Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. By this common judgment, Criminal Appeal No.873-B of 1997 titled as "ram Chander and Others V/s. State of Haryana" and Criminal Revision no.302of 1998 titled as "smt. Bimla V/s. Ram chander and Others" shall be decided together. 2. Ram Chander son of Lalman, Mahabir Parshad son of Ram Singh, Raj kumar alias Jhhabhu son of Rati Ram, Kanwar Sain son of Lalman, Rama Nand son of Rati Ram, and Chandi Ram alias Chandji son of Kundan were named as accused in case FIR No.99 dated 8.5.1993, registered at Police Station Tosham, under sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 326, 307 and 302 read with Sec.149 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Trial Court acquitted Mahabir Parshad, Raj Kumar alias Jhhabhu and chandi Ram alias Chandji. Their co-accused Satbir had died during the pendency of trial. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by Ram Chander Ram Chander, kanwar Sain, sons of Lalman, and Rama Nand son of Rati Ram. They have assailed their conviction and sentence awarded by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani. Trial Court found Ram Chander, Rama Nan guilty of offence under section 304 Part-II read with Sec.34 IPC and Kanwar Sain for offence under section 326 IPC. 5. Ram Chander and Rama Nand, appellants, were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each, for offence under Sec.304 Part-II read with Sec.34 IPC, whereas kanwar Sain was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under Sec.326 IPC. Non-payment of fine entailed appellants with rigorous imprisonment for one year each. State of Haryana had preferred an application under Sec.378 (3) Cr. P. C. And challenged the acquittal of other accused and acquittal of present appellants for offence under Sec.302 IPC. The application was assigned Criminal Misc. No.185-MA of 1998. A Division Bench of this Court, on 7.5.1998, ordered that "leave to appeal is declined". Therefore, the acquittal of co-accused of the present appellants for offence under Section 302 IPC and other offences have been upheld by Division Bench of this Court. Complainant Bimla has filed Criminal Revision No.302 of 1998 and has prayed that judgment dated 25.10.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (I), bhiwani, be modified and all these accused/respondents be convicted and sentenced for offence under Sec.302/149 IPC. 6. Complainant Bimla has filed Criminal Revision No.302 of 1998 and has prayed that judgment dated 25.10.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (I), bhiwani, be modified and all these accused/respondents be convicted and sentenced for offence under Sec.302/149 IPC. 6. In view of the fact that a Division Bench of this Court had thought it proper not to interfere with the acquittal, this Court will not be able to cause interference in Criminal Revision No.302 of 1998. Hence, same cannot be entertained and is dismissed. However, right of address is granted to counsel for the complainant to assist this Court. In the present case, FIR was lodged on the statement Ex. PX made by Smt. Bimla. Her statement was recorded at general Hospital, Bhiwani, by Jai Singh, Incharge, Police Post, Kairu, on 8.5.1993 at 10.05 A. M. Bimla stated that on 7.5.1993, at about 7.30 A. M. she along with her mother-in-law and and others was present in the house. Her father-in-law Lok Ram, after taking meals, went out of the house. After some time, they heard noise of "maar Diya Maar Diya" raised by Lok Ram, due to which bimla, her mother-in-law Shanti and sister-in-law ganga and were attracted at the spot in the street. Complainant saw that his father-in-law was lying on the ground. Witness saw Ram Chander son of laal Man and Rama Nand son of Ratti Ram causing lathi blow on the waist of her father-in-law. Meanwhile, Kanwarsain son of Laal Man armed with pharsi, Satbir son of Ram Singh, Candi Ram son of Kundan, Jhhabhu son of Ratti Ram, arrived at the spot armed with lathies. When the complainant and other ladies tried to intervene, Kanwarsain gave a pharsi blow on her (Bimla) head and Satbir gave a lathi blow on her left arm and Jhhabhu gave a lathi blow on her right arm. Chandi Ram, Rama Nand and Ram Chander inflicted lathi blows to Shanti, mother-in-law of the complainant and sister-in-law Ganga. On the noise raised by the complainant party, Beg Ram, brother of Lok Ram, father-in-law, and Chander bhan, brother of complainants husband, were attracted at the spot along with vinod and Raj Kumar. Ram Chander gave a lathi blow on the left side of head of beg Raj. On the noise raised by the complainant party, Beg Ram, brother of Lok Ram, father-in-law, and Chander bhan, brother of complainants husband, were attracted at the spot along with vinod and Raj Kumar. Ram Chander gave a lathi blow on the left side of head of beg Raj. The accused also caused injuries to Chander Bhan, Vinod and Raj Kumar, at that time, Mahabir son of Ram Singh, accused, who was standing on the roof, gave a lalkara and told Chandi Ram to step aside and he would shoot the complainant party. The accused ran away from there, while going Leelu son of mahabir gave a lathi blow on the leg of Ganga. Mahabir with an intention to kill them, fired three shots from his gun from the roof and the shot hit Beg raj and others. Family members of the complainant had brought the injured to their house. The cause of grudge is that Leelu had given a lathi blow to the pet dog and on the protest made by Lok Ram, father-in-law of complainant, accused replied that they would shoot the dog. For that reason, on the day of occurrence, all the accused with common object inflicted injuries upon the family of complainant. Thereafter, Krishan kumar arranged for the Taxi and got the injured admitted in the Civil Hospital, bhiwani. Bimla got her statement recorded, having heard the same, she appended her signatures in token of its correctness. 7. The above said FIR was investigated. Report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. 8. The present three appellants along with Satbir, who died during the trial, and acquitted accused, were charged for offence under Sec.148 IPC. 9. Ram Chander was substantively charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC, whereas others were charged with aid of Sec.149 IPC. 10. Kanwarsain was substantively charged for an offence under Sec.326 ipc for causing grievous injury to Bimla by a pharsi, whereas others were charged with aid of Sec.149 IPC. Chandi Ram was charged, for having caused grievous hurt with blunt weapon to Shanti, substantively for offence under section 325 IPC, whereas others were charged with aid of Sec.149 IPC. All the accused were charged for an offence under Sec.325 read with Sec.149 ipc. 11. Accused Mahabir was charged for an offence under Sec.27 of the arms Act. 12. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW.1 Dr. All the accused were charged for an offence under Sec.325 read with Sec.149 ipc. 11. Accused Mahabir was charged for an offence under Sec.27 of the arms Act. 12. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW.1 Dr. R. C. Singh stated that on 8.5.1998 at 3.30 P. M. , he had examined Bimla wife of rajender, aged 20 years and found three injuries on her person. Injury No.1 was incised wound 9 X 3 cm on the frontal area and X-ray of skull A. P. And lateral left and right was advised. Later this injury No.1 was declared grievous. PW.2 Dr. Puja Dahiya, radiologically examined Beg Raj and opined that X-ray of skull showed fracture of left parietal bone. Qua other injuries, no fracture was found. , 13. Pw.3 Dr. S. K. Anand radiologically examined Shanti and found fracture of parietal bone. This doctor had also examined Bimla and found fracture of the frontal bone of the skull. In cross-examination, this witness admitted to have examined Chandi Ram son of Kundan Lal, aged 75 years (acquitted accused) and found fracture of clavicle and fracture in the left hand and little finger of the right hand. PW.4 Dr. S. N. Sharma stated that on 8.5.1993 at 3.45 A. M. , he medicolegally examined Beg Raj and found following injuries:- "1. There was contusion on right parietal region 5 X 2 cm 5 cm in front and above the parietal eminence. Advised x-ray skull. 2. There was a lacerated wound 1.2 X.6 cm on front an lateral aspect of left thigh muscle deep. Bleeding was present. Margins were irregular. It was 10 cm above the knee joint. Advised x-ray left thigh, ap and lateral view. There was no tattooing, blackening or tear in the cloth". Later injury No.1 on the person of Beg Raj was declared as grievous as there was a fracture of left parietal bone. The doctor further opined that the kind of weapon used for injury No.1 was blunt and there was no fire arm injury. In cross-examination, this doctor had stated that on the same day he had also examined Ved Kaur wife of Mahabir parshad. Following injuries were found on the person of Ved Kaur:- "1. Lacerated wound 5 x.5 cm skin deep on left parietal region lateral to mid line. Advised x-ray skull, A. P. And left lateral view. 2. In cross-examination, this doctor had stated that on the same day he had also examined Ved Kaur wife of Mahabir parshad. Following injuries were found on the person of Ved Kaur:- "1. Lacerated wound 5 x.5 cm skin deep on left parietal region lateral to mid line. Advised x-ray skull, A. P. And left lateral view. 2. Red contusion 8 X 4 cm on back of left wrist movements were normal. Advised x-ray left wrist joint". 14. In cross-examination, the doctor admitted that both the injuries on the persons of Beg Raj and Ved Kaur were of the same time and duration. 15. Pw.5 Dr. Narinder Kumar, on 8.5.1993 at 9.50 A. M. examined Raj kumar and found one simple injury on the right hand. This witness also examined vinod son of Beg Raj and found four simple injuries on his person. Chander Bhan son of Lok Ram was also examined by this witness and two simple injuries were found on his person. In cross- examination, this witness stated that on the same day he had also medicolegally examined Raj Kumar son of Rati Ram and found five simple injuries. 16. Pw.6 Dr. Asha Goel stated that on 8.5.1993 at 2.25 A. M. She medicolegally examined Shanti and found three simple injuries on her person. This witness also medicolegally examined Lok Ram on the same day. She found two injuries on the person of Lok Ram. On the same day Ganga daughter of Lok Ram was also examined. Four injuries were found on her person. This witness had also examined Chandi Ram and found five injuries on his person. 17. Pw.7 Dr. Ishwar Singh Nasir, on 14.5.1993, conducted post mortem on the dead body of Beg Raj son of Ami Lal. He found following injuries on the person of Beg Raj:- 1. There was a dry abrasion 1.5 X 1.5 cm in size located on the middle of left thigh on its anterior surface. 2. There was a wound on the dorsum of right hand extending from distal crease upto the middle of proximal phalanges. The muscles, tendons and bones were exposed. 3. There was a wound measuring 7 X 5 cm and situated on the dorsal aspect of right forearm. The muscle tendons, and bones were visible. A 3 cm wide strip of normal skin were separating this injury from the previous one. 4. The muscles, tendons and bones were exposed. 3. There was a wound measuring 7 X 5 cm and situated on the dorsal aspect of right forearm. The muscle tendons, and bones were visible. A 3 cm wide strip of normal skin were separating this injury from the previous one. 4. A defused swelling was present on the right side of the head which was also surrounding that side of the ear". 18. According to this witness, multi-radiate fracture was present on the left parieto occipital region of of the skull. The joint between the parietal and temporal bones of this side were separated apart with lower edge of upper segment over-riding. The cause of death, according to the opinion of the doctor, was coma as a result of injury present on the head. In cross-examination, this witness stated that injuries No.2 and 3 could be due to reduced nutrition and leakage of the drip during treatment in addition to the protracted illness. Bimla, complainant, appeared as PW.8 and reiterated what was stated in the FIR. This witness has further added that when beg Raj fell down, Rama Nang gave a lathi blow to him. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate, appearing of the appellants, has brought to my notice portion of cross-examination of PW.8 Bimla where she was confronted with her statement Ex. PX wherein it was not mentioned that Rama Nand had given lathi blow to Beg Raj. The accused had suggested their version to this witness who denied the same. The suggestion given by the accused and denial of the same by the witness can be reproduced as under:- "it is incorrect to suggest that Lilu, Kanwar sain, Rama Nand, Mahabir and Ram Chander were not present at the time of the occurrence and that their names have been introduced by us. It is incorrect to suggest that we assaulted Chandi Ram, Raj Kumar and Ved Kaur and caused injuries to them. It is also incorrect to suggest that in order to save these persons, Satbir, Madan, Daya Ram, Vinod, Ramesh came there and they acted in the defence of Cahndi etc. caused injuries to us. It is incorrect to suggest that we were the aggressors". In cross-examination, this witness also admitted that they felt bad because of beating caused to their dog which was sitting in the street. caused injuries to us. It is incorrect to suggest that we were the aggressors". In cross-examination, this witness also admitted that they felt bad because of beating caused to their dog which was sitting in the street. 19 Pw.9 Lok Ram corroborated the version given by PW.8 Bimla. This witness, in cross-examination, stated that their house (complainants and house of accused) adjoin each other. Kanwarpal, Draftsman, appeared as PW.10, and proved scaled site plan Ex. PY. 20. Ram Kumar, Licence Clerk from the office of the Sub Divisional magistrate, Bhiwani, appeared as PW.11 and proved licence of the gun issued to mahabir Parshad and proved licence as Ex. P3. Jai Singh, Assistant Sub inspector, appeared as PW.12. This witness recorded statement of Bimla, complainant, Ex. PX, on basis of which formal FIR Ex. PX/2 was registered and investigated the FIR. Thereafter, prosecution had closed its evidence. The statements of accused were recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. All the incriminating circumstances were put to them and the same were denied. 21. Accused Ram Chander stated that the witnesses have deposed falsely. For the last 16 years, he is residing in Surat. He had come to attend the marriage of Neelam, his niece and Daya Ram, his cousin. He was busy in the preparation of sweets. The witnesses have deposed falsely due to enmity. Accused Satbir stated as under:- "when I reached the village on 7.5.1993 from Bhiwani, I saw Lok Ram having caught hold of hair of Lilu. I separated them and there was exchange of hot words between me and Lok Ram. I then left for my house. Lok Ram sat on his own chabutra. After some time, I heard the cries of Maar diya Maar diya, I came running from my house, I saw Roshan, Krishan and Ram Avtar, Beg Raj, Lok Ram, raj Kumar, Rajinder, Ganga, Bimla and Shanti armed with lathis, jaillis and pharsi were causing injuries to Chandji, who was lying on the ground and was being beaten by them. They were also beating Ved Kaur and Raj Kumar. I am innocent". 22. Mahabir Parshad pleaded false implication. 23. Raj Kumar alias Jhhabhu gave following version:- "on 9.5.1993, my younger brother Daya Ram was to be married. It was on 7.5.1993 at about 8.30 PM, there was kadhai in my brother Babu Rams house. They were also beating Ved Kaur and Raj Kumar. I am innocent". 22. Mahabir Parshad pleaded false implication. 23. Raj Kumar alias Jhhabhu gave following version:- "on 9.5.1993, my younger brother Daya Ram was to be married. It was on 7.5.1993 at about 8.30 PM, there was kadhai in my brother Babu Rams house. Amit came to me from the outer house to the inner houses. He sought my help in preparing and binding ladoos. When I came out, I saw Chandji lying his face towards ground in front of the house of lok Ram. At that time, Shiv Kumar and Suresh were also with him. Ved Kaur was lying on Chandji and was crying Maar diya-maar diya. We raised cries of Maar diaya-mar diya and ran towards the place of occurrence. We also noticed Beg raj, Lok Ram, Krishan, Roshan, Ram avtar, Chanderbhan and Mohan Lal with lathis standing there. In our view, chanderbhan gave lathi on the left wrist of Ved Kaur. Mohan Lal gave lathi blow on the left side of head of Ved Kaur. At that time, from the house of Lok Ram, ganga, with a jailly, Bimla with a pharsi and Shanti with lathi came there. Rajinder and Raj Kumar having lathi each came scaling over the wall of Dwarka. Rajender gave lathi blow to me which I stopped with my hand. Raj Kumar gave lathi blow on my left leg. Hearing our cries of Maar diya-maar diya, Bachao-bachao, Madan, Vinod, Ramesh, Daya Ram and Satbir also came alongwith latis. The lathi blows were exchanged by the two sides. The women folk and children started throwing brick-bats from the roof of the house of Lok Ram. Bimla gave pharsi blow to me which fell on my elbow. Shanti gave lathi blow to me on my elbow. A brick-bat from the roof-top hit my right foot also. At that time, kailash appeared on the roof of Lok Rams house and gave a lalkara to Lok Ram etc. to keep away so that he may fire the shot with his gun. Hearing this, Lok ram and his brother Krishan etc. went to one side near the wall. Kailash aiming at Chandji, fired two shots. In the meanwhile, other persons of the village came at the spot, they were jai Bhagwan, Lok Ram s/o Brahma Nand, Ram Kumar, Roshan, Chatru etc. They intervened and separated the parties". 24. Hearing this, Lok ram and his brother Krishan etc. went to one side near the wall. Kailash aiming at Chandji, fired two shots. In the meanwhile, other persons of the village came at the spot, they were jai Bhagwan, Lok Ram s/o Brahma Nand, Ram Kumar, Roshan, Chatru etc. They intervened and separated the parties". 24. Kanwarsain, accused, pleaded false implication. Rama Nand stated that he was not present at the spot and he has been implicated. 25. Accused Chandi Ram alias Chanji stated as under:- "i am hard of earing. My vision is also impaired due to old age. There was "kadhai" in the evening at the house of Babu Lal in connection with the marriage of Daya Ram. I sent lilu to bring some persons for the preparation of ladoos. Lilu gave a dang blow to a dog in the street. There was exchange of hot words between Lilu, Satbir and Lok Ram. I went there to impress upon Satbir etc. not to pick up any quarrel with the opposite party. Lok Ram gave me lathi blow in the head and Krishan gave me lathi blow and another blow was given by Roshan. I am innocent as I was empty handed and fell down due to the above injuries". 26. The defence has examined seven witnesses i. e. DW.1 Vijay Singh, DW.2 madan Lal, Draftsman, DW.3 Vijay Singh, Constable, DW.4 Bishamber Dayal, DW.5 kanwarpal Parmar, DW.6 Kuldeep Singh Sihag, and DW.7 Om Parkash, Head constable, in order to prove the alibi of acquitted accused. Therefore, this court need not notice them. Ved Kaur wife of Mahabir appeared as DW.8. She reiterated the defence version as taken by Raj Kumar and Chandi Ram, acquitted accused. 27. The trial Court held that in the present case, Leelu son of Mahabir had given a lathi blow to the pet dog of Lok Ram and on protest made by Lok ram, occurrence had ensued. Thus, trial Court concluded that there is no evidence of previous enmity between the parties. The trial Court further held that there is a tendency among the villagers to rope in innocent persons along with guilty ones. Therefore, the testimony of PW.8 Smt. Bimla and PW.9 Lok Ram was required to be examined with utmost care and caution. Thus, trial Court concluded that there is no evidence of previous enmity between the parties. The trial Court further held that there is a tendency among the villagers to rope in innocent persons along with guilty ones. Therefore, the testimony of PW.8 Smt. Bimla and PW.9 Lok Ram was required to be examined with utmost care and caution. It came to conclusion that Ram Chander and Rama Nand, accused, have been attributed specific injuries on the person of deceased Beg Raj by PW.8 Smt. Bimla and PW.9 Lok Ram. After appearance of accused at the spot, occurrence had started. The trial court further held that prosecution had not examined Shanti, Ganga, Chander bhan, Vinod and Raj Kumar, who had received injuries. Therefore, author of these injuries could not be proved by the prosecution. The trial Court further held that injuries attributed to Mahabir Parshad, Raj Kumar and Chandi Ram alias Chandji have not been proved beyond any doubt. Trial Court further held that no fire-arm injury was found on the person of Beg Raj by PW.4 Dr. S. N. Sharma and PW.8 Dr. Ishwar Singh Nasir. Trial Court, after acquitting three accused, held that Sec.34 IPC was not attracted and the accused are to be convicted for their individual liability as it was a case of sudden fight. 28. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, advocate, appearing of the appellants, has stated that the finding recorded by the trial Court that it was a sudden fight is against law and facts of the case. It was urged before this Court that the marriage was to be solemnized in the family of the accused. On a trivial matter of giving dang blow to dog of Lok Ram, the complainant party along with lathies came armed to the house of the accused and had caused injuries to Ved kaur, Chandi Ram and Raj Kumar. Therefore, the complainant party was aggressor and complete right of self-defence accrued to the accused. It is further submitted that prosecution has not explained the injuries on the person of Ved kaur, Chandi Ram and Raj Kumar. The genesis and origin of the occurrence has been suppressed. It is further submitted that the prosecution story that mahabir had fired a shot and the same hit deceased Bed Raj stand belied by medical evidence. Thus, there is a contradiction between ocular and medical evidence. The genesis and origin of the occurrence has been suppressed. It is further submitted that the prosecution story that mahabir had fired a shot and the same hit deceased Bed Raj stand belied by medical evidence. Thus, there is a contradiction between ocular and medical evidence. It is submitted in the alternate that once the Court came to conclusion that the case was of a sudden fight and each accused is responsible for individual role, conviction of Rama Nand cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that in statement Ex. PX Bimla, complainant, has not stated that Rama nand had caused any injury. It is in the Court, she improved and stated that when Beg Raj fell down, injuries were caused by Rama Nand with lathi on his waist. Counsel has further stated that there is no injury on the waist of Beg raj, rather injury is on thigh. Counsel has further drawn my attention to the statement of PW.9 Lok Ram, who also in the Court assigned this injury to Rama nand but he has been duly confronted with his previous statement recorded by the police under Sec.161 Cr. P. C. Ex. DA where this fact was not recorded. Counsel has also urged that even if it is believed that rama Nand has caused injury on the thigh, that injury was simple, therefore, he can only be convicted for offence under Sec.323 IPC not with aid of Sec.34 IPC for offence under Sec.304 Part-II IPC. To controvert the arguments raised by Mr. Ghai, Ms. Balhara assisted by Mr. Sudhir sharma has submitted that the houses of accused and complainant adjoin each other. It has come in evidence that the protest made by PW.9 Lok Ram was not taken in right spirit by the accused and to assert their supremacy they came armed and attacked the family of complainant. It is submitted that nature and the number of injuries prove that the accused party was aggressor. In the present case, three of the accused namely Chandi Ram, Mahabir Parshad and Raj kumar have been acquitted and Satbir has already died. The trial Court came to the conclusion that it was a sudden affair and Sec.34 IPC was not attracted and acquitted the accused for offence under Sec.302 IPC. 29. In the present case, three of the accused namely Chandi Ram, Mahabir Parshad and Raj kumar have been acquitted and Satbir has already died. The trial Court came to the conclusion that it was a sudden affair and Sec.34 IPC was not attracted and acquitted the accused for offence under Sec.302 IPC. 29. As stated earlier, appeal against the acquittal filed against the co-accused and acquittal of the present appellant under Sec.302 IPC has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, this Court has to only determine whether right of self defence vest in the accused, they are entitled to clean acquittal or their conviction for individual role of each accused is to be maintained. The prosecution version that Leelu had caused a dang blow to the dog and a protest was made by PW.9 Lok Ram has been accepted by the defence rather they have gone further to state that it was not a simple protest but complainant party came armed to their house. The trial Court has rightly held that there was no previous enmity between the parties. The complainant and accused party are neighbourers. The occurrence had originated on the spur of moment without any pre-mediation and as held by the Court below, it was a sudden affair. Therefore, right of self defence will not accrue and each accused will be responsible for the individual role. In the statement made by Bimla Ex. PX it is not stated that Rama Nand caused any injury to Beg Raj, deceased. In the Court also, PW.8 Bimla stated that Rama Nand had also caused injury. PW.9 Lok Ram deposed that Rama Nand caused injury on the waist. PW.8 Bimla was confronted with her statement Ex. PX where it was not so stated. PW.9 Lok Ram was also confronted with his statement ex. DA where this fact was not recorded. Even otherwise also PW.9 Lok Ram had attributed injury to Rama Nand on the waist. There is no injury on the waist of beg Ram. A simple injury is present on the thigh of Beg Raj. In these circumstances, as a matter of abundant caution, benefit of doubt can be extended to Rama Nand accused. However, no interference is warranted so far conviction and sentence of appellant Ram Chander and Kanwarsain is concerned. Their conviction and sentence is maintained. 30. A simple injury is present on the thigh of Beg Raj. In these circumstances, as a matter of abundant caution, benefit of doubt can be extended to Rama Nand accused. However, no interference is warranted so far conviction and sentence of appellant Ram Chander and Kanwarsain is concerned. Their conviction and sentence is maintained. 30. For the discussions made above, Criminal Appeal is disposed of.