Judgment [Per: Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.] Criminal law was set into motion at the instance of Sunder Singh s/o Jodh Singh villager Sartola, Tehsil Gangolihaat, district Pithoragarh in the instant case. He wrote a complaint (Ext.Ka-2) on 16.08.1999 enumerating the facts therein that on 16.08.1999 at 11:30 a.m. informant’s father Jodh Singh had altercation with appellant Bhim Singh over jointness of courtyard. Another appellant Sher Singh who was father of appellant Bhim Singh came from the forest in the meanwhile. Sher Singh tried to inflict blow of lathi on Jodh Singh but was saved by his (informant’s son) Sunder Singh. After some time Bhim Singh again came to informant’s courtyard, caught hold of hands of Jodh Singh and put knife on his neck. Appellant Sher Singh came running in the courtyard along with a lathi (stick) and gave a blow of stick on head of Jodh Singh, who became unconscious and fell on the ground. Sher Singh gave another blow of lathi on Jodh Singh. Sher Singh and Bhim Singh beat Jodh Singh with fist and feet. When informant’s mother bent on informant’s father in order to save him, only then they stopped beating him. Informant and his mother got perturbed and went to villagers to apprise them about the incident. Fellow villager Narayan Singh came there. Informant’s father (victim) who was bleeding profusely was taken to Garai Hospital by jeep where doctor provided him first aid and advised them to go to District Hospital, Almora. Victim was taken to District Hospital, Almora. 2. On complaint of son of victim Chik FIR (Ext.Ka-11) was lodged at P.S. Nainoli, sub-district Gangolihaat, District Pithoragarh on 16.08.1999 at 6:30 p.m. Occurrence took place on 16.08.1999 at 11:30 a.m. The distance between village Sartola where the occurrence took place and reporting police station was 13 k.m. There appeared to be no delay in lodging FIR which was initially registered as crime no. 2/1999 under Section 307, 506 IPC but was later on converted into Section 302 IPC on death of victim. 3. On submission of charge-sheet against the accused persons, they were tried by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh. After conclusion of trial accused/appellants Sher Singh and Bhim Singh were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. They were awarded imprisonment for life for the said offence. 3. On submission of charge-sheet against the accused persons, they were tried by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh. After conclusion of trial accused/appellants Sher Singh and Bhim Singh were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. They were awarded imprisonment for life for the said offence. Each one of them was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which each one was directed to undergo one year’s further simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against aforesaid conviction and sentence, appellants preferred present appeal. 4. P.W.1 Smt. Manuli Devi was the unfortunate wife of deceased Jodh Singh, who was approx. 55 years when he was killed. Accused/ appellant Sher Singh was the real brother of deceased Jodh Singh. Bhim Singh was son of Sher Singh. They used to reside in neighbourhood sharing a common courtyard. 5. P.W.1 Smt. Manuli Devi stated in her examination-in-chief that on 16.08.1999 at around 11-11.30 a.m., when she along with her husband were at her home, accused Shim Singh was quarrelling with her husband over a pathway. Jodh Singh was asking Bhim Singh as to why did he stop his children to enter pathway for, it was a common pathway. On previous day also Bhim Singh quarreled with her husband over the same. Bhim Singh sat in the courtyard. Her son Sunder Singh came there after washing clothes. Sher Singh also came from the forest. Sher Singh came to their courtyard carrying a lathi (stick) with the purpose of beating her husband. He was saved by his son and then accused persons went to their home. Thereafter, accused/appellant Bhim Singh jumped from his verandah and came to their courtyard. He gave a blow of fist on chest of Jodh Singh. Jodh Singh caught hold of his hands. In the mean time accused /appellant Sher Singh gave a blow of lathi on the head of Jodh Singh. Jodh Singh fell on the ground. Accused /appellant continued to beat him. They said that they will eliminate all the members of his family. Smt. Maluni Devi’s son was present there. He called his brother Narayan Singh and Jodh Singh was brought inside the home. Jodh Singh’s nose was bleeding. He was taken to Garai Hospital. He was referred to higher center (Almora or Lucknow) considering his critical condition, he was taken to Almora Hospital. Smt. Maluni Devi’s son was present there. He called his brother Narayan Singh and Jodh Singh was brought inside the home. Jodh Singh’s nose was bleeding. He was taken to Garai Hospital. He was referred to higher center (Almora or Lucknow) considering his critical condition, he was taken to Almora Hospital. She came back to her home. She came to know that her husband died in the night. 6. P.W.1 Manuli Devi was cross-examined on behalf of accused/ appellant. She said that lathi (stick) was about 5 feet long, it was thick. Lathi was not produced before the Court. On the date of incident Sher Singh had gone to forest. He came back around 10-11 a.m. Jodh Singh was ex-soldier in BSF. Kishan Ram’s son had come to their residence in order to search for a buffalo, but marpeet did not take place in his presence. Jai Lal Master was also with him. A river was at a distance of half miles from their residence. Her husband was scheduled to go for fishing but could not go because this quarrel took place. Her house was situated at a distance of 2-3 k.m. from Garai. Jodh Singh owned a hotel at Garai. Jodh Singh was at Garai on 15.08.1999. Her husband was a pensioner. He served BSF for 16 years. Sher Singh had lodged a case of marpeet against Jodh Singh about 4-5 years ago from the date of incident, but they entered into compromise. Sher Singh’s fingers of right hand got fractured as he had gone for fishing. Bhim Singh did not go with her son Sunder for washing clothes in gool (water channel). Bhim Singh brought bananas. He had sickle in his hands. The altercation took place in the courtyard. Initially, Sher Singh was not there. On hearing altercation he came to courtyard. Firstly, her son saved her husband from Sher Singh. Son dragged father in the courtyard in order to save him. Kesar Singh and Madan Singh resided in their neighbourhood. When the altercation took place nobody came to the spot. She was not aware whether neighbours were present in their houses or not. When Bhim Singh jumped towards the victim and his eyewitness wife, he took out knife and threatened Jodh Singh that he will kill him. Kesar Singh and Madan Singh resided in their neighbourhood. When the altercation took place nobody came to the spot. She was not aware whether neighbours were present in their houses or not. When Bhim Singh jumped towards the victim and his eyewitness wife, he took out knife and threatened Jodh Singh that he will kill him. At that time Sher Singh was in his house when Bhim Singh showed knife to Jodh Singh, who caught hold of his hands. Bhim Singh gave a blow of lathi (stick) on (head of) Sher Singh. Wife of deceased denied that her husband fell from his house and sustained injuries. 7. P.W.2 Dr, Irshad Ahmad Khan was posted in Health Center, Garai, Gangoli on 16.08.1999. He found following injuries on body of Jodh Singh: 1. A red contusion of size 14 cm x 10 cm present on left side of skull including left eye 40 cm above the left ear pinna. 2. Dry red colour blood are present in both nostrils of nose. 3. An abraded contusion of size 4 cm x 3 cm present on medial side of right knee joint, which is bright red in colour. 4. An abraded contusion of size 3 cm x 2 cm present on medial aspect of right thigh. 4 cm above the injury no.3 which is bright red in colour. Duration -About ¼ day old. Opinion - All injuries are kept under observation, for that case is referred to District Hospital Pithoragarh for X-ray management and expert opinion. 8. According to the doctor, all the injuries of victim were fresh. They were kept under observation and were referred to the District Hospital. According to him the injuries were possible on the same day at 11:30 a.m. Doctor proved his report (Ext. Ka-1 )and said that the injuries were possible with the blunt object. In his cross-examination doctor opined that the injuries were possible with the blow of lathi (a blunt object). 9. P’W.3 Mahendra Singh accompanied the injured to Government Hospital Garai, Gangoli and thereafter to District Hispital, Almora, where the victim succumbed to his injuries. He was the son of deceased Jodh Singh. He had a tea stall in Garai, Gangoli. On 16.08.1999, his younger brother Sunder Singh came to him informing that Sher Singh and Bhim Singh had beaten Jodh Singh. He was the son of deceased Jodh Singh. He had a tea stall in Garai, Gangoli. On 16.08.1999, his younger brother Sunder Singh came to him informing that Sher Singh and Bhim Singh had beaten Jodh Singh. When he came from his tea stall he saw that his injured father was being taken to Government Hospital Garai Gangoli. Seeing his critical condition, injured was taken to District Hospital, Almora where he died at 11:00 p.m. . 10. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 Mahendra Singh stated that his father came to tea stall on 15th August. He left for his house on 16th August in the morning. Jodh Singh did not purchase wine either on 15th August or 16th August. Jai Lal Master and Kishan Ram Master also accompanied his father in the bus. He denied that his younger brother did not tell him that accused/appellant had beaten his father. He also denied that he was adducing evidence under the influence of Patwari. 11. P.W.4 Sunder Singh was an important witness who said in his examination-in-chief that on 16.08.1999 at 11:30 a.m. he was present in the courtyard of his house. Accused/appellant had quarrel with his father in the morning at 10-10:30 a.m. in the courtyard. The dispute related to the land of courtyard. At that point of time his father was in his courtyard and Bhim Singh was in his own courtyard. Both were adjacent to each other (they were joint). Sher Singh gave a blow of lathi on Jodh Singh. When Jodh Singh and his son (P.W.4 Sunder Singh) were sitting in the courtyard Bhim Singh came there along with knife and put his knife on the neck of his father. At the same time Sher Singh came with a lathi (stick) and gave a blow of stick on the head of his father from the back. Jodh Singh fell down. Sher Singh gave yet another blow of lathi and beat him with fist and feet. His mother, who was also there, cried. He was keeping/hanging linen (clothes) on wire (string). Accused persons went back to their home after beating Jodh Singh. P.W.4 Sunder Singh killed Narayan Singh. They took the victim to Garai Hospital. Doctor referred the matter to District Hospital. Victim was taken to District Hospital, Almora. This witness went to Patwari to lodge report. He has proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-2). Accused persons went back to their home after beating Jodh Singh. P.W.4 Sunder Singh killed Narayan Singh. They took the victim to Garai Hospital. Doctor referred the matter to District Hospital. Victim was taken to District Hospital, Almora. This witness went to Patwari to lodge report. He has proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-2). His father breathed his last at 11 :30 p.m. Patwari came to the place of incident the next day. He took samples of blood from inside the room, arrested accused persons and recovered lathi (stick) from their house. 12. In his cross-examination, P.W.4 Sunder Singh said that there is a gool (water channel) in the village. The complaint was written by this witness. Marpeet took place at 11:30 a.m. He denied the suggestions of accused persons that marpeet did not take place at 11:30 a.m. Narrating the incident this witness said that Bhim Singh came to courtyard and caught hold of his father. Sher Singh was present in his courtyard. This witness was hanging the clothes on wire (string). He was present in his own courtyard. His mother was also present in courtyard when Sher Singh came from forest. Stick was not in his hands. He picked up lathi from his courtyard. The stick was of ghingaru (plant). One could catch hold of ghingaru stick in his fist. Lathi was recovered by patwari from the house of accused/appellant. On the fateful day he came from Garai in the morning. Jai Lal and Kishan Lal had also come with him to purchase buffalo. He denied that they were in a drunken state and did not purchase buffalo. His father was bleeding (from nose). This witness denied that his father was suffering from disease of (high) blood pressure. This witness was honest in his statement when he said that accused persons did not inflict blow of knife on his father. This witness was not aware whether his father had beaten Sher Singh in the year 1987 and was challaned under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. He denied the suggestions put forward on behalf of accused persons that his father fell from the roof and thereby sustained injuries. 13. P.W.5 Dr. Dhingra was posted on 16.08.1999 as Medical Officer in District Hospital, Almora. He was on emergency duty on that day. Victim Jodh Singh was referred by Dr. I.A. Khan. 13. P.W.5 Dr. Dhingra was posted on 16.08.1999 as Medical Officer in District Hospital, Almora. He was on emergency duty on that day. Victim Jodh Singh was referred by Dr. I.A. Khan. Jodh Singh breathed his last on 16.08.1999 at 11:15 p.m. Doctor informed police before that. He administered disctrose injection, decadran, epsolin, ampilox, gentamicin injection. Victim died in emergency ward. All efforts were made to save him. When victim came to him he had head injuries and was referred to the higher center. Doctor Dhingra proved his report (Ext. Ka-3). 14. In his cross-examination, P.W.5 Dr. Dhingra denied that police report is asked for admitting an injured in the hospital. Victim’s case was referred by Dr. Khan. He did not mention injuries sustained by victim. He provided treatment to the patient. Injuries were mentioned by Dr. I.A. Khan. Victim was brought by his son Mahendra Singh. He denied that injured died because he was not given proper treatment. . 15. P’W.6 Dr. S.K. Chawla was Medical Officer posted at Base Hospital, Almora on 17.08.1999. He conducted post mortem on the dead body of Jodh Singh, which was brought by Constable Mukesh Kumar and Constable Chhavi Nath. He found following ante mortem injuries on dead body of Jodh Singh. 1. Contusion present over left temporal region measuring 14 cm x 10 cm size extending from the bridge of nose to upper margin of left pinna. 2. Abraded contusion present on medial side of right knee 4 cm x 5 cm in size. 3. Abraded contusion over medial aspect of right thigh 4 cm above the injury no.2. Cause of death - coma - as a result of head injury. 16. The cause of death was head injuries sustained by victim. Injuries no.1 & 2 were received by the blow of stick. Dr. S.K. Chawla proved post mortem report (Ext. Ka-4) which also bears the signatures of Dr. S.K. Tripathi. In his cross-examination, he said that injury no.1 was forehead injury. The word ‘scalp’ included ‘forehead’. He had sent this report to S.P. Office, Almora through CMO Office. Injury no.1 could be caused by a stick with 1" diameter. Seriousness of injury depends upon the force with which blow of lathi is inflicted on victim. Injuries no.2 & 3 were also possible by blow of lathi. The word ‘scalp’ included ‘forehead’. He had sent this report to S.P. Office, Almora through CMO Office. Injury no.1 could be caused by a stick with 1" diameter. Seriousness of injury depends upon the force with which blow of lathi is inflicted on victim. Injuries no.2 & 3 were also possible by blow of lathi. These injuries were possible on 16.08.1999 at 11:30 a.m. Thus, the oral testimony was supported (corroborated) by medical evidences. 17. P.W.7 S.I. Raj Kumar was posted in the same capacity on 17.08.1999 at Police Station Kotwali, Almora. He was the writer and signatory to inquest report (Ext.Ka-5). He prepared other documents from Ext.Ka-6 to Ext.Ka-9. He prepared report (Ext.Ka-10) after receiving post mortem report and inquest report. Since the incident belonged to Patwari Circle, Pithoragarh, these papers were submitted to District Magistrate concerned. 18. P.W.8 lnder Singh, Patwari, Tehsil Didihaat proved chik FIR (Ext.Ka-11) which FIR was lodged on the complaint of Sunder Singh, son of victim Jodh Singh. He took the statement of informant Sunder Singh, inspected place of occurrence, prepared site plan (Ext.Ka-12), prepared memo (Ext.Ka-13) relating to blood stained soil and simple soil. Memo (Ext.Ka-14) relating to blood stained bed sheet, arrest memo (Ext.Ka-15) relating to arrest of both the accused. Recovery memo. (Ext.Ka-16) of lathi (Material Ext.-1), report (Ext.Ka-17) of Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra and submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-18) against accused/appellant persons in the Court. Investigating Officer Inder Singh Patwari also proved blood stained soil (Material Ext.-2), simple soil (Material Ext.-3) blood stained bed sheet (Material Ext.-4), undershirt (Material Ext.-5), pajama (Material Ext.-6), and underwear (Material Ext.-7). He also said that stick (Material Ext.-1) was having pointed iron at one end. 19. Among the prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 Smt. Manuli Devi and P.W.4 Sunder Singh were eyewitnesses. They were the persons present at their home when accused persons/appellants assaulted Jodh Singh. P.W.1 Manuli Devi was the wife of victim. P.W.4 Sunder Singh was the son of victim. They are, no doubt, related witnesses but at the same time natural witnesses. They were not chance witnesses. Their presence at home with victim was most natural. They gave most natural account of the incident. They were subjected to detailed cross-examination on behalf of accused/appellant but nothing came out in their cross-examination which might render their version suitable to the appellants and unsuitable to prosecution. They were not chance witnesses. Their presence at home with victim was most natural. They gave most natural account of the incident. They were subjected to detailed cross-examination on behalf of accused/appellant but nothing came out in their cross-examination which might render their version suitable to the appellants and unsuitable to prosecution. It is settled law on related witnesses that their testimony is to be scrutinized carefully.On thorough scrutiny of these two eyewitnesses, it transpires that their testimony inspires confidence. It is also a settled law that the testimony of related witnesses is not to be thrown away in the gutter but their testimony has to be analyzed carefully and if they were natural witnesses and trustworthy too, conviction can be sustained relying upon their oral testimony. Judged by this yardstick, this court is of the view that testimony of P.W.1 Manuli Devi and P.W.4 Sunder Singh is acceptable, they being related witnesses notwithstanding. Their oral testimony is duly supported by as many as three doctors. Not that the number of doctors carry any weight in the matter, but because quality of their evidence lends support to the quality of oral testimony rendered by eyewitnesses. The other witness namely P.W.3 Mahendra Singh has supporting role to play. P.W.7 S.I. Raj Kumar and P.W.8 Patwari Inder Singh are formal witnesses. As said earlier P.W.2 Dr. I.A. Khan, P. W.5 Dr. Dhingra and P.W.6 Dr. S.K. Chawla were the Medical Officers. P.W.2 Dr. I.A. Khan examined injured Jodh Singh and found injuries on his skull, nostrils, knee, thigh and opined that the injuries were inflicted by blunt object. Thus, doctor has corroborated oral evidence to the effect that Jodh Singh was given blow by a lathi (stick). P.W.5 Dr. Dhingra has corroborated the evidence tendered by Dr. I.A. Khan. P.W.6 Dr. S.K. Chawla found ante mortem injuries on dead body of Jodh Singh and opined that injuries no.1 & 2 were sustained by the blow of danda (stick). Thus, oral evidence is duly corroborated by medical evidence. P.W.3 Mahendra Singh accompanied victim to Government Hospital, Garai, Gangoli and thereafter to District Hospital, Almora, Thus, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove the case against accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 20. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that no role was assigned to Bhim Singh. P.W.3 Mahendra Singh accompanied victim to Government Hospital, Garai, Gangoli and thereafter to District Hospital, Almora, Thus, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove the case against accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 20. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that no role was assigned to Bhim Singh. It is true that case against Bhim Singh was that he did not inflict blow of lathi or knife on deceased but it was clear that he committed murder of Jodh Singh along with his father in furtherance of their common intention as was evident from oral testimony of P.W.1 Smt. Manuli Devi and P.W.4 Sunder Singh, a detailed description of which was given in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. The charge was framed by the trial court against the accused /appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and therefore, whereas, there was direct evidence of causing injury by blunt object against accused/appellant Sher Singh, evidence has it that Bhim Singh shared common intention with his father. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. She submitted that lathi was not a deadly weapon. There was no intention on the part of accused/appellants to cause death of Jodh Singh. She also argued that it was a case of sudden provocation. We are not inclined to accept this contention of learned counsel representing appellants, for nothing was sudden here. It can only be said that it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder but it cannot be said that it was a case of sudden and grave provocation. Sher Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted his arrest and recovery of lathi from his residence as also death of Jodh Singh and his relationship with deceased. Rest of the things were denied by him. Co-accused Shim Singh followed the suit. He replied in the same vein. Learned trial court believed the entire prosecution story to be correct. He did not believe the suggestion put forward on behalf of accused/appellant that Jodh Singh was under the influence of liquor and he fell from his house, sustained injuries which caused his death. The dispute of the parties on land of courtyard was also believed by the trial court. Learned trial court believed the entire prosecution story to be correct. He did not believe the suggestion put forward on behalf of accused/appellant that Jodh Singh was under the influence of liquor and he fell from his house, sustained injuries which caused his death. The dispute of the parties on land of courtyard was also believed by the trial court. We are inclined to agree that the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court was correct but we differ from the conclusion that it was a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. In our perception it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 22. Culpable homicide is the genus of which murder is a species. Every murder is a culpable homicide but not vice versa. Where there is an intention to kill, the offence is always murder. Whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder depends upon the degree of risk to human life. If death is a likely result, it is culpable homicide. If it is the most probable result, it is murder.The offence is culpable homicide if the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death; it is murder if such injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but appreciable. 23. Whenever the court is confronted with the question whether the offence is murder, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of accused and death leads to the second stage for consideration whether that act of accused amounts to culpable homicide as defined in Section 299 IPC. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 IPC is reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution brings the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of definition of murder contained in Section 300 IPC. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution brings the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of definition of murder contained in Section 300 IPC. If the answer to the question is in the negative, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 IPC is applicable. If this question is answered in the affirmative but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300 IPC, the offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 IPC. These guidelines were provided by Hon’ble Apex Court in Punnyaya vs. State, AIR 1977 SC 45. Judged by this yardstick, instant case of appellants certainly falls within the category of ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. 24. It has come in evidence of P.W.1 Smt. Manuli Devi that appellant Sher Singh picked up stick from courtyard suggesting that appellants did not come to the place of occurrence with a plan. According to P.W.4 Sunder Singh, appellant Sher Singh came from forest and the incident took place after that. Lathi stick was picked up and a blow of same was inflicted on head of victim. P.W.4 Sunder Singh also said in cross-examination that appellant Sher Singh was in his courtyard when appellant Bhim Singh caught hold of victim suggesting that there was no premeditation on their part. Furthermore, it did not appear to them that blow of stick could result into victim’s death. 25. The injury caused by the appellants was not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death of victim. The intention of appellants was only to cause injuries to victim without intention to cause death. There is no evidence on record showing premeditation on the part of assailants. It is not culled out from the evidence that the accused persons/appellants had taken the risk with the knowledge that if blow of lathi was inflicted on victim it may result into his death. 26. Now, the question is what sentence should be prescribed to the accused persons? It has been submitted that the accused/appellants are on bail. 27. It is not culled out from the evidence that the accused persons/appellants had taken the risk with the knowledge that if blow of lathi was inflicted on victim it may result into his death. 26. Now, the question is what sentence should be prescribed to the accused persons? It has been submitted that the accused/appellants are on bail. 27. Considering the nature of the offence and attenuating facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if lesser punishment is awarded to both the accused/appellants Sher Singh and Bhim Singh. 28. Thus we hold that the learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence but its conclusion about holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC is incorrect. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against accused/appellants Sher Singh and Bhim Singh in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC is therefore, set aside. Instead, each one of them is convicted under Section 304 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of which they shall undergo 6 months’ further imprisonment. 29. The accused/appellants Sher Singh and Bhim Singh are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the court concerned. A copy of this judgment be sent to the said court to make the accused/appellants serve out the sentence as modified by this Court. 30. Let the lower court record be sent back.