JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—One Mahipal had received injuries on 19.6.1981 regarding which a first information report was lodged on the same day by his wife, which was registered under Section 307, I.P.C. Since as a result of the injuries sustained, said Mahipal expired after a few minutes of lodging of the first information report, the case was converted under Section 302, I.P.C. The appellants Yashpal and Jagpal, who are the real brothers of Mahipal, were charged for offence under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. for which they have been convicted vide judgment and order dated 13.4.1982 passed by III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 263 of 1981 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. It is against such judgment that this appeal has been preferred by the said appellants. 2. During the pendency of this appeal it was reported that appellant No. 1 Yashpal has died. Thus by order dated 5.10.2009 the appeal on behalf of Yashpal has already abated. 3. In brief, the prosecution story is that Mahipal had three brothers, namely, Yashpal (appellant No. 1), Jagpal (appellant No. 2) and Jagdish. Mahipal lived separately whereas Yashpal and Jagpal lived together. The dispute is said to be with regard to the pumping set installed on the chak, which was jointly owned by the appellants and Mahipal. It is stated that the accused persons created obstruction in the irrigation of the chak of Mahipal from the said pumping set. As per the prosecution case, on 19.6.1981 Mahipal started irrigating his land from the pumping set of one Balla Pandit of his village. Around noon, his wife Smt. Ombiri, who is the complainant, went to the said boring of Balla Pandit with meals for her husband Mahipal, who, after having his meals, went towards his chak to check the irrigation. According to the prosecution case, when Mahipal arrived on his chak, the accused Yashpal and Jagpal started abusing him saying that before irrigating his fields from the pumping set of some other person, he (Mahipal) should first obtain partition of his pumping set. The accused persons were armed with spades. When Mahipal asked them not to abuse him, the accused Yashpal and Jagpal started giving blows with their spades on the head of Mahipal. The complainant Smt. Ombiri started shouting and went towards her husband Mahipal. The accused persons were armed with spades. When Mahipal asked them not to abuse him, the accused Yashpal and Jagpal started giving blows with their spades on the head of Mahipal. The complainant Smt. Ombiri started shouting and went towards her husband Mahipal. The accused Jagpal pushed her, on account of which she fell on the ground. On hearing the shouts of Smt. Ombiri, other persons of the village, namely, Bhullan son of Hargyan and Laxmi Chand son of Shanker rushed to the spot and on seeing them, the accused Yashpal and Jagpal ran away towards the village. It is stated that the incident took place at about 1.00 p.m. in the day. Because of the injuries sustained by him, Mahipal became unconscious and fell on the ground. Thereafter the complainant Smt. Ombiri, with the help of Bhullan and Laxmi Chand, took Mahipal to the police station and lodged the report at 4.45 p.m. on the same day. At the police station S.I. Akhtar Ali was present and he started the investigation. He recorded the statement of the injured Mahipal, who was wavering between consciousness and unconsciousness. The injured Mahipal was then sent to P.H.C. Chhaprauli. At the P.H.C. Dr. Sita Ram, P.W. 3, medically examined the injured Mahipal at 5.00 p.m. Within 5 minutes thereafter i.e. at 5.05 p.m. the injured Mahipal died at the P.H.C. itself, of which an information was sent to the police station on the same day at 5.30 P.M. and the case was converted from one under Section 307 to Section 302, I.P.C. Akhtar Ali, S.I. reached the P.H.C. Chhaprauli and took the dead body of Mahipal in his custody and sent the same for post mortem examination, which was performed by Dr. Raj Kumar at 4.15 p.m. on 20.6.1981. The statement of Smt.Ombiri was already recorded at the police station. The I.O. also interrogated the witnesses Baljeet and Abdul Hameed in whose presence he had recorded the statement of Mahipal. He also visited the spot along with Smt. Ombiri and other witnesses, from where he took in his possession blood-stained and unstained earth as well as broken handle of the spade etc., which all were duly sealed. The investigation was thereafter transferred to S.I. Rajendra Singh, S.O., Police Station Chhaprauli who filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons on 4.7.1981. 4. The investigation was thereafter transferred to S.I. Rajendra Singh, S.O., Police Station Chhaprauli who filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons on 4.7.1981. 4. By order dated 11.9.1981 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed on 3.11.1981. Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined two witnesses of fact, namely, Smt. Ombiri, wife of the deceased, as P.W. 1; and Laxmi Chand (who had reached the spot on hearing the shrieks of Smt.Ombiri) as P.W. 2. The other formal witnesses who were examined by the prosecution were Dr. Sita Ram (who had medically examined Mahipal at the P.H.C.) as P.W. 3; S.I. Akhtar Ali (who initially investigated the case) as P.W. 4; Sunil Kumar (who scribed the written information at the instance of Smt. Ombiri) as P.W. 5; Dr. Raj Kumar (who performed the post mortem examination) as P.W. 6; constable clerk Shambhu Dutt Sharma as P.W. 7; Abdul Hameed @ Dari (who is said to be the witness of the statement made by Mahipal) as P.W. 8; and constable Indrajeet (who carried the dead body of Mahipal for post mortem) as P.W. 9. 6. No oral evidence was adduced by the defence. However, a certified copy of the statement of Abdul Hameed son of Rahman Ali in Sessions Trial No. 218 of 1977 as well as a copy of the charge-sheet in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 1979 and a copy of the F.I.R. dated 25.1.1982 had been filed to show that Abdul Hameed was otherwise also produced as prosecution witness by the police in other cases. 7. In her statement, the complainant Smt. Ombiri P.W. 1 has denied the fact of her lodging the first information report. She also denied that there was any quarrel between her husband and the accused persons regarding partition of the pumping set. She also denied her presence on the spot at the time of occurrence and stated that she was at her house at such time. According to her statement, the occurrence took place at the pumping set belonging to her husband and the accused persons, and that she was informed of the occurrence by other persons who had assembled on the spot. According to her statement, the occurrence took place at the pumping set belonging to her husband and the accused persons, and that she was informed of the occurrence by other persons who had assembled on the spot. She has further stated that information regarding the occurrence was conveyed to her at her house after one hour of the murder of her husband. In such circumstances, the prosecution declared Smt.Ombiri to be a hostile witness and she was subjected to cross-examination, in which she admitted that after the murder of her husband the entire property belonging to the brothers has been partitioned and the share of her husband has been transferred in favour of her sons. She also stated that her thumb impressions were taken on some blank papers by her uncle, who had taken her to the police station Chhaprauli at about 10.00 p.m. on 19.6.1981. She denied that any statement of her was recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, Cr.P.C. On being shown the written first information report, she disowned the same. She also denied the suggestion of the prosecution that she was not supporting the prosecution case because in the bargain, the share of Mahipal in the property has been transferred in the names of her sons. In her cross-examination, she admitted that her husband Mahipal was a tube well operator in district Agra and had been suspended in a case of bribery and after his suspension, he was living in the village. She also admitted that her father-in-law Girwar Singh owned about 19-20 bighas of land which was given for cultivation to the accused Yashpal and Jagpal alone, and not to the deceased Mahipal and the other brother Jagdish, who was a teacher at Chandigarh. In her statement she also admitted that her husband was displeased with the aforesaid arrangement made by her father-in-law. In the end she also stated that while her husband was staying in the village, he used to associate himself with bad elements of the village. 8. The other witness of fact, Laxmi Chand P.W. 2 also claimed that he was not present on the spot and that he reached the spot only after gathering knowledge of the incident from other villagers and when he reached there, he found Mahipal lying on the spot in an unconscious state. He too was declared hostile by the prosecution and was subjected to cross-examination. He too was declared hostile by the prosecution and was subjected to cross-examination. He admitted having taken Mahipal in a trolley of a tractor to P.S. Chhaprauli but denied that the I.O. had recorded his statement regarding the said occurrence. He, however, stated that from the police station, Mahipal was carried to the hospital, where he died and that during this entire period he was present by the side of Mahipal, and that he (Mahipal) remained unconscious and did not utter a single word. He also mentioned that another villager Bhullan was with him throughout. 9. Dr. Sita Ram P.W. 3 had been examined to prove the injuries of Mahipal as found by him at the P.H.C. Sunil Kumar P.W. 5, who had scribed the first information report at the instance of Smt. Ombiri, was examined to prove the same. Dr. Raj Kumar P.W. 6 was examined to prove the post mortem report which was conducted by him on the dead body of Mahipal on 20.6.1981. Constable-clerk Shambhu Dutt Sharma P.W. 7 was examined to prove the first information report of the case. Abdul Hameed @ Dari P.W. 8 was examined to prove the statement made by Mahipal to the I.O. recorded immediately after lodging of the first information report. Constable Indrajeet Sharma P.W. 9 was examined as he had carried the dead body of Mahipal for post mortem examination on 20.6.1981 and had obtained the report. 10. S.I. Akhtar Ali, P.W. 4, who had investigated the case initially, was the most important witness produced by the prosecution, on whose statement rests the entire charge against the accused persons (appellants). He is said to have recorded the statement of injured Mahipal under Section 161 , Cr.P.C. which is sought to be read as the dying declaration of Mahipal under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. He has deposed that the first information report was recorded in his presence at P.S. Chhaprauli, after which he took up the investigation. In his cross-examination he has stated that he copied the chik report and G.D. entry in the case diary simultaneously with the head constable, as he was recording the same while speaking aloud and that immediately thereafter he recorded the statement of the injured Mahipal in the case diary, who was lying in the campus of the police station on a cot. The statement of Mahipal recorded by him, as translated in English, reads as under : “My real brothers Yashpal and Jagpal did not permit me to irrigate from the joint tubewell. Today dated 19.6.81 I was irrigating my sugarcane from the tubewell of Balla Pandit of my village. At about 1 O’ clock in the day, both the brothers Yashpal and Jagpal holding spades in their hands came up and they saying ‘Sale’ have your boring (pumping set) partitioned and then irrigate from the boring of others’ inflicted injuries with spades on my head with the intention to kill me. My wife had come with my meals and Bhullan son of Hargyan and Lakhmi Chand son of Shanker of our village also reached there on hearing noise. Then I became unconscious and fell there on the ground. My wife got me lifted from the spot through villagers and has brought me to the police station. I have sustained severe injuries.” 11. This statement is said to have been recorded in the presence of several witnesses of the village as well as Baljeet and Abdul Hameed who had come to the police station of their own. The said statement was recorded after lodging of the first information report at 4.45 p.m. which, as stated by P.W. 4; S.I. Akhtar Ali in his statement, was done so by him in 3-4 minutes. 12. Based on the statement of S.I. Akhtar Ali and treating the statement of the deceased Mahipal recorded by the I.O. Akhtar Ali as the dying declaration of Mahipal, the trial Court convicted the accused Yashpal and Jagpal under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, which judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 13. We have heard at length Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri R.K.Singh, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and have perused the record. 14. It is clear from the record that both the witnesses of fact, namely Smt. Ombiri P.W. 1 and Laxmi Chand P.W. 2 produced by the prosecution, did not support the prosecution story. The trial Court has discarded the entire evidence of the said witnesses and proceeded to rely on the sole statement of the I.O. Akhtar Ali P.W. 4. 14. It is clear from the record that both the witnesses of fact, namely Smt. Ombiri P.W. 1 and Laxmi Chand P.W. 2 produced by the prosecution, did not support the prosecution story. The trial Court has discarded the entire evidence of the said witnesses and proceeded to rely on the sole statement of the I.O. Akhtar Ali P.W. 4. The trial Court has also proceeded to treat the statement of the deceased Mahipal, said to have been recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. in the G.D., as his dying declaration, and on the basis of the same, the appellants have been convicted. 15. The submission of Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned counsel for the appellants, is that the Court would normally not base the conviction on a dying declaration made to an I.O. It was also contended that when, after having received the injuries, the deceased had remained unconscious throughout till he was declared dead, the detailed account of occurrence made in such a condition, as is said to have been recorded by the I.O., which was not even attested by the complainant or any witness, or made in presence of a Magistrate or a Doctor, could not have been relied upon. Sri Kishore thus submitted that in the absence of there being any witness of fact (even though according to the prosecution case several villagers were present at the scene of occurrence), the conviction of the appellants in such circumstances was not warranted and the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of doubt, as there was no reliable evidence of their involvement in the crime. 16. Sri R.K.Singh, learned A.G.A., has however, submitted that the Courts have held that in circumstances where the Doctor or the Magistrate is not available and in the opinion of the investigating officer the injured may die any moment, such statement recorded by the investigating officer can be treated as the dying declaration made by the deceased, which can be relied upon. He has thus supported the judgment of the trial Court. 17. In this case, there are two questions to be examined by this Court, viz., whether Mahipal was murdered at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution; and whether the murder was committed by the appellants. 18. He has thus supported the judgment of the trial Court. 17. In this case, there are two questions to be examined by this Court, viz., whether Mahipal was murdered at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution; and whether the murder was committed by the appellants. 18. From the evidence adduced in this case, the fact that Mahipal received injuries on 19.6.1981 due to which he died at P.H.C. Chhaprauli at 5.05 p.m. on the same day, has been duly proved by the prosecution. The same is also not disputed by the parties. Thus the first question regarding the murder of Mahipal at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution stands established. 19. The question which remains to be considered is whether the said murder was committed by the appellants or not. The prosecution story is not supported by any of the witnesses of fact produced by them. The two witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 said to be the eye witnesses have denied having seen the occurrence and both of them were thus declared hostile. The accused-appellants are both real brothers of the deceased. P.W. 1 Smt. Ombiri is the widow of the deceased. She has categorically stated that there was no enmity or quarrel between her husband and the accused-appellants. She also denied her presence on the spot at the time of occurrence. She states that she was informed of the occurrence by other persons when she was at her house, after her husband was murdered. She also disowned the first information report said to have been written at her instance. Although she accepted that her husband was not pleased with the arrangement made by her father-in-law with regard to distribution of the land between the brothers, but specifically stated that there was no enmity between the brothers regarding partition of the land. In her statement, she also categorically stated that her husband used to associate with bad elements of the village, which suggests that he could have been attacked and murdered by such elements. 20. P.W. 2 Laxmi Chand, who was the other witness of fact produced by the prosecution also does not claim to have seen the incident and stated that he had reached the spot of occurrence later, after coming to know of the same from the villagers. 20. P.W. 2 Laxmi Chand, who was the other witness of fact produced by the prosecution also does not claim to have seen the incident and stated that he had reached the spot of occurrence later, after coming to know of the same from the villagers. He has clearly stated that when he reached the spot, Mahipal was lying unconscious, whom he had taken in a trolley of a tractor to the police station and then to the hospital. He has categorically stated that throughout, the deceased Mahipal remained unconscious and he neither uttered a single word nor the I.O. had recorded any statement of Mahipal regarding the occurrence. It is the statement of P.W. 4 Akhtar Ali, S.I. (I.O.) alone which has been relied upon by the Trial Court, the details of which have already been given hereinabove. He is said to have recorded the statement of Mahipal after lodging of the first information report at 4.45 p.m. In the said statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., the deceased is said to have repeated the same story as narrated in the first information report, that the dispute arose between the deceased and his brothers Yashpal and Jagpal (appellants) as the latter did not permit the deceased to irrigate his land from the joint tube well and that when he (Mahipal) was irrigating his land from the tube well of some other person, his brothers (appellants) attacked him on his head with spades with the intention to kill him. This statement of the deceased recorded by the I.O. Akhtar Ali, P.W. 4 has been treated as dying declaration of the deceased and has been the prime basis for convicting the appellants. 21. The distance between the police station and the hospital was one kilometer. The first information report was lodged at 4.45 p.m. and within 15 minutes thereafter, the deceased reached the hospital at 5.00 p.m. where he was examined by the Doctor and had expired at 5.05 p.m. In between, the deceased is said to have given his statement to the I.O., which was recorded by him. 22. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that within a short span of 15 minutes the statement of the deceased could not have been recorded and the deceased also taken to the hospital, has force. 22. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that within a short span of 15 minutes the statement of the deceased could not have been recorded and the deceased also taken to the hospital, has force. We are also of the view that 15 minutes’ time is too short a period for the statement being recorded and the deceased covering the distance from the police station to the hospital. The statement is said to have been given by the deceased in the presence of several villagers who were said to be present at the police station. However, the witness who had been produced to prove that the statement was recorded by the I.O. is Abdul Hameed @ Dari P.W. 8 who is said to have reached the police station on his own. It is not understood as to why no villager (although several of them are said to be present) was produced to prove the said statement of the deceased before the I.O. The defence has produced certain documents to show that the same Abdul Hameed @ Dari, P.W. 8 had been produced by the police as prosecution witness in other cases also. 23. The question now arises is as to whether the said statement of the deceased Mahipal as recorded by the I.O., can be treated as dying declaration of Mahipal or not. It is true that the declaration made by the deceased before the I.O., Head Constable or even a Constable can be sufficient for conviction, but the same should be corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses and also only if the Court finds that the same was recorded independently, without any influence. The Apex Court in the case of Balak Ram v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 2165 has (in paragraph 52) held that “Investigating Officers are keenly interested in the fruition of their efforts and though we do not suggest that any assumption can be made against their veracity, it is not prudent to base the conviction on a dying declaration made to an Investigating Officer.” 24. With regard to dying declaration and its authenticity, the Apex Court in the case of Paniben (SMT) v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474 has, (in paragraph 18) laid down certain guidelines. The relevant paragraph 18 is quoted below : “18. With regard to dying declaration and its authenticity, the Apex Court in the case of Paniben (SMT) v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474 has, (in paragraph 18) laid down certain guidelines. The relevant paragraph 18 is quoted below : “18. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailants. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under : (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. (Munna Raja v. State of M.P.) (ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. (State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar). (iii) This Court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor). (iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P.) (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. (K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor). (iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P.) (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. (Kake Singh v. State of U.P.) (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (Ram Manorath v. State of U.P.) (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu) (viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. (Surajdeo Oza v. State of Bihar) (ix) Normally the Court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eye witness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. (Nanahau Ram v. State of M.P.) (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. (State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan). (emphasis supplied) 25. The said view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent case of S.P. Devaraji v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2009 SC 1725 . 26. In the present case, the fact that the deceased gave such a declaration or statement to the I.O. is highly doubtful. Firstly, in our view, there was not sufficient time for the I.O. to have first noted the first information report and then recorded the statement of deceased and then sent the deceased from the police station to the P.H.C., which all is said to have happened only in 15 minutes. Then P.W. 2 Laxmi Chand, who had carried the deceased from the scene of occurrence to the police station and then to the hospital, has categorically stated that the deceased remained unconscious throughout and did not utter a single word. He has also specifically stated that no statement of the deceased was recorded by the I.O. The evidence of P.W. 8 Abdul Hameed @ Dari is not very reliable. He has also specifically stated that no statement of the deceased was recorded by the I.O. The evidence of P.W. 8 Abdul Hameed @ Dari is not very reliable. He is not a person of the village and is said to have reached the police station of his own. It appears that he has been produced by the police as prosecution witness in other cases also. Further, when admittedly there were several other persons of the village present at the police station, it is not understood as to why anyone of them was not produced to prove that any such statement was made by the deceased before the I.O. The said statement has not been signed by the deceased or by any other witness. Further, the statement made before the I.O., which is sought to be read as a dying declaration, is not supported by the eye witnesses or any other witness. In the present case, as has already been mentioned above, the only two witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution have denied having seen any such occurrence. On the other hand, the widow of the deceased has denied that there was enmity or quarrel between the deceased and his two brothers, who are accused in this case. The widow had gone to the extent of stating that the deceased used to associate with bad elements of the village. The same raises a doubt that when the deceased had association with certain bad elements, he could have been murdered by some other persons, as the involvement of his brothers (appellants) in the crime is not established by the evidence of any independent witness. 27. In the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the statement said to have been made by the deceased before the I.O. is itself very doubtful. The same cannot be said to be a voluntary declaration and thus can neither be treated as dying declaration nor can be basis for conviction of the appellants. The declaration made by the deceased is a detailed description of the occurrence including the details of how and by whom the deceased was transported to the police station, even though he admits having fallen unconscious at the scene of occurrence itself. The declaration made by the deceased is a detailed description of the occurrence including the details of how and by whom the deceased was transported to the police station, even though he admits having fallen unconscious at the scene of occurrence itself. On scrutinizing the contents of the statement recorded by the I.O. and also considering the attending facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the deceased was not in a fit state to make any such statement. Even the witness who had accompanied the deceased has stated that he remained unconscious and did not utter a single word. As such, no reliance can be placed on the statement of the deceased which is said to have been recorded by the I.O. 28. From the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the present case is covered by Clauses (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the summary given by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Paniben (supra). The conviction of an accused cannot and should not be based solely on the basis of any such statement of the deceased alleged to have been recorded by the I.O., which is fully untrustworthy and doubtful and not even supported by any evidence, and on the other hand it is contradictory to the evidence adduced by all the witnesses of fact. 29. In view of the aforesaid facts, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the murder of Mahipal was committed by the appellants and that the appellants were not involved in the said crime. 30. In the result, this appeal stands allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court against the appellants in S.T. No. 263 of 1981 vide judgment dated 13.4.1982 passed by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 31. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the Trial Court within two weeks for compliance. The compliance report be submitted to this Court within six weeks. ————