S. L. KOCHAR, J. ( 1 ) ALL the aforesaid nine appellants stand convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 (on two counts) and 323/149 (on five counts)of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, mhow District Indore in S. T. No. 357/97 on 8-8-2000 and each of the appellants Veeru s/o. Ashok, Parbat s/o. Poonamchand, vizhal s/o. Kamal, Deepak s/o. Madanlal, subhash s/o. Madanlal, Bhagirath s/o. Heeralal, Prahlad s/o. Dulichand, Raju alias ramprasad s/o. Amarsingh, Ratan s/o. Shri ram, Omprakash alias Om s/o. Madanlal sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer additional r. I. for three months under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, each of the appellants except the aforementioned appellants are sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer additional R. I. for three months under Section 148, Indian penal Code, each of the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for life with payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer additional R. I. for three months under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code on each of the two counts and each of the appellants have been sentenced to suffer R. I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional S. I. for three months under Section 323/149, Indian Penal Code on each of the five counts. All the substantive jail sentences of the appellants have been directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) ESSENTIAL factual matrix for disposal of this appeal is abridged as under :-On 22-2-97, at 10. 30 p. m. the complainant Babibai (PW 1) wife of deceased Shyamlal lodged the First Information Report at kishangan Police Station that she was residing in Sutarkehdi tehsil Mhow District indore. On the same night at 9. 00 p. m. appellants Bhushan, ramesh and Ajay came to her house and took her husband shyamlal towards the road. After some time she over heard the cry of her husband 'bachao Maar Dala'. On the same night at 9. 00 p. m. appellants Bhushan, ramesh and Ajay came to her house and took her husband shyamlal towards the road. After some time she over heard the cry of her husband 'bachao Maar Dala'. On hearing this cry, kaushlyabai, Manoj and Gaurishankar rushed towards the road and saw that near the house of one Motilal, the accused persons Bhushan, ramesh, Satish, Kundan, bhagirath, Raju alias Ramprasad, Ratan, pappu, Kamal, Tulsiram, Chandu alias chandrapal, Parbat, Trilockchand, Veeru, vishal, Deepak, Mahendra, Hansraj, omprakash, Suresh, Prahlad and Ravindra having lathis, swords, and Dhariyas were assaulting her husband. They were also shouting that Shyamlal must be done to death. Shyamlal was lying on the ground and wounds were bleeding. Gaurishankar and Manoj reached to save them, but they too were assaulted. Gaurishankar and manoj left the place of incident and returned with a truck and the accused persons seeing them, attacked on them. They pulled down Manoj from the truck and started assaulting him by lathi and swords. Manoj ran away towards the field to save himself, but the accused persons chased and assaulted him. There he was lying in unconscious condition in a pull of blood. The accused persons assaulted Shyamlal and Manoj with an intention to kill them. The incident occurred because the accused persons levelled false allegation against Manoj about having illicit relation with a girl resident of the same village. On the basis of this report, Crime No. 55/97 under sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants and the police stepped into investigation. Spot map Ex. P/2 was prepared by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the complainant (PW-1) Babibai and witnesses ramesh and Motilal. Inquest report of deceased Shyamlal ex. P/33 was prepared. Manoj also died and his inquest report is ex. P/4. The dead bodies of Shyamlal and manoj were sent to Madhya Bharat Hospital, Mhow with medical requisition forms. The postmortem report of deceased Shyamlal is Ex. P. 10 and that of Manoj is Ex. P/8. All the accused persons were arrested. Their arrest memos are from Ex. P/24 to Ex. /48. On disclosure statements of the accused persons the weapons like lathis, axe, bamboo-sticks, dhariyas and swords were seized by the Investigating Officer. The postmortem report of deceased Shyamlal is Ex. P. 10 and that of Manoj is Ex. P/8. All the accused persons were arrested. Their arrest memos are from Ex. P/24 to Ex. /48. On disclosure statements of the accused persons the weapons like lathis, axe, bamboo-sticks, dhariyas and swords were seized by the Investigating Officer. The injured witnesses P. W. 2 Kaushlyabai, p. W. 5 Reena, p. W. 7 Gaurishankar, PW-8 Chhitarsingh and PW-10 Baiju were also medically examined. Their M. L. C. Reports are Exs. P/58, p/5, P/59, P/6 and P/7 respectively. From the spot, bloodstained and controlled earth were seized. The seized articles were sent for examination to the Forensic Science laboratory. Its report is Ex. P/55. After requisite investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 323 of the Indian Penal code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. ( 3 ) THE appellants denied the charges. According to them, they were falsely implicated. The appellants examined eight witnesses in defence while the prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses and adduced 59 documents in order to establish its case. The learned trial Court finding the appellants guilty of the offences, convicted and sentenced them as indicated hereinabove. ( 4 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel Shri Jaisingh appearing for the appellants has submitted that the First Information Report Ex. P/1 was brought into existence in ante date and time after due consultation and the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to overcome this infirmity. Therefore, all the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. He also submitted that specific overt act has been attributed by the eye witnesses for causing injuries to the deceased persons against appellant No. 3 Hansraj, No. 14 bhushan, No. 19 Pappu and No. 25 Suresh. Against the remaining appellants, the witnesses have given general and omnibus statements that they were present and pelting stones as well as assaulting the deceased persons by lathi. According to the learned counsel conviction of all the appellants with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal code would not be sustainable. On all these premises, learned counsel has claimed acquittal of the appellants. ( 5 ) TO combat with the learned Dy. Advocate General Shri Desai has submitted that the names of all the appellants find mention in the First Information report Ex. On all these premises, learned counsel has claimed acquittal of the appellants. ( 5 ) TO combat with the learned Dy. Advocate General Shri Desai has submitted that the names of all the appellants find mention in the First Information report Ex. P/1 which was lodged by Babibai (PW 1) without any delay and the major role played by the four appellants, rest of the appellants were members of unlawful assembly and supporting the main assailants. They also caused injuries to the witnesses. Therefore, they cannot escape from conviction and punishment as imposed by the trial Court. He has also submitted that there is no positive and convincing material available'on record to say that the First Information Report Ex. P/1 as ante date and time. In pith and substance, learned Dy. Advocate General supported the impugned judgment and finding arrived at by the learned trial Court. ( 6 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and after careful perusal of the entire record, we are of the considered view that for commission of murder of Shymlal and Manoj, the four appellants i. e. Hansraj, bhushan, Pappu and Suresh could be held responsible for the reasons discussed hereinbelow. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to PW 1 Babibai at her house only three persons, namely, Bhushan, ajay and Ramesh came and called her husband. Her husband went with them. After sometime, she heard the cry and reached towards the road, a public place along with her mother-in-law PW-2 Kaushlyabai. They also met PW-5 Reena on the way. Reena told her that her husband Shymlal was being assaulted. She reached on the spot and saw that the appellant Bhushan having sword, hansraj armed with Dhariya, Pappu having dhariya and Suresh alias Laddu with sword were assaulting her husband. The other appellants were also having lathis and stones. The further say of this witness is that the accused persons were saying that 'maar Dalo Jaan Se Maar Dalo'. According to this witness on the spot, Gaurishankar, baiju, Saroj, Lakhan, Kaushalyabai and so many other persons also had reached and the accused persons assaulted all those persons who tried to save her husband who fell unconscious and severely bleeding. The further say of this witness is that the accused persons were saying that 'maar Dalo Jaan Se Maar Dalo'. According to this witness on the spot, Gaurishankar, baiju, Saroj, Lakhan, Kaushalyabai and so many other persons also had reached and the accused persons assaulted all those persons who tried to save her husband who fell unconscious and severely bleeding. Manoj, the cousin brother of the deceased went to take the vehicle to take Shyamlal to the hospital and also returned back with a truck and when he tried to alight from the truck, he was dragged out by the accused persons and was chased up to the field of Madhav singh and thereafter assaulted by sword, dhariya and other weapons. In view of the statement of this witness Babibai (PW 1) it is crystal clear that she reached on the road, a public place after commencement of the incident. The assault had already commenced on the person of her husband shyamlal and when she reached along with other eye witnesses, she saw that the appellants Bhushan, Hansraj, pappu and Suresh alias Laddu were concentrating assault by swords and Dhariya. She has nowhere stated that all the 26 appellants reached on the spot together and from where they had come. The specific overt act attributed by her to these four appellants. Even she did not allege any thing against appellants Ajay and Ramesh. There is no evidence that when Ajay, Ramesh and Bhushan reached at the house of Shyamlal and called him, there was unlawful assembly already waiting on the road and out of that unlawful assembly these three persons reached at the house of Shyamlal. Therefore, in the light of the statement of PW-1 Babibai, star witness, wife of deceased, it would be very difficult to discern that when four appellants bhushan, Hansraj, Pappu and Suresh and all other persons who were standing on or near the scene of occurrence, had already formed an unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit murder of Shyamlal and in prosecution of that common object, they started assaulting by dangerous weapons to the deceased. With some divergence more or less same statements have been given by the eye-witnesses PW 2 kaushlyabai, PW 5 Reena, PW 7 gaurishankar and PW-10 Baiju. ( 8 ) PW-10 Baiju deposed about the specific overt act only against Bhushan, hansraj and Pappu. With some divergence more or less same statements have been given by the eye-witnesses PW 2 kaushlyabai, PW 5 Reena, PW 7 gaurishankar and PW-10 Baiju. ( 8 ) PW-10 Baiju deposed about the specific overt act only against Bhushan, hansraj and Pappu. In the light of these facts, the important question for consideration before us would be whether merely because of bald statement against rest of the appellants that they were present, and also participated in the incident with lathi and by pelting stones, would be sufficient to hold that all were the members of unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit murder of Shymlal and thereafter of Manoj. It is also crystal clear that Manoj was on the spot when Shyamlal was being assaulted by these four appellants. At that time, Manoj was not assaulted and when Manoj went to take a vehicle for taking his cousin brother shyamlal to the hospital and reached on the spot with the truck, only at that moment these four appellants dragged him out of the truck, thereafter chased him and assaulted him. This cannot be a part of the act of unlawful assembly, but it was spontaneous act of these four appellants who were having deadly weapons and who had chased and thereafter assaulted him. ( 9 ) TO appreciate the oral evidence, it would be just and proper to mention here the medical evidence. Dr. Mohanlal ganawatia (PW 11) conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Manoj and found the following external injuries :- 1. One incised wound at frontal bone of skull 5" above the eye brows, oblique in direction; sized 5" x 2" x deep to the bone and brain substances are coming out through the wound and blood clots are present. 2. One incised wound present 1" below the first injury sized 5" x 1" x deep to the bone and brain substances are coming out with blood. 3. One incised wound at lower end of maxilla, " above the upper teeth, sized 5" x 1" x cut, the maxillary bone, oblique in direction, blood clots present. 4. One incised wound ,at lower end of chin of face sized 3" x 1" x deep to the cutting of mandible, oblique in direction blood clots present. 5. 3. One incised wound at lower end of maxilla, " above the upper teeth, sized 5" x 1" x cut, the maxillary bone, oblique in direction, blood clots present. 4. One incised wound ,at lower end of chin of face sized 3" x 1" x deep to the cutting of mandible, oblique in direction blood clots present. 5. One incised wound on lateral aspect of right arm at the middle, oblique in direction sized 3" x 1" x deep to the muscles. All above injuries are ante-mortem and caused by sharp object like Talwar (sword), kulhadi, Farsa etc. The duration of injuries within 24 hours and all are homicidal. 6. Five penetrating wounds on the front of chest, two wounds on right side and 3 wounds on left side of chest each sized 1" x 1" x deep to the thorasic cavity and the direction of the wound is from lower to upper aspects. Blood clots are present, caused by sharp and pointed object like Gupti, or pointed Talwar whose breadth is within one inch. All are ante-mortem. 7. Nine penetrating wounds on front of whole abdomen each sized 1" x 1" x deep to the abdominal cavity all injuries are directed from lower to upper direction. Blood clots are present. All injuries are ante mortem and caused by sharp and pointed object like gupti or Talwar. All the above injuries are ante mortem and homicidal in nature and duration is within 24 hours. ( 10 ) ON internal examination, this Doctor found underneath the stab injuries of neck damage to oesophages and trachea, those were having through and through penetrating wound. Underneath the injury one and three, bone and brain was cut, brain matter also came out. Right lung was having stab injury which was full of blood. Heart was also damaged and intestines were having stab wounds and there was severe stab injury to spleen and liver. Blood clots were present. Right kidney was also having stab injury. ( 11 ) IN his opinion, the death was homicidal in nature. Injuries were caused by sharp and pointed object. Injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 were grievous in nature and resulted into death. The deceased died because of asphyxia due to stab injury to oesophages and trachea as well as excessive bleeding from the wounds. ( 11 ) IN his opinion, the death was homicidal in nature. Injuries were caused by sharp and pointed object. Injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 were grievous in nature and resulted into death. The deceased died because of asphyxia due to stab injury to oesophages and trachea as well as excessive bleeding from the wounds. The deceased died within 24 hours from the date and time of postmortem examination i. e. 23-2-1997 at 11. 10 a. m. This Doctor proved his postmortem report (Ex. P. 8 ). ( 12 ) LOOKING to the aforesaid medical evidence of Dr. Mohanlal all the injuries caused to deceased Manoj were by sharp and pointed object and these objects were in possession of the aforesaid appellants who has assaulted deceased Manoj by their weapons, according to eye witness account. Eye witnesses account is fully tallying with the medical evidence so far as overt act attributed to aforesaid four appellants, but their general and omnibus statements that other accused persons also participated in the incident by using lathi and pelting stone is not corroborated and it can safely be said that these versions of the eye witnesses are at variance with the medical evidence. If 22 persons were really present and took part in the incident to assault the deceased by lathi and pelting stones, the deceased Manoj must have suffered some injuries caused by hard, blunt and rough object, but none was found on his person. ( 13 ) DR. Mohanlal also performed the autopsy on the dead body of deceased shyamlal on the same day. He proved his postmortem examination report (Ex. P. 10 ). On external examination, he found as under :- ( 14 ) THE deceased Shyamlal suffered only five external injuries, out of which injury No. 4 was lacerated wound 2" above the ankle joint and this caused damage to tibia and fibula bone. In the opinion of the medical expert, injuries No. 1 and 2 could be caused by sharp edged weapon like sword and axe. These were grievous and ante-mortem in nature. It appears that there is mistake in recording his statement in the Court with translation from English to Hindi. In the postmortem report, he opined that five injuries could be caused by sharp, hard and blunt object. These were grievous and ante-mortem in nature. It appears that there is mistake in recording his statement in the Court with translation from English to Hindi. In the postmortem report, he opined that five injuries could be caused by sharp, hard and blunt object. It is well settled legal position that the Court is to appreciate the evidence of medical expert like any other evidence. In our considered view, looking to the nature of injuries, injury Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 could be caused by sharp edged weapon and Injury No. 4 could be caused by hard and blunt object. In the opinion of the Doctor, deceased shyamlal died because of coma and respiratory failure due to excessive bleeding. Mode of death was syncope. Nature of death was homicidal and the death could be mainly caused by injuries Nos. 1 and 2 which caused damage to the skull and brain, brain matter came out. His nostrils and ears were also bleeding. Looking to the number and nature of injuries sustained by Shyamlal and was the first target of accused persons, if really 26 persons battered on him with sword, dharia, axe, lathi, and stones, he must have sustained more than the injuries sustained by him. The number and nature of injuries are indicative of the fact that he was accosted by the aforesaid four appellants and the blunt injury near the ankle can be caused by a forceful blow from blunt side of the sword. The death was homicidal. ( 15 ) AT this juncture, we would like to mention some important and material part of the statement in examination-in-chief of reena (PW 5), the injured witness who stated that in the night of the incident at 9. 00 p. m. , she saw four to five persons coming from the right side in between the house of Kamal and Motilal. They were also shouting "maaro maaro". She was attracted because of shouting and that the appellant's Bhushan and suresh with swords Pappu and Hansraj with dharia were assaulting the deceased shyamlal who was the first person to whom these appellants assaulted. She has nowhere stated that at the time of assaulting shyamlal, the other accused persons were also present on the spot or near Shyamlal or surrounded him or they were exhorting to these four accused persons. She has nowhere stated that at the time of assaulting shyamlal, the other accused persons were also present on the spot or near Shyamlal or surrounded him or they were exhorting to these four accused persons. The further say of this witness is that after witnessing the murderous assault on the person of shyamlal by these four appellants, she reached towards the house of Shyamlal and met on the way the inhabitants and relatives of Shyamlal i. e. deceased Manoj, PW-7 gourishankar, PW-1 Babibai, mother df shyamlal, PW-2 Kaushalyabai, and Vijay alias Baiju. They all asked her a's to what had happened on which she disclosed that people of colony were assaulting Shyamlal. Thereafter they all reached near Shyamlal and tried to save him and during this, they sustained injuries. ( 16 ) THE statement of this witness Reena has fortified our view as expressed herein-above that active participants were the four appellants and others were not forming unlawful assembly having common object to commit murder and acting in prosecution of such common object. ( 17 ) AT this stage we may usefully refer to the Supreme Court Judgment rendered in case of Musa Khan v. State of maharashtra ( AIR 1976 SC 2566 ) : (1976 Cri LJ 1987)wherein in para five the Supreme Court has observed thus :- "a mere innocent presence in an assembly of persons, as for example a bystander, does not make the accused a member of an unlawful assembly, unless it is shown by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused shared the common object of the assembly. Thus a Court is not entitled to presume that any and every person who is proved to have been present near a riotous mob at any time or to have joined or left it act any stage during its activities is in law guilty of every act committed by it from the beginning to the end, or that each member of such a crowd must from the beginning have anticipated and contemplated the nature of the illegal activities in which the assembly would subsequently indulge. In other words, it must be proved in each case that the person concerned was not only a member of the unlawful assembly at some stage, but at all the crucial stages and shared the common object of the assembly at all these stages. In other words, it must be proved in each case that the person concerned was not only a member of the unlawful assembly at some stage, but at all the crucial stages and shared the common object of the assembly at all these stages. " ( 18 ) WE do not find any force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel that the FIR (Ex. P. 1) was brought into existence in ante date and time. This argument has been considered by the learned trial court in detail in the light of the Supreme court judgment passed in the case of lansnayaak Meghraj v. State of U. P. (1994 SCC (Cri) 1390 ). The FIR was lodged immediately by PW 1 Babibai and the FIR is showing the fact that the offence was registered under S. 307 of the I. P. C. If it was recorded at a belated stage, the offence would have not been registered under Ss. 147, 148, 307/149 of the I. P. C. because after the incident and medical examination, Dr. Agrawal declared Shyamlal dead. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel has submitted that the prosecution has examined almost all related witnesses to the deceased persons. On consideration, the evidence of all these witnesses cannot be thrown over the board on this count. Of-course, the Court is required to examine the evidence of interested and partisan witnesses with due care and caution. If on close scrutiny, their statements found to be reliable, the same can be acted upon. The Supreme Court in the case of Budhwa and others v. State of M. P. ( AIR 1991 SC 4 : (1990 Cri LJ 2597), paras 4 and 5) held as under :- "that the conviction of the appellants accused was principally based on the evidence of the deceased's mother and sister. Though their evidence is not to be discarded as interested, the necessary caution has to be observed in accepting the evidence of these witnesses. It is an accepted proposition that in the case of group rivalries and enmities, there is a general tendency to rope in as many persons as possible as having participated in the assault. Though their evidence is not to be discarded as interested, the necessary caution has to be observed in accepting the evidence of these witnesses. It is an accepted proposition that in the case of group rivalries and enmities, there is a general tendency to rope in as many persons as possible as having participated in the assault. The courts have, therefore, to be very careful and if after a close scrutiny of the evidence, the reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of any of those who have been roped in, the Court would be obliged to give the benefit of doubt to them. " "the nature of the injury sustained in spite of the assertion of the concerted attack with lathis and tabbals by several assailants numbering over 15 renders the evidence doubtful about the participation of such a large number of persons. When the several blows with lathis and tabbals could produce only seven injuries on the person of the deceased, the necessary inference is that not more than seven persons might have participated in delivering the blows. Therefore, the presence of more than seven persons is doubtful. The persons who were not proved to have participated in the assault were entitled to benefit of doubt. " Also see Supreme Court Judgment passed in the case of Nagaraj Tahir v. State of Bihar ( 2005 (10) SCC 369 ) : (2005 Cri LJ 904), para 14 and Dani Singh v. State of bihar ( 2004 (13) SCC 203 ) : (2004 Cri LJ 3328 ). ( 20 ) MOST of the appellants have taken the plea of alibi and examined defence witnesses DW 1 to DW 5. We have perused the statements of these witnesses and in our considered view merely by oral evidence of any relative or friend, the plea of alibi is not to be established. Any person can get favour of one or two persons to give oral evidence in support of plea of alibi. The plea of alibi requires strict proof beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was not present on the scene of occurrence and was positively present on some other place from where he could not travel and participate in the incident and also again go back and join there. The defence witnesses D. Ws. The plea of alibi requires strict proof beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was not present on the scene of occurrence and was positively present on some other place from where he could not travel and participate in the incident and also again go back and join there. The defence witnesses D. Ws. 6, 7 and 8 are the police personnels who brought the criminal record of the deceased manoj. If deceased manoj was involved in criminal activities, it would not give right to the appellants to commit his murder. The prosecution evidence is as clear as day light that on the date of incident, Manoj was not the target. His brother Shyamlal was called from his house and it is also to be noted that if Shyamlal was having an axe to grind against the accused persons who called them, he would have not gone from his house with them. This shows that he was called in a most ordinary manner, but when they reached on the road, something had transpired and shyamlal was accosted by the aforesaid four appellants. The nature of weapons used and the manner in which Shyamlal and Manoj were assaulted by these four appellants is sufficient to hold that they were having pre-meeting of mind, pre-meditation and preplan to done away with the deceased persons. Reena (PW 5) is the independent witness residing in the same locality. Gourishankar (PW 7) is the brother of deceased Manoj. The evidence of eye-witnesses would not brittle because they also sustained injuries in the same incident. ( 21 ) ON overall culling up, the prosecution evidence and arguments advanced by both the parties, we are of the considered view that the appellants Hansraj, Bhushan, pappu and Suresh are liable for commission of murder of Shyamlal and manoj punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code and causing simple injuries to the witnesses punishable under Section 323/34 of the Indian penal Code. Thus, the conviction and sentences of all the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302/149, 323/149 as well as under sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code are liable to be set aside and instead thereof, only the aforesaid four appellants namely, hansraj No. 3, bhushan No. 14, Pappu No. 19 and Suresh no. Thus, the conviction and sentences of all the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302/149, 323/149 as well as under sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code are liable to be set aside and instead thereof, only the aforesaid four appellants namely, hansraj No. 3, bhushan No. 14, Pappu No. 19 and Suresh no. 25 are liable to be convicted under Section 302/34, indian Penal Code on two counts and under Section 323/34, Indian penal Code on five counts. ( 22 ) THE appellants were charged with the aid of Section 149, I. P. C. and it is well settled legal position that the accused charged with the aid of Section 149, I. P. C. can be convicted with the aid of Section 34, i. P. C. (See : Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Kartarsingh v. State of punjab ( AIR 1961 SC 1787 ) : (1961 (2) Cri LJ 853), (2003) 10 SCC 108 : (2003 Cri LJ 4898)and Amarsingh v. State of Haryana, air 1973 SC 2221 : (1973 Cri LJ 1409 ). ( 23 ) RESULTANTLY this appeal stands allowed in part. The conviction and sentences of all the appellants for the offences under section 302/149, IPC on two counts, S. 323/149, IPC on five counts, 147 and 148, IPC are set aside and they are acquitted of those offences. However, appellant No. 3 Hansraj, appellant No. 14 Bhushan, appellant No. 19 pappu and appellant No. 25 Suresh are held guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. (on two counts) and section 323/34, I. P. C. (on five counts) and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count, in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R. I. for three months and each of the appellants to undergo R. I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (on each count) and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R. I. for one month respectively. All the appellants except the aforesaid four convicted appellants namely hansraj, Bhushan, Pappu and Suresh, are on bail. Their bail and surety bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal partly allowed. .