Judgment :- RevatiMohite Dere, J. 1. This Appeal is being re-heard by us, pursuant to the order dated 19th February, 2013, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no.787 of 2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19th February, 2013 in Criminal Appeal no.787 of 2008 was pleased to set aside the Judgment dated 20th December, 2006 passed by this Court and while remitting the matter back requested this Court to appoint an amicus curiae to argue the aforesaid appeal on behalf of the appellants and to re-hear the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 2. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be useful to place on record the manner in which the said case has travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and now back to this Court for re-hearing of the aforesaid Appeal, preferred by the appellants. 3. The aforesaid appellants-Satish and Nandu along with seven co-accused were arrested in connection with an alleged incident of assault on 28/29th April, 1997 at 12.30 a.m. According to the prosecution, deceased Arun, Sanju (PW.1), Anil (PW.3) and Kailash were assaulted by all the 9 accused. All the accused, including the appellants-Satish and Nandu came to be charged for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative for the offence punishable under Section 302 simplicitor or Section 302 r/w 34 for causing the death of Arun and for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative Section 323 simplicitor or Section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting Sanju, Anil and Kailash. The appellants-Satish and Nandu along with seven accused were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative for the offence punishable under Section 504 simplicitor or Section 504 /w 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case no.299 of 1997, vide Exhibit-7. 4. 4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pune after considering the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution, was pleased to convict the appellants i.e Satish, Nandu, Pintu and Ashok for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 and Section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and S.I. for one month, by its Judgment and Order dated 4th May, 2002, in Sessions Case no.299 of 1997. The said substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by the same Judgment and Order acquitted orig. accused no.4-Vasant, orig. accused no.8-Anil and orig. accused no.9-Deepak of all the charges levelled against them and as far as accused no.5-Bhausaheb and orig. accused no.6-Dattatraya, the case stood abated as they died during the pendancy of the trial. 5. The aforesaid appellants along with accused nos. 3-Pintu and 7-Ashok preferred the aforesaid appeal, being Criminal Appeal no.1187 of 2002, in this Court against the Judgment and Order dated 4th May, 2002, passed in Sessions Case no.299 of 1997 convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offences. This Court vide its Judgment dated 20th December, 2006 was pleased to partly allow the aforesaid appeal, in as much as the conviction and sentence imposed upon accused no.7-Ashok came to be set aside and he was acquitted of all the charges. As far as aforesaid appellants-Satish and Nandu and accused no.3-Pintu, their conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be maintained. 6. Against the said Judgment dated 20th December, 2006, passed by this Court in the aforesaid appeal, the appellants- Santosh, Nandu and Pintu preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.787 of 2008 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 19th February, 2013 was pleased to allow the said appeal by setting aside the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 20th December, 2006 only on the ground that the learned counsel for the appellants did not enter appearance or argue the Appeal when the matter was taken up for hearing on 20th December, 2006. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, was thus pleased to remit the matter back to the High Court with a request that this Court appoint an amicus curiae to argue the appeal on their behalf and to rehear the appeal and dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with law. As far as appellant no.3-intu was concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal qua him as being infructuous, as in the meantime this Court had released him, as he was found to be a juvenile in conflict with law. 7. It is pertinent to note that after the aforesaid appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal no.1187 of 2002 came to be dismissed by this Court, the Appellant no.3-Pintu, preferred an application, being Criminal Application no.568 of 2008 in the aforesaid appeal, praying therein for benefit under Section 7(a) of the Juvenile Justice Act, in view of the fact that he was a juvenile in conflict with law at the time of the alleged incident. This Court vide its order dated 17th October, 2008 was pleased to allow the said application preferred by the appellant no.3-intu and extended the benefit of Section 7(a) of the Juvenile Justice Act to the appellant no.3-Pintu, as he was found to be a juvenile in conflict with law and he was directed to be released forthwith. 8. We are therefore now concerned only with the two appellants-Satish and Nandu i.e. original accused nos.1 and 2 in the present appeal. We have appointed Ms. Nasreen Ayubi for the appellants as amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the appellants in the aforesaid appeal and have taken up this appeal for final disposal. 9. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is as under:-PW.8 Sushil Kadam, PSI attached to the Shirur Police Station, recorded the complaint of PW-1 Sanju Namdeo Sonwale on 29th April, 1997. The said complaint has been registered vide C.R.No.50 of 1997 with the Shirur Police Station and has been marked as Exhibit–49. PW.8 Sushil Kadam, proceeded to the scene of incident and prepared the spot panchanama (Exhibit-75). After doing the inquest panchanama (Exhibit-52), the dead body of Arun Namdeo Sonwale was sent for postmortem examination to the Shirur Hospital. The said postmortem was done by Dr. Anil Kumar Reddy, which is at Exhibit-66. PW.8-PSI Kadam, thereafter recorded the statement of witnesses, including that of PW.2-Rupali V. Dhumal, PW.3-Anil N. Sonwale, PW.4–Keshav Gadage, PW.5-Babasaheb Kolpe and others. After doing the inquest panchanama (Exhibit-52), the dead body of Arun Namdeo Sonwale was sent for postmortem examination to the Shirur Hospital. The said postmortem was done by Dr. Anil Kumar Reddy, which is at Exhibit-66. PW.8-PSI Kadam, thereafter recorded the statement of witnesses, including that of PW.2-Rupali V. Dhumal, PW.3-Anil N. Sonwale, PW.4–Keshav Gadage, PW.5-Babasaheb Kolpe and others. The appellants along with the other accused came to be arrested. On 6th May, 1997 the appellant no.1-Satish, while in police custody disclosed that he wanted to produce the knife used in the commission of the offence. Accordingly, the statement was recorded as per Exhibit–62, memorandum statement. Thereafter, PSI Kadam along with the panchas accompanied the appellant no.1-Satish to Village Tandali behind the Gram Panchayat and in their presence, the appellant no.1- Satish produced the knife seized under a panchanama (Exhibit– 64). On 13th June, 1997 the seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser for examination vide letter date 13th June, 1997 (Exhibit-72). After investigation, PW.8-PSI Kadam submitted the charge-sheet against the accused including the appellants in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. 10. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court vide Exhibit-7, framed charge against the appellants- Satish and Nandu and seven other accused under various Sections. All the accused, including the appellants, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 8 witnesses. The defence of all accused was that of denial and false implication. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants-Satish and Nandu, accused no.3-Pintu and accused no.7-Ashok and was pleased to acquit the others co-accused, as afore-stated. 11. In order to effectively deal with the submissions canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. PW-1, Sanju Sonwale, the brother of the deceased-Arun Sonwale was examined by the prosecution as a complainant and injured witness. PW-1 Sanju has stated that although he was living with his brother at Hadapsar, he would often visit Village Tandali where his parents and deceased brother Arun Sonwale were living. He has stated that he had gone to village Tandali on 27th April, 1997 along-with his brother Kailash Sonwale and two three friends, to attend a village fair which was on 29th April, 1997. He has stated that he had gone to village Tandali on 27th April, 1997 along-with his brother Kailash Sonwale and two three friends, to attend a village fair which was on 29th April, 1997. 12. PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has stated that on 28th April, 1997 when he visited the house of his mother’s sister Subhadra and was dancing on music outside the house with others, one Pintu Vasant Holkar (orig. accused no.3) came there and started dancing along-with them. He has further stated, that Pintu, (orig. accused no.3) started whistling and winking at his cousins Ujwala and Deepali who were sitting at some distance. When he informed Pintu not to dance there, there was an exchange of words between them and the family members of Pintu, (orig. accused no.3). He has further stated that the Sarpanch of the village Keshav Gadage (PW.4) came there and settled the dispute and all returned back to their respective houses. PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has further stated that at around 12.30 midnight ie. on 29th April, 1997, he heard some shouts near the house of his maternal aunt Subhadra. He stated that on hearing the same he along with Kailash, Anil and Sunil ran towards the said spot. PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has deposed that he saw Pintu (orig.accused no.3), Nandu, (orig. accused no.2), Satish, (orig. accused no.1), Anil, (orig. accused no.8), Deepak, (orig. accused no.9), Bhausaheb, (orig. accused no.5), Dattatraya, (orig. accused no.6) and Ashok (orig. accused no.7) assaulting his elder brother Arun Sonwale. He has further stated, that when all of them rushed towards Arun to rescue him, the accused persons also assaulted them and ran away. PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has stated that at the time of assault he saw Bhausaheb deceased (orig. accused no.5) holding a knife in his hand and Pintu (orig. accused no.3) holding a sword. However, he could not identify as to what was held by the other accused at the time of the assault. He has stated that in the said incident he sustained injuries on his head and his elder brother Anil Sonwale, PW-3 sustained an injury near the arm pit on the left hand. He has deposed that as Arun Sonwale (deceased) sustained an injury on his chest, they carried him in a jeep to village Kashti. He has stated that in the said incident he sustained injuries on his head and his elder brother Anil Sonwale, PW-3 sustained an injury near the arm pit on the left hand. He has deposed that as Arun Sonwale (deceased) sustained an injury on his chest, they carried him in a jeep to village Kashti. The doctor on examination, informed that Arun had succumbed to the injury and therefore Arun's body was brought to the village. PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has further stated that after informing the said incident to the Village Police Patil, he went to the Shirur Police Station and lodged the complaint which is at Exhibit-49. He identified all the accused in the Court except Bhausaheb (original accused no.5) and Dattatraya (original accused no.6) who died during the pendency of the trial. The said witness in his cross examination has specifically admitted that he had not seen any specific scuffle between the accused Bhausaheb and Arun. PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has specifically stated in his cross examination that the portion marked ‘A’ was not stated by him to the police. The portion marked ‘A’ in the complaint reads thus “that it was Nandu who assaulted the deceased Arun with the gupti” 13. PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has stated that he realised the said portion marked ‘A’ only at the time of recording of his examination-in-chief. He has in his cross examination, further admitted that he had not seen who had caused the injury on this head. He also stated that he was unable to tell as to when he had sustained injury on his head and that whether the injury of Arun was caused by a sharp weapon like knife. 14. The prosecution also examined PW.3-Anil Sonwale, who is the brother of the deceased Arun Sonwale and also an eyewitness to the said incident and an injured witness. PW.3-Anil has deposed, that at the time of the incident he was living with his brother and wife at Hadapsar and the deceased Arun was living at village Tandali along with his wife. He has stated that one day prior to the incident, he had been to village Tandali for a yatra along with his wife and brother. He has stated that his sister along with her daughter Deepali had also come to the village Tandali from Kolhapur. He has stated that one day prior to the incident, he had been to village Tandali for a yatra along with his wife and brother. He has stated that his sister along with her daughter Deepali had also come to the village Tandali from Kolhapur. PW.3-Anil has further stated, that on 24th February, 1997 at about 8.00 or 8.15 p.m. when they were dancing on music outside the house of his maternal aunt Subhadrabai, accused Pintu, (orig. accused no.3) came there and started whistling and winking. He has stated that he asked Pintu not to dance there and slapped him on account of the same. It was stated that there was exchange of words between the family members of Pintu, (orig. accused no.3) and them and later it was Village Sarpanch PW.4-Keshav who came there and settled the dispute, after which all returned to their respective houses. According to PW.3-Anil, when he was sitting along with Sanju (PW-1) and Shashikant (PW-6) on the otta outside the house of Subhadrabai, at about 11.30 p.m. they heard some one shouting from the eastern side. On hearing the shouts he along-with others reached the spot. He has stated that Nandu (orig. accused no.2), Pintu, (orig. accused no.3), Satish (orig. accused no.1), Dattatraya (orig, accused no.6-deceased), Ashok, (orig. accused no.7), Anil (orig.accused no.8), Deepak (orig. accused no.9-deceased), Vasant (orig. accused no.4) and some others attacked them. He has stated that appellant no.1- Satish assaulted him with a knife near the arm pit of his left hand. He has further stated that appellant no.2-Nandu had held a weapon like gupti, appellant no.1-Satish a knife, Pintu (orig. accused no.3) an iron patti and other accused were holding wooden pattis. He has further stated that accused Anil (orig. accused no.8) and Deepak (orig. accused no.9) were shouting “Hanamara”. He has further stated that during the assault his brother Sanju sustained an injury on his head, Kailash Sonwale also sustained an injury and his brother Arun (deceased) sustained a blow with a knife on his stomach. He has further stated that as a result of the assault on his hand, he became unconscious and therefore was unable to tell as to what happened thereafter and that he regained consciousness only on reaching the Sassoon Hospital. The said witness was cross examined at length. He has further stated that as a result of the assault on his hand, he became unconscious and therefore was unable to tell as to what happened thereafter and that he regained consciousness only on reaching the Sassoon Hospital. The said witness was cross examined at length. The tenor of the cross examination was to suggest that he reached the spot after the incident of assault on deceased Arun. 15. The prosecution in support of its case had also examined two other eye witnesses, PW-2 Rupali Dhumal, the niece of deceased-Arun and PW-6 Shashikant Sonwale, cousin of deceased-Arun as eye witnesses to the incident, however both were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case with regard to the assault by the appellants and others on Arun(deceased) and other injured witnesses. It is pertinent to note, that PW.2 Rupali Dhumal deposed about the incident which had taken place prior to the incident of assault on 29th April, 1997. However, with regard to the incident of assault on Arun(deceased) and others has stated that on hearing the cries, she woke up from her sleep and went to the spot, where she saw Arun being carried to the hospital. As far as PW.6-Shashikant is concerned, he too did not support the prosecution case with regard to the incident of assault on deceased Arun. 16. Prosecution has examined PW-4 Keshav Gadage, Sarpanch of village Tandali with regard to the earlier dispute that had taken place between them. He has stated that he had settled the dispute between the accused and the Holkar family and that the dispute was minor in nature. 17. The prosecution examined PW-5 Babasaheb Kolpe (Panch) to prove discovery of knife under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at the instance of appellant no.1. The said memorandum is at Exhibit- 2 and the panchanama is at Exhibit- 63. The panchanama shows that the knife was recovered at the instance of appellant no.1-Satish from a heep of grass and that the wooden handle and the blade of the knife was stained with blood. 18. Dr. Anil Kumar Reddy has been examined by the prosecution as PW-7 to prove the post mortem (Exhibit-66). The panchanama shows that the knife was recovered at the instance of appellant no.1-Satish from a heep of grass and that the wooden handle and the blade of the knife was stained with blood. 18. Dr. Anil Kumar Reddy has been examined by the prosecution as PW-7 to prove the post mortem (Exhibit-66). He has stated in his evidence that at the relevant time he was attached to Rural Hospital, Shirur and that he conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Arun on 29th April, 1997 and found the following injuries:- 1. Incised injury 4 inch X 2 inch X 1 inch, triangular shaped on right epigastrium 5 inches from right nipple at 6 o clock position. It was fresh and due to sharp weapon. 2. Fracture right 12th rib. injuries were anti mortem. Internal injuries. 1. Incised injury 3 ½ inches on middle of liver on right lobe. PW.7 has stated that the cause of death was due to severe heamorahage and due to rupture of liver caused by stab injury. 19. The prosecution has not brought on record any Medical Certificates with regard to the injuries sustained by PW.3-Anil or Kailash nor has examined any Medical Officer in this behalf. 20. The learned counsel, Ms. Nasreen Ayubi, for the appellant nos. 1 and 2 (Satish and Nandu) canvassed before us that the eye witnesses to the said incident were doubtful and untrustworthy in as much as there evidence did not inspire confidence with regard to their presence at the spot at the time of assault on deceased Arun. It was further contended that, two of the eye witnesses PW.2-Rupali and PW.6-Shashikant who were related to the deceased had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and therefore it was doubtful whether PW-1 and PW.3 were present at the scene of the offence at the time of the alleged incident of assault and also that being related to deceased Arun, they were interested witnesses. It was further contended that four of the co-accused had been acquitted by the trial court, one by the Hon’ble High Court and one was given the benefit of Section 7(a) of the Juvenile Justice Act, as he was a juvenile in conflict with law and considering that the alleged role of the appellants was no different from that of the acquitted co-accused, they also ought to have been given the benefit of doubt. 21. The learned APP has contended that the Judgment rendered by the trial court is legal and proper and ought not to be interfered with and supported the conviction of the appellants. 22. In the light of the submissions advanced before us, we are required to consider, whether the presence of the two eyewitnesses, PW.1-Sanju and PW.3-Anil at the time of the alleged incident of assault on deceased Arun has been established by the prosecution ; whether the appellants had any motive to assault Arun and cause his death; and whether the appellants conviction can be sustained in view of the acquittal of the appellants and the co-accused by the Trial Court from the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149, 323 r/w. 149 and 504 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the acquittal of some of the co-accused of all the charges. 23. After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP and after going through the entire prosecution evidence, we find that the evidence of the eye witnesses, PW-1.Sanju Namdeo Sonwale and PW.3-Anil Sonwale does not inspire confidence, in as much as the ocular evidence is contrary to the medical evidence on record. It is pertinent to note that all the accused including the appellants-Satish and Nandu have been acquitted for the offences under Section 143, 148, 149, 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 323 r/w. 149 and Section 504 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The State of Maharashtra has not challenged the said acquittal of the respondents and therefore we are required to consider the role played by the appellants and their conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 24. The State of Maharashtra has not challenged the said acquittal of the respondents and therefore we are required to consider the role played by the appellants and their conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 24. A perusal of the evidence of PW.1-Sanju reveals that although in the F.I.R, he had disclosed that Nandu assaulted the deceased Arun with gupti, he had in his deposition clearly denied stating the same to the police. PW.1-Sanju has in his deposition stated that he had seen all the 9 accused, including the appellants assaulting deceased-Arun. He has stated that he had seen Bhausaheb (orig. accused no.5) and Pintu (orig. accused no.3) holding a knife respectively but could not identify as to what was held by the other accused. Similarly, the other eyewitness, PW.3-Anil has stated that all the 9 accused and some others attacked them. He has further stated that Nandu (appellant no.2) had a weapon like gupti, Satish (appellant no.1) a knife, Pintu (accused no.3) an iron patti and all other accused wooden pattis. He has further stated that Anil (orig. accused no.8) and Deepak (orig. accused no.9) were shouting 'Hanamara' The medical evidence that has come on record through the evidence of P.W.7-Dr. Anilkumar Reddy shows that the deceased had sustained two injuries (i) Incised injury near the chest and (ii) Fracture of the 12th rib. In the light of the afore-stated evidence, we are of the opinion that the medical evidence is contrary to the ocular evidence and as such the presence of the eye-witnesses i.e. PW.1-Sanju and PW.3-Anil at the time of the assault on the deceased becomes doubtful. Considering the evidence on record, it appears that the alleged eye-witnesses have reached the spot soon after the incident of assault on deceased Arun. 25. As far as the evidence of motive is concerned, the same appears to be minor one in as much as even according to the prosecution, the dispute was settled by PW.4-Keshav Gadage, Sarpanch of the Village. The prosecution has not been able to bring forth any evidence to show that the deceased Arun was involved in the earlier dispute which was settled or that the appellants had any motive to assault him and cause his death. 26. The prosecution has not been able to bring forth any evidence to show that the deceased Arun was involved in the earlier dispute which was settled or that the appellants had any motive to assault him and cause his death. 26. We cannot be oblivious to the fact, that several of the accused i.e. 7 out of the 9 accused have been acquitted by the Trial Court and the High Court, of all the offences with which they were charged and that the State of Maharashtra has not preferred any Appeal against their acquittal under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 and 323 r.w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants are the only accused who stand convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 and under Section 323 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 27. Section 34 of the Penal Code reads as under:-Section 34 : Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention" When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. 28. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has not been able to bring on record any evidence to show which of the accused including the appellants assaulted the deceased Arun. It is an omnibus statement. Since we have found that the ocular evidence is contrary to the medical evidence and that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the time of the assault on deceased-Arun is doubtful and the fact that all other co-accused have been acquitted, we cannot sustain the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that any of the appellants caused the fatal injury sustained by the deceased-Arun, in order to convict them for the offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As the Trial Court and the High Court had given the benefit of doubt to all the other co- accused and acquitted them, it follows that the appellants conviction also cannot be sustained as it cannot be held that they acted conjointly with the other accused in the commission of the assault on deceased-Arun. As the Trial Court and the High Court had given the benefit of doubt to all the other co- accused and acquitted them, it follows that the appellants conviction also cannot be sustained as it cannot be held that they acted conjointly with the other accused in the commission of the assault on deceased-Arun. Resultantly, the appellants also ought to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by extending the benefit of doubt to them. 29. In respect of the assault on PW.1-Sanju, PW.3-Anil and Kailash i.e. injured witnesses by the appellants is concerned, the prosecution has failed to produce the injury certificates of the injured witnesses nor have they examined any Doctor in support of the same. The evidence of PW.1-Sanju reveals that he has also not been able to identify as to who assaulted him. Kailash another injured eye-witness has not been examined by the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that as far as the injury of PW.3-Anil is concerned i.e. with regard to assault by appellant no.1 with a knife on his left hand near the arm pit, the same has not been challenged by the appellant. In the light of the evidence of PW.3-Anil, that it was the appellant no.1-Satish who assaulted him with a knife on his left hand near his arm pit corroborated by the recovery of knife, we acquit the appellants of the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 34, however, convict the appellant no.1-Satish of the offence under Section 323 simplicitor and maintain the conviction awarded to him. In the premises, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of Appellant No.2/original accused No.2 is hereby quashed and set-aside and he is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged and convicted. Fine, if paid, by original accused No.2 Nandu Vasant Holkar be refunded to him. Since Appellant No.2 Nandu is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appellant No.1/original accused No.1 Satish Vasant Holkar is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Fine, if paid, by original accused No.1 Satish Vasant Holkar in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be refunded to him. Appellant No.1/original accused No.1 Satish Vasant Holkar is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Fine, if paid, by original accused No.1 Satish Vasant Holkar in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be refunded to him. Conviction and sentence of appellant No.1/original accused No.1 Satish Vasant Holkar for offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed. Since original accused No.1 Satish Vasant Holkar is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, as he has already undergone the sentence for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the Appellants is quantified at Rs.3,000/-.