Judgment :- (M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This judgment shall govern these two Crl.A.Nos. 30 and 31 of 2008. Challenge is made to the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Division, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.294/2004 whereby all the appellants along with A9 stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: First charge: A1, A2, A3 and A9 were found guilty under Section 148 IPC. Second charge: A4 to A8 and A10 to A19 were found guilty under section 147 IPC. Third charge : A1 to A5, A7, A9 and A12 were found guilty under section 302 IPC. Fourth Charge: A6, A8, A10, A11, A13, A14 to A19 were found guiltyunder section 302 r/w 149 IPC. Fifth charge : A2 and A9 were found guilty under section 326 IPC. Sixth charge : A1, A3 to A8, A10 to A19 were found guilty under section 326 r/w 149 IPC. Seventh charge : A7 and A8 were found guilty under section 324 IPC. Eighth charge : A6 and A9 to A19 were found guilty under section 324 /w 149 IPC. Nineth charge : A4 was found guilty under section 325 IPC Tenth Charge : A5, A10 and A11 were found guilty under section 323 IPC. Eleventh charge: A1 to A4, A6 to A9, A12 to A19 were found guilty under section 323 r/w 149 IPC. Twelfth charge : A1 to A4, A6 to A19 were found guilty under section section 325 r/w 149 IPC. Thirteenth charge: A1 was found guilty under section 324 IPC. Fourteenth charge: A2 to A19 were found guilty under section 324 r/w 149 IPC. Fifteenth charge : A5, A10 & A11 were found guilty under section 323 IPC. Sixteenth charge : A1 to A4, A6 to A9 and A12 to A19 were found guilty under section 323 r/w 149 IPC. Seventeenth charge : A2 was found guilty under section 324 IPC. Eighteenth charge : A1, A3 to A19 were found guilty under section 324 r/w 149 IPC. Nineteenth charge : A3 & A4 were found guilty under section 324 IPC Twentieth charge : A1, A2, A5 to A9 were found guilty under section 324 r/w 149 IPC Twenty first charge : A2, A3, A14, A15 and A18 were found guilty under section 323 r/w 34 IPC. TABLE Pending trial, A9 died. Hence, the charges levelled against A9 stood abated. 2. TABLE Pending trial, A9 died. Hence, the charges levelled against A9 stood abated. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the daughter-in-law of P.W.3, P.W.2 is the father of the deceased Annamalai. P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the grand daughter of P.W.2. P.W.5 is the son of the deceased. P.W.15 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.14 is the paternal uncle of P.W.4 P.W.13 was also a native of the same place. All the accused persons and the above witnesses belongs to Kuriattukarankottai. Four years prior to the occurrence, a Mariamman temple was construction and consecration also took place. The above mentioned prosecution witnesses and also the accused party contributed for the same. After Kumbabishegam , the Karagam was kept in the house of P.W.2. A1 objected for the same. There was a panchayat where it was decided that it should be kept in the house of P.W.2. P.W.2 gave a complaint before Pochampalli Police Station and proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C. were initiated. The same was amicably solved before the R.D.O that P.W.1 should be allowed to keep the karagam in his house. A1 who objected originally for the karagam to be placed in the house of P.W.2 said that he and his family members should be allowed to use the pathway as a condition, to which course, the opposite party was not amenable. On 9. 2003 at 3.00 p.m., Vaira/wife of A4 was grazing her cattle in the mango garden of P.W.2. When P.W.3 questioned the same, he was beaten by Vaira , A4 , A7 and A15 and they wanted to go to Police Station. At that time, A4 , A18 and A11 went to the Panchayat President house and they were returning home in a TVS 50. At the same time,the deceased, P.W.2 and P.W.3 who were coming in the opposite direction in another TVS 50 dashed against the TVS 50 of the accused party. Thus, the deceased, P.W.2 and P.W.3 fell down. While they got up, the occurrence has commenced. A4, A11 and A18 went and brought A1 along with the other accused. A1 was armed with a knife. A2 was armed with a stick. A3 was armed with iron rod. At the time of occurrence, A1 made a cut on the left knee of the deceased. While they got up, the occurrence has commenced. A4, A11 and A18 went and brought A1 along with the other accused. A1 was armed with a knife. A2 was armed with a stick. A3 was armed with iron rod. At the time of occurrence, A1 made a cut on the left knee of the deceased. A3 made a cut on the right ear of the deceased. A10 beat the deceased on the right wrist with a stick, A2 beat him on the right hand. A11 and A5 beat him on the back. P.W.3 was assaulted by A2, A9, A7 and A8 and A3 attacked the deceased with knife on the left side of the head. A1 beat the deceased with stick on the left side of the head. A9 beat on the right fore head with iron rod, A12 beat him on the right side of the ear, A13 beat him on the right jaw, A4 attacked him with stone on the left wrist, A15 beat him with stone and stick on the back side of the head , A2 beat himon the left shoulder and head with the stone. A7 beat with stone. P.W.4 was attacked by A2, A4, A6, A16, A18 and A19. P.W.1 attacked A2 to A4. After the occurrence, all the accused left the place of occurrence. (b) P.W.14 brought a tempo and took the injured to the Government Hospital at Dharmapuri. They were all examined by the doctor. P.W.1 was examined by P.W.8 doctor and the accident register copy was marked as Ex.P5. P.W.2 was examined by P.W.6 doctor and the accident register copy was marked as Ex.P3. P.W.3 was examined by P.W.6 doctor and the accident register copy was marked as Ex.P2. P.W.4 was examined by P.W.7 doctor and the accident register copy was marked as Ex.P4. Equally, on the very day the accused persons A2, A3, A4, A7, A11, A15, A17, A18 and A19 all took treatment in the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri. The accident register copies were marked as Exs.P.16, 13, 12, 14, 8, 10, 7, 11 & 9 respectively. (c) P.W.30- Sub-Inspector, on information, sent P.W.29-Head Constable to Dharmapuri Hospital. Thereafter, P.W.30 proceeded to Krishnagiri Hospital and recorded the statement-Ex.P29 of A11/Murugan. The accident register copies were marked as Exs.P.16, 13, 12, 14, 8, 10, 7, 11 & 9 respectively. (c) P.W.30- Sub-Inspector, on information, sent P.W.29-Head Constable to Dharmapuri Hospital. Thereafter, P.W.30 proceeded to Krishnagiri Hospital and recorded the statement-Ex.P29 of A11/Murugan. P.W.29 recorded the statement from P.W.1 at 12 noon at Dharmapuri Hospital which was marked as Ex.P1 and returned to the Police Station and handed over the report to P.W.30. P.W.30 who went over to the Dharmapuri Hospital recorded the statement of A11 and he also brought that statement to the Police Station. Two cases were registered, one in Crime No.313/2003 under section 147, 148, 323, 324, 341 and 307 I.P.C. on the strength of statement Ex.P39 given by A11. Equally, P.W.30 registered another case on the report given by P.W.1 in Crime No.314/2003 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 141 and 307 IPC. Ex.P1 is the report of P.W.1. Ex.P40 and Ex.P41 are the printed F.I.R. of Crime No.313 and 314/2004 respectively. (d) P.W.31 Inspector of Police attached to Barur Police Station took up investigation of the case in Crime No.313/2003 He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P27 and also drew a rough sketch Ex.P42 and the photographs were taken. He also seized the stick, ripper, iron rod , reaper, chappals and mudguard of TVS 50, blood stained earth and sample earth under a cover of mahazar in the presence of witnesses. The investigating officer went to Dharmapuri hospital and examined P.W.2, 3, 4 and on 19. 2003 he went to the Gokulam Hospital at Salem and found the deceased in unconscious stage and examined the wife of the deceased and seized the blood stained pant belonged to the deceased which was produced by P.W.15. He got information about the death of the deceased on 19. 2003 at 9.00 p.m. He received Ex.P.14 death intimation. Hence, the case was altered to section 302 I.P.C. at 5 O clock on 19. 2003. The amended F.I.R. Ex.P44 was sent to Court. (e) The investigating officer P.W.31 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P45 inquest report and the dead body was subjected to post mortem. Hence, the case was altered to section 302 I.P.C. at 5 O clock on 19. 2003. The amended F.I.R. Ex.P44 was sent to Court. (e) The investigating officer P.W.31 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P45 inquest report and the dead body was subjected to post mortem. P.W.11 doctor attached to Government Hospital, Salem conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Annamalai and gave Ex.P17 post mortem certificate wherein he has opined that the deceased would have died due of the head injuries. P.W.26 made requisition to the Judicial Magistrate for the material objects to be sent for Forensic Department for analysis and the same was ordered and Ex.P35 chemical report and two serologist reports viz.,Ex.P.36 and Ex.P37 were received and they were sent to Court. (f) Pending investigation P.W.31 arrested A2 to A4 , A6, A7, A15, A17, A18 and A19 on 19. 2003 at 9.30 p.m. at Mathur Road. Further, A3 gave the confession statement voluntarily which was recorded by the investigating officer in the presence of witens pursuant to which he seized M.O.5 iron rod and knife under Ex.P47 mahazar. The admissible part of the confession statement of A3 is Ex.P.46. (g) P.W.31 handed over the case records to P.W.32 Inspector of Police. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.32. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. Further, he arrested A9, A12, A13, A14 and A16 on 19. 2003 and all of them were produced before Court. TVS 50 was seized from A5 which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Request was made to the Motor Vehicle Inspector P.W.12, to examine the vehicle who gave a report Ex.P18. Then, the investigating officer examined the witnesses with reference to Crime No.313 of 2003 and closed the same as a mistake of fact and filed the final report in Crime No.314 of 2003 before the Court. (h) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. Pending trial, A9 died. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses and relied on 49 exhibits and relied on 27 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution witnesses. They denied them as false. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses and relied on 49 exhibits and relied on 27 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution witnesses. They denied them as false. No witness were examined on the side of the defence but a document,Ex.D1 was marked. The Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and rendered the judgment of conviction and sentence as referred to above. Hence, these appeals at the instance of the appellants. 3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, Mr. V.Gopinath, the learned Senior counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed in all aspects to bring home the guilt of the accused. According to the prosecution case, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were actually injured. Equally on the side of the accused, out of 19 accused, 9 accused were injured. Insofar as the prosecution witnesses were concerned, they were all taken to Dharmpuri Hospital. On the other hand, all the injured accused were given treatment at Government Hospital,Krishnagiri.Both parties have given the time of occurrence to their respective doctors as 4.00 p.m.. Thus, it is quite clear that the occurrence has taken place at 4.00 p.m. on 9. 2003. The time of occurrence, though was actually at 4.00 p.m. they made an attempt to make it as 4.30 p.m in the F.I.R and also as 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. at the time of recording evidence. Without any reason, the prosecution witnesses wanted to rope in A1. A1 is a School teacher. He has attended the School till 4.05 p.m. P.Ws. 22 and P.W.23 who were also teachers of the same school where A1 was working have stated that A1 was in the school and there was also special class conducted which also extends upto 5.30 p.m. The attendance register was brought to the Court but the same was not marked through the prosecution but it was marked by the defence side which would clearly indicate that A1 could not have been in the place of occurrence at that time. Therefore, for that purpose, they wanted to shift the time of occurrence. 4. Therefore, for that purpose, they wanted to shift the time of occurrence. 4. The learned counsel would further add that Ex.P1 was the report given by P.W.1 wherein it is clearly stated the names of A1 to A6 and 25 others and nowhere the names of A7 to A19 were mentioned in the report. It is pertinent to point out, according to the prosecution witnesses, there were two incidents that had taken place prior to the occurrence. A4s wife Varai grazed the cattle in the mango garden of P.W.2 and P.W.3 questioned the same. Immediately, Vaira and some of the accused attacked P.W.3. Thus, they were aggrieved. Equally, when the accused proceeded to the Panchayat Presidents house and were returning back in a TVS 50, at that time ,some of the accused also came in TVS 50 in the opposite direction and dashed against them and hence,there was quarrel between them. These two incidents were spoken by the prosecution witnesses at the time of evidence but nowhere it is mentioned in Ex.P1 report. But these two incidents were averred in Ex.P39 complaint given by A11 to P.W.30 Sub Inspector of Police, on the strength of which, a case in Crime No.313/2008 came to be registered. A reading of Ex.P1 report would indicate as if the occurrence has suddenly taken place. But it was not so which would clearly indicative of the fact that the prosecution witnesses were the aggressors. 5. The learned counsel would further add, in the instant case, A2, A3, A4, A7, A11, A15, A17, A18 and A19 were all injured. They were immediately taken to Krighnagiri Government Hospital. They were all given treatment by the doctors. The accident Register copies were also marked by the prosecution side. It is true those injuries notices were simple injuries but the cut injury were sustained by A11, A15 and A18 as could be seen from the Accident Registrar copies but no explanation was tendered by the prosecution witnesses when the eye witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined. These witnesses have clearly deposed that no injury was sustained by the accused party. P.W.13 and P.W.14 were also examined as eye witnesses and through them, the prosecution made an attempt to give feasible explanation that the injuries were sustained by the accused side also at the time when the prosecution witnesses threw stones in order to protect themselves. These witnesses have clearly deposed that no injury was sustained by the accused party. P.W.13 and P.W.14 were also examined as eye witnesses and through them, the prosecution made an attempt to give feasible explanation that the injuries were sustained by the accused side also at the time when the prosecution witnesses threw stones in order to protect themselves. The learned counsel would further add all these eye witnesses have categorically stated that the investigating officer have not examined them in respect of the injuries sustained by the accused. It would be quite clear that the investigation was not properly done in Crime No.313/2003 which was registered on the complaint given by A11 under Ex.P.39. 6. The learned counsel would further add, the occurrence has taken place on the evening hours of 9. 2003. P.W.14 has stated that his sons were taken by the police on the night of the occurrence. P.W.1 has stated that the police came to the place of occurrence at 8.00 p.m. on the same day. P.W.30 has stated that they went to the place of occurrence at 8.00 a.m. the next morning. However, the case was registered in Crime No.314/2003 at 2.00 p.m. on 19. 2003 which would clearly indicate that there was inordinate delay and the prosecution never explained how this delay has caused. The learned counsel would further add, in the instant case the names of A7 to A19 were actually not found in Ex.P.1. At the time of investigation, their names were added since they were actually found with injuries. In order to explain the same, their names were added. 7. Added further learned counsel P.W.32 has categorically admitted that A2 to A4, A7, A11, A15, A17 and A19 were injured in the same transaction. If to be so, proper investigation should have been done, but not done so. Added further, P.W.13 has categorically stated that at the time of occurrence there was pelting of stones on both sides. Thus, it is clear that when such an occurrence has taken place, the prosecution was unable to explain how the injuries were sustained. The prosecution witnesses are the aggressors and the delay was not explained. All would go to show that the prosecution has not brought home the guilty of the accused. Thus, it is clear that when such an occurrence has taken place, the prosecution was unable to explain how the injuries were sustained. The prosecution witnesses are the aggressors and the delay was not explained. All would go to show that the prosecution has not brought home the guilty of the accused. The investigation was not properly done in Crime No.313 of 2003 and benefit of doubt would go to the accused/appellants and they are entitled to be acquitted in the hands of this Court. 8. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 9. It is not in controversy that the occurrence had taken place in the evening hours on 9. 2003. The husband of P.W.15 one Annamalai was severely injured and he was taken along with the injured P.Ws. 1 to 4 to Dharmapuri Government Hospital and P.W.1 to 4 were given treatment along with the deceased. Despite treatment, the deceased died. The case was originally registered on the strength of Ex.P.1 complaint given by P.W.1 in Crime No.314/2003 at about 2.00 p.m. on 19. 2003. The case which was originally registered for offence under section 307 IPC and other provisions. On receipt of the intimation that Annamlai died, the case was altered to section 302 I.P.C. P.W.32, who took up further investigation. After conduct of inquest on the dead body of Annamalai, the dead body was subjected to post mortem. P.W.11 doctor conducted post mortem and gave his opinion in the post mortem certificate Ex.P17 issued by him and also as a witness before the Court that Annamalai died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him. The fact that Annamalai died out of homicidal violence was not in controversy before the trial court. Hence, no impediment was felt by the trial Court in recording so and rightly too. 10. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 4, 13 and 14 as eye witnesses. Out of whom P.Ws. 1 to 4 were injured witnesses. All these witnesses have spoken to the fact that the occurrence has taken place at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. on 9. 2003. 10. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 4, 13 and 14 as eye witnesses. Out of whom P.Ws. 1 to 4 were injured witnesses. All these witnesses have spoken to the fact that the occurrence has taken place at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. on 9. 2003. On the strength of Ex.P1 report given by P.W.1, a case came to be registered by the respondent police in Crime No.314/2003 at 2.00 p.m. on 19. 2003. It is also an admitted position that Crime No.313/2003 came to be registered on the complaint given by A11 to P.W.30 Sub Inspector of Police under Ex.P.39. The case was registered under section 307 I.P.C and other provisions of the Penal Code. Investigation in both the cases were taken up by P.W.32 investigating officer. P.Ws. 1 to 4 were treated in Dharmapuri Government Hospital by the doctors, P.Ws. 6,7 and 8 and the Accident Register copies were marked as Exs.P2, P3, P4 and P5. Equally, A2, A3, A4, A7, A11, A15, A17, A18 and A19 were also treated by the medical officers at Krishnagiri Government Hospital and the Accident Register copies in that regard were marked as Ex.P16, P13, P12, P14, P8, P10, P7, P11 and P9 respectively. Before the medical Officers at Dharmapuri Government Hospital and at the Government Hospital Krishnagiri, the accused and the witnesses have stated that the occurrence has taken place at 4.00 p.m. on 9. 2003. Thus, when the prosecution witnesses were examined by the doctors in Government Hospital at Dharmapuri and the accused party when examined by the doctors at Government Hospital Krishnagiri have given the same statement, therefore, it can be safely taken that the occurrence had taken place at 4.00 p.m. on 9. 2003. 11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the first comment made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a delay in the registration of the case cannot be given any significance for the simple reason, in the course of the same transaction, both P.Ws.1 to 4 and also some of the accused above mentioned were all injured. The statement that the occurrence has taken place at 4.00 p.m. on 9. 2003 has got to be taken as truth. The statement that the occurrence has taken place at 4.00 p.m. on 9. 2003 has got to be taken as truth. Ex.P1 report stating the names of A1 to A6 and 25 others was given after 12 hours from the time of occurrence. P.W.1 has stated the names of A1 to A6 and 25 others. It is pertinent to point out that all the persons shown as accused belonged to the same place and they were all familiar to the witnesses. In Ex.P1 only the names of A1 to A6 were mentioned and the name of other persons was not found. Ex.P1 should have got its own significance. It is true, there were two incidents taken place, one, at the margosa garden, when A4s wife Vaira was grazing the cattle and the other, when there was dash of two TVS-50s, one driven by the accused party and the other by prosecution witnesses. It is true, it was not made mentioned in Ex.P1 report but it was found in Ex.P39 report given by A11. However, these two incidents were actually found to be the immediate cause for the clash between these two groups at the place of occurrence. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, all the above mentioned 9 accused were actually injured in the course of the same transaction and they were treated in the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri. The accident registers were also placed by the prosecution. It is the case where all the connected documents including the Accident register copies of the accused were all placed before the Court. Thus, it can be commented that the prosecution had not made any attempt to suppress any documents. .13. It is true that the injured witnesses P.W.1 to 4 have stated that they did not know whether the accused sustained injury. It is the fact that the accused person sustained injury in the course of same transaction and the case came to be registered at or about the time the other case came to be registered and investigation was also taken up. It is clear that P.Ws. 1 to 4 and the above mentioned 9 accused were all injured in the course of the same transaction by pelting of stones against each others. It was actually proved by the evidence of P.Ws.13 and 14. It is clear that P.Ws. 1 to 4 and the above mentioned 9 accused were all injured in the course of the same transaction by pelting of stones against each others. It was actually proved by the evidence of P.Ws.13 and 14. They have categorically deposed that there was exchange of pelting of stones. In that incident the deceased Annamalai was severely injured and the fatal injury on the head has caused his death that was also proved through the medical opinion canvassed. 14. As could be seen from the evidence available, the deceased was actually attacked by A3 on his head with knife and A9 attacked the deceased with stone on the head and also chest. Pending trial, A9 died and the charges levelled against him stood abated. Apart from A3, it was A2 who caused simple injuries to the deceased. Except these, according to the medical opinion canvassed, the fatal injury that was caused to the deceased was by A3. 15. From the perusal of the materials available, the Court has to agree with the contention putforth by the appellants. A1 could not have been in the place of occurrence. It is an admitted position that A1 was actually employed as a teacher. It was the defence plea that he actually attended the school on that day and the attendance register was also brought before court. The same not marked through the prosecution but was actually marked through the defence side. It would clearly indicate that the school time ends at 4.05 p.m. and the school is also situated 2 ½ kms from the place of occurrence, apart from that, P.Ws. 22 and 23 have categorically spoken to the fact that there was special classes which would go upto 5.30 p.m. All would indicate that A1 should have been in the school till 5.30 p.m. As could be seen from the available materials, originally, the time of occurrence was shown as 4.30 p.m. and subsequently, the time of occurrence was indicated as 5.30 p.m. through the evidence which would indicate that in order to rope in A1 in the incident, it has been done so. Taking into consideration all the above aspects, it has got to be recorded that A1 could not have been presence at the place of occurrence at all. Taking into consideration all the above aspects, it has got to be recorded that A1 could not have been presence at the place of occurrence at all. From the evidence available, it is evident that the occurrence has taken place at 4.00 p.m. on 9. 2003. .16. In appraisement of the entire circumstances and also the evidence placed before the Court, it would be quite clear that there was exchange of pelting of stones at the time of occurrence and the accused party explained that they were to exercise their private defence and in that course A3 attacked the deceased with knife and caused fatal injury. Since there was actually pelting of stones, it cannot be stated how and by whom the injuries were caused since the prosecution witnesses as well as the accused party were also injured. It was done in exercise of their right of private defence. Thus, it would indicate that they could not have any premeditation or intention. It was a free-fight, however P.W.s 1 to 4 and nine of the accused were injured. Under such circumstances, the act of A3 who had attacked the deceased with knife on the head was found to be fatal. The act of A3 was in excess of right of private defence which caused fatal injury and he has got to be found guilty for his individual act. Under such circumstances, the Court feels it fit that A3 alone could be found guilty under section 304(ii) I.P.C and the award of 5 years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. Pending trial, A9 died and the charges levelled against A9 stood abated. Therefore, insofar as the other accused are concerned, they are acquitted. 17. Accordingly, except the 3rd appellant/A3, insofar as the appellants/A1, A2, A4 to A8, A9 to A19 are concerned, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on them by the trial Court is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The bail bonds if any executed by them shall stand terminated and the fine amount if any paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them. A3 was found guilty under Section 304(ii) IPC only. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on A3 is modified, instead, he is found guilty under section 304(ii) IPC and awarded five years rigorous imprisonment. A3 was found guilty under Section 304(ii) IPC only. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on A3 is modified, instead, he is found guilty under section 304(ii) IPC and awarded five years rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount imposed on A3 under Section 302 IPC shall be treated as fine amount imposed under Section 304(ii) IPC and he is acquitted of all the other charges levelled against him. It is reported that except A1, A2 & A3, the other accused are on bail. Therefore, A1 and A2 are directed to be released forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case. 18. In the result, Crl.A.No.31/2008 is allowed and Crl.A.No.30/2008 is allowed insofar as A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A12, A13, A14, and A15 are concerned. Insofar as A3, is concerned, Crl.A.No.30/2008 is dismissed with the above modification in conviction and sentence.