JUDGMENT 1. - Intervening night of 28th and 29th June, 2001 turned out to be a blackest night for a small village Railgaon located in District Kota when vast numbered persons including the appellants herein, in their frenzy touching madness killed Purshottam, Ram Kumar, Kalu, Lokendra and Heera Lal. For this carnage said to have been indulged by vast number of persons, appellants and 12 others were tried for various offences culminating into capital sentence to Mohan Lal, Yuvraj, Hansraj sons of Ram Narayan, Hansraj and Radhey Shyam sons of Gopal and Modu Nath son of Dheeru Nath, vide order of conviction and sentence dated 11.3.2003 and 13.3.2003 respectively. The appellants named above have been held guilty and sentenced for various offences as mentioned below : Under section 148 Indian Penal Code - Three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, six months' R.I.) Under section 427 Indian Penal Code - 2 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for 6 months). Under section 342 Indian Penal Code - 1 year RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment fine, further RI for 3 months). Under section 460 Indian Penal Code - 10 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ (in default of payment of fine, further RI for one year). Under section 302 Indian Penal Code - Death sentence by hanging from neck till such time they die (To be hanged by neck till death) 2. The appellants named above (Mohan Lal, Yuvraj and Hansraj sons of Ram Narayan, Hans Raj son of Gopal, Radhey Shyam son of Gopal and Modunath son of Bheru Nath have challenged the order of conviction and sentence by filing Appeal bearing No. 464/2003 Mohan Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan . 3. Out of eleven others who have been held guilty and accordingly sentenced, as mentioned above, Lal Chand . Ram Niwas son of Birdhilal, Revadi Lal son of Kishore, Ghanshyam and Radhey Shyam sons of Prahlad who have been sentenced as mentioned below have filed criminal appeal bearing No. 670/2003. Under section 148 Indian Penal Code - Three years R.I. And a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, six months' R.I.) Under section 427 Indian Penal Code - 2 years' RI and fine of Rs. Under section 148 Indian Penal Code - Three years R.I. And a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, six months' R.I.) Under section 427 Indian Penal Code - 2 years' RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for 6 months). Under section 342 Indian Penal Code - 1 Year RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for 3 months). Under section 460 Indian Penal Code - 10 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for one year). Under section 302 /149 Indian Penal Code - Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- (in default of payment of fine, further RT for one year). 4. Appellants Dhanpal, Kanhaiya and Nawal sons of Ram Pratap and Ramlal son of Ram Narain, another four out of eleven, who have been held guilty for various offences as mentioned below, have filed criminal appeal bearing No. 621/2003 : Under section 148 Indian Penal Code - Three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, six months' R.I.) Under section 427 Indian Penal Code - 2 years' RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for 6 months). Under section 342 Indian Penal Code - 1 year RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for 3 months). Under section 460 Indian Penal Code - 10 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 2000/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for one year). Under section 302 /149 Indian Penal Code - Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for one year). 5. Remaining three appellants, out of the eleven, namely Babulal son of Dev Lal, Mangilal son of Baldev and Radhey Shyam son of Shankar Lal, who have been held guilty for various offences as mentioned below, have filed criminal appeal No. 520/2003 : Under section 148 Indian Penal Code - Three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, six months' R.I.) Under section 427 Indian Penal Code - 2 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for 6 months). 500/- (in default of payment of fine, six months' R.I.) Under section 427 Indian Penal Code - 2 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for 6 months). Under section 342 Indian Penal Code - 1 Year RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for 3 months). Under section 460 Indian Penal Code - 10 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for one year). Under section 302 /149 Indian Penal Code - Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- (in default of payment of fine, further RI for one year). 6. By this order, we propose to decide seven criminal appeals bearing No. 464/2003, 421/2003, 621/2003, 622/2003, 670/2003, 674/2003 and 520/2003 which have been filed challenging common impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 11.3.2003 and 13.3.2003 and Death Reference No. 1/2003 pursuant to a reference for confirmation of death sentence made by the learned Trial Judge under section 366 Criminal Procedure Code. 7. All the seven appeals and the death reference have been argued by Mr. A.K. Gupta who too along with the learned Public Prosecutor suggests that all these matters need be disposed of by a common judgment. 8. The chain of events leading to the death of five persons named above was unfolded by Radhey Shyam (PW-1) brother of Purshottam deceased who in his written report dated 29.6.2001 made at 6.45 a.m. with regard to the occurrence that had taken place in the intervening night of 28th and 29th June, 2001, stated that on 28.6.2001 his elder brother Purshottam, Ram Kumar Dhakad, Kalu Lal Mali, and Lokender Sharma, residents of Village Railgaon, Heera Lal Meghwal resident of Rampuria, Kota had come on two motor cycles with a view to plough their land at about 5 in the evening from Rampura, Kota to Railgaon. They had come to the house of his elder brother Purshottam. They had come to the house of his elder brother Purshottam. No sooner they came in the village, Ram Narain s/o Gaindi Lal Gurjar, his sons Mohan Lal, Yuvraj, Hansarj Gurjar, and his son-in-law Lalchand Gurjar, Dhanpal, Kanhaiya Lal, Naval son of Rampratap Gurjar, Revdi Lal Gurjar, Hemraj, Radhey Shyam and Bhojraj sons of Goppal Gujar, Ramesh Chand and Ram Singh sons of Chaturbhuj Gurjar, Ramlal son of Ramnarayan, Babulal son of Devlal Meena, Mangilal son of Baldev Meghwal, Ghanshaym and Radhey Shyam sons of Prahlad Meghwal, Modulal Nath, Radhey Shyam son of Shanker Lal Nath, Jagdish son of Gopal Meghwal, Shambu Dayal son of Chhitar Dhobi, Amar Lal son of Nand Lal Meena, Sita Ram son of Gopi Lal Kumhar, all residents of Railgaon and 15-20 other persons came. All of them were armed with Gandasis, Swords, Sabbal and sticks. All these persons surrounded the house of his elder brother Purshottam. He was in the house along with children. He and his brother Purshottam had a common wall. No sooner, these people came, they scaled the house of his brother Purshottam and started throwing stones because of which, roof sheets and 'Kelu' (tiles) of the house of his brother were broken. His brother Purshottam and his four companions for saving their lives jumped the common wall of his house and came to one of the rooms of his house. At about 12 at night, these people took him, his wife Badribai and mother Panabai as also Nirmala Bai wife of Purshottam and made them sit in the thatched roof (CHHAPRA) of Prabhulal Meena. At about 12.30 at night, relatives of Ram Narain Gurjar resident of Railgaon came in the jeeps along with 15-20 persons in front of his house and the moment they came, they broke the door of his house with Sabbal and entered into his house. These people dragged his brother Pushottam and Ramkumar Dhakad outside. They caused injuries to them with Gandasis and swords on their head, face, hands and feet and killed. Kalu Lal Mali, Lokendra Sharma and Heeralal Meghwal were killed inside the room with Swords Gandasis and sticks with which they were given beatings and were thus killed. Then they took both the motor cycles in the passage and burnt the same. This occurrence was witnessed by him, his elder brother Ramlal, his mother Panabai, his wife Badribai and his brother's wife Nirmala. Then they took both the motor cycles in the passage and burnt the same. This occurrence was witnessed by him, his elder brother Ramlal, his mother Panabai, his wife Badribai and his brother's wife Nirmala. Six months prior to the date of occurrence, Kishan Chand son of Ram Narayan was murdered and Ramnarayan Gurjar was suspicious that he had been killed by the five persons who have been killed. From that day onwards, Ram Narayan Gurjar, Radhey Shyam and members of the family had become inimical towards these people and were troubling them. He could not come to lodge the report due to fear at night. In the morning, he had come with his brother Ramlal to lodge the report. He further stated that five dead bodies were lying at his house. 9. First Information Report, as mentioned above, was lodged at 6.45 a.m. on 29.6.2001 and special report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate at 10.40 p.m. on 29.6.2001. 10. During the course of trial, prosecution proved homicidal death of Purshottam, Lokendra, Ramkumar, Kalu and Heeralal on the basis of post mortem reports Ex.P.30, Ex.P.31, Ex.P.32, Ex.P.33 and Ex.P.34 respectively of the persons named above who died in the occurrence. 11. Dr. Anil Kumar Choudhary, who was examined as PW-6, stated that on 29.6.2001 board of doctors consisting of himself, Dr. K.C. Sharma and Dr. Mahesh Chaturvedi was constituted. Post mortem on the dead body of Purshottam was conducted by the board of doctors on 29.6.2001 at 1.05 p.m. Purshottam had died within 24 hours from the time of post mortem. He found following injuries on the dead body of Purshottam : 1. Incised wound, Lt. hand cutting underlined tendons, bones (I, II & III Metacarpal) completely severed and attached with teg. of skin and also cut underlined vessels. 2. Incised wound Rt. Knee cutting underlined patella opening the joint. 3. Incised wound Lt. skin of tibia with compound fracture of tibia, size 5 cm x 3cm x 2cm. 4. Stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm 10 cm Lt. side of chest injury. The Lt. ventricle of heart with blood collected around heart. 5. Incised wound extending from Rt. side of angle of Rt. pinna damaging. The maxilla and temporal bone on underlined soft tissue and vessels. Size 8cm x 4cm x 6cm. 6. 4. Stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm 10 cm Lt. side of chest injury. The Lt. ventricle of heart with blood collected around heart. 5. Incised wound extending from Rt. side of angle of Rt. pinna damaging. The maxilla and temporal bone on underlined soft tissue and vessels. Size 8cm x 4cm x 6cm. 6. Lacerated wound crushed tissue, mandible from lower lips also served (size 5 x 4 x 5 cm). 7. Incised wound size 3 cm x 2 x 3 cm communicating to. 8. Incised wound Rt. side of neck size 3 x 2 x 3 cm cutting all underlined vessels and soft tissues. 9. Incised wound extending from lateral angle of Rt. eye to the Rt. mastoid process cutting the maxilla, mastoid bone and pinna. Size 12 cm x 4 cm x 5 cm. 10. Incised wound perito occipital region communicating cravial cavity and brain matter coming out. 11. incised wound - occipital region size 4 x 3 x 6 cm communicating to cranial cavity and brain matter coming out." 12. In the opinion of the doctor, all injuries sustained by Purshottam were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 13. On the same day at 1.20 p.m. PW-6 Anil Kumar Choudhary along with others conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Lokendra who was found to be having following injuries : 1. Incised wound R. temporo-perital region, size 10 x 4 x 10 cm communicating the crania cavity lacerated manningus and coming out brain matter. 2. Incised wound (size 25 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm) bone depth from angle of mandible to occipital protuberane. 3. Incised wound size 20 cm x 4 x 5 cm from Temporal bone to base of Rt. Neck (Rt. Superclavicular region) cutting right pinna, underlined bones, margines and brain matter coming out from wound. 4. Incised wound - Rt. Maxilla (size 3 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm) bone depth. 5. Incised wound from angle of mouth to angle of mandible, cutting Rt. Mandible communicating succal cavity (size 8 cm x 4 cm x 5 cm). 6. Incised wound middle of nose (size 4 x 3 x 3 cm) cutting the underlined structure. 7. Lacerated wound - Rt. Maxilla (size 3 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm) bone depth. 5. Incised wound from angle of mouth to angle of mandible, cutting Rt. Mandible communicating succal cavity (size 8 cm x 4 cm x 5 cm). 6. Incised wound middle of nose (size 4 x 3 x 3 cm) cutting the underlined structure. 7. Lacerated wound - Rt. Tempero perital region (size 12 cm x 4 cm x 7 cm) connecting the cranil cavity cutting bone soft tissues, mininges, brain matter coming out from wound. 8. Stab wound - supra public region (21/2 cm x 21/2 cm x 1 cm)." 14. Death in the opinion of the board of doctors was coma, which was result of injuries 1 to 8. 15. On the same day, board of doctors conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Ram Kumar and found following five injuries on his dead body 1. Swelling (size 10 x 15 x 5 cm) with fracture of middle of It. Femur. 2. Incised wound (size 10 an x 4 cm x 3 cm) Lt. Hand cutting underlined Ms Tendon and I, II & IIIrd Metacarpal. 3. Incised wound (size 20 cm x 5 cm 7 cm) with lacerating the maninges and brain matter coming from wound, cutting the pinna and underlined tissue and vessels. 4. Incised wound (size 10 x 3 x 4 cm) cutting Lt. Pinna and Lt. Maxilla. 5. Incised wound at left parital rigon size (5 x 4 x 10 cm) communicating with the cravial cavity and margines lacerated and brain matter coming out Rt. side of injury. 16. In the opinion of doctor, death was because of coma, which was because of injuries No.1 to 5. 17. On the same very day, the board of doctors also conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Kalu and found following injuries on his dead body : 1. Stab wound - suprasternal region (size 4 x 2 x 5 cm). 2. Incised wound (10 x 4 x 5 cm) from root of nose to Rt. Angle of mandible cutting the underlined structures and communicating with buccal cavity. 3. Incised wound (size 8 x 5 x 5 cm) from Rt. Frontal region to medial side of Rt. Eye and nose, fracture maxilla. 4. Incised wound size (8 an x 4 cm x 4 cm) from Lt. to Rt. angle of mouth upto bone depth. 5. Angle of mandible cutting the underlined structures and communicating with buccal cavity. 3. Incised wound (size 8 x 5 x 5 cm) from Rt. Frontal region to medial side of Rt. Eye and nose, fracture maxilla. 4. Incised wound size (8 an x 4 cm x 4 cm) from Lt. to Rt. angle of mouth upto bone depth. 5. Incised wound 12 cm x 2 cm x 4 cm form occipital protuberance to Rt Pinna. 6. Incised wound (15 x 4 x 7 cm) from Rt. Occiparietal region communicating cranial cavity. Cutting both margines and brain matter coming out. 7. Incised wound from left frontal to occipital region (size 18 cm x 5 x 8 cm) lacerating the margines and cutting bone & brain matter coming out. 8. Incised wound - lower jaw (middle) to left angle of mandible (size 10 cm x 4 cm x 8 cm) cutting masor vessels of neck. 9. Stab wound (size 3 x 2 x 6 cm) Rt. axillary region communicating thoracic cavity injuring the lungs. 10. Incised wound (size 5 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm) cutting the extensor tendons of Rt. hand. 11. Incised wound Rt. Leg (size 7 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm). 12. Incised wound Rt. Forearm (middle) (size 13 x 2 x 2 cm). 18. In the opinion of the board, injuries sustained by Kalu were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Death was because of coma due to injuries No. 1 to 12. 19. On that very day, at 12.30 p.m. the board of doctors also conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Heeralal and found following injuries on his dead body : 1. Lacerated wound, It. Parietal region 3 cm x 11/2 cm x 1/2 cm. 2. Incised wound, It. Side of neck cutting the great vessels 4 cm x 2 cmx 31/2 cm. 3. Incised wound, Rt. Ear, # maxilla and underlined structure, bone depth size 8 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm. 4. Incised wound Rt. Chin, bone depth, 5 x 2 cm. 5. Incised wound, Rt. Neck side, cutting large vessels size 5 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm. 6. Lacerated wound size 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm 7. Lacerated wound Rt. Occipital region bone depth size 8 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm. 8. 4. Incised wound Rt. Chin, bone depth, 5 x 2 cm. 5. Incised wound, Rt. Neck side, cutting large vessels size 5 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm. 6. Lacerated wound size 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm 7. Lacerated wound Rt. Occipital region bone depth size 8 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm. 8. Lacerated wound, left forehead region, bone depth (5 cm x 2 cm x 2cm). 9. Lacerated wound occipital parietal region (Lt.) (size 8 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm). 10. Incised wound, Rt. Knee 3 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm. 11. Incised wound, Rt. parietal region 8 cm x 2 cm x entering the cranial cavity fracturing the underlined bone and exposing the brain matter. 20. Death in the opinion of the Board of Doctors was due to injuries No. 1 to 11. 21. It may be mentioned here that in the post-mortem reports which have been proved, pertaining to all those who died, it had been mentioned that injuries sustained by them were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Whereas Dr. Anil Kumar Choudhary (PW-6) while appearing in court stated so only with regard to some of the deceased and not all but in cross- examination he denied that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. That the injuries sustained by five persons named above were sufficient to cause death, however, is not in dispute. 22. Dr. Mahesh Chaturvedi who was examined as PW-7 and who too was one of the members of the board of doctors stated that the injuries found on the dead body of Purshottam collectively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Purshottam had sustained ante mortem injuries and his death was because of heart failure because of injuries 1 to 11. He deposed with regard to the post-mortem conducted by him alongwith others who also died in the occurrence. 23. Eye witness account of the occurrence was provided by Radhey Shyam brother of the deceased who appeared as PW-1, Ramlal (PW-2) brother of Radhey Shyam PW-1 and deceased Purshottam, Panabai (PW-3) mother of Purshottam and PW-1 and 2, Nirmala ((PW-4), Anita (PW-5), Badribai (PW-8), Manisha (PW-9) and Kaushalya (PW- 10). 24. Radhey Shyam while appearing as PW-1 reiterated what he had stated while lodging the report. 24. Radhey Shyam while appearing as PW-1 reiterated what he had stated while lodging the report. He named 26 persons including all the appellants who had come and surrounded the house of Purshottam. He also stated in examination-in-chief that these people were led by the Sarpanch and on coming in front of the door of house of Purshottam they had said that they will kill them, on which Purshottam and others said that what harm they had caused to them but they said that they will be killed. He also stated that when he, his wife, his sister-in-law Nirmala and his daughter Anita, Manisha daughter of his elder brother, his mother Panabai had come to his house and bolted the door of the room. Hemraj and Modunath had gone on the roof of his house. Radhey Shyam, Ghanshaym, Kanhaiya, Mangilal, Mahendra, Hemraj had come on the roof of the house of Purshottam. Rest of the persons went on the roof of the house of Malis and some of them stood on the back side of the house. Some of them had also stood in front of his and Purshottam's house. These people were throwing stones. All the five persons who died were sitting in the house, roof of which was of sheets. The accused had thrown stones from all sides and destroyed the roof. Two jeeps came from the side of Khajurna after about half an hour. In the jeeps, Ramdayal, Madan Jakhodawala, Nand Kishore, Gajanand, Sitaram, Jodhraj were sitting. There were in all 14-15 persons. They came out of the jeeps and were armed with Dharia, Gandasis, Sabbal and Sticks. Ramdayal was armed with a rifle while others had sticks. Out of these people, Ramdayal said where these people had hidden themselves and that they should come out. Hemraj, Kanhaiya and Jodhraj broke open the door by Gandasi, Sabbal, Dharia and sword. Some people were standing on the roof also. They too come inside. Those who were standing outside and had surrounded the house also came inside. Those who jumped from the roof were Hemraj, Chittarlal, Babulal and Bhojraj. Ram Kumar was dragged from inside by Yuvraj, Hansraj, Radhey Shyam, Hemraj and Kanhaiya Lal. They pounced upon him and gave him injuries with Sword, Gandasi, sticks, axe and Dhariya. Purshottam was also dragged from inside by Mangilal, Ghanshyam, Naval, Mukesh and Radheshyam Nath. Those who jumped from the roof were Hemraj, Chittarlal, Babulal and Bhojraj. Ram Kumar was dragged from inside by Yuvraj, Hansraj, Radhey Shyam, Hemraj and Kanhaiya Lal. They pounced upon him and gave him injuries with Sword, Gandasi, sticks, axe and Dhariya. Purshottam was also dragged from inside by Mangilal, Ghanshyam, Naval, Mukesh and Radheshyam Nath. He too was given injuries by them. Nandkishore said that these two persons had died, now it was the turn of those who were inside the room. Lokendra, Heeralal and Kalulal were in the room, Chaturbhuj and Ramnarain said that these people should be cut to pieces. Those who were inside the room, were beaten there only. Revdilal, Hemraj Modunath, Mukeshnath, Radhey Shyam Nath, Mangilal, Ghanshyam Meghwal and Radhey Shyam Meghwal had gone inside the room. They were armed with Dhariya, sword, axe, Gandasi and sticks. They started beating all the three who were inside the room and they were killed. Radhey Shyam Gurjar said that it should be checked whether they had actually died. Radhey Shyam Gurjar, Hemraj and Kanhaiya Lal checked those who were lying inside the room and sad that all of them had died. Thereafter, all of them went away. Both the motor cycles of the deceased were taken by the accused Mahendra and Hemraj and the same were burnt near the temple. 25. In cross-examination, PW-1 Radhey Shyarn denied the suggestion that he and his family members had gone in the house of Prabhulal and had not witnessed the occurrence. He admitted that there was thatched place (ChhapraJ in between his and Purshottam's house. There was a 'Chhapra' in front of the house of Prabhulal. He admitted that the accused did not beat anyone from p.m. to 12 at night and that the deceased kept on sitting in his house from6 p.m. to 12 at night. He stated that Kalulal, Heeralal and Lokendra were breatan inside the room. At that time, he was not inside the room but was standing outside the door. He admitted that when all those who died were given beatings, he was standing in front of thatched place (Chhapra) of Prabhu U Meena. He denied that the said Chhapra was 100' away from the place of occurrence and therefore, he could not see what had happened. He denied that there was complete darkness where the occurrence had taken place. He admitted that when all those who died were given beatings, he was standing in front of thatched place (Chhapra) of Prabhu U Meena. He denied that the said Chhapra was 100' away from the place of occurrence and therefore, he could not see what had happened. He denied that there was complete darkness where the occurrence had taken place. He stated that an electric bulb was on at that time. He also stated that the accused had entered his room after breaking open the door from the roof and some from the roof of Purshottam's house and some from all the four sides. He admitted that he had not got recorded in the FIR that some people had come from the roof. Ramkumar, he stated, was dragged from inside by Yuvraj, Hansraj, Radhey Shyam, Hernraj and Kanhaiya Lal. He would, however, not remember whether this fact was got recorded by him in FIR Ex. P.1. He thereafter, admitted that this fact was not mentioned by him in the FIR. He further stated that names of Revidlal, Modunath, Mukeshnath, Radhey Shyam Nath, Mangilal, Ghanshyam, Meghwal, Radhey Shyam Meghwal and Hemraj having come inside were not mentioned in the FIR but it was mentioned that they entered with Gandasis and other arms. He admitted that Modunath had said that all children should be taken out of the house. He had also restrained others from throwing stones. He also stated that it took 15-20 minutes for those who had come in the Jeeps in giving beating and they went back in the jeeps. He denied the suggestion that but for those who had come in the jeeps none else had indulged in beating anyone. He admitted that it was not got recorded in the FIR that some persons had jumped from the roof. It was also not mentioned in the FIR that Babulal had jumped and had come inside. He further admitted that it was not mentioned in the FIR that Kanhaiya Lal had broken open the door. It was also not mentioned in the FIR that Ramkumar was caught hold of and was dragged. He also admitted that it was not mentioned in the FIR that Purshottam was dragged out of the room. He further admitted that it was not mentioned in the FIR that Kanhaiya Lal had broken open the door. It was also not mentioned in the FIR that Ramkumar was caught hold of and was dragged. He also admitted that it was not mentioned in the FIR that Purshottam was dragged out of the room. He also admitted that it was not mentioned in the FIR that Kanhaiya Lal had entered the room to check whether persons who were in the room, had died or not. 26. Ramlal, brother of Radhey Shyam (PW.1) and brother of the deceased Purshottam, who was examined as PW-2 while supporting the prosecution case, also stated that Sarpanch Ram Narayan with 26-27 persons, same as stated by Radhey Shyam (PW-1) had come at the house of Purshottam and surrounded it. Mohan Lal, Yuvraj, Hansraj and Revdilal had gone to the roof of house of Purshottam, Hemraj and Modunath had gone to the roof of house of Radhey Shyam. Babu Meena and Chhitarlal had come towards his house and went on 'Kavelu'. They had been surrounded from all sides. Ramnarain Sarpanch and Chaturbhuj stated that all five should be finished. Ramkumar, Purshottam, Lokendra, Heeralal and Kalulal all should be finished. Meanwhile, these persons started throwing stones at the house of Purshottam. Those who threw stones were Mohan Lal, Yuvraj, Hansraj, Revdilal, Ramesh, Ramsingh and others. All the five who died, went inside and closed the door. They had one in the house of Purshottam in a tin shed. The sheet of the house was broken by stones. All these five persons, in order to save their lives, broke the brick wall and went to the house of Radhey Shyam who was sitting in the house at that time. Radhey Shyam, his mother Panabai, Badri Bai wife of Radhey Shyam, Nirmala wife of Purshottam, Anita wife of Purshottam and two boys Kalu and Shanker, his daughter Manisha were also in the house of Radhey Shyam. Radhey Shyam bolted the door. The accused kept on sitting upto 12 at night. They were hurling abuses. Some of them were in the street whereas some of them had come on roofs from all four sides. Some time after 12 at night, jeeps of persons of Khajurna came. There were 10-15 persons in those jeeps. Ramdayal, Nandkishore, Jodhraj and Sitaram Rao were also in those jeeps. They were hurling abuses. Some of them were in the street whereas some of them had come on roofs from all four sides. Some time after 12 at night, jeeps of persons of Khajurna came. There were 10-15 persons in those jeeps. Ramdayal, Nandkishore, Jodhraj and Sitaram Rao were also in those jeeps. There were many other persons also whose names he did not know but would know them from their faces. No sooner they came, they told Radhey Shyam Bhopa as to where were those people hiding. They were told that these people were hiding in a cemented room. Ramdayal then said that the door should be broken and those persons should be finished after taking them out. Mohanlal, Yuvraj, Radhey Shyam and Hemraj broke the door of the house of Radhey Shyam by Sabbal and axe. First of all, Ramkuamr and Purshotam were dragged outside. Ramkumar was dragged by Radhey Shyam, Hemraj, Yuvraj, Hansraj and Kanhaiya Lal. They were armed with Dhariya, Gandasi and sword. Radhey Shyam was armed with a sword. Yuvraj and Hemraj were armed with a Gandasi and Hansraj was armed with a Dhariya. Thereafter, Purshottam was dragged by Mangilal Meghwal, Ghanshyam Meghwal, Naval Gurja, Radheyshyam Nath and Mukesh Nath. Purshottam was beating and cut outside. He received injuries on his face, head and on all parts of his body. Meanwhile, Nandkishore told that these two persons had been finished and now, it should be the turn of those who were inside. Those persons who were on roof - Modulal Nath, Ramlal, Chhitarlal, Babulal Meena, Nandkishore, Ramdayal, Radhey Shyam and Bhojraj had gone inside and killed those who were in the room, by Dhariya, Gandasi, axe and sword. Lokendra, Kalu and Heeralal were finished in the room. These people received injuries on head, hand and feet and on all parts of the body. When all these five persons were finished, Modunath had enquired as to whether all of them had died, then, Radhey Shyam Gujar and Modunath checked as to whether somebody was still alive and then they said that all the five had died and now they should go. While going, Radhey Shyam and Modunath had said anyone who would give information to the police would be finished in the same manner. After this, these people burnt the two motor cycles belonging to the deceased. These people did not harm his brother Radhey Shyam. While going, Radhey Shyam and Modunath had said anyone who would give information to the police would be finished in the same manner. After this, these people burnt the two motor cycles belonging to the deceased. These people did not harm his brother Radhey Shyam. His brother Radhey Shyam, his mother, Nirmala wife of Radhey Shyam, Badribai wife of Purshottam, three children of Radhey Shyam, three children of Purshottam and his daughter Nirmala were taken out of the Chhapar. 27. In his cross-examination, he stated that Modunath, the moment he came, had told that stones should not be thrown and the children should be taken out of the house. He admitted that it was on the saying of Modunath that wife and children of Purshottam had gone to the Chhapra of Prabhulal. When these people were taken out, stone throwing had come to an end. He admitted that 10-15 persons who had come in the Jeeps had straightway one after the other had gone to the house of Radhey Shyam by breaking open the door. Ramkumar and Purshottam were killed outside the house whereas other three were killed in the room. He then stated that since he was standing outside he could not see that inside the room, which accused had caused injuries to the deceased with which weapon and at what place. He had seen faces of these persons when they had come out of the room after killing three persons. He denied the suggestions that the accused were not armed. However, when confronted with the statement Ex.D.3, he admitted that it was not mentioned therein that the accused were armed with weapons but he stated that he had got recorded to the police that the accused were armed with weapons but would not know why it was not mentioned in the statement. Names of 4-5 persons who had broken open the door had been given by his estimation. He admitted that in his statement Ex.D.3 it was mentioned that the accused as a whole had dragged and killed Purshottam and Ramkumar and it was not mentioned that individual accused as named by him, had dragged and killed them. He admitted that it had not been mentioned in his statement as to what arms the accused were having and which accused caused injury with which weapon. He admitted that it had not been mentioned in his statement as to what arms the accused were having and which accused caused injury with which weapon. He admitted that for killing Purshottam, name of accused Naval had not been mentioned in his statement Ex.D.3 but all other accused have been named by him. He admitted that he had not gone inside the room where three persons had died. He also admitted that who caused injuries to whom inside the room was not known to him as he had not seen it. He admitted that in his police statement Ex.D.3 it was not mentioned that Radhey Shyam and Modunath had said that Ramdayal, Nandkishore, Dhanraj had come from Khajurna and there was no need now to worry. He said that he had got it recorded to the police in his statement Ex.D.3. He also admitted that it was not mentioned in his statement made to the police Ex.D.3 that Radhey Shyam Gujar and Modunath had said that they were sitting in a cemented room but stated that he had told police about it. He also admitted about some variations in the names from the statement he had made for the first time and the one that he made for the second time in the court. 28. Smt. Pana Bai, mother of PW-1, PW-2 and Purshottam deceased who was examined as PW-3 also supported the prosecution case. After naming quite a few who were named by PW-1 and PW-2 who had come with other unnamed persons and giving further details of the occurrence, she further stated that at 12 at night, Modunath told Radhey Shyam if he was in the room, he should come out and Radhey Shyam should also take out his mother and children. They all were taken out of the room and were made to sit at the place of Radhey Shyam. The children had gone to sleep at the place of Prabhulal. She, her two sons Radhey Shyam and Ramlal, Badri Bai, Nirmala and Kaushalya were sitting outside the house. She then stated that relation of Sarpanch came in a motor from Khajurna. She would not know their names. They had come in two jeeps wherein 8-9 persons were sitting. Ramdayal was armed with a gun but he did not use it. They had given beatings by Gandasis and swords. She then stated that relation of Sarpanch came in a motor from Khajurna. She would not know their names. They had come in two jeeps wherein 8-9 persons were sitting. Ramdayal was armed with a gun but he did not use it. They had given beatings by Gandasis and swords. Those who were sitting in the jeeps were armed with sticks, Gandasis and swords. No sooner they came, they broke open the door of the house of Radhey Shyam with Sabbal and started beating immediately on their coming and killed persons. After breaking open the door, they had went inside. Those who were sitting on the roof or were standing outside had all gone inside. Ramkumar and Purhosttam were first thrown on the ground and killed and then they all went inside. Ramkumar, Purshottam, Lokendra, Heeralal and Kalulal were all killed. They folded hands and begged for being spared. Lokendra, Kalulal and Heeralal were killed inside the room. She then stated that all the accused were from Village Railgaon and Khajurna. In her cross-examination, she stated that those who were watching the fun (Tamasha) and those who were giving beatings, in all were 40-50 persons. She admitted that she would not know those 15-20 persons who had come in Jeeps as the Sarpanch has a large family. Those who were in the two jeeps and were armed had got down from the Jeeps and had broken the door of the house of Radhey Shyam and started beating. She however denied the suggestion that only people who had got down from the jeeps had caused injuries. She stated that injuries were caused by people of Railgaon as also by those who had got down from the jeeps. She also stated that those who were on the roofs had also gone inside with those who had come in Jeeps and had come out after killing. She admitted that it was not mentioned in her statement made to the police Ex.D.4 that those who were on the roofs had also entered the house after people of Khajurna had come but it had been written that people of Khajurna had caused injuries. She stated that she had told police that those who had jumped from the roof were also with people of Khajurna in killing people. She admitted that those who had come in jeeps had broken open the door and entered the house. She stated that she had told police that those who had jumped from the roof were also with people of Khajurna in killing people. She admitted that those who had come in jeeps had broken open the door and entered the house. She admitted that when persons came in two jeeps, it was thereafter that injuries were given with the weapons and not before that. She also admitted that before people came in jeeps, accused had not given any injury to Purshottam or to her family members. She admitted that Modunath had taken out them by catching hold of them form their hands and saved them. She further stated that whether Modunath participated in killing, she had not seen but he was with them. Modunath had stopped persons from throwing stones. She admitted that in her statement Ex.D.4 names of Radhey Shyam, his wife Badribai, daughter in law of Purshottam Anita and name of Manisha being with her that time had not been mentioned. She, however, stated that she had got the same recorded. She also stated that it was wrongly mentioned in her statement Ex.D.4 that Purshottam and Ramkumar were killed by people who came from Khajurna. She also stated that those who killed were both from Khajurna and her village and it was wrongly recorded in the statement Ex.D.4 that Khajurna people had finished them. In fact, in the killing, people from Khajurna and her village had all participated. She also stated that which accused caused what injury to the deceased, she would not know. She would also not know who has given beatings to the people who were inside the room but persons had gone inside the room in her presence. 29. Smt. Nirmala wife of Purshottam deceased, who was examined as PW-4, while supporting the prosecution case after giving names of some of those whose names were also given by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, who had come along with the un-named persons, further stated that these people who were armed with swords and other weapons had thrown stones and after midnight, when the Jeeps came from Khajurna, Hansraj Bhopa said that there was nothing now to fear about, the door be broken. These people then started breaking the door of the house of Radhey Shyam. Ram Kumar was dragged outside and was beaten. Radhey Shyam Bhopa, Hemraj Bhopa and Modunath had started beating him. These people then started breaking the door of the house of Radhey Shyam. Ram Kumar was dragged outside and was beaten. Radhey Shyam Bhopa, Hemraj Bhopa and Modunath had started beating him. Thereafter, her husband Purshottam was brought out Hemraj, Chatubhuj, Kanhaiya, Naval, Dhanpal, Modunath and Babu Meena were all armed. They all dragged Purshottam outside. Mohan, Yuvraj, Hansraj and Kanhaiya started beating Purshottam. First of all, Mohan, Yuvraj, Hansrat and Modunath gave injuries. Thereafter, accused went inside with arms. Kalu, Lokendra and Heera Lal who were left inside were killed there. In cross-examination, she stated that she would not know as at what time the accused had come but there was still lot of time for day to break. She would however not know the time. When the accused came in the house, she was cooking food. She came out after hearing the noise but she would not know as to whether other people had also come to see the fun (Tamasha) as she had come on hearing the noise. She had, however seen number of accused there. The accused surrounded her husband and others when she had gone to cook food. But she, however, stated that she had not gone to cook food and kept on standing there. Till such time people from Khajurna did not come, accused were indulging in stone throwing. Till such time people from Khajurna, came, accused kept on sitting outside. They were only indulging in stone throw and till then, when people from Khajurna came, she, her mother-in-law children were made to sit at the place of Prabhulal. She admitted that she not seen the accused who had killed people inside the room. Radhey Shyam Bhoja and others were sitting on the roof. She had, however, seen the accused who had killed two persons outside. She admitted that when Purshottam and Ramkumar were being killed, there were lot of people who had collected there. Upto 12 at night, the accused kept on throwing stones but remained outside. She stated that she could not at all know which accused was armed with which weapon as she had forgotten it now but all the accused were armed with weapons. Nobody was empty handed. Yuvraj had killed Ramkumar. She would not know as to with which weapon Yuvraj was armed when he killed Ramkumar. He had however given injury on the head of Ramkumar. Nobody was empty handed. Yuvraj had killed Ramkumar. She would not know as to with which weapon Yuvraj was armed when he killed Ramkumar. He had however given injury on the head of Ramkumar. She then stated that Yuvraj had not given injuries to her husband Purshottam. Mohan had given injury to Ramkumar on his head. With what weapon Mohanlal was armed, she would not know. Mohan had not given injury to any other person, Hansraj had also given head injury to Ramkumar but with which weapon he caused injury, she would not know. She admitted that in her police statement, she had named Radhey Shyam, Yuvraj, Hansraj, Ramniwas people from Khajurna who had given beatings. She, however, denied that but for these people, others were only watching the fun. She admitted that when accused from the Village came, she had gone inside and bolted the door of the room from inside. She admitted that she remained in the room upto mid night and she did not see upto midnight as to who came and went. Modunath had taken her out. All of them were taken out by Modunath. Modunath had only stopped people from throwing stones. He was the one who had saved but he had said Purshottam and Ramkumar would be killed and it was only then that he would shave his beard. She admitted that it was not mentioned in her police statement Ex. D.5 that Modunath had said that he would have his beard only when all five would die. She admitted that she was sitting inside but when the fight started she had been made to come out and she had seen the fighting. She denied the suggestion that she would not know who had caused injury to whom. She admitted that in her police statement Ex.d.5 name of Modunath and others who had finished persons had not been mentioned. Name of Hansraj was also not mentioned in her statement Ex.D.5. She however stated that the police might not have recorded their names but she had mentioned those names to the police. She admitted that it was not mentioned in her statement Ex.D.5 that first of all, her husband was killed by Mohan, Yuvraj, Hansraj and Modunath. Name of Hansraj was also not mentioned in her statement Ex.D.5. She however stated that the police might not have recorded their names but she had mentioned those names to the police. She admitted that it was not mentioned in her statement Ex.D.5 that first of all, her husband was killed by Mohan, Yuvraj, Hansraj and Modunath. She admitted that where she was standing, she was not in a position to see inside the room but when the accused came out of the room, she had seen them. She further admitted that in her police statement Ex.D.5, names of Kanhaiya Lal, Naval and Dhanpal have not been mentioned. 100-150 people from the village had come in the crowd but out of them, she knew only the names of the accused. She admitted that names of Hemraj, Chaturbhuj, Kanhaiya, Naval, Dhanpal, Modunath and Babu Meena, who had gone inside and dragged her husband out, had not been mentioned in her police statement Ex.D.5. 30. Anita, daughter of Purshottam, who was examined as PW-5, after giving some of the names as stated by other PW5 as also that they were accompanied by other 15-20 people, further stated that people from Khajurna came late night in jeeps. There were 8-10 people in each of the Jeeps. These people got down from the motor and broke open the doors of the house of Radheyshyam. Hemraj, Radhey Shyarn, Bhopa, Yuvraj and Mohan broke the door with axes and sticks and entered the house. After entering into the house, they dragged her father Purshottam and Ramkumar outside. Radhey Shyam Bhoppa, Naval, Kanhaiya and Ramlal dragged her father outside and killed him. Radhey Shyam Bhopa caused injury to her father with a sword. All these people gave beatings to her father. Ramkumar was dragged outside by Yuvraj, Mohan and Hansraj. He too was killed outside. He was killed by Gandasis, swords, sticks and all other weapons. Thereafter, people who were inside were also killed. All those who were on the roofs, had also entered the house. Heeralal, Kalu and Lokendra were killed inside the house. Yuvraj, Mohan, Hansraj, Chatubhuj, Dhanpal and many other people had entered the house. They were armed with Gandasis, swords and sticks. In her cross-examination, she stated that she had given names of all the accused to the police but name of Babu Meena had not been mentioned in her statement Ex.D.6. Heeralal, Kalu and Lokendra were killed inside the house. Yuvraj, Mohan, Hansraj, Chatubhuj, Dhanpal and many other people had entered the house. They were armed with Gandasis, swords and sticks. In her cross-examination, she stated that she had given names of all the accused to the police but name of Babu Meena had not been mentioned in her statement Ex.D.6. She had given his name to the police but the police might not have recorded the same. She stated that she could not remember now as to how the accused were armed but all of the them were armed. She admitted that she had not seen three persons being killed inside the room. She also stated that she had not got the names of Mohan Meghwal and Chhitar Bairwa recorded as they had not participated in the fight. She then stated that Chittar had participated in the fight and was armed with a gandasi and had killed her father. She stated that she had named Ghanshyam and Radhey Shyam in her police statement Ex.D.6 but the police might not have recorded their names. Her father was killed by Radhey Shyam Bhopa, Hemraj Bhopa, Hansraj, Ramniwas and Chaturbhuj. Ram Kumar was killed by Ghanshyam Balai, Mangilal Balai, Modunath, Radhey Shyam Nath and Ranniwas. She then stated that younger brother of her father and others were sitting in the same room. Till such time other peoples were killed they kept on sitting there. 31. Badribai, wife of PW-1 Radhey Shyam, who was examined as PW- 8, after stating that 30-40 persons had come with Ramnarain Sarpanch and after giving the date and time of the occurrence, also stated that two jeeps came from village Khajurna in each of which 6-7 persons were sitting. Those who were sitting on the roofs, said that now people from Khajurna had come, there was nothing to fear about and the door should be broken. The door of the house was broken by people from our village and Khajurna together. First of all, Ramkumar was killed with Gandasi, Sword and Sabbal. Thereafter, Purshottam was killed. Both of them were killed outside the room, Kalu, Lokendra and Heeralal were killed inside the room and after giving beatings, these people went away. The door of the house was broken by people from our village and Khajurna together. First of all, Ramkumar was killed with Gandasi, Sword and Sabbal. Thereafter, Purshottam was killed. Both of them were killed outside the room, Kalu, Lokendra and Heeralal were killed inside the room and after giving beatings, these people went away. In cross-examination, she stated that she would not know name of any accused and that the police had not got any identification of the accused done from her. 32. Manisha daughter of Ramlal (PW-2), a child witness of the age of 9 years, was examined as PW-9. After giving names of the Sarpanch Ramnaraia and others, who were named by other PWs and after stating that they had come along with 15-20 more persons, she further stated that people from Khajurna had come in two jeeps. Those who had come in the jeeps, had broken the door of the house of Radhey Shyam. Modu had called Radheyshyam and told him that he along with his wife and children should come out as otherwise, he would be killed along with five others. They all were taken out by Radhey Shyam and were made to sit at the place of Prabhu Lal. Thereafter, all of them had come and sat at the platform (Chabutari) outside the house of Radhey Shyam. After breaking open the door, half of the persons had gone inside and half of them remained outside. In respect of those who entered the house, she stated, she would not know their names. Radhey Shyam Bhopa was armed with a Sword whereas other accused were also armed. In her cross-examination, she stated that she had given names of those who had come and had also named Babulal but the police had not recorded his name. She had also got recorded the names of Modunath and Radhey Shyam Nath to the police but the police might not have recorded their names. Modunath, she stated had taken them outside the house. Radhey Shyam Bhopa was armed with a sword She admitted that the killing had taken place after people had come in two jeeps and before that, nothing had happened. She also admitted that the accused were sitting outside, surrounding the house whereas they were sitting inside the house. Modunath, she stated had taken them outside the house. Radhey Shyam Bhopa was armed with a sword She admitted that the killing had taken place after people had come in two jeeps and before that, nothing had happened. She also admitted that the accused were sitting outside, surrounding the house whereas they were sitting inside the house. Injuries were given when they were taken out of the house Purshottam and Ram Kumar were killed by 10-15 persons. She could not persons who had killed the two persons outside. She would not know as who was armed with what weapon. She would not remember if Chhitar had participated in the fight or not. She would also not remember if Ghansh had also participated in the fight. Mohanlal, whom she identified while making her statement, was stated by her to have not participated in the fight. 33. Kaushalya wife of Ramlal, who was examined as PW-10, after giving initial background of the case, gave names of some of the persons, as stated by other prosecution witnesses, who had come along with unnamed person. She then stated that 12 at night, people came in jeeps. Whether they were armed with weapons or not, she would not know. No sooner, they came, they broke open the door of the house of Radhey Shyam with axe and Sabbal. First of all, Ramkumar was dragged out of the room and was killed by Yu Mahendra, Naval, Kanhaiya Lal, Ramlal and Mukesh Nath. Purshottam dragged out by Radhey Shyam, Hemraj, Ramniwas, Bhojraj Bhopa, Mukesh Nath and 4-5 other persons. They both were killed with swords, Gandasis Dhariya. Purhosttam was given injuries by Radhey Shyam, Hemraj Bhopa Yuvraj. Radhey Shyam caused injury to Purshottam and thereafter, all others started beating him. Inside the room, 10-15 persons from village Khajurna had killed Lokendra, Kalu and Heeralal. She admitted that it was not mentioned in her police statement Ex.D.9 that Purshottam and Ram Kumar were dragged outside the room. She denied the suggestion that she was standing the whole night in the room and did not come out of the same. When people from Khajurna had come, it was thereafter that people from Khajurna and other accused had broken open the door of the house. They did not go inside and kept standing outside. She denied the suggestion that she was standing the whole night in the room and did not come out of the same. When people from Khajurna had come, it was thereafter that people from Khajurna and other accused had broken open the door of the house. They did not go inside and kept standing outside. Radhey Shyam Bhopa and Hemraj Bhopa had given beatings to the two deceased and thereafter, all other accused had given beatings to them. 15-20 persons after killing Ramkumar and Purshottam had entered inside and killed three others. She admitted that in her police statement Ex.D.9 it was not mentioned that Ramkumar was dragged outside but she stated that she had got the same recorded to the police. 34. Prosecution also examined Shyamlata (PW-29), Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-30) father of Lokendra, Ramratan brother in law of Ramkumar as PW-31 and Smt. Urmila wife of Ramkumar deceased as PW-38 who deposed with regard to the suspicion that Ram Narain Sarpanch had entertained that his son was killed by five persons who died in the present occurrence. Ram Narain Meena SHO examined as PW-43 deposed with regard to the registration of the FIR; Dharamveer Singh, Dy. SP examined as PW-44 deposed with regard to the steps that he had taken while investigating the case and Sunder Singh, examined as PW-45, only deposed with regard to the submission of the challan. 35. Prosecution also relied upon recoveries. Pursuant to the statement made by appellant Mohan Lal, the police is said to have recovered 'Lakdi' (stick) on I 15.7.2001 at 3 p.m, vide seizure memo Ex.P.22. Police also recovered shirt on the same day and time vide recovery memo Ex.P.12. The recovery witness with regard to the articles mentioned above are Babulal (PW-13), Radhey Shyam son of Nathulal (PW-1) and Jagdish Prasad (PW-14). Appellant Yuvraj, pursuant to the statement made by him, is said to have got recovered Gandasi on 15.7.2001 at 7.30 p.m. vide Ex.P.21. This recovery is stated to have been witnessed by Babulal (PW-13), Radhey Shyam son of Nathulal (PW-1) and Jagdish Prasad (PW-14). Appellant Hansraj, pursuant to the statement made by him, is said to have got recovered Dhariya vide Ex.P.20 on 15.7.2001 at 1.30 p.m. He also got recovered Pant and T-Shirt on the same day and time vide seizure memo Ex.P.11. Appellant Hansraj, pursuant to the statement made by him, is said to have got recovered Dhariya vide Ex.P.20 on 15.7.2001 at 1.30 p.m. He also got recovered Pant and T-Shirt on the same day and time vide seizure memo Ex.P.11. These recoveries are said to have been witnessed by PW-13 Babulal, PW-1 Radhey Shyam son of Nathulal and PW-14 Jagdish Prasad. Appellant Hemraj pursuant to statement made by him, got recovered Dhariya on 15.7.2001 at 1.00 p.m. vide Ex.P.19. On the same day at 1.15 p.m. he also got recovered T-shirt vide Ex.P.10. These recoveries are said to have been witnessed by PW-13 Babulal, PW-1 Radhey Shyam son of Nathulal and PW-14 Jagdish Prasad. Appellant Radhey Shyam son of Gopal, pursuant to his statement made to the police, got recovered sword on 15.7.2001 at 12.15 p.m. vide seizure memo Ex.P.15. On the same day at 12.30 p.m. he also got recovered one pant and Kurta which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.P.9. These recoveries are stated to have been witnessed by PW-13 Babulal, PW-1 Radhey Shyam son of Nathu and PW-14 Jagdish Prasad. Appellant Modunath son of Bheru Nath, pursuant to his statement made to police, got recovered lathi on 3.8.2001 at 5 p.m. vide seizure memo Ex.62. This recovery is said to have been witnesses by PW-24 Kesri Lal and PW-27 Meghraj. It is significant to mention that though all these articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory but were not produced before the court. 36. When examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code all the appellants while denying the incriminating material put to them, claimed to have been falsely involved in the case. They pleaded innocence. They did lead evidence in defence but the learned counsel defending the appellants has not taken the court through evidence led by them by specifically mentioning that no arguments in support of these appeals are to be based upon evidence led in defence. 37. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance carefully examined the records of the case. 38. Before we may evaluate the contentions raised by Mr. 37. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance carefully examined the records of the case. 38. Before we may evaluate the contentions raised by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it will be appropriate to mention that out of 29 accused who were tried for various offences, all accused belonging to Village Khajurna have since been acquitted, primarily on the ground that the prosecution witnesses were not sure with regard to their identification and that being so, their participation in the commission of crime was doubtful. The State of Rajasthan has not filed any appeal against the order of their acquittal. 39. Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in support of the present appeals, vehemently contends that there is un-explained delay in lodging the FIR which has resulted into false implication of the appellants. He further contends that in any case, the special report reached the concerned Magistrate even though on the day of the occurrence but at about 10.45 p.m. Bhure Khan, Constable who took the special report to the concerned Magistrate, was not examined by the prosecution nor he filed an affidavit explaining delay in carrying the special report to the concerned Magistrate. FIR, learned counsel contends, was not recorded at 6.45 a.m. and was in fact, recorded at a later stage after deliberation and consultations, once again resulting into involvement of innocent persons. With a view to strengthen his contention that the FIR was recorded far later in the day, learned counsel relied upon the statement made by Dharmveer (PW-44) who stated that the FIR was handed over to the Dy. SP at the spot. 40. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel as noted above, but in the context of facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any merit in the same. It may be recalled that the occurrence had taken place at dead of night. SP at the spot. 40. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel as noted above, but in the context of facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any merit in the same. It may be recalled that the occurrence had taken place at dead of night. Even though house of one of the deceased namely Purshottam was seized and surrounded sometime in the evening at 5 p.m. on 28.6.2001, the carnage leading to the death of five had taken place after midnight at 12.30 a.m. On the mid night of 28th and 29th June, 2001 killing of as many as five persons, two of them were dragged outside the room and killed, and remaining three were killed inside the room, must have taken at least half an hour. It may be true that the first informant stated that after two motor cycles belonging to the deceased were set on fire, the accused had left the place of occurrence, but such a ghastly crime, the surviving members and inmates of the house would have nightmares for the rest of their lives. It would have surely left them dazed and scared to their hones. No normal human being would have taken risk of proceeding to the police station at night. The statement made by the first informant that he and others were afraid to lodge the FIR at night depicts natural human conduct. Their going to the police station to lodge the FIR on day break was absolutely natural. It was a month of June, 2001 and the day would break sometimes at 5.30 in the morning. It appears that immediately on day break, the first informant along with others proceeded towards the police station and lodged FIR at 6.45 a.m. In so far as the special report reaching the concerned Magistrate at 10.45 p.m. on 29.6.2001 is concerned, it is significant to mention that defence did not gather courage to question the investigating officer with regard to the delay, if any, in reaching special report before the Magistrate. That apart, it has come in evidence that immediately on registration of the FIR, Dy. SP of the area was informed who straightway went to the place of occurrence. If the FIR was not registered at 6.45 a.m. the concerned Dy. That apart, it has come in evidence that immediately on registration of the FIR, Dy. SP of the area was informed who straightway went to the place of occurrence. If the FIR was not registered at 6.45 a.m. the concerned Dy. SP could have not reached at the place of occurrence in the early hours of 29.6.2001. Still further, it is too well settled and reference in that connection may be made to two judgments of this Court in Sawai Ram and another v. State of Rajasthan ( 1997 (2) Crimes 148 ) and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 733/1999 Ramesh Chand and others v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 24..5.2005 , that merely on account of some delay in reaching the special report before the concerned Magistrate, prosecution story cannot be rejected. We find nothing wrong in handing over of the FIR to the Dy. SP at the spot and in any case, the statement of Dy. SP that he had received the FIR on being handed over to him at the spot, would not mean that the FIR was recorded at the spot. 41. Mr. Gupta then contends that killing of five persons was plotted by the accused of village Khajurna as would be clearly made out from reading of the FIR. All accused belonging to Village Khajurna have since been acquitted. The appellants who belonged to Village Railgaon at the most could be convicted for causing murder of five persons with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there will be no applicability of the provisions contained in Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Primary and in fact the only contention of the learned counsel as to non-applicability of Section 149 Indian Penal Code is that the appellants belonging to Village Railgaon, as per the prosecution case, had surrounded the house of deceased Purshottam at 5 p.m. on 28.6.2001 and they could thus be guilty of illegally confining Purshottam and other inmates of that house or at the most in rioting or throwing stones on the house of Purshottam. Killing took place only when people from Khajurna had come and as per the prosecution case, they alone had indulged in killing five persons. Killing took place only when people from Khajurna had come and as per the prosecution case, they alone had indulged in killing five persons. On the first blush, the contention of the learned counsel appears to be attractive but when examined in its minute and finer details, the same would pale into insignificance. A reading of the FIR would no doubt depict that 25-26 persons including the appellants had come, surrounded and pelted stones on the house of Purshottam at 5 p.m. on 28.6.2001 and further that the actual killing had started at about 12.30 a.m. on the intervening night of 28th and 29th June, 2001. It is, however, significant to mention that some of the persons who had collected outside the house had scaled the house of Purshottam and started throwing stones by which the roof of his house was broken. Purshottam and his four companions had jumped over the common wall of the house of the first informant and came to his house. At 12.30 a.m. at night, relations of Ram Narain came from Khajurna. As per the FIR, no sooner these people came, they started breaking the door of the house of first informant and entered into his house. It is thereafter mentioned in the FIR that 'these people' dragged his elder brothers Purshottam and Ram Kumar Dhakad and killed them. FIR has to be read in the context of its entire narration. In the earlier portion of the FIR, reference is to those people who had surrounded the house of Purshottam and scaled the roof of his house. Mention is then of those persons who had come from Village Khajurna and thereafter, it has been stated that 'these people' dragged Purshottam and Ramkumar outside and killed. This Court is of the clear view that reference of 'these people' would include people from village Railgaon as well and particularly those, who had come to the house of Purshottam and started stone throwing and had broken the roof. Every witness deposed likewise. The background of the case of Sarpanch Ramnarayan entertaining a doubt that five deceased named above had killed his son Kishan, Ram Narayan himself leading as many as about 40 people and surrounding the house of Purshottam would lend credence to the statements made by all the witnesses that people from Village Khajurna, even though some of them, had certainly participated in actual killing. It is not a case where they had only surrounded the house of Purshottam and had thus no common object but for indulging in rioting and throwing stones. Assuming for the sake of arguments that reference of 'these people' in the FIR may pertain only to people from Village Khajurna; categorical statements made by all the witnesses, that all, whether belonging to Village Khajurna or Railgaon, had participated in the commission of crime, would appear to be a natural clarification or elaboration of the FIR. 42. Even otherwise, surrounding of the house of Purshottam by so many persons led by the Sarpanch Ram Narayan who was labouring under an impression that his son had been killed by the five persons who died on the day of occurrence, their continuing surrounding and confining the inmates of the house particularly and specifically those who died, till such time persons from Village Khajurna came, appears to have been planned. It may be recalled that it was about 5 in the evening that five persons who were ultimately killed had come to Village Railgaon to plough their land. They had come to the house of Purshottam elder brother of the first informant. No sooner they came in the village, Ram Narayan with 25 persons surrounded house of Purshottam. The house was surrounded from all sides and so much so some of the persons collected there had even come to the roof of the house of Purshottam. The first step in the plan made by the accused, it appears was to surround them in such a way that they were unable to escape. Killing part of the plan appears to have been executed on arrival of the persons from Village Khajurna. There does not appear to be any merit in the contention of the learned counsel that the accused from Village Railgaon simply because killings took place on arrival of people from Village Khajurna, would not be sharing a common object of those who came from Village Khajurna. The provisions of Section 149 Indian Penal Code appear to be clearly attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Assuming, however, for the sake of arguments that the killing part was done only by people of Khajurna, those who had entered the house of Purshottam cannot possibly escape vicarious liability of killing five persons. The provisions of Section 149 Indian Penal Code appear to be clearly attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Assuming, however, for the sake of arguments that the killing part was done only by people of Khajurna, those who had entered the house of Purshottam cannot possibly escape vicarious liability of killing five persons. They, in any case, would be guilty of murder by at least sharing common object with persons from village Khajurna. Looked from any angle, thus, Section 149 Indian Penal Code is applicable. Persons from village Railgaon cannot be absolved of their liability in causing murder of five persons and those who entered the house of Purshottam, were in any case, sharing a common object with others. In the present case, however, there is definite evidence mention of which we have made earlier, that some of the persons from Village Railgaon had actually participated in killing five persons as well. 43. Mr. A.K. Gupta then contends that all the alleged eye witnesses are closely related to deceased Purshottam. Despite the fact that there were number of houses in the village located in close vicinity of house of Purshottam, the prosecution chose not to produce any independent witness. Incident of this magnitude which lasted several hours ought to have been noticed by a number of other persons and yet, the prosecution chose to rely upon highly interested witnesses. Their testimony needs to be out rightly rejected particularly when the same is inconsistent and full of improvements made during the course of trial. We do not find any merit in this contention of the learned counsel either. The occurrence had taken place at midnight. The venue of occurrence happened to be the house of Purshottam. The presence of eye witnesses at dead of night in their own house is natural. In fact, there could be no reason, whatsoever, for anyone of them to be not present in the house, unless of course, they had gone out of village on the night of occurrence. It may be true that all the eye witnesses are closely related to deceased Purshottam but once their presence at the place of occurrence is natural, the court, at the most, should be cautious in evaluating their evidence. It may be true that all the eye witnesses are closely related to deceased Purshottam but once their presence at the place of occurrence is natural, the court, at the most, should be cautious in evaluating their evidence. Their statements shall have to be examined with great deal of care and caution but to say that their sworn testimony in the court should be out rightly rejected does not appear to be correct. No doubt, in so far as part of occurrence pertaining to surrounding the house of deceased Purshottam is concerned, some independent witnesses could be produced but who would have dared to depose against persons such as Ram Narayan Sarpanch who simply on entertaining a doubt that his son had been killed by five persons who died on the day of occurrence, did not spare any of those. He was only suspecting those persons in killing of his son. The depositions made by anyone against him and others would have been a definite thing. A person who did not spare anyone on suspicion alone, would have not spared anyone who might have deposed against him. Self preservation is the natural instinct in every human being. It appears certain to this Court that no one dared to offer himself as a witness even though quite a few must have been at least surrounding of the house of Purshottam by the accused out of fear of death. Even otherwise, in the present era of declining values when selfishness has reached its crescendo and bravery exists only by way of an exception, if nobody has chosen to be a witness it cannot be said that on that count alone, the prosecution case should be rejected in to. Of course, as mentioned above, the account given by eye witnesses shall have to be evaluated with more care and caution. 44. In the context of the facts and circumstances of the case, as fully detailed above, the contention of Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants that since killing had started only on arrival of persons from village Khajurna, those who kept standing outside and did no more, shall have to be given benefit of doubt in sharing of common object of others who participated in the occurrence and actually killed five persons has some substance. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants that since killing had started only on arrival of persons from village Khajurna, those who kept standing outside and did no more, shall have to be given benefit of doubt in sharing of common object of others who participated in the occurrence and actually killed five persons has some substance. Surely, those who kept standing outside and did no more, shall have to be considered as one group and those, who entered the house or participated in killing, shall have to be considered as another group. Whereas the first group cannot be saddled with the common object of killing, those who went inside the house and/or participated in killing would be liable to be convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code. With a view, however, to find out with precision and clarity as to who are those persons against whom definite evidence is available with regard to entering the house of Purshottam and/or participating in killing five person, evidence of each witness shall have to be evaluated. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have apprised us the role of each individual appellant which after we had taken notes, was put to learned counsel for the parties and they have confirmed that role attributed to individual appellants by the eye witnesses is as follows :Appeal No. 670/2003 and DB Cr. (Jail) Appeal No. 622/2003 Lal Chand @ Ram Niwas son of Birdilal. 45. He has been named by all the PWs as one of those 25-26 persons who had surrounded the house of Purshottam but for PW-8 and PW-9. It has not been mentioned by any of the PWs that he had come on the roof of house of Purshottam and from there, damaged the roof of the house. Kaushalya Bai (PW-10), however stated that he was one of the those who had dragged Purshottam outside the room. This, however, she stated for the first time in the Court. PW-10 Kaushalya Bai has not been mentioned in the FIR as one of the witnesses who might have seen the occurrence. None of the witnesses stated that he was one of the persons who had participated in killing two persons outside and three inside the room.Revdi Lal son of Kishore 46. PW-10 Kaushalya Bai has not been mentioned in the FIR as one of the witnesses who might have seen the occurrence. None of the witnesses stated that he was one of the persons who had participated in killing two persons outside and three inside the room.Revdi Lal son of Kishore 46. He has been named as one of the persons in the group of 25-26 persons who had surrounded the house of Purshottam. All the PWs have named him likewise but for Badri Bai (PW-8). PW-1 Radhey Shyam has named him as one of the persons who had gone on the roof of house of Purshottam and thrown stones. He, however, states that he had told other inmates of the house to go to the house of Prabhu Lal. He also stated that he is one of those who had entered the room where three persons were killed. Ramlal (PW-2) has also stated that he had gone to the roof of house of Purshottam and had thrown stones. But this witness has not stated that Revdi Lal was one of those who had entered the room where three persons were killed. No other witness has named him as one of the persons who had gone to the roof of the house of Purshottam and no other witness has also stated that he was one of the those who had gone in the room where three persons were killed.Ghanshyam son of Prahlad 47. He has been named as one of 25-26 persons who had surrounded house of Purshottam. Statements of other eye witnesses with regard to surrounding of the house of Purshottam are the same as mentioned against appellant Revdi Lal. PW-1 Radhey Shyam named him as one of the persons who had gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam as also one of those who had dragged Purshottam outside the room. He named Revdi Lal as one of the persons who had gone inside the room where three persons were killed. PW-2 Ramlal has also named him as one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam out of the room. Pana Bai (PW-3) even though has not mentioned his role inside the room in the examination-in-chief but has stated in the cross-examination that he was one of those who had given beatings inside the room. PW-2 Ramlal has also named him as one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam out of the room. Pana Bai (PW-3) even though has not mentioned his role inside the room in the examination-in-chief but has stated in the cross-examination that he was one of those who had given beatings inside the room. No other witness has named him as one of the persons who might have gone to the roof, thrown stones or participated in dragging and killing.Radhey Shyam son of Prahlad 48. We may mention, at the outset, that there are three Radhey Shyam who have been convicted. Whereas Radhey Shyam son of Gopal has been sentenced to death, Radhey Shyam son of Prahlad who has filed Appeal No. 670/2003 has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and third Radhey Shyam son of Shanker Lal Nath who too has been sentenced to undergo RI for life, has filed Appeal No. 520/2003. 49. But for Manish (PW.9) and Kaushalya (PW-10), all other prosecution witnesses have named Radhey Shyam as one of the persons out of 25.26 persons who had surrounded house of Purshottam. One Radhey Shyam has also been named by PW-1 Radhey Shyam who had gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam but the learned counsel appearing for the parties, however, submit that Radhey Shyam named by PW-1 who had gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam is son of Gopal who has been sentenced to death. Appellant Radhey Shyam son of Prahlad with whom we are presently dealing, has not been named by any other witness to be one of those who had come on the roof of the house of Purshottam, dragged two persons who died outside the room or one of those who entered the room where three persons were killed.(2) Appeal No. 631/2003 Dhanpal 50. He had died during the pendency of the appeal. His appeal therefore, abates. Kanhaiya Lal son of Rampratap. 51. He has been named as one of those 25-26 persons who had surrounded house of Purshottam, by PW-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 and not by PW-9. According to PW-1 he was one of the persons who had gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam and had broken open the door as also dragged Ramkumar. 51. He has been named as one of those 25-26 persons who had surrounded house of Purshottam, by PW-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 and not by PW-9. According to PW-1 he was one of the persons who had gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam and had broken open the door as also dragged Ramkumar. He has also been named as one of the persons who had gone inside the room where three persons were killed. Ramlal (PW-2) also named him as one of the persons who had dragged Ramkumar. Panabai (PW-3) did not attribute any specific role to him but PW-4 Nirmala named him as one of the persons who had dragged two persons out of the room and given beatings to them. Anita (PW-5) also named him as one of the persons who had caused injuries to the deceased. Kaushalya (PW- 10) also named him as one of the persons who had dragged Rain Kumar out of the room.Naval son of Ram Pratap 52. All the PWs but for Anita (Pw-5) and Kaushalya (PW-10) have named him to be one of the 25-26 persons who has surrounded the house of Purshottam. Radhey Shyam (PW-1) names him as one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam outside the room. Ramlal also deposed that he had dragged Purshottam outside the room. PW-4 Nirmala corroborated the statements of PW-1 and 2 with regard to his dragging Purshottam out of the room. PW-5 Anita also stated that he had caused injuries to Purshottam. PW-10 Kaushalya stated that he had caused injuries to Ramkumar.Ramial son of Ram Narayan 53. But for PW-8 Badri Bai, all other prosecution witnesses have named him as one of the 25-26 persons who had surrounded the house of Purshottam. Radhey Shyam (PW-1), stated that he was one of the persons who had gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam. Anita (PW-5) daughter of Purshottam named him as one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam outside and killed. PW-10 Kaushalya Bai names him as one of the persons who had dragged Rain Kumar and had caused injuries to him.(3) Appeal No. 674/2003Mangilal son of Baldev 54. But for Nirmala and Badri Bai PW-4 and 8 respectively, all prosecution witnesses have named him as one of 25-26 persons who had surrounded house of Purshottam. PW-10 Kaushalya Bai names him as one of the persons who had dragged Rain Kumar and had caused injuries to him.(3) Appeal No. 674/2003Mangilal son of Baldev 54. But for Nirmala and Badri Bai PW-4 and 8 respectively, all prosecution witnesses have named him as one of 25-26 persons who had surrounded house of Purshottam. PW-1 Radhey Shyam stated that Mangilal had gone to the roof of the house of Purshottam, dragged Purshottam and went inside the room where three persons were killed. Ramlal (PW-2) also stated that he had dragged Purshottam. PW-5 Anita also stated that he had thrown stones on her father Purshottam. He has not been named by other prosecution witnesses as one of the persons who might have gone on the roof of house of Purshottam, dragged two outside the room or went inside the room where three persons were killed.Radhey Shyam son of Shanker Lal Nath 55. He has been named by all the prosecution witnesses to be one of the persons who out of 25-26 persons had surrounded house of Purshottam, but for Badri Bai (PW-8). He has been named by Radhey Shyam (PW-1) as one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam outside the house. He has also been named as one of the persons who had gone inside the room where three persons had died. Ramlal (PW-2) has also stated that he had dragged Purshottam outside the room.(4) Appeal No. 520/2003 Babulal son of Dev Lal 56. But for PW-5, PW-8 and PW-10 Anita, Badri Bai and Kaushalya respectively all the prosecution witnesses are stated to have named him as one of 25-26 persons who had surrounded the house of Purshottam. PW-1 Radhey Shyam stated that he had jumped from the roof of the house of Purshottam and committed murder inside the room. Nirmala (PW-4) stated that he had dragged Purshottam outside the room. No other witness has named him as one of the persons who had entered the house or gone on the roof or dragged two who died outside or one of those who might have entered the room where three persons had died.(5) Death Reference No. 1/2003, DB Cr. Appeal No. 464/03 and D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 421/2003.Mohan Lal, Yuvraj and Hansraj sons of Ramnarayan, Hemraj and Radhey Shyam sons of Gopal and Modu Nath. 57. Appeal No. 464/03 and D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 421/2003.Mohan Lal, Yuvraj and Hansraj sons of Ramnarayan, Hemraj and Radhey Shyam sons of Gopal and Modu Nath. 57. Radhey Shyam (PW-1), Ramlal (PW-2), Pana Bai (PW-3), Nirmala (PW-4) and Anita (PW-5) have named all the six appellants named above who were in the group of 25-26 persons in surrounding the house of Purshottam. Badri Bai (PW-8) only mentioned that 30-40 persons had come but did not name anyone. Manisha (PW-9) named all the six appellants forming group of 25-26 persons who had surrounded house of Purshottam. Kaushalya (PW-10) named all the six appellants forming group of 25-26 persons who had surrounded house of Purshottam. 58. PW-1 Radhey Shyam stated that Ram Kumar was dragged outside from the room by Yuvraj, Hansraj, Radhey Shyam and Hemraj. Radhey Shyam was also one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam. He also stated that Hemraj. Modunath, Radhey Shyam along with others had entered the room where three persons were killed. Ramlal (PW-2) stated that Ramkumar was dragged outside from the room by Radhey Shyam, Hemraj, Yuvraj and Hansraj out of the six appellants named above. Kanhaiya Lal was also one of the persons who dragged him. Purshottam was dragged outside from the room by Radhey Shyam along with others. He also stated that Modunath and Radhey Shyam were amongst others who had gone inside the room where three persons were killed. 59. Smt. Pana Bai (PW-3) deposed generally without giving specific names as to who might have come on the roof and participated in the killing of five persons. Smt. Nirmala (PW-4) stated that Ram Kumar was dragged by Radhey Shyam, Hemraj and Modunath whereas Purshottam was dragged outside by Hemraj and Modunath along with others. She also stated that Mohan, Yuvraj and Hansraj had started beating Purshottam. PW-5 Anita stated that Hemraj, Radhey Shyam, Yuvraj and Mohan also participated in breaking the door of the house and they had also dragged her father and Ram Kumar outside from the room. Ramkumar was also dragged by Yuvraj, Mohan and Hansraj. She further stated that people inside the room were also killed by them. PW-8 Badri Bai generally stated with regard to killing of five persons without specifically naming any accused as such. Manisha (PW-9) also generally stated with regard to killing of five persons without specifically naming any accused. Ramkumar was also dragged by Yuvraj, Mohan and Hansraj. She further stated that people inside the room were also killed by them. PW-8 Badri Bai generally stated with regard to killing of five persons without specifically naming any accused as such. Manisha (PW-9) also generally stated with regard to killing of five persons without specifically naming any accused. Kaushalya (PW-10) stated that Mohan Lal and Hansraj were also amongst those who had thrown stones. She also stated that Ram Kumar was dragged outside by Yuvraj along with others. She further stated that Radhey Shyam and Hemraj were amongst those who had dragged Purshottam. Purshottam was given beating by Radhey Shyam, Hemraj and Yuvraj as well. Radhey Shyam had given a sword blow to Purshottam. 60. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that even though five valuable lives were lost in the occurrence, yet, in the context of the facts and circumstances of the present case, none of the appellants in Appeal No. 464/2003 could be sentenced to death. There appears to be considerable merit in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel. Even though it was contention of the learned counsel that people from Village Khajurna alone had entered the house and after breaking open the door, killed five persons and that accused from Village Railgaon had not all participated in killing of five persons, we have already held while reading the FIR as a whole and ocular evidence that killing was executed jointly by people from Village Khajurna and Village Railgaon. All the appellants before this Court in all the appeals mentioned above are from Village Railgaon. As mentioned above, all accused hailing from village Khajurna have since been acquitted. It is a case where in the FIR no individual or group of accused has been mentioned who joined hands in killing five persons nor in the statement recorded by the police under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. Individual accused participating in killing have been mentioned. When confronted, almost all the witnesses stated that they had given names of accused who participated in killing but as to why the police did not record their names, they would not know. Individual accused participating in killing have been mentioned. When confronted, almost all the witnesses stated that they had given names of accused who participated in killing but as to why the police did not record their names, they would not know. All the eye witnesses when asked as to whether people from Village Khajurna alone had entered the house of Purhsottam and killed five persons, reply was that people from Village Khajurna and Railgaon had entered the house and participated in killing. It is true that in the statements made in court killings are said to have been executed by individual accused who have been sentenced to death but reading evidence as a whole would lead to an irresistible conclusion that killings were executed by people from both the villages. It is thus a case where in addition to the appellants sentenced to death others also joined hands in killing five persons. It is not known as to who caused such injuries which might have proved fatal. If five deaths were caused by the appellants who have been sentenced to death along with others amongst whom some of them have been even acquitted, the question would arise as to whether those who have been convicted could and should be sentenced to death. 61. In Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1974) 4 SCC 443 while dealing with positive indicators against death sentence under the Indian law, one of such indicators that was pointed out by the Supreme Court was that if others involved in the crime and similarly situated have received the benefit of life imprisonment or the offence was only constructive, being under section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. In the present case, as mentioned above, persons equally situate have even been acquitted even though by giving then benefit of doubt for lack of their proper identification. We have also held above that five deaths were caused not only by those who have been sentenced to death but by others as well who have been acquitted. It is also a case where there being no proof as to which accused caused fatal injuries, conviction if at all can be sustained only under section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Exceptions for giving capital punishment as culled out by the Supreme Court in Ediga Anamma (supra) apply to the facts of the present case. It is also a case where there being no proof as to which accused caused fatal injuries, conviction if at all can be sustained only under section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Exceptions for giving capital punishment as culled out by the Supreme Court in Ediga Anamma (supra) apply to the facts of the present case. 62. It is by now too well settled that while in a given case death penalty may be appropriate sentence even for a single murder it would not necessarily mean that in every case for multiple murders death penalty has to be the normal punishment. 63. In Rampal v. State of U.P. (2003) 7 SCC 141 Supreme Court was considering desirability of the death penalty where 21 murders had been committed. Facts of the case aforesaid reveal that the incident in question was a sequel to the murder of 'B' a close relative of the appellant and other principal accused which was suspected to have been committed by the members of the victims' family. Prior to that, the victims' family was accused of having committed murder of two of the close relatives of the appellants' family for which some of the members of the victim's family were being prosecuted. This circumstance was treated as a circumstance which amounted to provocation from the victim side. The role played by the appellant in the aforesaid case who was given death sentence was somewhat similar to the role played by other accused persons who has been given lesser sentence. The appellant was awarded death sentence with the aid of Sec.149 Indian Penal Code. Supreme Court framed the question as to whether case of the appellants sentenced to death was at par with those accused for the purpose of awarding sentence. The appellant was not treated by the prosecution itself as the leader of the gang but was considered to be one amongst other accused who took part in the incident, These and other factors prevailed with the Supreme Court in commuting death sentence to that of imprisonment for life. Another circumstance in this case that the first informant and other eye witnesses in the police statements made by them did not specify individual persons who had caused killings and attributed role of each accused during the course of trial also cannot be lost sight of. Another circumstance in this case that the first informant and other eye witnesses in the police statements made by them did not specify individual persons who had caused killings and attributed role of each accused during the course of trial also cannot be lost sight of. The reason leading to killing even though suspicion on the part of Ram Narayan that this son had been killed by five persons who were killed in the occurrence, cannot be lost sight of either. In considered view of this Court, it is not the rerest of rare cases where death penalty alone would meet the ends of justice. 64. Having examined in details evidence against each individual appellant, in all the appeals subject matter of decision by the present judgment as also as to whether it is rarest of rare cases to warrant death penalty to six of the appellants named above time is now ripe to determine culpability of each individual appellant. It may be recalled that all eye witnesses are closely related to the deceased and in particular, Purshottam. We have already held that their presence in the house where give persons lost their lives was natural but their evidence has to be evaluated with great deal of care and caution. It is also a case where no group identifying persons in the said group or individuals has been named who might have gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam, threw stones and were party in killing two persons outside the room and three persons inside the room, either in the FIR or the statements made by the eye witnesses before the police. It was for that precise reason that all the eye witnesses had been confronted with their statement made before the police. In the circumstances mentioned above, it is the bounden duty of the court to find out definite evidence against each individual accused and hold their presence and culpability if at least two or three witnesses clearly ascribe their role. 65. In the circumstances mentioned above, it is the bounden duty of the court to find out definite evidence against each individual accused and hold their presence and culpability if at least two or three witnesses clearly ascribe their role. 65. Supreme Court in Kamakasha Rai and others v. State of UP (1998) 8 SCC 701 held that when large number of people took part in the incident in which several persons of a particular community sustained injuries, considering the nature of attack and possibility otherwise of identification of those accused persons by prosecution witnesses, it would not be safe to rely on evidence of witnesses who speak generally and in omnibus way without specific reference to the identity of individuals and specific overt acts in regard to the incident that took place. In view of the large number of accused engaged in the incident and simultaneous nature of attack, as stated by the prosecution witnesses, as a rule of prudence, it is necessary to fix minimum number of witnesses needed to accept the prosecution case to base a conviction. 66. Facts of the aforesaid case reveal that PWs 1 to 3 were definitely present at the place of incident but it was held that conviction could not be based on evidence of these PWs only without corroboration from the witnesses who had given evidence to the actual fact of the presence of the named appellants and the overt acts of those appellants. In the facts of the said case, it was also held that if evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 was corroborated by one or more reliable witnesses, then the appellants could be safely convicted in respect of the charge of which they stood convicted. In the facts of the case aforesaid apart, what has been basically held is that when there were large number of accused and attack was simultaneous, as a rule of prudence, it would be necessary to fix minimum number of witnesses needed to accept the prosecution case to base a conviction. 67. Ram Narayan, who according to the prosecution case, appears to be the ring leader of the gang and who alone had motive to kill those who unfortunately had died because he was suspecting his son to have been murdered by them, died before trial. However, it appears that the prosecution named him and his five sons as accused. 67. Ram Narayan, who according to the prosecution case, appears to be the ring leader of the gang and who alone had motive to kill those who unfortunately had died because he was suspecting his son to have been murdered by them, died before trial. However, it appears that the prosecution named him and his five sons as accused. Three of his sons have been sentenced to death. While evaluating evidence, this aspect of the case also can not be lost sight of. 68. It has come in evidence that ladies and children present in the house were taken out of the house and made to sit at the 'Chhapra' of Prabhu Lal. Accused, only and particularly Modunath, is said to have himself facilitated their escape but the fact remains that the ladies and children were at least not in the house. They might be in the adjoining 'Chhapra' of Prabhu Lal which might be very close to the house of Purshottam but they could not have seen the whole incident and individual role played by the accused persons. This fact shall also have to be kept in mind in determining the role of individual appellants before us. The fact that one of the witnesses i.e. PW-9 Manisha, a child witness, when she made statement before the Court, was nine years of age, has also to be kept in view. 69. From the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, as fully detailed above and keeping in view the law Laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamaksha Rai and others v. State of UP (supra), we are of the view that minimum number of witnesses, who might have supported or corroborated evidence provided by male eye witnesses Radhey Shyam and Ramlal PW-1 and PW-2 respectively, should be at least two, excluding Manisha (PW-9) a child witness. Out of six female or child witnesses, two female eye witnesses viz., Pana Bai (PW-3) and Badri Bai (PW-8) have made general or omnibus statements. In the facts as fully detailed above, thus, for finding out culpability of the individual accused, statements made by PW-1 Radhey Shyam and PW-2 Ramlal must find corroboration from the statements made by Nirmala (PW-4), Anita (PW-5) and Kaushalya (PW-10). In the facts as fully detailed above, thus, for finding out culpability of the individual accused, statements made by PW-1 Radhey Shyam and PW-2 Ramlal must find corroboration from the statements made by Nirmala (PW-4), Anita (PW-5) and Kaushalya (PW-10). Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be safe to base conviction if participation of individual accused as stated by PW-1 Radhey Shyam and PW-2 Ramlal is confirmed by at least two of the prosecution witnesses from the three mentioned above i.e. Nirmala (PW-4), Anita (Pw-5) and Kaushalya (PW-10). It may be recalled that Nirmala (PW-4) is wife of deceased Purshottam whereas Anita (PW-5) is his daughter. Anita (PW-5) was also 11 years of age but witness of that age could well have been attracted at the scene of occurrence. They were the most affected witnesses as well, as it was their husband and father who was in imminent danger. Kaushalya (PW-10) wife of Ramlal (PW-2) could well have been attracted at the scene of occurrence. Appeal NO. 670/2003 & DB Cr. (Jail) Appeal No., 622/2003 Lal Chand @ Ram Niwas son of Birdilal 70. Even though named b all the PWs but for Badri Bai (PW-8) and Manisha (PW-9) he was one of the persons who constituted group of 25-26 persons who had surrounded the house of Purshottam. However, none of the witnesses mentioned that he had come on the roof of the house of Purshottam and from there, damaged roof of the house. Kaushalya (PW-10) however stated that he was one of those who had dragged Purshottam outside the room. We may add here that this allegation was made only during the course when her evidence was being recorded. His participation in the crime appears to be doubtful.Revdi Lal son of Kishore 71. He has been named as one of the persons in the group of 25-26 who had surrounded the house of Purshottam, by all the witnesses but for PW8 Badri Bai. Radhey Shyam (PW-1) named him as one of the persons who had gone on the roof of house of Purshottam and threw stones. He also stated that Revdilal was one of those who had entered the room where three persons were killed. Ramlal (PW-2) also stated that Revdilal had gone to the house of Purshottam and had thrown stones. Radhey Shyam (PW-1) named him as one of the persons who had gone on the roof of house of Purshottam and threw stones. He also stated that Revdilal was one of those who had entered the room where three persons were killed. Ramlal (PW-2) also stated that Revdilal had gone to the house of Purshottam and had thrown stones. No other witness named him as one of the persons who had gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam and no other witness also stated that he was one of those who were involved in the killings. Revdi Lal also deserves to be given benefit of doubt.Ghanshyam son of Prahlad 72. He has been named by all the witnesses as one of those who had surrounded the house of Purshottam but for Badri Bai (PW- 8).PW-1 Radhey Shyam named him as one of the persons who had gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam as also one of those who had dragged him outside the room. He was also one of the persons who had gone inside the room where three persons were killed. PW-2 Ram Lal has also named him as one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam out of the room. PW-3 Pana Bai stated that he was one of those who had given beatings inside the room. The statements made by PW-1 Radhey Shyam and PW-2 Ramlal with regard to actual killing have been corroborated by Pana Bai (PW-3). But as mentioned above, Pana Bai (PW-3) made general or omnibus statement without naming individual accused and the role played by them. This accused also deserves to be given benefit of doubt.Radhey Shyam son of Prahlad 73. But for PW-9 Manisha and PW-10 Kaushalya, all other prosecution witnesses have named him as one of the persons in the group of 25-26 persons who had surrounded house of Purshottam. He has not been named by any other witness to be one of those who had gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam or dragged two persons outside the room or one of those who entered the room where three persons were killed. He deserves to be given benefit of doubt.Appeal No. 621/2004Kanhaiya Lal son of Ram Pratap 74. He has been named as one of those 25-26 persons who had surrounded the house of Purshottam, by all the witnesses but for PW-9 Manisha. He deserves to be given benefit of doubt.Appeal No. 621/2004Kanhaiya Lal son of Ram Pratap 74. He has been named as one of those 25-26 persons who had surrounded the house of Purshottam, by all the witnesses but for PW-9 Manisha. According to PW-1 Radhey Shyam, he was one of the persons who had gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam and had broken open the door as also dragged Ram Kumar. He has also been named as one of the persons who had gone inside the room where three persons were killed. Ramlal (PW-2) also named him as one of the persons who had dragged Ramkumar. Nirmala (PW-4) named him as one of the persons who had dragged two persons out of the room and given beating to them. Anita (PW-5) also named him as one of the persons who had caused injuries to the deceased. Kaushalya (PW-10) also named him as one of the persons who had dragged Ramkumar outside the room. His involvement is proved as the statements made by PW-1 Radhey Shyam and PW-2 Ramlal have been corroborated by PW-4 Nirmala and PW-5 Anita.Naval son of Ram Pratap 75. All the PWs but for PW-5 Anita and PW-10 Kaushalya have named him as one of the 25-26 persons who had surrounded the house of Purshottam. Radhey Shyam named him as one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam outside the room. Ramlal also deposed that he had dragged Purshottam outside the room. PW-4 Nirmala and PW-5 Anita corroborated statements of PW-1 Radhey Shyam and PW-2 Ramlal. His involvement is also thus proved.Ramlal son of Ramnarayan 76. But for PW-8 Badribai, all the prosecution witnesses named him as one of the 25-26 persons who had surrounded the house of Purshottam. He stated Ramlal as one of the persons who had gone inside the room and killed three persons. PW-1 Radhey Shyam stated that he was one of the persons who had gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam. PW-5 Anita named him as one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam outside the room and killed. PW-10 Kaushalya named him as one of the persons who had dragged Ramkumar outside the room and caused injuries to him. His participation in the crime is also established.Appeal No. 674/2003Mangi Lal son of Baldev 77. PW-5 Anita named him as one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam outside the room and killed. PW-10 Kaushalya named him as one of the persons who had dragged Ramkumar outside the room and caused injuries to him. His participation in the crime is also established.Appeal No. 674/2003Mangi Lal son of Baldev 77. But for Nirmala (PW-4) and Badri Bai (PW-8), all prosecution witnesses have named him as one of 25-26 persons who had surrounded the house of Purshottam. PW-1 Radhey Shyam stated that he had gone on the roof of the house of Purshottam, dragged Purshottam and went inside the room where three persons were killed. Ramlal (PW-2) also stated that he had dragged Purshottam. Anita (PW-5) stated that he had thrown stones on her father Purshottam, Kaushalya (PW-10) did not name him as one of the persons who might have entered the house, threw stones or participated in killing of any of the five persons. This accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt.Radhey Shyam son of Shanker Lal Nath 78. He has been named by all the prosecution witnesses to be one out of 25-26 persons who had surrounded house of Purshottam but for PW-8 Badri Bai. He has been named by PW-1 Radhey Shyam as one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam outside the house. He has also been named to be one of the persons who had gone inside the room where three persons had died. PW-2 Ramlal also stated that he had dragged Purshottam outside the room. PW-4 Nirmala stated that Radhey Shyam Nath was one of the persons who had dragged Ramkumar outside the room and caused injuries to him. PW-5 Anita also stated that Radhey Shyam was one of the persons who had broken open the door, entered the house and dragged Purshottam and Ramkumar outside the room. She also stated that he was one of the persons who had entered the house and killed three persons inside the room. PW-10 Kaushalya stated that Radhey Shyam was also one of the persons who had entered the house. He was also one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam outside the room. His participation is also proved.Appeal No. 520/2003Babulal son of Dev Lal 79. PW-10 Kaushalya stated that Radhey Shyam was also one of the persons who had entered the house. He was also one of the persons who had dragged Purshottam outside the room. His participation is also proved.Appeal No. 520/2003Babulal son of Dev Lal 79. But for Anita (PW-5), Badri Bai (PW-8) and Kaushalya (PW-10), all the prosecution witnesses named him as one of those 25-26 persons who had surrounded house of Purshottam. Radhey Shyam (PW-1) stated that he had jumped from the roof of the house of Purshottam and committed murder inside the room. Nirmala (PW-4) stated that he had dragged Purshottam outside the room. Ram Lal (PW-2) stated that he was one of the persons who had killed three persons inside the room. PW-4 Nirmala did not name him as one of the persons who might have entered the house, threw stones or killed any one inside or outside the room. PW-5 Anita likewise did not name him as one d the persons who might have entered the house or threw stones or for that matter, participated in killing any of the five persons. PW-10 Kaushalya deposed in tune with the statements made by PW-4 Nirmala and PW-5 Anita. Participation of this accused is also doubtful.Death Reference No. 1/2003, DB Cr.A. 464/03 and DB Cr. Jail Appeal N 421/2003.Mohan Lal, Yuvraj and Hansraj sons of Ramnarayan, Hemraj and Radhey Shyam sons of Gopal, and Modunath. 80. PW-1 Radhey Shyam, PW-2 Ramlal, PW-3 Pana Bai, PW-4 Nirmala and PW-5 Anita have named all these appellants who were amongst the group of 25-26 persons in surrounding the house of Purshottam. Manisha (PW-9) and Kaushalya (PW-10) also named all these appellants to be in the group of 25-26 persons who had surrounded the house of Purshottam. PW-1 Radhey Shyam stated that Ramkumar was dragged outside the room by Yuvraj, Hansraj, Radhey Shyam and Hemraj. Radhey Shyam had also dragged Purshottam, Hemraj, Modunath and Radhey Shyam had entered the room where three persons were killed. Ramlal PW-2 stated that Ramkumar was dragged outside from the room by Radhey Shyam, Hemraj, Yuvraj and Hansraj. Purshottam was dragged outside from the room by Radhey Shyam, alongwith others. He also stated that Modu Nath and Radhey Shyam were amongst others who had gone inside the room where three persons were killed. Ramlal PW-2 stated that Ramkumar was dragged outside from the room by Radhey Shyam, Hemraj, Yuvraj and Hansraj. Purshottam was dragged outside from the room by Radhey Shyam, alongwith others. He also stated that Modu Nath and Radhey Shyam were amongst others who had gone inside the room where three persons were killed. PW-4 Nirmala stated that Ramkumar was dragged by Radhey Shyam, Hemraj and Modunath whereas Purshottam was dragged outside by Hemraj and Modunath along with others. She also stated that Mohan, Yuvraj and Hansraj had started beating Purshottam. PW-5 Anita stated that Hemraj, Radhey Shyam, Yuvraj and Mohan also participated in breaking the door of the house and they had also dragged her father and Ramkumar outside from the room and that Ramkumar was also dragged by Yuvraj, Mohan and Hansraj. People inside the room were also killed by them. PW-10 Kaushalya stated that Mohan Lal and Hansraj were also amongst those who had thrown stones. She also stated that Ramkumar was dragged outside by Yuvraj and others. She further stated that Radhey Shyam and Hemraj were amongst those who had dragged Purshottam. Purshottam was given beating by Radhey Shyam, Hemraj and Yuvraj as well. Radhey Shyam had given a sword blow to Purshottam. Presence and participation of all the accused appellants named above but for Mohan Lal, is fully proved. Mohan Lal appellant might have been named by female witnesses but he had not been named by the principal witness PW-1 Radhey Shyam. Ram Lal (PW-2) of course named him as one of the persons who had gone at the house of Purshottam and gone to the roof of house of Purshottam as well, as also one of those who had thrown stones and broke open the door but he did not name Mohan Lal as one of the assailants killing five persons inside or outside the room. Participation of Mohan Lal is not fully supported even by PW-2 Ramlal. As a matter of abundant caution, he, in our view, deserves to be given benefit of doubt. 81. Before we may part with this order, we would like to mention that Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel had also raised an argument that some of the accused, who could, at the most, be convicted under section 302 with the aid of Sec.149 Indian Penal Code alone were charged under section 302 Indian Penal Code simpliciter and convicted accordingly. 81. Before we may part with this order, we would like to mention that Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel had also raised an argument that some of the accused, who could, at the most, be convicted under section 302 with the aid of Sec.149 Indian Penal Code alone were charged under section 302 Indian Penal Code simpliciter and convicted accordingly. Defective charge against them should lead to their acquittal. When, however, confronted with the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Prema S. Rao and another v. Yadla Srinivass Rao and others (2003) 1 SCC 217 , wherein it has been held that even if there may be omission or defect in framing of charge, the accused may still be convicted for the offence actually committed and proved by evidence on record, so long as the accused has not been misled by any error or omission in framing the charge and no failure of justice had occasioned, learned counsel had to almost withdraw the contention raised by him. 82. In view of the discussions made above, Appeal Nos. 464/2003 and 421/2003 Mohan Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan are partly allowed. The order of death sentence imposed on all the appellants by the learned Trial Judge is set aside. In so far as Mohan Lal is concerned, he shall be acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 302 Indian Penal Code as also 460 Indian Penal Code. All other appellants (except Mohan Lal) would be held guilty for the various offences imposed upon them but as mentioned above, they shall not be sentenced to death. They would, however, be sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Sentence imposed upon all of them but for Mohan Lal for other offences is maintained. Death Reference No. 1/2003 made by the learned Trial Judge is declined. The appellants named above but for Mohan Lal, however, as mentioned above, shall be sentenced to undergo RI for life. 83. Appeal No. 670/2003 and Jail Appeal No. 622/2003 are allowed. All the appellants who have filed these appeals are given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges framed against them under section 302 and 460 Indian Penal Code. The orders of conviction and sentence recorded against them by the Trial Judge, dated 11.3.2003 and 13.3.2003 are set aside. 84. Appeal No. 670/2003 and Jail Appeal No. 622/2003 are allowed. All the appellants who have filed these appeals are given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges framed against them under section 302 and 460 Indian Penal Code. The orders of conviction and sentence recorded against them by the Trial Judge, dated 11.3.2003 and 13.3.2003 are set aside. 84. Appeal No. 621/2003 is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the Trial Judge is upheld. 85. Appeal No. 674/2003 is partly allowed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Judge against Mangilal Lal under section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code as also under section 460 Indian Penal Code is set aside. Appeal filed by Radhey Shyam son of Shanker Lal Nath is dismissed. 86. Appeal No. 520/2003 is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded against Babulal, by the Trial Judge, under section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code as also under section 460 Indian Penal Code is set aside.Appeal Nos. 464/2003, 421/2003, 621/2003, 622/2003, 670/2003, 674/2003 and 520/2003 87. All the appellants in all the appeals referred to above, are, however, held guilty for offences under section 148, 427 and 342 Indian Penal Code and their sentence under the offences as aforesaid is maintained. The same shall however run concurrently. Accused appellants who have been ordered to be acquitted under section 302 read with Section 149 shall also be acquitted of offence under section 460 Indian Penal Code. All the appellants named above who have been held guilty for offence under section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code are ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- which, if realised, would be given to the heirs of the deceased in equal proportion. All the appellants who have been held guilty for offences other than Section 302 read with 149 and 460 Indian Penal Code, are ordered to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- which, if realised, shall again be paid to the heirs of the deceased proportionately. In case of non-payment of fine, accused appellants shall undergo various sentences as already imposed upon them.Appeal No. 464/2003 and Appeal No. 421/2003, partly allowed/Appeal No. 670/2003 Jail Appeal No. 622/2003 dismissed/Appeal No. 674/2003 partly allowed. Appeal no. 520/2003 Allowed. *******