Judgment V. K. BALI, J. ( 1 ) IN early hours of the morning at 7-8 a. m. on 9-3-1995. Village kudhawal located at a distance of 15 Kms. from Police Station Todabhim became a scene of ghastly crime when two persons namely Siyaram and Hari Singh lost their lives, whereas eleven others namely suman Singh (PW-5), Dharme (PW-16), sri Kishan (PW-4), Bharosi (PW-8), Kedar (PW-6), Harbeer (PW-13), Pitram (PW-10), mukesh (PW-9), Samundra (PW-15), Mst. Chandan (PW-12) and Mst. Dhanwanti (PW-14) received multiple injuries by firearms. FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged by a written report (Ex. P-16) by Ramasharan (PW-20) on the same day at 9. 30 p. m. The said report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate at Hindaun on 10-3-1995 at 11 a. m. ( 2 ) FOR the crime leading to death of two persons and injuries to persons named above, the first informant named as many as 28 persons, all inter se related, and ascribed their participation in the crime with the weapons with which they were armed. The officer, entrusted with the investigation of the crime, however, found only 19 persons responsible for the commission of crime and thus, challaned the said nineteen persons only. Others were found innocent and were thus not sent for trial. ( 3 ) IN the present case, this court is concerned with 18 persons who have since been held guilty and convicted. One person out of the 19 persons who were challaned, it is stated, was charged later on and the trial against him is still going on. All the 18 persons, who were challaned and faced trial have since been convicted. They have filed two separate appeals bearing D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 99/98 and D. B. Criminal Appeal no. 50/98. ( 4 ) THE appellants who have filed Appeal no. 99/98 have been convicted and sentenced as follows:- 1. Gyan Singh . u/s. 148 IPC One year R. I. . u/s. 302 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for two . . u/s. 302/149 IPC- months. Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further R. I. for 2 months. . u/s. 307/149 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for one month. . 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for two . . u/s. 302/149 IPC- months. Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further R. I. for 2 months. . u/s. 307/149 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for one month. . u/s. 324/149 IPC - One year R. I. 2. Samay Singh . u/s. 148 IPC One year R. I. . u/s. 302/149 IPC- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 2 months. . u/s. 307/149 IPC 10 Years RI and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI and one month. . u/s. 324/149 IPC - One year R. I. 3. Prem Singh . u/s. 148 IPC One year R. I. . u/s. 302/149 IPC - Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for two months. . u/s. 307 IPC 10 Years RI and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for one month. . u/s. 324/149 IPC - One year R. I. 4. Ganga Vishan, Khiladi, Laxman, Hargyan, Malke Ram, Jagdish and Ramavatar . u/s. 147 IPC One year RI u/s. 302/149 IPC - . u/s. 307/149 IPC - Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for two months. 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for one month. . u/s. 324/149 IPC - One year R. I. The appellants who have filed Appeal no. 50/98 have been convicted and sentenced as under : Jawan Singh, Radhev Shyam, Har Roop, Ram Kishan, Ram Swaroop, Suraj @ Guddi, Pooran and Kaluwa. u/s. 1497 IPC - 1 year RI u/s. 302/149 IPC - Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, 2 months RI. u/s. 307/149 IPC - 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, 1 months RI. u/s. 324/149 IPC - One year RI. ( 5 ) THE written report (Ex. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, 2 months RI. u/s. 307/149 IPC - 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, 1 months RI. u/s. 324/149 IPC - One year RI. ( 5 ) THE written report (Ex. P. 16) made by Ramsaran (PW-20), on the basis of which formal FIR came to be registered, when translated in English, reads thus :-"on 9-3-1995 at about 7-8 in the morning, when Siyaram son of Hari Singh, resident of kudhawal was watering the land inside the land of his own boundary for the purpose of raising a wall, Pyar Singh son of Malke and all members of his family by making a gang, having common object, came with 12 bore guns and country made pistols. Immediately on the arrival Pyar Singh son of malke told Siyaram that today i will finish him and will not permit him to raise boundary wall in the land. On saying so, he fired at Siyaram by his 12 bore gun which hit him on his chest and Siyaram died at the spot. Gyan Singh son of Malke also fired from his 12 bore gun at Hari Singh. Prem Singh son of Gyan Sigh fired at Sumran and Pyar Singh son of Malke again fired at Hari Singh. Malke son of Jagdev, who is head of the family, stated that the family of Ramdhan should be finished and I would deal with everything. He had a country made pistol in his hand. Samay Singh son of gyan Singh fired at Kedar with a country made pistol which hit Kedar. Khiladi son of hargyan fired at Bharosi with country made pistol. Radhey shyam son of Jawan Singh fired at Harveer by a country made pistol. Jagdish son of hargyan fired at Mukesh with country made pistol and laxman son of Pyar Singh fired with 12 bore gun at Kishan which hit him on the hand. Ramawatar son of Pyar Singh fired at Dharme with the country made pistol. Har Roop son of Kamod fired at Dhanwanti and Ganga Kishan son of Malke fired at Samandar wife of mukesh whereas Radhey shyam son of Jawan Singh threw stones at Harpyari, whereas Hargyan fired from a country made pistol, and cartridges of which hit Pitram. Ram Swaroop, Ramkishan, guddi son of Harswaroop also fired from country made pistols. Har Roop son of Kamod fired at Dhanwanti and Ganga Kishan son of Malke fired at Samandar wife of mukesh whereas Radhey shyam son of Jawan Singh threw stones at Harpyari, whereas Hargyan fired from a country made pistol, and cartridges of which hit Pitram. Ram Swaroop, Ramkishan, guddi son of Harswaroop also fired from country made pistols. Harpati d/o Prem fired at chandan with a country made pistol which hit Chandan. Pooran son of Kamod and his son Kalua also fired. Apanti wife of Pyar Singh, Kshula wife of Gyna Singh, Kailashi wife of gangavishan, Kampuri wife of hargyan, Somoti wife of Samay singh, Sufedi wife of Laxman, keshula wife of Sher Singh, laccho wife of Khiladi and kailashi wife of Jagdish also attacked and fired with country made pistols. On the spot, witnesses Choudhariya son of Vijaypal, Harswraroop, dharam son of Harroop and behari were present. I was also present but had taken shelter from where I saw the occurrence. " ( 6 ) ON receipt of the first information report, as referred to above, the police has shown proceedings carried out by it. On 9-3-1995 immediately below the FIR it was recorded by Ram Singh, SHO that a written report of Ram Sharan Gujar has been received which was read over to him and he appended signatures thereto. He further mentioned that the offences committed in the case were u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC. It is significant to mention that it is mentioned in the police proceedings itself that Ram Singh who received the FIR was already busy in investigating the case. ( 7 ) THE prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the offences against the appellants examined Dr. Nand Lal sharma (PW-21), who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of siyaram at 3. 10 p. m. on 9-3-1995 and found the following injuries on his dead body :- (1) Multiple 50 firearm wounds -oval entrance 4 mm x 4 mm x skin, muscle and bone and left lung deep, on left front of chest scattered in the whole area of heart. Nipple, mid clavicular left mid axillary whole frontal part of chest with bleeding. Whith collar of abrasion clotts. Abrasions around the wounds, with swelling with surgical emphysema over the left front of chest. (2) Fire armed wound of entrance on left back of chest. Nipple, mid clavicular left mid axillary whole frontal part of chest with bleeding. Whith collar of abrasion clotts. Abrasions around the wounds, with swelling with surgical emphysema over the left front of chest. (2) Fire armed wound of entrance on left back of chest. No blackening no tattooing no schorching of hairs. (3) Multiple about 20 fire arm wounds of oval entrance 4 mm x 4 mm on left arm, left shoulder and left forearm in front and outer surface and skin, muscle and upto bone deep with collar of abrasions around the wound with swelling and bleeding clotts. "all the injuries on the dead body of siyaram, were opined to be ante mortem in nature which were caused by firearm. Injury No 1 in the opinion of the doctor was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ( 8 ) DR. P. C. Vyas, who was examined as pw-22 had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Hari Singh on 29-3-1995 at 5. 15 p. m. and found the following injuries on his dead body. (1) Stitched wound with one stitch three cm. below the umbilicus (probably made for dialysis ). (2) Wound of size 1/4 x 1/4 cm x peritoneal cavity deep 4 cms below umblicus on Rt. Side through which blood stained fluid exclude out (probably made for dialysis ). (3) Wound of size 2 x 1/2 cm. on rt. Lat. Side chest in 6th Intercostal space done for inter costal drainage purpose. (4) Multiple punctured wound of size 1/4 cm in diameter with blackish hard scab formation scattered on Rt. half of Body as shown in this diagram 1 sprady of punctured wound is in area of 22"x 14". The cause of death in the opinion of the doctor was Syncope as a result of injury to liver and right side of plura. He opined while making statement that the injuries on the dead body of Hari Singh were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 9 ) AS per medical evidence brought on the record of the case. Sumran Singh (PW-5) was found to have four injuries on his person which were caused by fire arm. Out of the four injuries, one injury was opined to be dangerous to life. Medico legal report and the report showing receipt of injuries has been proved as Exs. Sumran Singh (PW-5) was found to have four injuries on his person which were caused by fire arm. Out of the four injuries, one injury was opined to be dangerous to life. Medico legal report and the report showing receipt of injuries has been proved as Exs. P. 50 and 51 respectively. Dharme (PW-16) as per MLR Ex. P. 18 was found to have received one injury on his person which was caused by fire arm and was simple in nature. X-ray reports and plate of his injuries have been proved on records as ex. P. 19 and 20. Shri Nichan (PW4) as per his medico legal report Ex. P.-21 was found to have three injuries on his person which were simple in nature and caused by fire arm. Bharosi (PW-8) was found to have received injuries on his person as per MLR Ex. P. 25 which were caused by fire arm. Injuries on his person which were simple in nature. Kedar (PW-6) as per his MLR Ex. P. 28 was found to have three injuries on his person which were caused by fire arm but were simple in nature. His X-ray report and plate have been proved on the records as Ex. P. 29 and 30 respectively. Harveer (PW-13) as per medical report Ex. P. 31 was found to have two injuries on his person which were caused by fire arm and were to be simple in nature. His x-ray report and plate have been proved on records as ex. P. 29 and 30 respectively. Harveer (PW-13) as per medical report Ex. P. 31 was found to have two injuries on his person which were caused by fire arm and were found to be simple in nature. His x-ray report and plate have been proved on records as Ex. P. 32 and Ex. P. 33 respectively. Pati Ram (PW-10) as per medical report Ex. P. 34 was found to have five injuries on his person caused by fire arm but were simple in nature. His x-ray report and plate have been proved on records as Ex. P. 35 and 36. Mukesh (PW-9) as per medico-legal report Ex. P. 37 was found to have one injury on his person which was simple in nature. Smt. Samunder (PW-17) as per her medical report Ex. His x-ray report and plate have been proved on records as Ex. P. 35 and 36. Mukesh (PW-9) as per medico-legal report Ex. P. 37 was found to have one injury on his person which was simple in nature. Smt. Samunder (PW-17) as per her medical report Ex. P. 43 was found to have two injuries on his person which were caused by fire arm but were simple in nature. Her x-ray report and plate are Ex. P. 44 and Ex. P. 45 respectively. Smt. Chandan (PW-12) as per medical report was found to have received two injuries on her person caused by fire arm but were simple in nature. Her x-ray report and plate have been proved on records as Ex. P. 42 and Ex. P. 46 respectively. Mst. Dhanwanti (PW-14) and per her medico legal report Ex. P. 38 was found to have received one injury on her person which was caused by fire arm. Her x-ray report and plate have been proved on records as exs. P. 39 and 40. ( 10 ) RAM Sharan, the first informant who was examined as PW-20, after supporting the prosecution version of hearing rapport of firing and reaching at the spot, stated in his examination in chief that when firing was going on, he had taken shelter out of fear so that he himself may not be hit. He further stated that on account of firing Hari Singh, Siya Ram, shri Kishan, Pitram, Sumaran, Kedar. Dharme, Harbeer. Bharosi, Dhanwanti, chandan and Samander were injured. He further stated that when he came out from the shelter he had taken, he had seen persons who had been injured and thereafter, he made arrangement for sending those injured persons in a trolley to Khedia where the doctor refused to treat them and therefore, the injured were taken in three jeeps to Karauli and that before reaching Karauli, Siyaram had died. In cross examination he stated that he had told police with regard to the injuries received by the injured persons but he had not told as to who had caused injuries to them as the police did not ask him and therefore, he did not tell the police. He further stated that he had only seen firing and not the accused. He further stated that he had lodged FIR (Ex. He further stated that he had only seen firing and not the accused. He further stated that he had lodged FIR (Ex. P. 16) on the basis of his impressions and also on the basis of whatever had been told to him by the injured. He also stated that he was perplexed as the dead body was lying at the house. He also stated that he had not mentioned in the FIR that the firing had taken place because of the construction of the boundary wall. He further stated that in FIR (Ex. P. 16) whatever he had mentioned with regard to the accused being armed with country made pistols and guns the same was on the basis of his own mind and he had not actually seen. Whatever had been told on him by the injured persons, he had not got the fir recorded correctly. The same was done wrongly because of the fact, that he was under fear as the injured people had told him all the things while crying and he himself was also afraid and therefore only, he had exaggerated things in the fir. He further stated that the injured had told him correct things. He further stated that he had correctly got recorded in Ex. P. 16 that Gyan Singh had 12 Bore gun whereas Samay Singh and Prem singh were armed with country made pistols. He admitted that rest of the things mentioned by him in Ex. P. 16 were got recorded by him according to his own imagination and from his own mind and brain. He stated that he was a graduate and he knew that it was a crime to got a wrong report recorded before the police. He admitted that major part of the FIR (Ex. P. 16) was wrong and false. There are other things also in his cross examination which clearly go to show that he had wrongly ad falsely implicated all the accused by got the FIR recorded on the basis of his own imagination and further that he had wrongly and falsely implicated all the accused by ascribing specific role to them with respective weapons as stated by him in the FIR. Once it can be concluded, that but for the part attributed to the four main accused, as mentioned above was the only correct version and rest of it was false, there will be no need to refer to the other part of his cross examination which in any case would result into the same conclusion. ( 11 ) HARSWAROOP who was examined as pw-3 supported the prosecution version only in so far as the role attributed by the first informant to four accused persons namely Pyar Singh, Gyan Singh, Prem singh and Samay Singh is concerned. With regard to others, he only stated that they were armed with lathis and gandasis. After giving in detail the part played by the four persons named above, he only stated that after the incident, the accused went away. There is no need to make a mention of the depositions made by other injured witnesses who have indeed, been examined as it is conceded at all hands that each one of them has made similar statement as made by PW-3 harswaroop. It is also the conceded position that out of the two persons who died and so many others who received various injuries, as noted above, none of them received any injury caused by gandasi or lathi. Testimony of the doctor who had been examined would also manifest that none of the deceased or the injured received injuries by any other weapon but for fire arms. When examined under Section 313 cr. P. C. whereas the appellants Khiladi and samay Singh, who too received one injury each and which was simple in nature, admitted their presence but pleaded right of private defence of property and person, all others denied their presence and participation in the crime. ( 12 ) IN the context of the facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contends that the appellants had right of private defence of person and property and it is only while exercising their said right that two persons died and others got injured. The contention raised by the learned counsel is that the complainant party wanted to block their passage from the house leading to their fields by constructing a boundary wall and the appellants had thus right to restrain them from doing so, particularly when the boundary wall was to be constructed in the land of the appellants. The contention raised by the learned counsel is that the complainant party wanted to block their passage from the house leading to their fields by constructing a boundary wall and the appellants had thus right to restrain them from doing so, particularly when the boundary wall was to be constructed in the land of the appellants. The second and the last contention is that if the court may find that the appellants did not have right of private defence of person and property, then participation of accused, other than the four named above (Pyar singh, Gyan Singh, Prem Singh and samay Singh) is not at all proved and in any case no evidence has at all been brought on record that may even remotely suggest that the said appellants had a common object to achieve. Their conviction with the aid of Sec. 149 IPC is thus stated to be wholly illegal and against the records. ( 13 ) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. Whereas we find no merit whatsoever in the first contention of the learned counsel, we find considerable merit in the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. It has been the consistent case of the complainant party that Siyaram son of Hari singh was watering the area inside his boundary wall for the purpose of constructing wall. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has not been able to show from the cross-examination of any witness that the wall was to be constructed or was being constructed in the area that may be owned or possessed by the appellants. There is further no evidence on record to suggest that by construction of wall, passage of the appellants from their house to the fields was to be, in any manner, blocked. As per the site plan (Ex. P. 57), authenticity of which has neither been challenged nor disputed, fields of the complainant party are in the area shown at points abcd. 4 feet and 1/2" wall from point a to e is already in existence and from mark d" to e foundation had already been dug for the purpose of constructing wall. From the house of the complainant party, there is a vacant area on the right hand side of the area marked abcd which is the common passage. 4 feet and 1/2" wall from point a to e is already in existence and from mark d" to e foundation had already been dug for the purpose of constructing wall. From the house of the complainant party, there is a vacant area on the right hand side of the area marked abcd which is the common passage. The said passage leads to the fields of the appellants. There is no obstruction at all in the said passage and the accused could well reach their fields through the common passage mentioned above. It is established on the records of the case that if at all the complainant party was raising construction it was in their own area, which even if constructed, would have not blocked the passage of the appellants for going to their fields. Assuming that by raising the construction in the area of the complainant party, the passage of the appellants to go to their fields was to be blocked, even then, in our considered view, they would have no right of private defence of person and property. Still further, even if the wall was to be constructed in the area of the accused, in that case as well, the said right of private defence of person and property would not be available to them. In that case, at the most, they could approach the concerned authorities or even the civil court for appropriate relief. The defence projected by the appellants that they caused two deaths and injured so many people in exercise of their right of private defence of person and property, is repelled. ( 14 ) EVEN though, it is indeed a ghastly crime, where as mentioned above, two innocent persons lost their lives and so may others were injured by lethal weapons, the same does not, however, mean that any number of persons who may be totally innocent could be roped in and convicted. This is what precisely the complainant party endeavoured to do obviously infuriated on account of two deaths and injuries to so many others. ( 15 ) IT thus clearly appear to this Court that the complainant party wanted to implicate as many people as may be possible, in their endeavour to teach a proper lesson to those who had actually committed the crime. ( 15 ) IT thus clearly appear to this Court that the complainant party wanted to implicate as many people as may be possible, in their endeavour to teach a proper lesson to those who had actually committed the crime. It may be recalled at this stage that all the accused named by the first informant are related inter se. Wives of all male accused, it appears, were also not spared. The endeavour of the complainant party in order to involve all members of the family of the accused, it however appears, was prompted by the investigating Officer who in view of the police proceedings recorded by him immediately after the FIR was lodged, was already busy in investigating this very case. It appears that the first informant named so many persons with specific part attributed to each one of them, in all probability, on the prompting of the investigating Officer. The court is observing so for the reason that when the first informant came to make his statement before the trial court, he named only those four persons who had actually indulged in indiscriminate firing, resulting into death of two persons and injuries to so many people from the side of the complainant party. He clearly stated that the part attributed by him in the FIR to others, but for the four accused, was false. It is significant to mention that even though he also stated that he had learnt about participation of others from the injured witnesses, the persons who were actually injured and were examined, did not attribute any part to any other accused but for the four named above. All they stated before the Court was that others had come armed with Gandasi and lathis. We have already mentioned above that none of the deceased nor the injured had received any injury by a sharp edged or blunt v/eapon. The injuries on the dead bodies of two persons i. e. Siya Ram and Hari Singh or for that matter, all injured eye witnesses were opined to have been caused by fire arms, as would be clearly made out from the post-mortem report of Siya Ram and hari Singh and medico legal reports of others. The injuries on the dead bodies of two persons i. e. Siya Ram and Hari Singh or for that matter, all injured eye witnesses were opined to have been caused by fire arms, as would be clearly made out from the post-mortem report of Siya Ram and hari Singh and medico legal reports of others. Not only therefore, that none of the witnesses has deposed against any of the accused but for the four named above for causing injuries to any one but the medical evidence also proves the same. ( 16 ) THE question that arises in the facts as mentioned above is as to whether the accused, other than the four, were at all present and if present, did they share common object of the co-accused in causing death of two persons and injuring others. Appellant Khiladi is injured and admits his presence at the scene of occurrence. Others, as mentioned above, had denied their presence and participation in the commission of crime. Once it is proved that all the other accused but for the four named above, were given false attributions, no implicit faith can be had on the testimony of witnesses with regard to their presence as well even if it shall have to be held that in so far as Khiladi is concerned, he was present at the scene of occurrence. Once it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of witnesses with regard to the presence of the appellants, other than four named above and Khiladi, surely they cannot be connected with the crime at all. Assuming for the sake of arguments, the testimony of witnesses with regard to the presence of the appellants, other than five accused persons mentioned above as also that they were armed with gandasis and Lathis is believed, yet, in our view, it would be unsafe to convict them with the aid of Sec. 149 IPC. The presence of the said appellants could be for variety of reasons. The presence of the said appellants could be for variety of reasons. Whereas it is probable that they too might have gone with the co-accused armed, as suggested by the prosecution, with a common object and to cause injuries and participate in the commission of crime, if there was to be a counter attack by the complainant party, it is also probable and possible that they might have gone at the scene of the occurrence only with a view to dissuade the co-appellants to commit the crime, They could also be present at the scene of occurrence with a view to find out what might actually happen when they might have seen the co-accused armed with guns and country made pistols going towards the side of occurrence. There could be so many possibilities for their presence and once it is not definite, for which there is no positive evidence as well, they had shared common object with the co-accused, it will be highly unsafe to connect them with the aid of Sec. 149 IPC. Their mere presence, without any overt act, points towards their innocence and they deserve benefit of doubt. ( 17 ) IN view of the discussion made above, we find accused appellants Gyan singh, Samay Singh and Prem Singh guilty of offences for which they were charged as the prosecution has proved the offences committed by them beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. We thus uphold the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding them guilty and convicting them. We, however, set aside the said order in so far as their conviction and sentence u/s. 149 IPC is concerned. The accused other than three named above, namely Ganga Vishan, khiladi, Laxman, Hargyan, Malke Ram, jagdish, Ramavatar, Jawan Singh, radhey Shyam, Har Ropp, Ram Kishan, ram Swaroop, Suraj @ Guddi, Pooran and kaluwa deserve to tbe given benefit of doubt. They are acquitted of the charges framed against them. ( 18 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we partly allow Appeal No. 99/98. Whereas the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Judge against Gyan singh, Samay Singh and Pern Singh is concerned, the same is maintained but for that they shall stand acquitted u/s. 149 IPC. The said order/judgment in so far as other seven appellants namely ganga Vishan, Khiladi, Laxman, hargyan, Malke Ram, Jagadish and ramavatar are concerned, is set aside thus acquitting all of them. The said order/judgment in so far as other seven appellants namely ganga Vishan, Khiladi, Laxman, hargyan, Malke Ram, Jagadish and ramavatar are concerned, is set aside thus acquitting all of them. Appeal No. 50/98 is allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Judge holding the accused appellants namely Jawan singh, Radhey Shyam, Har Roop, ram Kishan, Ram Swaroop, Suraj @ guddi, Pooran and Kuluwa guilty and convicting them accordingly, is set aside. Appeal partly allowed.