JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals have been filed by three accused persons, who were tried by the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Merta in Sessions Case No. 81/1999, being aggrieved of the judgment dated 25.1.2003. under: 2. By the aforesaid judgment the accused persons. were convicted asThe accused appellant Bhanwarlal has been convicted under Sections 302 and 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- as fine and in default of fine 3 months S.I. And further convicted under Section 341 I.P.C. and sentenced to one month S.I. and Rs. 500/- as fine and in default of fine 7 days S.I. And convicted under Section 324/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced three years S.I. and Rs. 500/- as fine and in default of fine one month S.I. and further was convicted under Section 323/24 I.P.C. and one year S.I. And Rs. 500/- as fine and in default of fine one month S.I. And further convicted under Section 3/25(1B)(A) of Arms Act and sentenced 3 years R.I. and Rs. 1,000/- as fine and in default of fine 3 months S.I. And the appellant Mahesh was convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced life imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- as fine and in default 3 months S.I. And under Section 341 I.P.C. one month S.I. and Rs. 500/- as fine and in default of fine 7 days S.I. And further convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C. and sentenced 3 years S.I. and Rs. 500/- as fine and in default of fine one month S.I. and further appellant No. 2 was convicted under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced one year S.I. and Rs. 500/- as fine and in default of fine one month S.I. 3. The prosecution case is that on 11.8.1999 at about 11.45 A.M. accused Bhanwar Lal alongwith other accused persons came to Delhi Darwaja in Nagour city. At that time the deceased, alongwith Madan Lal, was going on Viccky. They were stopped, Bhanwarlal inflicted injury to Bhoma Ram by fire arm and other accused persons caused simple injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant arguing the case of accused Mahesh and Sabir tressed conviction with the aid of Section 34. He argued that Section 34 cannot be said to be made out and the case under Section 341 against accused has also been wrongly made out as it was an open way. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant arguing the case of accused Mahesh and Sabir tressed conviction with the aid of Section 34. He argued that Section 34 cannot be said to be made out and the case under Section 341 against accused has also been wrongly made out as it was an open way. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that he gives up the challenge on behalf of Bhanwar Lal and his conviction may be maintained except under Section 341 I.P.C. because it was a open way where it cannot be said that the accused obstructed the deceased. He also submitted that as regards the other two accused persons, his plea is that they have caused simple injuries and they may be convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and the accused Mahesh may be convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. for causing simple hurt. Further it is submitted that offence with the aid of Section 34- cannot be made out against them and they have remained behind the bars for sufficient time during the trial as well as appeal. In that view of the matter his prayer is that Mahesh and Sabir may be let off on the sentence already undergone. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that so far as Bhanwarlal is concerned no case is made out and that it has rightly been admitted by the learned counsel that he was guilty of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Since he is convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. his conviction under other sections become redundant. As regards the other accused persons, learned Public Prosecutor is of the opinion that they came alongwith him and, therefore Section 34 could be persuaded against them. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and given our thoughtful consideration. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has conceded the case of Bhanwar Lai in right earnestness as set up by the prosecution for killing Bhoma Ram and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. is not to be interfered with. When he is convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. his conviction under other sections becomes redundant and, therefore, no finding is recorded in that relation. As regards the other accused persons, they cannot be held guilty with the aid of Section 34 because in case of a gun fire it cannot be expected that other also shared the intention. When he is convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. his conviction under other sections becomes redundant and, therefore, no finding is recorded in that relation. As regards the other accused persons, they cannot be held guilty with the aid of Section 34 because in case of a gun fire it cannot be expected that other also shared the intention. It was a chance encounter and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there was any meeting of mind with other accused persons. Therefore, the conviction of other two accused persons under Section 302/34 I.P.C. is also not sustainable. As regards conviction under Section 311 I.P.C., it is not in conformity with the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. thus, not sustained. Their conviction under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 are maintained. They have already served out sufficient period behind the bars during the course of trial, therefore, the sentence already undergone is considered sufficient. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused as modified aforesaid are maintained. Bhanwarlal has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence to life, the other convictions of accused persons though maintained but no separate sentence is passed because he is serving life sentence. The accused persons Mahesh and Sabir are held guilty of offence under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34. Their conviction under Section 341 is set aside. The sentence awarded is modified and the sentence already undergone is considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice for these two accused.Appeal partly allowed. *******