned Additional Public prosecutor would contend that when human element is involved, it is but natural that there will be certain variations, and every minor omission or contradiction need not be seriously viewed, and that the incident as such, which had happened, had been well deposed by P. Ws. 1 to 4. The learned additional Public Prosecutor would also contend that the distance wherefrom the witnesses had viewed the incident also would be material and in the light of the clear evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4. The learned additional Public Prosecutor would also contend that the distance wherefrom the witnesses had viewed the incident also would be material and in the light of the clear evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4 in this regard, the mere fact that P. W. 4 had deposed on certain fashion, that would not mean that the other witnesses had not witnessed the incident, and that the point from which these witnesses had viewed the incident may have to be taken into consideration. The learned additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that merely because P. W. 1 is closely related to the deceased, his evidence need not be viewed with any suspicion, and that in ex. P-1 First Information Report, the substance of the accusation had been clearly specified and it is just natural, and the mere fact that the details of the overt acts and other details had not been drawn elaborately, on that ground, first information cannot be viewed with any suspicion. The learned Additional public Prosecutor also would contend that even if there is some conflict between the direct evidence and the medical evidence, direct evidence may have to be preferred and conviction can be sustained, even in such a case. The learned Additional Public prosecutor would also submit that the names of the assailants had been specifically mentioned in Ex. P-1, and the witnesses had spoken the presence of the assailants at the scene of offence and their participation in the commission of the offence, and hence, the incident as such had been proved by the prosecution. The learned Additional Public prosecutor would contend that the only doubt, which is being canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants-defence is the discrepancy between the medical evidence and other witnesses who had witnessed the incident. The learned Additional Public prosecutor would contend that this is only a minor discrepancy, and hence, on that ground, the total version of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. The learned Additional public Prosecutor placed strong reliance on arumuga Nadar v. State of T. N. 2, Balwant singh v. State of Haryana, State of U. P. v. Samman Dass, Bajwa v. State of U. P. and state of U. P. v. Paras Nath Singff. ( 5 ) HEARD the counsel at length. Perused the material available on record and the findings recorded by the Court below. ( 6 ) EX. ( 5 ) HEARD the counsel at length. Perused the material available on record and the findings recorded by the Court below. ( 6 ) EX. P-1-COMPLAINT given by P. W. 1 reads as hereunder:"today evening at about 6. 00 p. m. , my brother-in-law Alia Satyanarayana, S/o kotaiah, while coming from centre i. e. , in front of the shop of Anantharamaiah, the persons 1. Pathan Mahaboob Khan, 2. Pathan Masthan, 3. Pathan Jalal khan, 4. Pathan Sharekhan, 5. Pathan buran Khan and 6. Pathan Ameerkhan have attacked with cart-pegs, axe and caused grievous injuries to him. The condition of my brother-in-law is in hazardous". ( 7 ) P. W. 4 deposed that he knows all the accused and also P. Ws. 1 to 3 and also deceased Satyanarayana. He deposed that the Satyanarayana died nearly 5 years ago and A-1 beat the deceased Satyanarayana with axe on his head, A-2 poked the deceased with stick on his stomach, A-3 and A-4 beat the deceased on his back, A-6 beat the deceased on his head, A-5 beat the deceased near the right ear. He further deposed that previously, the wife of the deceased witnessed when A-1 outraging the modesty of a woman and in that connection, he got enemity against the deceased. This witness was cross examined, wherein he deposed that P. Ws. 1 to 3 and others reached the injured after the incident and by the time they came, the accused fled away and it is not the sun totally set as there was some light. He further deposed that first A-1 beat and later others beat the deceased at a time and on receiving the blow given by A-1, the deceased fell down and the nearby residents were present there and there were no lights. He further deposed that he is not affiliated to any political party and P. Ws. 3 and 1 belong to c. P. I, party and he does not know to which party P. W. 2 belongs. The other suggestions put to this witness had been specifically denied. On the strength of evidence of P. W. 4, submissions at length were made that the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 1 belong to c. P. I, party and he does not know to which party P. W. 2 belongs. The other suggestions put to this witness had been specifically denied. On the strength of evidence of P. W. 4, submissions at length were made that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 to the effect that they had also witnessed the incident cannot be believed in the light of the version made by p. W. 4 in the cross-examination that by the time they came, the accused fled away. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 who had givenex. P-1 complaint, a relative of the deceased, deposed that the deceased died on 7-3-1993 in the hands of the accused and the deceased was hacked by A-1 with an axe on his head and A-2 poked the deceased with a stick on his stomach and a-5 beat the deceased on his right side near the face beside the ear (on the right side of ear near occipital region beside ear), A-3 and A-4 beat the deceased with sticks on his back and A-6 beat the deceased with a stick on his head. He deposed that he witnessed the entire occurrence and they had taken the injured Satyanarayana there from on a tractor and he presented Ex,p-1 report to the police. In the cross-examination, this witness deposed that he belongs to CPI party and it may be true that the accused persons belong to congress party. He denied certain suggestions relating to the smuggling of forest wood and disputes relating thereto. This witness was cross-examined at length relating to the scene of offence and adjacent houses. Most probably, with a view to contend that none of them had been examined, this witness deposed that all the accused armed with weapons were present near the scene of offence, Satyam was near the house of anantharamayya at that time, and that he was at the house of Srinu, and there is some sundry shop and he was there on verification of some accounts. He deposed that Srinu verified his accounts and he was sitting on a bench there and saw the occurrence when the persons were attacking. He deposed that Srinu verified his accounts and he was sitting on a bench there and saw the occurrence when the persons were attacking. He deposed that by the time, he drew his attention, Satyam was there and the accused were there attacking, and that Satyam came after he was there, within 15 minutes after the Satyam came there, the accused came there and attacked him. He deposed that he saw from 20 yards distance from the scene of occurrence and that not all the accused pounced at a time and beat because A-1 first hacked Satyam, and that for the axe blow given on the head of Satyam by A-1, when satyam was lying, A-2 came and poked with stick on Satyam s stomach and the others at that time beat Satyam on his back and the injured Satyam received all the blows from the attack before he fell down. He further deposed that due to fear he could not dare to go to rescue the said Satyam from the attack by the accused and that he went only after attack on Satyam. He deposed that to his observation, he had not-found any of the accused giving another blows in the attack. The Court posed a question that it is there after giving the blows, they fled away after the beating. This witness deposed that he had not closely watched whether A-1 immediately after his hacking with axe fled away or waited to flee away with others. This witness further deposed that after A-1 hacked, the others gave blows almost at a time. The other suggestions were specifically denied and this witness also deposed that he had not mentioned the specific overt acts of the accused in Ex. P-1 report nor which accused attacked with which weapon (armed and attacked with which weapon ). He deposed that A-1 had given blow with reverse side of axe on the head of Satyam. This is the evidence of P. W. 1. ( 9 ) P. W. 2 deposed that he knows all the accused and he was coming from Enkur at that time and he saw the accused attaattacking and going away. No doubt, he deposed in cross-examination that he cannot give the details as to who beat, at which place and with which weapon the accused beat the deceased etc. ( 9 ) P. W. 2 deposed that he knows all the accused and he was coming from Enkur at that time and he saw the accused attaattacking and going away. No doubt, he deposed in cross-examination that he cannot give the details as to who beat, at which place and with which weapon the accused beat the deceased etc. , and that he is not affiliated to any political party. He also deposed that he ted not stated before police as in Ex. D-2. ( 10 ) P. W. 3 is- another witness who is no doubt CPI Mandal Secretary and he had deposed about the overt acts, which are well corroborating with the evidence of P. W. 1. ( 11 ) P. W. 5 simply deposed that the deceased was beaten by A-1 with axe and other accused, and that he witnessed the occurrence and the accused were fleeing away by beating the deceased. In cross-examination, he specifically deposed that there was some sun light and his house is adjacent to the house of Anantharamayya and he had seen the incident within a distance of one furlong and all the accused gave blows on the deceased before he fell down. ( 12 ) P. W. 6-ALLA Pitchamma, wife of the deceased deposed about the aspect that A1 outraged the modesty of one Savithri in her presence, and she rescued her and herself and the victim Savithri Went to the police station and complained the occurrence and since then, A-1 bore grudge against her and her husband because she got registered the case against him, and with that grudge her husband was attacked and beaten by the accused. This witness also cross-examined. ( 13 ) P. W. 7 deposed that at about 9. 00 or 9. 30 p. m. on 7-3-1993, P. W. 1 had shown the scene of offence where the deceased satyanarayana was beaten and they observed the scene of offence and found there some blood on the earth and in their presence, the police seized the blood stained earth and also controlled earth and kept in separate pots and put seals in their presence and they signed thereon. The said pots are m. Os 1 and 2. M. O. 1 is controlled earth and m. 0. 2 is bloodstained earth. He further deposed that in their presence, the police drafted the scene of observation report (Ex. The said pots are m. Os 1 and 2. M. O. 1 is controlled earth and m. 0. 2 is bloodstained earth. He further deposed that in their presence, the police drafted the scene of observation report (Ex. P-2) and he along with L. W. 18 attested the same. ( 14 ) P. W. 8 deposed about the police seizing M. Os 3 and 4 in their presence. He deposed that L. Ws. 20 and 21 also stood as mediators to Ex. P-3 inquest panchanama. ( 15 ) P. W. 12 is the doctor who deposed that on 8. 3. 1993 at 2. 00 p. m. , he received requisition of Inspectorof police, Kothagudem for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and on the same day at 3. 00 p. m. , he conducted autopsy and noticed the following injuries: (1) Lacerated injury over parietal region of scalp with lenier fracture of right parietal bone, size 3" x 1/2" depth bone deep and fracture line is extending round to-the occipital bone size. 4"x4"; (2) A contusion over right side of back of chest with fracture of 6th, 7 and 8 ribs at posterior auxiliary fold measuring l"x I"; (3) Abrasion back of right ear, size 1/2 " x 1/2". P. W. 12 is of the opinion that the deceased died due to shock and hemmorrhage with multiple injuries sustained prior to his examination and that rigor mortis present in lower limbs, and passed on upper limbs. Ex. P-17 is the post mortem examination report with opinion. ( 16 ) ON the strength of the injuries 1 to 3 specified by P. W. 12-Doctor, submissions at length were made that inasmuch as A-1 used only an axe, it should be taken that axe was used with the sharp edge and not on the blunt side and there is no corresponding incised injury and hence, the whole version of the prosecution may have to be disbelieved. It is no doubt true that this aspect was deposed and clarified only by P. W. 1 at the last in the cross-examination and this aspect was not specified either in Ex. P-1 or subsequent thereto at any point of time. It was contended that this is an improvement and hence, the version of the prosecution cannot be believed. It is no doubt true that this aspect was deposed and clarified only by P. W. 1 at the last in the cross-examination and this aspect was not specified either in Ex. P-1 or subsequent thereto at any point of time. It was contended that this is an improvement and hence, the version of the prosecution cannot be believed. ( 17 ) P. W. 9 deposed that he knows the accused whom he had occasion to see in the office of C. I. of police and when the police in their presence interrogated the accused, they stated before him, and L. W. 24 that they beat the deceased Satyam with Sannagoyyalu and that they concealed the same and can show if anybody follow them, and A-5 taken them to his house and brought from his house a cart peg (M. O. 5) and shown to them that was the weapon of offence used by him in beating the deceased Satyam and police seized the same and in their presence a recovery panchanama (Ex. P-5) was executed. Ex. P-4 is theconfession statement given by A-5 at police station. Likewise the other accused- had also taken them to their respective houses and brought respective cart pegs (M. Os 6 to 9) and the confessional statements of A-1 to A-4 (Exs. P-6, P-8, P-10, p-12 respectively) were recorded, and the police recovered of cart pegs from A-1 to a-4 under the cover of recovery of panchanams Exs. P-7, P-9, P-11 and P-13 ). No doubt some objection was raised by the counsel for the defence that the evidence is not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian evidence Act. ( 18 ) P. W. 10 deposed about Ex. P-14 panchanama and seizure of M. O. 10 stating and also Ex. P-15. ( 19 ) P. W. 11 is the C. I. of police of kothagudem who had taken up the investigation. He deposed that Ex. P-16 is the f. I. R. issued by L. W. 28. This witness deposed that on 8-3-1993 he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased satyanarayana at Palvancha Government hospital. This witness also deposed about all the details regarding all the confessional statements leading to discovery of seizure of m. Os and this witness was cross-examined at length and Exs. D-1 to D-3 also were put to this witness. This witness deposed that on 8-3-1993 he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased satyanarayana at Palvancha Government hospital. This witness also deposed about all the details regarding all the confessional statements leading to discovery of seizure of m. Os and this witness was cross-examined at length and Exs. D-1 to D-3 also were put to this witness. ( 20 ) IN Hallu v. State of M. P. (1 supra) the apex Court at paragraph No. 11 observed that,"the post mortem report prepared by dr. N. Jain that on the body of Jagdeo were found three bruises and a hematoma. On the body of Padum were found four lacerated wounds and two bruises. According to the eye-witnesses the two men were attacked with lathis, spears and axes but that clearly stands falsified by the medical evidence. Not one of the injuries found on the person of Jagdeo and Padum could be caused by a spear or an axe. The High Court however refused to attach any importance to this aspect of the matter by saying the witnesses had not stated that "the miscreants dealt axe blows from the sharp-side or used the spear as a piercing weapon". According to the high Court axes and spears may have been used from the blunt side and therefore, the evidence of the eyewitnesses could safely be accepted. We should have thought that normally when the witness says that an axe or a spear is used, there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the weapon was used. If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp edged or a piercing instrument was used as a blunt weapon. On the strength of this decision, submissions at length were made that except P. W. 1 deposing in the conclusion of his cross- examination that A-1 had given blow with reverse side of axe on the head of Satyam, there is no other evidence available on record and hence, in the light of the evidence of p. W. 12-doctor, it is highly doubtful as to whether A-1 had caused any injury at all. When axe is used it should be taken that the blow was dealt with sharp edged and not with blunt side. When axe is used it should be taken that the blow was dealt with sharp edged and not with blunt side. Elaborate submissions were made in this regard. " ( 21 ) A careful scrutiny of the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 4 and also Ex. P-1 would definitely go to show that the incident on the fateful day definitely happened. But, however, certain aspects were pointed out raising a doubt about the manner or mode in which the incident had happened. It is pertinent to note that as per the evidence of P. Ws 1 to 3 and also the evidence of P. W. 4, it is clear that these witnesses witnessed the incident from different directions and from different places. In the light of this background, the evidence may have to be appreciated. Merely because p. W. 4 had deposed in the cross-examination that by the time P. Ws. 1 to 3 came, the accused fled away, this cannot be read as though the other witnesses P. Ws 1 to 3 were not present at all, they might have witnessed the incident from a distance unnoticed by p. W. 4, and in the considered opinion of this court, the evidence may have to be read only in the direction that they might have reached the scene as noticed by P. W. 4 at the relevant point of time. ( 22 ) IT is no doubt true that P. W. 12 had not deposed about any incised injury being caused. However, the participation of all the accused in the incident on the fateful day had been clearly deposed commencing from p. Ws 1 to 4, and P. W. 5 had also corroborated the same. P. W. 6 deposed about the motive part. Ex. P-1 cannot be viewed with any suspicion since the substance of accusation had been specified in Ex. P-1. It is no doubt true that the details of the overt acts had not been specified in Ex. P-1, but, by that itself ex. P-1 cannot be doubted especially in the light of the fact that the names of these accused had been specifically mentioned in ex. P-1. P-1. It is no doubt true that the details of the overt acts had not been specified in Ex. P-1, but, by that itself ex. P-1 cannot be doubted especially in the light of the fact that the names of these accused had been specifically mentioned in ex. P-1. (I) In Bajwa v. State of U. P. (5 supra), the apex Court held that: "the mere fact that in a murder case the evidence of eye-witnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence will not by itself render the former unreliable. " (ii)ln State of U. P. v. Paras Nath Singh (6 supra) it was held that: "there is no rule that even straightforward evidence of relations of the deceased needs corroborations for sustaining conviction. Those witnesses happen to be naturally able to identify the assailants (coupled with the recovery of the blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence) leaves no reasonable doubt about proof of guilt. In absence of circumstances showing witnesses as inclined to falsely involve the accused, their being related to the deceased is innocuous. " (iii) Reliance was also placed on Arumuga nadarv. State of T. N. (2 supra), State of U. P. v. Samman Dass (4 supra) and Balwant singh v. State of Haryana (3 supra ). ( 23 ) THE evidence of P. W. 1 cannot be disbelieved merely because he is related to the deceased. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the evidence of independent witness p. W. 4 is also available on record. P. Ws. 2 and 3 also had supported the version of p. W. 1, and P. W. 5 also had supported the version of P. Ws 1 to 4. P. W. 6 deposed about the motive part as to how the seizure of the m. Os had been well established. The investigating Officer, apart from the panchayat witnesses, had deposed about the same. The only aspect, which had been highlighted, is the absence of corresponding incised injury due to the hacking with axe by a-1. This is the only major discrepancy, which had been pointed out. No doubt submissions were made at length that there are no corresponding injuries though overt acts had been attributed to the other accused. ( 24 ) THE participation of all the accused as such cannot be doubted since even in the earliest version in Ex. P-1 all these names were specifically mentioned. No doubt submissions were made at length that there are no corresponding injuries though overt acts had been attributed to the other accused. ( 24 ) THE participation of all the accused as such cannot be doubted since even in the earliest version in Ex. P-1 all these names were specifically mentioned. The mere fact that the accused and the deceased belong to different political parties, itself cannot be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that the case had been foisted against the accused. Hence, in the light of the clear and direct evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 5, this Court is of the opinion that the medical evidence of P. W. 12 in this regard and the minor inconsistency, if any in relation thereto, may not assume much importance. However, on recording the reasons in detail, the learned Judge was not inclined to convict the accused under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC, but however, came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty for the offence under Section 304-1 and 304-1 read with Section 34 IPC. ( 25 ) ON careful analysis of the facts and also the evidence available on record and the nature of injuries as deposed by P. W. 12, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offence committed by Al would fall under section 304-11 IPC and likewise, the offence committed by A-2 to A-6 wouid fall under section 304-11 read with Section 34 IPC since their participation also cannot be in any way doubted in the commission of the offence. ( 26 ) IN the result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions judge, Khammam in Sessions Case No. 353 of 1993 against the accused 1 to 6 under sections 304-1 and 304-1 read with Section 34 IPC, on 17-7-1997, are hereby set aside. But, taking the overall circumstances into consideration, the appellants/accused 1 to 6 are convicted and sentenced as follows: the 1st appellant/a1 is convicted under section 304-11 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. The appellants 2 to 6/a-2 to A-6 are convicted under Section 304-11 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and also to pay a fine of rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and the appellants/accused shall serve rest of the sentence and they are entitled to set off, if any, in accordance with law.