Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 908 (GAU)

Shukhamoy Chakma v. State of Tripura

2009-12-17

C.R.SARMA, UTPALENDU BIKAS SAHA

body2009
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This set of Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment and Order, dated 10.05.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in ST. 42 (ST/S) of 2001, thereby convicting the Appellants aforesaid for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (herein after called "Indian Penal Code") read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (for short R.I.) for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- only in default to suffer R.I. for 2 years and also to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- only in default to suffer R.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 201 IPC. It was directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows: In the morning of 9th November, 1999, Shri Sailesh Chandra Barua @ Mana Barua (herein after called the deceased), who was the husband of the PW 1, left his house for his paddy field and he did not return home. The wife of the deceased Smt. Rama Rani Barua (PW 1) on 10.11.1999, reported the matter to the police at Silachari outpost, which was entered as the G.D. entry No. 191. After receipt of the said missing information, police launched investigation into the matter. During the investigation, on 14.11.1999, upon receipt of a secret information, police came to know that the dead body of the deceased was buried at Bagantila near a bamboo bush. The investigating officer, in presence of the Executive Magistrate (PW 10) as well as the Medical officer (PW 14) dis-entered a dead body, which was burried putting in a gunny bag. The dead body was identified to be the dead body of the deceased. After preparing the inquest report, police referred the dead body for post mortem examination. The PW 14, who was a Medical officer conducted the autopsy. In course of the investigation, it was revealed that, on 09.11.1999, the deceased went to the house of one Rupjay Chakma for taking liquor, but failing to find liquor in the said house, he went to the house of Shri Surajay Chakma (PW 2) along with the Appellants for taking alcohol. In course of the investigation, it was revealed that, on 09.11.1999, the deceased went to the house of one Rupjay Chakma for taking liquor, but failing to find liquor in the said house, he went to the house of Shri Surajay Chakma (PW 2) along with the Appellants for taking alcohol. While the said persons, along with others were consuming alcohol, the deceased and the Appellants picked up a quarrel, as a consequence of which, Appellant Sukhamay assaulted the Appellant by means of a spade, while the Appellant Kabukya assaulted the deceased with a piece of bamboo and thereafter, both of them disposed of the dead body of the deceased by putting the same in a gunny bag. In course of the investigation, police recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared the inquest report, a sketch map, collected the post mortem examination report, seized the gunny bag, one piece of bamboo and the wearing apparels namely, one lungi. one half pant (which were removed from the dead body at the time of post mortem examination). After the post mortem examination, in respect of the dead body, the same was handed over to the members of the family of the deceased. At the conclusion of the investigation police submitted charge sheet against the Appellants for the offences under Sections 302 and 201Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial. 3. The offences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sabroom. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the Appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty. To bring home the guilt to the accused Appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including the investigating officer (PW 13) and the Medical officer (PW 14), who performed the post mortem examination. At the close of the examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure . They denied the allegations and declined to adduce defence evidence. Considering the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the conviction and sentences against the Appellants as aforesaid. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and Order of conviction and sentences, the Appellants have come up with the present appeals. 5. We have heard Mr. They denied the allegations and declined to adduce defence evidence. Considering the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the conviction and sentences against the Appellants as aforesaid. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and Order of conviction and sentences, the Appellants have come up with the present appeals. 5. We have heard Mr. P. Rathor and Mr. R. Datta, learned Counsels appearing for the Appellants and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-Respondent. 6. The learned Counsels appearing for the Appellants have submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in law by convicting and sentencing the Appellants under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code without any substantive evidence. It is also submitted that the Appellants had no intention or design to cause the death of the deceased and as such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed illegality by recording conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. 7. Supporting the impugned judgment and order, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the Appellants had caused the death of the deceased and that they tried to conceal the evidence by disposing the dead body and as such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed no illegality by convicting and sentencing the Appellants by the impugned judgment and Order. 8. In order to appreciate the arguments, advanced by the learned Counsels, appealing for the parties, and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it appropriate to briefly recapitulate the evidence on record as follows: In the present case, Smt. Santana Debi, who deposed as PW 9 was the only eyewitness. She, in her evidence given on oath clearly stated that on the 22nd day of Kartika at about 10.00 a.m. she was at her residence and she noticed the Appellants. Sukhamoy Chakma, Kabukya Chakma, the deceased Mr. Mana Barua. Ranj Debnath. Jitendra Singh and Thunga Chakma consuming alcohol in the hut of her father, which was adjacent to her house. She further stated that her husband also joined the said persons in taking liquor. According to this witness, after some time, her husband Lalkrishna Chakma (PW 4) and Jitendra Singh left for market. Mana Barua. Ranj Debnath. Jitendra Singh and Thunga Chakma consuming alcohol in the hut of her father, which was adjacent to her house. She further stated that her husband also joined the said persons in taking liquor. According to this witness, after some time, her husband Lalkrishna Chakma (PW 4) and Jitendra Singh left for market. She further stated that, in course of consuming alcohol, Sukhamay and Kabukya picked up a quarrel with the deceased and Sukhamay assaulted the deceased with a spade while Kabukya assaulted him with a piece of bamboo and thereafter, both of them dragged the deceased by putting him in a gunny bag, that out of fear, she had left the place and that in the afternoon, when her father and the husband had returned home from the market, she reported them about the matter. According to this witness, on the next day, the wife of the deceased went to her in search of her husband and she had told her about the incident, which took place on the previous day. This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence, but nothing could be elicited to demolish her evidence. No contradiction could be established to shake her evidence. From the said unimpeachable evidence of PW 9, who appears to be a natural eye witness, being the adjacent neighbour of her father, in whose house the occurrence took place, it has been established that the Appellants caused the death of the deceased by assaulting him by means of a spade and a piece of bamboo and thereafter, they had disposed of the dead body by putting the same in a gunny bag. Fact remains that the dead body was found inside a gunny bag, which was buried in a ditch. The PW 1, Smt. Rama Rani Barua, wife of the deceased supported the evidence of PW 9 by saying that, on being enquired by her, on the next day of the date of occurrence, she was informed by the PW 9 that her deceased husband had gone to the house of Surajoy Chakma (PW 2) for taking liquor. The PW 1, Smt. Rama Rani Barua, wife of the deceased supported the evidence of PW 9 by saying that, on being enquired by her, on the next day of the date of occurrence, she was informed by the PW 9 that her deceased husband had gone to the house of Surajoy Chakma (PW 2) for taking liquor. This witness further stated that she was informed by Shri Surajoy Chakma (PW 2) and his wife that on the previous day i.e. on the date of occurrence at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased, along with the Appellant and another person, while consuming alcohol picked up a quarrel as a result of which, the deceased was dragged to the jungle after being assaulted by the Appellants. Shri Surajoy Chakma, deposing as PW 2, supported the evidence of PW 9, stating that when he returned home, he was informed by his wife and daughter (i.e. the PW 9) that the Appellants and the deceased, while consuming alcohol in his house, picked up a quarrel as a result of which, the Appellants had assaulted the deceased by means of spade and that they had left his house. This witness being reported by PW 9, his evidence was hearsay evidence. However, there is corroboration in the evidence of PW 2 and PW 9 regarding the quarrel, the assault aforesaid and about the reporting by the P W 9 immediately after meeting the PW 2. Mr. Manabendra Dewan deposing as PW 3 stated that the wife of the PW 2 and his daughter informed him that the deceased and the Appellants, while consuming alcohol, picked up a quarrel and that the Appellants assaulted the deceased. According to this witness also, the dead body of the deceased was found concealed in a gunny bag. In tune with the evidence of the PW 9, the PW 4, Shri Lalkrishna Chakma stated that the Appellants and the deceased had consumed alcohol in the house of his father-in-law (PW 2) and that he was informed by his wife that the deceased was assaulted by the Appellants and taken to the jungle. Mr. In tune with the evidence of the PW 9, the PW 4, Shri Lalkrishna Chakma stated that the Appellants and the deceased had consumed alcohol in the house of his father-in-law (PW 2) and that he was informed by his wife that the deceased was assaulted by the Appellants and taken to the jungle. Mr. Ranjit Debnath deposing as PW 5 stated that he along with Jitendra Singh joined the Appellants and the deceased in the house of the father-in-law of P W 4, for consuming alcohol and that after consuming alcohol, he and Jitendra left the place leaving the deceased and the Appellants therein, who continued to consume alcohol. He further stated that, in the afternoon of the next Sunday, he came to know about the recovery of the dead body of the deceased. This witness was also duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence, but nothing could be brought out to contradict his evidence. Lending corroboration to the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, Mr. Sailendra Kishore Barua, the elder brother of the deceased, deposing as PW 6, stated that he came to know from the PW 1 i.e. the wife of the deceased that the deceased had consumed alcohol along with the Appellants in the house of the PW No. 2, wherein the deceased was killed. He further stated that as advised by him, the PW 1 had informed the police and that he accompanied the police to the place, wherefrom the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 14.11.1999. He clearly stated that the dead body was found packed inside a gunny bag, which was recovered from a ditch. One Mr. Kartik Barua was tendered as prosecution witness No. 7, but he was not cross-examined by the defence. Mr. Thunga Chakma, deposing as PW 8, stated that on the fateful day, while proceeding towards his home, he visited the house of the PW 2, wherein he found the deceased, the Appellants, Shri Jitendra Singh, Shri Ranjit Debnath and Shri Lalkrishna Chakma consuming alcohol therein. This witness also joined the said persons and took some alcohol. According to the witness after some time, Lalkrishna Chakma (P W 4), Shri Ranjit Debnath (PW 5) and Shri Jitendra Singh, who were also found taking alcohol therein, left the place. This witness also joined the said persons and took some alcohol. According to the witness after some time, Lalkrishna Chakma (P W 4), Shri Ranjit Debnath (PW 5) and Shri Jitendra Singh, who were also found taking alcohol therein, left the place. According to this witness, after the leaving of the said persons, exchange of words took place between the Appellants, Shri Kabukya Chakma and the deceased and they got engaged in scuffling. As stated by this witness, though he tried to intervene, he was dragged away by Kabukya Chamka. According to this witness, on being pushed aside by the Appellant, Shri Sukhamoy Chakma, he left the place leaving the Appellants and the deceased therein. This witness was also duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence, but nothing could be elicited to raise any doubt about the veracity of his evidence. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that the Appellants and the deceased and some other persons went to house of the PW 2 only for the purpose of taking alcohol and the quarrel, followed by scuffling, took place in the midst of taking the alcohol. PW 10 was the Deputy Collector (Revenue) and Executive Magistrate. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that a dead body was recovered in his presence by the police. According to this witness, the dead body was in decomposed condition and the dead body was identified by Shri Sailendra Kishore Barua (PW 6) to be the dead body of his brother i.e. Sailesh Barua. Shri Kalachand Chakma deposing as PW 12 stated that he along with the Appellants and the deceased consumed alcohol in the house of PW 2 and that Shri Ranjit Debnath (PW 5), Shri Jitendra Singh and Shri Lalkrishna Chakma (PW 4) also joined them. According to this witness, he left after some time leaving the Appellants and the accused persons therein. Shri Sailendra Barua, deposing as PW 6, while corroborating the evidence of PW 10, clearly stated that the dead body, recovered by police, was the dead body of his deceased brother. Therefore, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the dead body, which was recovered by police. The dead body was found packed in a gunny bag. Therefore, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the dead body, which was recovered by police. The dead body was found packed in a gunny bag. PW 9, the only eye witness to the occurrence, in clear terms, stated that the deceased, after being killed in her father's house, was put in a gunny bag by the Appellants and that the same was dragged towards the Eastern side. The recovery of the dead body, packed in a gunny bag, extends sufficient corroboration in favour of her said evidence. That apart, the PW 4, P W 5 and P W 8 and PW 12 supported each others evidence by stating that the Appellants and the deceased were consuming alcohol in the house of the PW No. 2. From the cross-examination of the said witnesses, as discussed above, nothing could be brought out to discredit their evidence in this regard. Therefore, there is sufficient corroboration in the evidence of the said witnesses to believe that, the Appellants and the deceased were together in the house of the P W 2 till the death of the deceased and while consuming alcohol, the Appellants and the deceased picked up a quarrel as a result of which scuffling had taken place amongst them consequent to which, the Appellants assaulted the deceased causing his dead and thereafter, in order to remove the evidence, to escape from the liability, they packed the dead body in a gunny bag and arranged to conceal the same by hiding it in a ditch, wherefrom the dead body was recovered by police, on 14.11.1999. From the evidence of the sole eyewitness, it appears that the deceased was assaulted with a piece of bamboo by Shri Kabukya Chakma while Sukhamoy has assaulted him with a spade. She did not state that the Appellants had repeatedly assault the deceased. Her evidence indicates that each of the Appellants had given single blow by the respective weapons aforesaid. Dr. Biprajit Debbarma, the Medical officer of Silachari Primary Health Centre, deposing as PW No. 14, stated that, on 14.11.1999 at about 2.30 p.m., on being requisitioned by the Executive Magistrate, he accompanied the Investigating officer and the Executive Magistrate to Bagan Tila, wherefrom a dead body was recovered from a ditch. Dr. Biprajit Debbarma, the Medical officer of Silachari Primary Health Centre, deposing as PW No. 14, stated that, on 14.11.1999 at about 2.30 p.m., on being requisitioned by the Executive Magistrate, he accompanied the Investigating officer and the Executive Magistrate to Bagan Tila, wherefrom a dead body was recovered from a ditch. Corroborating the evidence of the PW 10, the PW 6 and the PW 9, the said Medical officer stated that the dead body was found inside a gunny bag. This witness performed the autopsy of the dead body. During the examination, he found a punctured would behind the left ear. He has exhibited his report as Exhibit No. 9. He opined that the punctured injury might have been caused by means of a sharp weapon like nail. Apart from the said injury, he found some injuries on the back of trunk, head and forehead. The Medical officer was of the opinion that the above mentioned injuries on head, back of the trunk, forehead and nose might have been caused due to friction of the body with the earth at the time of dragging the body. The Medical officer opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to cardio respiratory failure following the punctured wound behind the left ear. The Exhibit No. 9 i.e. the Post Mortem report reveals the following injuries: 1) Clean cut punctured wound 1/2," x 1/4" x 1 /2" 5 cms behind the left ear. 2) Split laceration over occipital bone. 9. From the said medical evidence, it appears that the deceased, noticeably, sustained a single injury, which was the cause of his dead. Though the Medical officer opined that the injury might have been caused by a nail, he nowhere excluded the possibility of use of a spade, which was also a sharp weapon. Generally, nail is also used in fitting the spade with its handle. The eye witness (PW 9) clearly stated that the deceased was assaulted with a spade. Therefore, the use of spade by the Appellants cannot be ruled out. In view of the above, we find sufficient force in the evidence of the PW 9 to believe that the deceased was assaulted by the Appellants by means of a spade. The Investigating officer was examined as P W13. Therefore, the use of spade by the Appellants cannot be ruled out. In view of the above, we find sufficient force in the evidence of the PW 9 to believe that the deceased was assaulted by the Appellants by means of a spade. The Investigating officer was examined as P W13. He stated that after recovery of the dead body, the same was sent for post mortem examination and that at the close of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the Appellants for the offences under Section 302 and 301 read with Section 34 IPC. This witness was also duly cross-examined by the defence but no contradiction could be proved to discredit the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 10. In the light of the above evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution could establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Appellants, while consuming alcohol picked up a quarrel with the deceased and as a consequence of the said quarrel, the Appellants had assaulted the deceased as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the said injury. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the Appellants, after causing the death of the deceased, had concealed the dead body by putting the same in a gunny bag and hiding it in a ditch and thus caused disappearance of the evidence, which was an offence covered by Section 201 IPC. 11. Section 302 Indian Penal Code provides the punishment for committing the offence of murder. Section 300 Indian Penal Code which reads as follows defines murder. 300. 11. Section 302 Indian Penal Code provides the punishment for committing the offence of murder. Section 300 Indian Penal Code which reads as follows defines murder. 300. Murder -- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or - Secondly -- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the of fender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or- Thirdly -- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or- Fourthly -- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. The following exceptions indicate when culpable homicide is not murder: Exception 1 --When culpable homicide is not murder --Culpable homicide is not murder if the of fender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisos: First --That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the of fender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly -- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly -- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation -- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Exception 2. Thirdly -- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation -- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Exception 2. -- Culpable homicide is not murder if the of fender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide. Exception 3. --Culpable homicide is not murder if the of fender, being a public servant or aiding a; public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4. -- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the of fender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation. --It is immaterial in such cases which partly offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5. -- Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. 12. Explanation. --It is immaterial in such cases which partly offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5. -- Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. 12. The factors which reduce murder to culpable homicide are: (a) it should have been committed without premeditation; (b) it should have been committed upon a sudden quarrel; (c) it should have been committed in the heat of passion; (d) it should have been committed without the of fender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 13. In view of the above statutory provisions, a culpable homicide is not murder, if the same is committed being deprived of power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation or by any mistake or incident. A death caused being deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation or due to mistake or accident will fall under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the punishment for which is prescribed in Section 304 IPC. Section 304 Indian Penal Code has two parts. The first part relates to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, if the act by which death is caused with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The second part relates to the culpable homicide, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, leading to the death of the deceased, it appears that Appellants and deceased went to the house of the PW 2 at their own only for the purpose of taking alcohol. There is nothing on record to find that the Appellants had any previous grudge, ill feeling or premeditation. None of them were armed with any weapon. We fail to find any material on record to believe that the Appellants had any intention or design to cause the death of the deceased. There is nothing on record to find that the Appellants had any previous grudge, ill feeling or premeditation. None of them were armed with any weapon. We fail to find any material on record to believe that the Appellants had any intention or design to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, we are inclined to believe that, as the deceased and the Appellants got engaged in a quarrel after consuming alcohol, probably, the Appellants lost their cool due to the effect of alcohol and the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel as a result of which, they assaulted the deceased in the said manner by means of the weapons, which they could pick up from the place of occurrence. There is nothing on record to find that the Appellants had carried the said weapons with them. Probably they found the said weapons in the house, where they were consuming alcohol. Because spade is a common instrument available in almost every household in the villages. Therefore, it appears that the said offence of causing death was committed in a spurt of moment without any prior intention to kill the deceased. That apart, giving of only one blow by a spade that too near the ear indicates that the deceased had no intention to kill, otherwise they could have repeatedly assaulted on the top of the head itself. That apart, from the medical evidence only a punctured injury, likely to be caused by a nail was sustained by the deceased. This implies that the blow was not inflicted by the body of the spade and this rules out the intention to kill. In view of the fact that the said persons were under the influence of alcohol and also in the absence of any previous enmity or premeditation to cause harm or death and the assault being preceded by a quarrel, it can be safely concluded that the offence was committed by the Appellants being deprived of the power of self-control due to the said quarrel which probably provoked them to cause the assault. Therefore, the offence was committed under the influence of passion excited by consumption of alcohol and the quarrel. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the offence committed by the Appellant does not fall within the definition of murder, but the same was merely a culpable homicide. 15. Therefore, the offence was committed under the influence of passion excited by consumption of alcohol and the quarrel. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the offence committed by the Appellant does not fall within the definition of murder, but the same was merely a culpable homicide. 15. In the light of the above discussion, it will not be safe to conclude that the Appellant had committed the offence with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. As discussed above, there is no evidence on record to find that the accused had any intention to kill the deceased or to cause such injury which was likely to cause death. Had there been no consumption of liquor followed by the quarrel there would not have been the death of the deceased. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Appellants committed the offence under Section 304 Part II instead of the offence under Section 302 IPC. 16. As discussed earlier, there is sufficient substantive evidence on record to find that both the Appellants had put the dead body in the gunny bag and concealed the same and thus caused disappearance of evidence, which was an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Therefore, they were guilty of the offence under Section 201 IPC. 17. In view of the above, we are persuaded to hold that this is not a covered by Section 302 IPC, but a case under Section 304 Par-II Indian Penal Code and accordingly, we modify the conviction recorded under Section 302 Indian Penal Code to one under Section 304 Part II IPC, without interfering with the conviction recorded under Section 201 IPC. 18. It is informed that the Appellants are in jail since April, 2001. There is nothing on record against the conduct and nature of the Appellants after the commission of the said of fences. Keeping in mind the entire facts and circumstances of this case, under which the alleged offences were committed, and also the period of detention already undergone, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellants deserve some amount of consideration. 19. Accordingly, in view of the modification of the conviction aforesaid, the sentence of imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs. 19. Accordingly, in view of the modification of the conviction aforesaid, the sentence of imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- is commuted to a sentence, which shall be equivalent to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the Appellants. The sentence awarded under Section 201 Indian Penal Code and the direction made by the learned Trial Judge that the sentences shall run concurrently are not interfered with. 20. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed. The Appellants be set at liberty and released forthwith, if they have undergone imprisonment since 2001. 21. Return the Lower Court records.