ORAL JUDGMENT S. B. DESHMUKH, J. :- Present appellants were accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in Sessions Case No. 93 of 2001 along with four others. The accused have faced trial for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 324 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule (trial Judge) at the conclusion of trial, held appellants guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. They have also been convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set off of the detention period is also given to the appellants. These appellants have been acquitted for other offences with which they were charged. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, as aforesaid, the appellants have filed present appeal. The appellants, hereinafter, are referred to their original status as accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 respectively for the sake of convenience. 2. The facts in brief, necessary for consideration of this appeal, are listed herein below :- (A). First information report in this case was lodged by one Krushnaji at Dhule Police Station on 7-7-2001 at 00.30 Hrs. It is alleged by Krushnaji in the said report that on 6-7-2001 he was with his father in the thrashing floor. One Bandu Rambhau Patil is his uncle. Partition between his father and uncle Bandu took place prior to the lodging of the report. Despite partition, the agricultural lands were standing in the name of his father Vithoba. In the evening of 6-72001, at about 7.00 p.m. a calf which was tied in his thrashing floor, untied itself and went to the thrashing floor of his uncle Bandu. Krushnaji followed the calf to the thrashing floor of his uncle Bandu, caught hold and brought it back to his thrashing floor. At that time his uncle Bandu, accused No.1 Baban and accused No.2 Navanath were present. They scolded him on account of the calf entering their thrashing floor. Krushnaji followed the calf to the thrashing floor of his uncle Bandu, caught hold and brought it back to his thrashing floor. At that time his uncle Bandu, accused No.1 Baban and accused No.2 Navanath were present. They scolded him on account of the calf entering their thrashing floor. He explained that calf had un-tied itself and it is not a deliberate act on his part. He returned to his thrashing floor along with the calf. (B). After some time his uncle Bandu armed with stick, accused No.2 Navnath armed with stick and accused No. 1 Baban armed with an axe, came to their thrashing floor and hurled abuses to them. Accused No.1 Baban assaulted his father with an axe. The stroke was given on the head of Vithoba. His uncle Bandu assaulted Krushnaji and his father with stick. Accused No.2 Navnath also assaulted him and his father with stick. The assailants after noticing the injuries, left for their house. He along with his father Vithoba returned to his house. On the way to their house, they were also accompanied by one Prakash Bhadane _ husband of his aunt. (C). At about 7.15 p.m. his mother Sindhubai was also abused by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and other co-accused, who are acquitted by the trial Court. At that time Prakash (PW 5) requested them not to scold Sindhubai. Accused No.2, accused No.1 and other accused persons assaulted his mother Sindhubai as well as PW 5 Prakash. At that time accused No.1 assaulted PW 5 Prakash with sword, at his neck. Sindhubai was also beaten by other lady accused persons by fists and blows. This beating was witnessed by Meerabai, Nadarbai, Sadashiv etc. and these witnesses have rescued Sindhubai and PW 5 Prakash. Thereafter, Krushnaji, in an autorickshaw went to Dhule for lodging the report and for treatment. This first information report is on record at Exhibit 38. (D). On 6-7-2001 PSI Hiralal (PW 11) was on duty at Dhule Taluka Police Station. PW 1 Krushnaji's report was registered by Police Station Officer at Cr.No. 169 of 2001, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code. Investigation was taken over by PW 11 Hiralal. He registered the offence on 7-7-2001 at 00.30 Hrs. At about 1.30 a.m. on 7-7-2001, he arrested accused Nos. 1 to 6. PW 1 Krushnaji's report was registered by Police Station Officer at Cr.No. 169 of 2001, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code. Investigation was taken over by PW 11 Hiralal. He registered the offence on 7-7-2001 at 00.30 Hrs. At about 1.30 a.m. on 7-7-2001, he arrested accused Nos. 1 to 6. In the morning of 7-7-2001, he drew panchanama of the scene of offence (Exhibit 80) with the assistance of PW 8 Shantilal, a panch witness. At the time of drawing spot panchanama ordinary soil as well as soil mixed with the blood was seized, kept in a packet and packet was sealed. Along with PW 8 Shantilal, one more panch witness Gopichand was present, however, he has not been examined in the Court. PW 11 Hiralal, thereafter, interrogated some witnesses and recorded their statements. These are about five witnesses. These statements were recorded on 7-7-2001. Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to PW 12 API Deepak Gotmare. (E). PW 12 API Deepak held inquest over the dead body of Vithoba in the presence of two panchas and recorded a panchanama to that effect, which is at Exhibit 47. This panchanama is proved in his evidence. He also recorded statements of Sindhubai, mother of PW 1 Krushnaji. On 10-7-2001, accused No.4 showed readiness and willingness to disclose the information. PW 12 API Deepak called two panchas, namely; Ravindra and Aba. Information given by accused No.4 Bandu was recorded in the presence of panch witnesses under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This memorandum of panchanama is at Exhibit 93, which led with the discovery of weapon is proved in the evidence of PW 3 Aba as well as in the evidence of PW 12 API Deepak. In pursuance of the information disclosed, the panch witness and Police Officers were led by accused No.4 and the weapon alleged to have been used in the commission of crime i.e. stick was discovered at the instance of accused No. 4. Said weapon was attached and seized under panchanama Exhibit 94. PW 12 API Deepak also seized a steel bucket at the instance of accused No. 2 from his house (Article No. 22). He also seized one stick at the instance of accused No.2 (Article No. 23) from his house. Seizure of these articles is at Exhibit 51. Said weapon was attached and seized under panchanama Exhibit 94. PW 12 API Deepak also seized a steel bucket at the instance of accused No. 2 from his house (Article No. 22). He also seized one stick at the instance of accused No.2 (Article No. 23) from his house. Seizure of these articles is at Exhibit 51. PW 12 API Deepak also claims that accused No. 1 Baban made a disclosure statement regarding an axe. Said statement was recorded under panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. According to the information received and at the instance of accused No.1, said axe was discovered by PW 12 API Deepak. This panchanama is at Exhibit 83. This panchanama is proved in the evidence of PW 12 API Deepak. Under this panchanama Exhibit 83, two weapons have been discovered at the instance of accused No.1, namely; axe (Article 17) and blade of harrow (Article 18). To prove this panchanama Exhibit 83, prosecution relied upon the evidence ofPW 3 Aba as well as PW 12 Deepak. PW 12 API Deepak has also clarified in his evidence that zerox copy of the panchanama is placed on record since the original copy of page No.2 of the panchanama was found missing at the time of the trial. This zerox copy is exhibited in the evidence of PW 12 API Deepak at Exhibit 84. This witness also caused the examination of accused and collected blood samples. He, thereafter, handed over investigation to API Satish Jadhav. (F). PW 13 API Satish has recorded statements of two witnesses. He arrested accused No.8 Kamalabai on 3.8.2001, who is not appellant in this appeal. (G). PW 2 Dr. Ajit Patil, had performed autopsy over the dead body of Vithoba along with Dr. Pathak on 7-7-2001, between 1345 Hours to 1445 Hours, at Dhule Civil Hospital. He noticed following injuries on the dead body. (1). Contused lacerated wound over occipital region of scalp 1.2 cm x 0.4. cm x scalp deep, reddish, fresh. (2). On internal examination - there was sub-aponeurotic haemorrhage in occipital and left temporal region. A fracture of left temporal bone and fracture of occipital bone left side. (3). Extra-dural haemorrhage in left temporal parital and occipital region. There was generalised cerebral oedema. There was sub-dural haemorrhage in left temporal region. According to this witness, the injuries mentioned in Col. (2). On internal examination - there was sub-aponeurotic haemorrhage in occipital and left temporal region. A fracture of left temporal bone and fracture of occipital bone left side. (3). Extra-dural haemorrhage in left temporal parital and occipital region. There was generalised cerebral oedema. There was sub-dural haemorrhage in left temporal region. According to this witness, the injuries mentioned in Col. No. 19 of the post mortem notes are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of a human being. Further according to him, the injuries mentioned in Col.No. 17 and 19 were ante mortem and fresh. The cause of death, according to this witness, was the head injury. He also opined that the said injury was possible by impact of hard, blunt and moderately heavy to heavy object. He also opined that the injury sustained by deceased to his head is possible by Article 17 - axe, however, from the blunt side and not from the sharp side. He has proved the post mortem notes at Exhibit 46. Inquest panchanama is placed on record, since it was admitted by defence and exhibited as Exhibit 47. Clothes of the deceased were seized, after the post-mortem, under seizure panchanama Exhibit 48. This panchanama is proved in the evidence of PW 3 Aba as well as the Investigating Officer. (H). PW 4 Yogesh, Police Constable, is examined for proving the handing over incriminating articles to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination on 6.8.2001. On behalf of the prosecution, apart from these witnesses, PW 5 Prakash is examined as an injured as well as eye witness to the incident. PW 9 Swaroopchand, according to the prosecution, is also an eye witness to the incident. Report of the Chemical Analyser is placed on record at Exhibits 99 to 106. (I). PW 13 API Satish filed charge-sheet against the accused persons after completing the investigation. 3. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge was framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 12-12-2004 at Exhibit 15. All accused (in all 8 including the appellants) were charged. Accused Nos. 1 to 8 were charged for the offence under section 147 of Indian Penal Code, accused Nos. 1 to 8 were also charged for the offence under section 148 of Indian Penal Code, accused No.1 was charged for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, accused Nos. Accused Nos. 1 to 8 were charged for the offence under section 147 of Indian Penal Code, accused Nos. 1 to 8 were also charged for the offence under section 148 of Indian Penal Code, accused No.1 was charged for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were charged for the offence under section 307 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and accused Nos. 1 to 8 were charged for the offence under section 324 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. The charges were explained to the accused persons and they have denied the same and claimed to be tried. 4. The case of the prosecution primarily rests on the ocular evidence of PW 1 Krushnaji, PW 5 Prakash and PW 9 Swaroopchand. From the evidence of PW 1 Krushnaji, it appears that accused No. 1 Baban assaulted deceased with axe and accused Nos. 2 Navnath and 4 Bandu assaulted deceased with sticks. According to him, this assault took place at the thrashing floor. Accused No. 1 gave blow of axe on the head of victim - Vithoba and thereby Vithoba sustained bleeding injury on his head and he fell on the ground. He also claims to have been assaulted by accused Nos. 2 and 4 with sticks. According to him, his father Vithoba was also assaulted by accused Nos. 2 Navanth and 4 Bandu with sticks. From the evidence of PW 5 Prakash, it appears that he did not witness the assault on deceased Vithoba as well as PW 1 Krushnaji at the thrashing floor. His evidence is in respect of assault on himself by all the accused persons as well as accused Nos. 2 and 4. Evidence of PW 9 Swaroopchand is in respect of alleged assault on deceased Vithoba. According to him, he was, at the relevant time, returning to his house. There was a quarrel and accused No.1 Baban armed with an axe, accused Nos. 2 and 4 armed with sticks were present at the scene of incident. According to him, accused No. 1 Baban assaulted Vithoba from the head side of axe (blunt side) and accused Nos. 2 and 4 assaulted Vithoba with sticks. They also assaulted him on his head. He specifically testifies that accused No. 1 beat Krushanji with an axe. 2 and 4 armed with sticks were present at the scene of incident. According to him, accused No. 1 Baban assaulted Vithoba from the head side of axe (blunt side) and accused Nos. 2 and 4 assaulted Vithoba with sticks. They also assaulted him on his head. He specifically testifies that accused No. 1 beat Krushanji with an axe. He has admitted in his cross-examination that deceased was his brother in law by distant relation. In the cross-examination he states that after the incident, for about 2-3 weeks, he was at village Kundane itself. He also admits in the cross-examination that his statement was recorded after 15 days of the incident. 5. Shri Gangapurwala, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the evidence of PW 9 Swaroopchand needs to be rejected for the reason that he admits that his statement was recorded after about 15 days of the incident. We have referred to the cross-examination of Investigating Officer. There is no question put to the Investigating Officer regarding delayed recording of statement of PW 9 Swaroopchand. The Investigating Officer concerned, may have an explanation, regarding delayed recording of the statement. Such explanation ought to have been brought on record on behalf of the defence. If explanation tendered by the Investigating Officer is not just, sufficient and convincing, such argument advanced on behalf of the defence can be considered. In the course of investigation, statement of a witness, might have been recorded by the officer concerned at later point of time. Merely such delay without giving opportunity to Investigating Officer for explanation cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. In our opinion, evidence of PW 1 Krushnaji regarding occurrence i.e. assault to his father Vithoba at the thrashing floor by accused No. 1 is established. On this point, we find corroboration from the evidence of PW 9 Swaroopchand. Both of them are claiming such assault by accused No.1 on the head of deceased Vithoba and with axe. PW 1 Krushnaji is not specifically stating such assault from the blunt side of the axe. PW 9 Swaroopchand, however, specifically claims such an assault by accused No.1 from the blunt side of the axe. Both of them are claiming such assault by accused No.1 on the head of deceased Vithoba and with axe. PW 1 Krushnaji is not specifically stating such assault from the blunt side of the axe. PW 9 Swaroopchand, however, specifically claims such an assault by accused No.1 from the blunt side of the axe. If the nature of the incident, assault on his father as well as unto himself i.e. PW 1 Krushnaji is considered, in our opinion, such discrepancy cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Both the witnesses have categorically deposed regarding assault by accused No.1 Baban on the head of deceased with an axe. Evidence of these two witnesses is also corroborated by evidence of PW 2 Dr. Ajit so also notes of post-mortem examination Exhibit 46. Axe - Article 17 was specifically shown to him. We have also noted the injuries in column Nos. 17 and 19 of the post-mortem report. 6. We have also examined the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in relation to accused Nos. 2 and 4. According to PW 1 Krushnaji and PW 9 Swaroopchand, these two accused persons have assaulted deceased with sticks. From the evidence of PW 2 Dr. Ajit, it appears that there are no injuries with sticks on the dead body of Vithoba. We have also perused the inquest panchanama (Exhibit 47). It is specifically mentioned in this panchanama that except the head injury there was no other injury on the dead body of deceased. Thus, considering the oral evidence of PW 1 Krushnaji and PW 9 Swaroopchand as well as evidence of PW 2 Dr. Ajit and post-mortem notes Exhibit 46, in our view, assault by accused Nos. 2 and 4 on Vithoba with sticks is shrouded with doubts. There is no supporting evidence from PW 2 Dr. Ajit and post-mortem notes Exhibit 46 as well as inquest panchanama Exhibit 47. In this view of the matter, benefit of doubt needs to be given to the accused Nos. 2 and 4 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 7. "The Charge" is defined under Chapter XVII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred 'to as the Code). Section 211 of the Code refers to the contents of the charge. 2 and 4 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 7. "The Charge" is defined under Chapter XVII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred 'to as the Code). Section 211 of the Code refers to the contents of the charge. The charge shall give the accused full information and notice, of the offence charged against him. The purpose of charge is to tell the accused person, as precisely and concisely as possible, all the matter with which he is charged and must convey to him with sufficient clarity and certainty what the prosecution intends to prove against him. Section 212 of the Code refers the particulars as to the time, place and person. Section 213 of the Code refers the manner of committing the offence alleged against the accused person. Under section 216 of the Code the Court is vested with the powers to alter or add to any charge, at any time, before the judgment is pronounced. So far as the Sessions trials are concerned, framing of charge is in accordance with the provisions laid down under section 228 of the Code. Under sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 228 of the Code, it is provided that the Court shall frame the charge in writing against the accused, if the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Sub-section (2) of section 228 of the Code mandates the learned Judge, who frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 228 to read and explain said charge to the accused and accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. If accused claims to be tried, then date for prosecution evidence is to be given by the Court, under section 230 of the Code. The Court, while framing the charge, shall assess and evaluate the material available on record. Thus, framing of charge, is an important stage in the criminal trial. 8. In the case at hand, such charge is framed against eight accused persons at Exhibit-I5. This charge seems to have been framed casually by the learned trial Judge. The accused Nos. 1 to 8 have been charged with sections 147, 148, accused No.1 is charged with the offence punishable under section 302, accused Nos. 8. In the case at hand, such charge is framed against eight accused persons at Exhibit-I5. This charge seems to have been framed casually by the learned trial Judge. The accused Nos. 1 to 8 have been charged with sections 147, 148, accused No.1 is charged with the offence punishable under section 302, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are charged with offence under section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Accused Nos. 1 to 8 are charged with offence under section 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. At the conclusion of sessions trial, the trial Judge convicted the accused No. 1 Baban, Accused No.2 Navnath and Accused No.4 Bandu for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence. The trial Court also convicted the Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 for the offence under section 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused persons, accordingly. The trial Court, however, acquitted the accused Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 8 for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court also acquitted the accused Nos. 3, 6 to 8 of the offence punishable under sections 302, 324 read with sections 149, 147 and 148 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court also acquitted the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 for the offence under sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. In the light of charge Exhibit-I5 conviction of accused No.1 Baban, accused No.2 Navnath and accused No.4 Bandu, by the trial Court, for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code is inconceivable for us. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is enacted on the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. It is to be recalled that charge under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code was not framed against the accused No. 1 Baban, accused No.2 Navnath and accused No.4 Bandu. It is also to be noted that charge under section 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code was also not framed against accused Nos. 1 to 8 or five or more accused persons. It is also to be noted that charge under section 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code was also not framed against accused Nos. 1 to 8 or five or more accused persons. For section 34 of Indian Penal Code, in our view, there is no material. Assault by accused No.1 Baban with an axe, in our view, to deceased Vithoba, is alone established. Assault by accused No.2 Navnath and accused No.4 Bandu to deceased Vithoba with sticks is not established. It is to be recalled that charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code alone was framed against the original accused No.1 by the trial Court. In the absence of any material of common intention for convicting the accused No. 2 Navnath and accused No.4 Bandu, for murder of deceased Vithoba, along with accused No. 1 Baban, they cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 9. Learned counsel Shri Gangapurwala relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Hamlet alias Sasi and others vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 3682. In the matter of Hamlet (supra) the Apex Court has observed that, out of 44 accused, only 24 persons were brought to the trial. Sessions Court came to specific finding that out of these 24 accused, only 7 persons formed an unlawful assembly, while High Court came to the conclusion that out of these 7, only 4 accused are members of the unlawful assembly. Four accused persons cannot be convicted with the aid of section 149 of Indian Penal Code. In the case on hand, the trial Court did not convict the accused No. 1 Baban, accused No.2 Navnath and accused No.4 Bandu with the aid of section 149 and under section 302 of Indian Penal Code as noted above, the trial Court convicted these accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. We are of the view that there is no such material proving common intention on the part of accused No.2 Navnath and accused No.4 Bandu. The accused No.2 Navnath and accused No.4 Bandu, therefore, needs to be acquitted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused No. 1 Baban, however, is responsible for the murderous assault to deceased Vithoba. 10. The accused No.2 Navnath and accused No.4 Bandu, therefore, needs to be acquitted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused No. 1 Baban, however, is responsible for the murderous assault to deceased Vithoba. 10. Shri Gangapurwala, learned counsel for the appellants submits in relation to accused No.1 that the prosecution claims a single blow with an axe on the head of deceased. According to him, there was no requisite intention for punishment under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred at the spur of moment. According to him, at the most, accused No. 1 can be held responsible for the offence under section 304-1 of Indian Penal Code. On examination of evidence of PW 1 Krushnaji, PW 9 Swaroopchand, PW 2 Dr. Ajit and post-mortem report, it is difficult to accede to the submission of Shri Gangapurwala. Accused No. 1 has selected head - a vital part - for assault. This assault is with an axe. From the injuries noted in the post-mortem report in column Nos. 17 and 19, we can imagine the force applied by the smitter i.e. accused No.1 Baban. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of U. P. vs. Virendra Prasad, (2004) SCC 37. In the matter of State of U. P. (supra), the Apex Court explained the sections 299, 300, 302 and 304 Part-I and II. Applying the text laid down by the Apex Court, in the matter of Hamlet (supra), in our view, in the case on hand, it is established that the accused No. 1 Baban assaulted deceased Vithoba with deadly weapon like an axe, on his head (vital part) and, therefore, has committed an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 12. P.W.1 Krishnaji also claims to have been assaulted by accused No.1 Baban, accused No.2 Navnath and accused No.4 Bandu, in the beginning of the incident. These accused, for this criminal act are convicted for offence under section 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. We have considered the evidence of P.W.1 Krishnaji, P.W.9 Swaroopchand as well as medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained by P.W.1 Krishnaji. It appears that, after the occurrence, Krishnaji reported the occurrence to the Police Officer and he was referred to the medical officer. We have considered the evidence of P.W.1 Krishnaji, P.W.9 Swaroopchand as well as medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained by P.W.1 Krishnaji. It appears that, after the occurrence, Krishnaji reported the occurrence to the Police Officer and he was referred to the medical officer. The medical officer found C.L.W. on the occipital region of the informant Krishnaji. He also noticed contusion on his back. There were some imprint. Contusion on right scapula region, from middle to lateral side, seems to have been caused by hard and blunt object. According to the medical officer, these injuries are within less than 24 hours. Evidence of P.W.1 Krishnaji, regarding offences under section 324 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code is corroborated by his own F.I.R. and the evidence of P.W.9 Swaroopchand and the medical evidence brought on record. We are satisfied that the accused No.1 Baban, accused No.2 Navnath and accused No.4 Bandu have been properly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for offence under section 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 13. In the result: (A). The appeal is partly allowed. (B). The appellant No.1 Baban Bandu Patil is convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. (C). The conviction and sentence of appellant No.2 Navnath Bandu Patil and appellant No.3 Bandu Rambhau Patil (original accused Nos. 2 and 4) for the offences punishable under sections 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. They stand acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Fine, if paid, be refunded to them. (D). The conviction and sentence inflicted upon appellant No. 1 Baban Bandu Patil, appellant No. 2 Navanath Bandu Patil and appellant No.3 Bandu Rambhau Patil for the offences punishable under sections 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code is maintained. Their appeal, to that extent, stands dismissed. (E). The sentences inflicted upon appellant No. 1 Baban Bandu Patil for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code to run concurrently. (F). Appellant No.2 Navnath Bandu Patil and appellant No.3 Bandu Rambhau Patil are in jail since 7-7-2001. Their appeal, to that extent, stands dismissed. (E). The sentences inflicted upon appellant No. 1 Baban Bandu Patil for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code to run concurrently. (F). Appellant No.2 Navnath Bandu Patil and appellant No.3 Bandu Rambhau Patil are in jail since 7-7-2001. Since both of them have been acquitted for the offences under sections 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and since both of them have undergone sentence for the offences under sections 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, they be set at liberty, if not required in any other offence. Appeal partly allowed.