Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2493 (ALL)

TEJ SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-10-19

SURENDRA KUMAR, VINOD PRASAD

body2012
Vinod Prasad J. Challenge in this appeal by half a dozen appellants Tej Singh ( A-1) his son Gajraj Singh ( A-2), Baboo son of Liladhar ( A-3), all residents of village Nagla Sapri, P.S. Patiyali, District Etah, Ram Singh ( A-4) resident of village Garhiya, P.S. Patiyali, District Etah, Sukh Ram ( A-5) and Jaggu ( A-6), both residents of village Marahli, hamlet of Mokhampur, P.S. Patiyali, District Etah, is to their conviction and sentence order dated 25.10.1982 recorded by VIIIth Additional Session's Judge, Etah in S.T. No. 269 of 1981, State Vs. Tej Singh and others, relating to P.S. Patiyali, District Etah ( vide crime no. 57 of 1981). By the impugned judgment, learned Trial Judge has convicted all the appellants under sections 148, 302/149 and 364 I.P.C. and has sentenced them to one year RI for the first charge, life imprisonment for the second charge and ten years RI for the last charge. Learned Trial Judge has further directed that all the sentences of the appellants shall run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story was unfolded through depositions of the informant Veer Bahadur, P.W. 1 during the Sessions Trial coupled with written FIR Ext. Ka-1 scribed by Hakim Singh, at informant's dictation. From perusal of both the aforesaid it emerges that one Dharmi was the resident of village Nagla Khubi Majra Sahori, P.S. Patiyali, District Etah. He had three sons Tej Singh, Kanhi and Munni. Tej Singh had two sons Veer Bahadur ( informant/P.W.1) and Suraj Pal @ Siddh Gopal ( deceased). Ram Chandra, P.W. 2 is the son of Munni. Appellants ( A-1) and ( A-2), father and son, along with ( A-3) were all residents of village Nagla Sapri, P.S. Patiyali, District Etah. ( A-4) was the resident of village Garhiya under the same police station whereas ( A-5) and ( A-6), both, were residents of village Marahli, hamlet of Mokhampur, under the same police circle. Six or seven months prior to the incident date, ( A-1) had borrowed 6-7 mounds of wheat grain seeds, for sowing and as victual purposes from Suraj Pal @ Siddh Gopal ( deceased) and had promised to return 1/4 quintal more. Six or seven months prior to the incident date, ( A-1) had borrowed 6-7 mounds of wheat grain seeds, for sowing and as victual purposes from Suraj Pal @ Siddh Gopal ( deceased) and had promised to return 1/4 quintal more. On 10.5.1980, four or five days before the incident, Suraj Pal @ Siddh Gopal ( deceased) had gone to the village of ( A-1) demanding back his wheat grains on which( A-1) had threatened him not to demand it in an aggressive posture otherwise, he will set him right and if he will still pursue his demand, he will shoot him down. This had resulted in a verbal tiradic altercation between the two in the presence of the informant. 3. Motivated by the aforesaid, in the intervening night between 14/15.5.1980, informant Veer Bahadur, deceased Suraj Pal @ Siddh Gopal and co villager Rama Nand, all lying on the heaps of their wheat crops in their granary were conversing amongst each other and with another co-villager Nek Singh who was irrigating his Moong lentil agricultural field south, adjacent to the granary at 5 or 6 paces. At about mid night at 1 p.m., accused Tej Singh, Gajraj Singh, Baboo, Ram Singh, Jaggu, Sukh Ram and Suraj Pal @ Siddh Gopal raided the granary. ( A-1) and ( A-6) were armed with guns, whereas rest had country made pistols. No sooner their arrival, informant deceased and the witnesses sprang up on their feet. Accused told them that they had arrived there to settle down the scores of wheat exchange between the deceased and ( A-1). All the accused rounded up the informant and the deceased. Although witnesses forbade them to desist from their such an activity, but their requests fell flat on accused ears. After covering a distance of 2-3 furlongs towards east, accused asked the informant and the witnesses that if they want their welfare, they should return to their village otherwise they will also be given wheat grains and, in case, they will raise alarms, they will also be shot dead. On such a threat, informant and witnesses, except the deceased, returned back to their house and informed about the incident to the villagers and relatives. Because of night, none of the terrified witnesses and co-villagers could muster any courage to search for the deceased. On such a threat, informant and witnesses, except the deceased, returned back to their house and informed about the incident to the villagers and relatives. Because of night, none of the terrified witnesses and co-villagers could muster any courage to search for the deceased. Miscreants were identified Following day morning, informant, his brother Mahendra, Ram Veer, Anang Pal along with other villagers went in search of the deceased and after searching for the whole day, they discovered his dead body at 4 or 5 p.m. in village Nagla Amar Singh. Bloody froth had oozed out from the deceased's mouth and his cadaver had physical external injuries with a sliced wound on his neck. Legs of the deceased were towards south and the head was towards north. His ankles were tied with loin cloth ( Tahmad) of the deceased, who was also wearing a baniyan and an underwear. Leaving the corpse of the deceased in the guard of co-villagers and watchman, informant Veer Bahadur, P.W. 1 dictated FIR Ext. Ka-1 to scribe Hakim Singh, about the incident and thereafter came to the police station Patiyali where he got the FIR registered as crime no. 57 of 1980 under sections 364, 302 I.P.C. 4. Head Constable Rajendra Singh had prepared the Chik FIR, Exhibit Ka-14 and GD entry Ext. Ka-15, same day at 9.30 p.m., while registering the offence as crime number 57 of 80, u/s 364, 302 I.P.C. Sub-Inspector Heera Lal P.W.5 commenced investigation into the crime as in his presence the FIR was registered at the police station. He recorded statement of Head Mohrir Veer Bahadur and, on 16.5.1981 he came to the incident scene, conducted inquest and prepared inquest memo Exhibit Ka-8. Other relevant papers letters to R.I., C.M.O. seal impression, challan lash, photo lash etc., exhibits Ka-9 to Ka 13, were also prepared by the I.O. P.W.5, who thereafter sealed the dead body and handed it over to Constables Tota Ram and Ram Baran Singh, along with the relevant documents to be carried to the mortuary for the autopsy purposes. At the pointing out of the informant, I.O. conducted spot inspection and prepared site plan Exhibit Ka-4. Thereafter I.O. interrogated inquest witnesses and scribe of the FIR. Blood stained and plain earth were collected from the spot and recovery memo Exhibit Ka-5 in that respect was sketched. At the pointing out of the informant, I.O. conducted spot inspection and prepared site plan Exhibit Ka-4. Thereafter I.O. interrogated inquest witnesses and scribe of the FIR. Blood stained and plain earth were collected from the spot and recovery memo Exhibit Ka-5 in that respect was sketched. Torch, in the light of which the informant and witnesses had identified the accused persons, was inspected by the I.O. who recovered it and prepared recovery memo Exhibit Ka-2. Thereafter P.W.5 came to village Nagla Khoobi, where he interrogated eye-witnesses and at the pointing out of the informant prepared site plan of the concerned place of incident vide Exhibit Ka-6. Thereafter, statements of the widow of the deceased and some of the witnesses were recorded and concluding investigation I.O. charge-sheeted the accused as absconder vide Exhibit Ka-7. From the pocket of the attire of the deceased a written note Exhibit Ka-4 was recovered. The blood stained and plain earth were material Exhibits 5 and 6. 5. Before Judicial Magistrate, Etah case No.7153 of 1980, State Vs. Tej Singh and others was registered on the basis of charge-sheet Exhibit ka-7. Since, the disclosed offences were triable by court of Sessions, therefore learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court on 18.6.1981 after observing due formalities. 6. In the Sessions Court, the case was registered as S.T. No.269 of 1981, State Vs. Tej Singh and five others, on 18.6.1981. The aforesaid trial was transferred to the court of VIIIth Additional Session's Judge, Etah. Learned trial Judge charged all the accused with offences u/s 148, 302/149 and 364 IPC on 7.1.1981. The aforesaid charges were read out and explained to the accused in Hindi, who all, after understanding the same, denied them and claimed to be tried and resultantly, their prosecution commenced by observing Sessions Trial procedure. 7. In all five prosecution witnesses were examined in the trial, which included informant Veer Bahadur P.W.1, Ram Chandra P.W.2 as fact witnesses. Rest of the three formal witnesses included Daya Shanker, employee of district Hospital Etah, Constable Tota Ram, who had carried the body to the mortuary and I.O. Sub-inspector Heera Lal P.W.5. 8. Accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. abjured the incriminating circumstances put to them and pleaded usual defence of false implication because of enmity and factionalism. 9. Rest of the three formal witnesses included Daya Shanker, employee of district Hospital Etah, Constable Tota Ram, who had carried the body to the mortuary and I.O. Sub-inspector Heera Lal P.W.5. 8. Accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. abjured the incriminating circumstances put to them and pleaded usual defence of false implication because of enmity and factionalism. 9. As already stated herein above, learned trial Court found prosecution case credible and guilt of the accused well anointed for the framed charges and therefore convicted and sentenced them for those offences, as has already been mentioned herein above. Questioned in this appeal by the convicted accused are to their aforesaid conviction and sentence through the impugned judgment an order. 10. Pending final consideration of their appeal, two out of six appellant Tej Singh( A-1) and Ram Singh ( A-4) died their natural death and consequently their appeals were abated vide order dated 13.8.2012.Consequently we consider only appeals of appellants Gajraj Singh ( A-2),Baboo ( A-3),Sukh Ram( A-5) & Jaggu ( A-6). 11. In the aforesaid background we have heard Sri Manish Goyal assisted by Sri Vimal Prasad for the appellants and learned AGA for the respondent State. 12. Assailing the impugned judgment and the prosecution story appellants' counsel raised following submissions:- 13. Firstly, that no information was given to the police following day in the morning, after abduction of the deceased, which makes the entire prosecution story suspect. Informant and the villagers, on their own, laid a search for the deceased, which story does not inspire any confidence. Only two fact witnesses Veer Bahadur P.W.1 and Ram Chandra P.W.2, who both were the brothers of the deceased, have been examined in the trial as fact witnesses. No other co-villager and no independent witnesses sprang to support the prosecution story and corroborate it which creates a doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution version. FIR of the incident was registered at 9.30 p.m. at police station Patiyali but investigation was commenced with undue delay and inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was performed on the following day morning at 6.30 a.m. and therefore, there was enough time for the prosecution to cook up a false story against the appellants to seek revenge from them because of wheat exchange enmity. No offence under Section 364 I.P.C. is disclosed on the facts and circumstances of the appeal as initially the informant of the deceased had left their granary along with the accused on their own volition without any show of force and resultantly conviction under Section 364 I.P.C. is indefensible. Investigation conducted by the I.O. had got discrepancies galore and therefore, does not inspire any confidence. Much desired has been left out and therefore, conducted investigation is full of mistakes and follies and on such a faulty investigation appellants cannot be convicted. It is further submitted that if the accused wanted to annihilate the deceased only, their conduct of carrying informant and witnesses along with them to a distance of 2-3 furlongs is wholly unnatural and cannot be believed. Primarily, on these submissions, it was contended that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge against the appellants, who deserves to be acquitted and be set at liberty. 14. Arguing conversely, learned AGA submitted that the informant and his brother had no reason to create a false story against the accused as they had no grievance and animus against them. The wheat grains were given by the deceased to appellant Tej Singh and hence there could be motive only against appellant Tej Singh to implicate him and not against other appellants as rest of the accused had nothing to do with it and consequently, in absence of any motive, there was no reason for the witnesses to be a perjurer and depose falsely against the appellants. It was next submitted that how and in what manner the accused had annihilated the deceased, it was for them to disclose and explain since that fact was known to them only. Search about the deceased, which was conducted to trace him out, prior to lodging of FIR was most natural and humane conduct for which none of the prosecution witnesses can be discredited. As the brothers had no information regarding their own sibling brother who was in the hands of his arch enemies, therefore it was but natural for them to trace out his whereabouts first before seeking help of the police. Conduct of the witnesses is most natural and in consonance with prudent man's conduct and cannot be castigated. As the brothers had no information regarding their own sibling brother who was in the hands of his arch enemies, therefore it was but natural for them to trace out his whereabouts first before seeking help of the police. Conduct of the witnesses is most natural and in consonance with prudent man's conduct and cannot be castigated. As soon as the dead body was discovered, no time was wasted by the informant to proceed to the police station Patiyali at a distance of five and half miles and lodge his report at 9.30 p.m. and resultantly, the FIR cannot be said to be delayed. Appellants' castigation about the same is unmerited submitted learned AGA. For the argument that only related witnesses have deposed during the trial, it was replied that the same is no reason to reject the entire prosecution version, as it is not the relationship but the quality of testimonies that matters. It is trite law that the prosecution story cannot be rejected merely because the witnesses were related with the deceased or the victims. For this submissions, learned AGA had relied upon certain Apex Court decisions to which we shall refer later on while analyzing both the versions. Inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was performed in the morning for the obvious reason that in the night, at a lonely place, without sufficient light, inquest proceedings could not have been conducted effectively, argued learned State counsel. It was next submitted that from the initial stage of the incident, informant, deceased and the witnesses were forced to leave their granary at gun point and therefore, offence of abduction started at that very moment and consequently, it cannot be said that conviction of the appellants under section 364 I.P.C. is assailable. Learned AGA in the last urged that prosecution has sufficiently established guilt of the accused by relying upon testimonies of independent uninterested natural witnesses and appellants' appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 15. We have considered the arguments raised by both the sides and have analyzed and examined the entire trial court record including oral and documentary evidences. Before we undertake and analysis all the rival submissions, glimpses of the testimonies of the fact witnesses indicate that both of them informant Veer Bahadur P.W. 1 as well as Ram Chandra P.W. 2 have corroborated the prosecution case as was spelt out in the FIR Ext. Before we undertake and analysis all the rival submissions, glimpses of the testimonies of the fact witnesses indicate that both of them informant Veer Bahadur P.W. 1 as well as Ram Chandra P.W. 2 have corroborated the prosecution case as was spelt out in the FIR Ext. Ka-1 in extenso. Besides that, informant P.W. 1 had stated that they had identified the accused from their voices and in the light of the torches, as they were only at a distance of 1-2 hands. He had further deposed that when the deceased had gone to accused village for demanding his wheat grains back, then he had accompanied him and the altercation occurred between the deceased and ( A-1) in his presence. Although he had tried to conceal his relationship with P.W. 2 but it is evident that he is the cousin brother of Ram Chandra P.W. 2. He had admitted that regarding borrowing of wheat grain, no document was executed as in the villages such documentation was not required. P.W. 1 further admitted that he was a clerk of Sri Balveer Singh Yadav, advocate of District Etah. He had further testified that the deceased was involved in a dacoity case but because of lack of identification, he was acquitted. He had further testified that he used to visit his village often at an interval of two or four days and on the date of the incident, he was in the village. Since his brother was all alone at his granary therefore, he had gone to give him a company when he was watching wheat grains. He categorically denied the defence suggestion that he was not present in the village at the time of the incident. Informant had further deposed that but for the borrowing incident and the verbal altercation ensued between the deceased and( A-1), there was no other enmity inter se between them and in fact, prior to the said exchange of verbal dual, both of them had good cordial relations with each other. The said altercation had occurred at the residence of ( A-1) where five to seven persons had also assembled and the said incident had occurred at 4 or 5 p.m. in the evening. The said altercation had occurred at the residence of ( A-1) where five to seven persons had also assembled and the said incident had occurred at 4 or 5 p.m. in the evening. Some insignificant omissions regarding the said altercation or carrying of the gun by two and country made pistols by the rest of the accused during the incident was put to him to which he had replied that he had informed the same to the I.O. but he could not state the reasons as why this facts were missing from his interrogatory statements. He had further deposed that firstly the accused had abducted them towards their village and while they were being abducted, they had forbade the accused from indulging into such an act but of no veil and they were forcefully abducted. He had further testified that all the wheat heaps were removed from the granary by rest of the villagers and only wheat heaps of the informant and P.W.2 were kept on the granary as they were big agriculturists. P.W. 1 has further deposed that they were not assaulted by the accused nor deceased was belabored in their presence. He has also deposed that he had thought that the accused had taken his brother for resolving the dispute about borrowing of the wheat. By the next day evening they had sensed that probably Siddh Gopal was done to death. Regarding not lodging of the FIR, informant has given a natural and convincing explanation that since he had a younger brother Mahendra and there was no personal person in the village and since he was searching for the deceased that he had not proceeded to lodge the FIR following day, till the discovery of the deceased's dead body. While searching for the deceased he had gone to the accused houses also but they were absconding and only women folks were present at their abodes. When questioned, informant had further disclosed that some of the accused resided towards north of his village and village of two other accused was towards the east. He had further deposed that he had proceeded to lodge the FIR at 6 p.m. He had further testified that he is High School fail and because of being terrified and chilling of his limbs, that he could not scribe the FIR on his own. He had further deposed that he had proceeded to lodge the FIR at 6 p.m. He had further testified that he is High School fail and because of being terrified and chilling of his limbs, that he could not scribe the FIR on his own. He had stayed at the police station during night and next day morning had returned back to his village on feet, whereas the I.O. had arrived at the village on a bicycle. He had categorically denied the defence suggestion that till inquest proceedings were over FIR was not in existence. He had further informed that the bandoliers were also carried by the accused and some of it were hanging with the shoulders whereas some of the accused had tied it on their waist. He was interrogated at the same night as lodging of the FIR at the police station itself by the Investigating Officer. He had identified the deceased apparels which were material Exts. 1 to 3. He denied the defence suggestion that he also had a gang and because of the enmity with the gang of Tej Singh that he has falsely implicated the accused. He had further deposed that his torch was that of Jeep make of three cells. 16. P.W.2 besides lending credence to the testimonies of P.W. 1 had further deposed that when the accused forcefully abducted them at that time they were also threatened by the culprits that if the deceased and the informant will not accompany them they will commit their murders. He had disclosed the pedigree inter se, he had denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed any incident and the deceased was annihilated because he himself was an out law. He had affirmed that P.W.1 had a torch, which he had flashed during the incident. 17. Postmortem on the cadaver of the deceased was performed by D.L. Raizada on 17.5.1980 as Ext. Ka 3, which has been proved by Daya Shanker P.W. 3. A perusal of the aforesaid exhibits indicate that autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased was conducted on 15.5.1980 at 3 p.m. Deceased was 28 years of age and two and half day had lapsed since his demise. He had a well-built stout body and rigor mortis was absent in both the upper and lower extremities. A perusal of the aforesaid exhibits indicate that autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased was conducted on 15.5.1980 at 3 p.m. Deceased was 28 years of age and two and half day had lapsed since his demise. He had a well-built stout body and rigor mortis was absent in both the upper and lower extremities. Decomposition of the body had set in and swollen blisters were present at places and epidermises were peeled of and his abdomen was distended, one tahmad was knotted with both the knees, his tongue was swollen and was protruding out. On opening of the ante mortem injury, muscles, major blood vessels were found cut. The wound was vertebra deep in the cervical region but no sign on injury visible on the vertebral column. His scrotum was swollen and penis turgid. Small intestine was empty and large intestine was full of fecal matter. His bladder was full of clear urine. Three apparels ( baniyan, underwear and tahmad) were recovered by the autopsy doctor and were handed over to the constables. In doctors' estimation, deceased has died due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of ante mortem injuries which were as follows:- "stab wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep margin clean cut on the right side of the neck 2 cm below the lower border of mandible and 5 cm lateral to mid line direction backward and onward soft tissues ecchymosis clotted blood was present in the wound which is transversely placed." 18. Head constables Tota Ram, P.W.4 and the investigating Officer Heera Lal, P.W.5 had divulged those facts, which have already been delineated herein above and hence are being eschewed from being repeated. 19. In the light of the aforesaid evidences when the criticism of appellants' counsel is examined and tested on the anvil of acceptability, we find that none of the snippings are convincing and credible. 20. First of all, the criticism regarding non approaching of the police following day morning of the abduction is an argument which is bereft of any merit. Different people acted differently under different circumstances. It was very natural for the real brothers to search for their missing brother as they had compelling and clear apprehensions in their mind that because of the verbal duel, he might have been done to death. Different people acted differently under different circumstances. It was very natural for the real brothers to search for their missing brother as they had compelling and clear apprehensions in their mind that because of the verbal duel, he might have been done to death. Inquisitiveness to know whereabouts of the missing brother must have tormented them severely and therefore, it was humane and must natural for them to go in search for their missing brother. Snipping their conduct for such a reason is unworthy of credence and therefore, we repel the first castigation of the prosecution witnesses by the appellants' counsel. 21. Next submissions that only to related, interested, partisan witnesses were examined and no independent witnesses have come forward to support the prosecution story is concerned, we are of the view that the said submissions is beyond the trite law reiterated time and again by the Apex Court. Merely because a witness is related to the victim is no reason to discard his testimony. An interested witness is he who has got some ulterior motive to seek revenge from the accused to satisfy his own grouse. That being not the case here, none of the two prosecution witnesses can be bracketed as interested witnesses. Defence, through their cross examination, had failed to bring on record any animus for the informant and P.W. 2 to narrate a false story implicating them. They had no reason at all to testify a false story sparing the real assailants in the murder incident of their own brother. Informant was present when there was exchange of hot verbal duels between the deceased and ( A-1) at the house of accused appellant ( A-1). He had no personal grudge against the accused persons and, therefore, it is difficult to believe that he will be a party to develop a feigned story against the accused. He seems to be a very natural witness. He has given convincing reasons for his presence at the spot during the dead hour of the night. He had categorically deposed that since wheat heaps belonged to him and P.W.2 were only left in the granary and because the deceased was all alone watching that agricultural crop, that he had gone to the granary for landing his hand to the deceased. This was the most natural conduct to save the agricultural crop, which was the primary source of their earnings. This was the most natural conduct to save the agricultural crop, which was the primary source of their earnings. In fact, the accused appellants have not challenged the presence of the first informant as well as P.W. 2 in the dead hour of the night when the incident started from their granary. A bald suggestion without any preceding background does not inspire any confidence nor does it erode the credibility and trustworthiness of the prosecution witnesses. 22. Next submission of appellants' counsel that there are glaring defects in the investigation, we are of the view that because of that reason, the entire prosecution story cannot be discarded. Firstly, we are not in agreement with the appellants' counsel that the discrepancy left by the Investigating Officers were of such a magnitude and nature as to crumble the entire prosecution edifice and secondly that the eye witness account cannot be discarded entirely, especially when the witnesses had no reason to fabricate a false version, on some discrepant investigation. Some insignificant omissions do occur in the investigatory statements of the witnesses but they do not affect the prosecution case in its substantum. Non mentioning of the fact that two of the assailants were armed with guns and rest were armed with katta or that there was verbal duel at the house of ( A-1) in his village when the deceased had gone there demanding the return of his advanced wheat grains in the FIR etc. are all such insignificant facts, which do not diminish the trustworthiness of the prosecution witnesses. These are wholly insignificant aspects and viewed in a proper perspective and analyzed in a holistic manner they do not affect the prosecution case at all. It is clearly perceptible that after discovery of the dead body, the endeavour was to inform the police at the earliest without wasting time and in such an eventuality, if the FIR does not contain epic details, prosecution story cannot be discarded for that reason. Time and again, it has been reiterated that FIR is not an encyclopedia. Purpose of lodging of it, is only to inform the police about the happening of a crime incident, whether cognizable or non- cognizable, so that the investigation may be engineered at the earliest and the culprits may be brought to books. Time and again, it has been reiterated that FIR is not an encyclopedia. Purpose of lodging of it, is only to inform the police about the happening of a crime incident, whether cognizable or non- cognizable, so that the investigation may be engineered at the earliest and the culprits may be brought to books. It is trite law that a detailed FIR is not required for the purposes of accepting the trustworthiness of the prosecution version. 23. Turning towards the submissions that the offence under section 364 I.P.C. is not disclosed on the evidence on record, we find the said submission to be wholly unacceptable. There is no reason for us to dilate and deliberate on the said aspect as the aforesaid castigation is contrary to the evidence on record. In the dead hour of the night, accused persons had approached the deceased and the informant armed with lethal weapons and on that basis, they forced them to accompany them, which fact by itself indicates commission of an offence under section 364 I.P.C. Deceased has not gone on his own volition along with them. The threats, which was subsequently hurled to the informant and other witnesses of being murdered in case they raise any shouts and do not return to their houses, is sufficient indication of the motive, which was carried by the assailants at the time when they had forced the witnesses, informant and the deceased to follow them. In spite of the fact that the witnesses forbade them to desist from their such an activity. They did not pay any heed to that advice. This is an additional circumstance indicating that an offence of abduction was committed by the accused persons. 24. On an overall appreciation of prosecution evidences, both oral and documentary, there remains no doubt in our mind that the prosecution had anointed appellants' conviction with sufficient clarity by tendering convincing and reliable evidences of truthful witnesses and, therefore, we do not find any error in the conviction awarded to the appellants. 25. However, after scanning the evidence and looking to the injury sustained by the deceased, which is a single stab wound, we are of the opinion that to hold all the surviving appellants guilt for the charge of murder under section 302 IPC will not be legally sustainable. 25. However, after scanning the evidence and looking to the injury sustained by the deceased, which is a single stab wound, we are of the opinion that to hold all the surviving appellants guilt for the charge of murder under section 302 IPC will not be legally sustainable. It is not known whether each and everyone of the accused had the same object which was possessed by the person who had caused the single fatal injury to the accused. No doubt all the appellants appeared at the incident scene together and left with the deceased together but that fact alone be not sufficient to hold them guilty for a charge of murder with the aid of common object. In such a view taking an abundant caution of the entire fact scenario, we opine that guilt of the appellants will not travel beyond the purview of section 304 Part I IPC. 26. In view of above, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellants under section 302/149 IPC is scored out and instead they are convicted under section 304 Part I/149 IPC. Looking to the period undergone and the age of the appellants we consider it appropriate that an imprisonment for seven years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/- on each of the appellants with half of the amount of fine be awarded as compensation to the heirs of the victim's family will meet the ends of justice. 27. In view of above, conviction of the appellants Liladhar ( A-3), Gajraj Singh ( A-2), Sukhram ( A-5) and Jaggu ( A-6) under sections 148 and 364 IPC along with imposed sentenced are sustained but their conviction under section 302/149 IPC is substituted with conviction under section 304 Part I/149 IPC for which crime, they are sentenced to seven years R.I. with Rs.10,000/- fine on each of them and out of the total amount of fine half of it is awarded as compensation to the victim's family. 28. Appellant, Baboo ( A-3) is in jail. He shall remained in jail to serve out his sentence awarded herein above. Rest of the surviving appellants Gajraj Singh ( A-2), Sukh Ram ( A-5) and Jaggu ( A-6) are on bail. They are directed to be taken into custody by the concerned Court forthwith and be lodged in jail to serve out the remaining part of their sentences awarded herein above. Rest of the surviving appellants Gajraj Singh ( A-2), Sukh Ram ( A-5) and Jaggu ( A-6) are on bail. They are directed to be taken into custody by the concerned Court forthwith and be lodged in jail to serve out the remaining part of their sentences awarded herein above. Surety and personal bonds of these appellants Gajraj Singh ( A-2), Sukh Ram ( A-5) and Jaggu ( A-6) are hereby cancelled. 29. Let a copy of the judgment be certified to the trial court for it's intimation and proper action.