JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Cases, Alwar whereby the accused-appellants, who are six in number, have been convicted for offence under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default of payment thereof, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. They were also convicted for offence u/s.148 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year each and for offence u/s.323/149 IPC sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one month each. 2. Facts of the case are that one Shrichand (PW-4) submitted a written report to SHO Police Station Kishangarh Bas on 2.3.1999 regarding incident which took place on that day. It was alleged that accused Bhupesh S/o Natthi Mali R/o of Gang and his nephew, whose name is not known, came to their house. They tried to apply colour and black oil on the face of Maya W/o Tara Chand. When they were asked not to do so, the accused started abusing them. That time they went, but after 20-30 minutes Bablu S/o Natthi, Dhanni S/o Laxman, Raghuveer S/o Laxman, Natthi S/o Laxman, son of Raghuveer, their family members and about 15 more persons, came back with 'lathis', 'chantiyas' and 'jelly' and started beating members of the complainant party. Bhupesh S/o Natthi, Bablu S/o Natthi and Satish S/o Raghuveer inflicted lathi and 'chantiya' blows on the head, back and hand of Mamman (father of the informant). Natthi S/o Laxman and Dhanni S/o Laxman inflicted lathi blows on Samey Singh. Bablu S/o Natthi inflicted lathi blow on Kampuri and all the members of the accused-party started beating the members of the informant family. Mamman, Samey Singh and Kampuri received grievous injuries and were taken to the hospital at Kishangarh Bas. 3. Police on the basis of written report registered a regular first information report bearing Nos. 57/1999 for offence under Sections 147, 323 & 341 IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet against the six accused was filed for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 354 and 302 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. The case was committed to the Special Court, SC/ST Cases, which framed the charges for offence u/s.148, 323/149 and 302/149 IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet against the six accused was filed for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 354 and 302 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. The case was committed to the Special Court, SC/ST Cases, which framed the charges for offence u/s.148, 323/149 and 302/149 IPC. Accused Shankar @ Ravi Shankar and Bhupesh were additionally charged for offence u/s.3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act and Section 354 IPC. Accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents, whereas defence did not examine any witness, though produced 11 documents. The accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took the defence that dispute between the parties arose because complainant Srichand wanted to construct a house on the government land, which was resisted by the accused-appellants. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that the prosecution witnesses have changed the entire story in their court statements and that the genesis of the incident has been suppressed from the Court. While in the written report, it was alleged that the accused Bhupesh and his nephew, whose name was not known, came to their house and tried to forcibly apply colour and black oil on the face of Smt. Maya, but in their statement before the Court, all the prosecution witnesses have changed the story and rather alleged that when Smt. Maya (PW-5) and her husband Tara Chand (PW-6) were harvesting the mustard crop in their agriculture field, the accused Bhupesh and his nephew Shankar tried to forcibly apply colour and black oil on the face of Smt. Maya. Then, she ran away towards her house, but accused intercepted and forcibly applied the colour. Her husband Tara Chand asked them not to do so. Accused thereupon subjected him to beating. Accused Bhupesh and Shankar followed Maya upto her house. When Mamman reprimanded them for doing so, these accused threatened him and went away. After 20-30 minutes Natthi, Bablu, Bhupesh, Raghuveer, Dhanni, Kallu and Shankar, all armed with lathis, came there. Her husband Tara Chand asked them not to do so. Accused thereupon subjected him to beating. Accused Bhupesh and Shankar followed Maya upto her house. When Mamman reprimanded them for doing so, these accused threatened him and went away. After 20-30 minutes Natthi, Bablu, Bhupesh, Raghuveer, Dhanni, Kallu and Shankar, all armed with lathis, came there. Learned counsel referred to the statement of Kampuri (PW-2), Samay Singh (PW-3), Sri Chand (PW-4), Tara Chand (PW-6), Ranjeet (PW-7) and Thawaria (PW-9) and argued that all these witnesses in their statements have tried to falsely implicate all the members of the family of accused. Kampuri (PW-2) has stated that Natthi inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Mamman followed by Bhupesh and Bablu, who also inflicted lathi blows on his body. When Mamman fell on the ground, Raghuveer, Dhanni, Shankar and Kallu also gave beating to Mamman. PW-3 Samay Singh has also made similar statement. Srichand (PW-4) has stated that Bupesh, Natthi and Bablu inflicted lathi blows on the head of his father Mamman. Smt. Maya (PW-5) on whose face the accused Bhupesh and Shankar allegedly applied colour has given different version in her statement before the Court by stating that Natthi inflicted lathi blow on the head of her father-in-law Mamman and thereafter Raghuveer and Dhanni gave him beating by lathis. Thereafter all other accused gave beating to Mamman. This witness has thus not made specific allegation against Bablu and Bhupesh. Tara Chand (PW-6), husband of Smt. Maya has also alleged that the first blow was inflicted by Natthi on the head of deceased Mamman followed by Balbu and Bhupesh. Thereafter, when he fell down, Dhanni, Raghuveer, Kallu and Shankar also gave beating. 5. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the appellants argued that Ranjeet (PW-7) is a planted witness. He has stated that he was a mason and doing some construction work in the house of the complainant party, which is highly unbelievable because that day was the day of a holi festival, being 'dhulandi' and this is a big festival of hindus and no hindu engage himself in any such work on that day. This witness has also alleged that Natthi inflicted lathi blows on the head of deceased Mamman and with him Dhanni, Raghuveer, Kallu and Bhupesh also gave beating by lathis to deceased Mamman. He (Ranjit) and Thawaria intervened to save him. This witness has also alleged that Natthi inflicted lathi blows on the head of deceased Mamman and with him Dhanni, Raghuveer, Kallu and Bhupesh also gave beating by lathis to deceased Mamman. He (Ranjit) and Thawaria intervened to save him. Thawaria (PW-9) was claimed to be a helper and also working for the complainant party on that day to assist the Mason Ranjeet. He has also alleged that the first lathi blow was inflicted on the head of deceased Mamman by accused-appellant Natthi. But in cross examination, he has stated that he was not doing the construction work at the house of complainant party and that he was collecting the grit for his own purpose and that Pappu, Bhupesh and Chandresh also inflicted lathi blows on the head of deceased Natthi. Even this witness is a planted witness because he also cannot be accepted to be working on the festival of holi, the day on which normally all Hindu celebrate the occasion and enjoy holiday. There is one more significant aspect, which has been lost sight of by learned trial court. Evidence has proved that the complainant party has newly come to settle down in Village Tehnoli of Tehsil Kishangarh where certain land was allotted to them by the government. These two witnesses belonged to Chamar community to which the complainant-party also belonged and therefore, they had volunteered to help them. Otherwise, they were not at all the eye- witnesses. 6. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the appellants referring to the statement of Somoti (PW-8) argued that this witness has not supported the other prosecution witnesses on all the factual aspects. All that she had stated is that when accused Natthi reached their house, he inflicted lathi blow on the head of her father Mamman and Raghuveer Singh inflicted lathi blow on Samay Singh. When she tried to intervene, Bhupesh pelted stone, which hit her back. Kampuri, Tara Chand and Sri Chand, who also tried to intervene, sustained injuries, but she has not named any accused for injuries on the head of deceased except Natthi. Learned counsel submits that this is corroborated by the postmortem report (Ex.P16) and statement of Dr. H.L. Bairwa (PW-12). Postmortem report though has shown six injuries on the person of the deceased Mamman, but four of them were abrasions. These minor injuries were caused for reason of the scuffle between the parties. Learned counsel submits that this is corroborated by the postmortem report (Ex.P16) and statement of Dr. H.L. Bairwa (PW-12). Postmortem report though has shown six injuries on the person of the deceased Mamman, but four of them were abrasions. These minor injuries were caused for reason of the scuffle between the parties. The last two injuries were diffused swelling. The fifth injury was also diffused swelling over right fronto-parieto temporal region of scalp and sixth was also diffused swelling on left side fronto-parieto temporal region of scalp. It is argued that fifth injury did not result in a fracture, though as a result of sixth injury, there were multiple fractures of left side of fronto-temporal bone in same line, left parietal bone and left anterior cranial fossa. Injury no.5 and 6 may be result of one blow, therefore, learned counsel argued that at the maximum, the blame can be put on accused Natthi that he at the spot decided to inflict severe blow, though the accused-appellants certainly did not have common intention of liquidating the deceased Mamman. It is argued that apart from deceased, Kampuri (PW-2) and Samay Singh (PW-3) suffered two injuries each vide Ex.P13 and Tara Chand (PW-6) suffered one injury vide Ex.P12 and Somoti has received only one simple injury vide Ex.P15. It is argued that recovery of one lathi each has been shown at the instance of the accused-appellants from their common house as proved by Birju Singh (PW-10), ASI. None of them have been found to contain blood stains, nor were they sent for any such chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 7. Learned counsel therefore argued that from the nature of other injuries of the deceased and the nature of weapon shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused, it is not established that all the accused-appellants had the common intention to liquidate the deceased Mamman. The common intention, if at all any, was merely to give a thrashing to the complainant party, but never to murder Mamman. If the members acceded to that common intention, the others cannot be held liable for their action. It is argued that the word 'knew' figuring in Section 149 IPC had been advisedly used and cannot be made to bear the sense of “might have known”. If the members acceded to that common intention, the others cannot be held liable for their action. It is argued that the word 'knew' figuring in Section 149 IPC had been advisedly used and cannot be made to bear the sense of “might have known”. This knowledge must be shown to exist at the time of the commission of the offence, and not knowledge acquired in the light of subsequent events. Learned counsel argued that even Section 34 IPC cannot be applied to the present case, which presupposes prior concert. Learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Shivappa Buddappa Kolkar @ Buddappagol vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.- (2004) 13 SCC 168 . 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further argued that the trial court itself at page 13 of the judgement has observed that two fatal injuries on head of the deceased have been attributed to three persons. It is therefore a clear case of false implication as well as over implication, which is evident from the improvements made by the witnesses in their court statement from their original version given to the police in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. When confronted with the previous statement, all the witnesses had denied having given any such statement to the police in the past, where they did not make specific allegation of the first head injury against Natthi followed by other two accused thereafter. The allegations were omnibus in nature against all the accused-appellants. 9. Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and submitted that prosecution witnesses have maintained the same stand as was disclosed by the informant in first information report. Natthi was also named in the first information report. Since only one of the witnesses i.e. Sri Chand, lodged the report and others rushed towards Mamman, who was not yet dead and was seriously injured to first at the hospital at Kishangarh and thereafter at Alwar and then to Jaipur, omission of the specific role of Natthi would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, particularly when many of the witnesses in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. immediately after the incident have named Natthi with such specific allegation. In the first information report also the allegation is made against Bupesh and Bablu which has to be corroborated by almost all the prosecution witnesses. In the first information report also the allegation is made against Bupesh and Bablu which has to be corroborated by almost all the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased received two head injuries and the cause of death as opined by the Dr. H.L. Bairwa (PW-12) in the postmortem report (Ex.P16) was result of injury to the skull and brain. Use of the word “injuries” signifies multiple number of injuries. There were injuries on right fronto-parieto temporal region of scalp as well as left fronto-parieto temporal region resulting into three fractures. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that this injury was opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, thus attracting clause thirdly of Section 300 of IPC. The substantive offence of Section 302 IPC has thus rightly been held to have been proved. Learned counsel submitted that specific allegation on all the accused has been proved not only of inflicting blows on the deceased by lathi, but also on other members of complainant-party. It was an act of unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering the deceased and giving severe beating on other members by lathi. The incident started when Bhupesh and Shanker tried to forcibly apply colour and black oil on the face of Smt. Maya and it was objected to by the complainant party. This is mentioned in the written report as also in the statement of prosecution witnesses. There is no disparity also with regard to the fact that the incident had taken place at the residence of the complainant party, who were members of the scheduled caste. There is also consistent evidence that accused first forcibly applied colour and black oil on the face of Smt. Maya and when that was objected to by the complainant party, they went back and thereafter returned with lathis and other weapons and attacked the complainant party. There was thus prior meeting of mind and premeditation by the accused, who had attacked the complainant party with the common intention to murder Mamman and inflict serious injuries to the others. Recovery of lathi has been proved at the instance of the accused by motbir witnesses Birju Singh (PW-10) as well as Dilip Kumar Jhakhar (PW-13). It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Recovery of lathi has been proved at the instance of the accused by motbir witnesses Birju Singh (PW-10) as well as Dilip Kumar Jhakhar (PW-13). It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Contention that the prosecution witnesses have improved upon the original version given in the first information report has to be analysed in the light of disparities between what is stated in the written report and the statement made by the prosecution witnesses in the Court. We are inclined to agree with what has been argued by learned Public Prosecution that the genesis of the incident in both of them is common, which is that the dispute arose when accused Bhupesh and Shankar applied colour on the face of Smt. Maya and members of the complainant party objected to this. Those accused then returned and after sometime came back armed with weapons and that the incident had taken place at the residence of complainant party. What we have to therefore find is whether all the accused-appellants had active role in the incident to cause fatal injury to the deceased and other injuries to the injured or there has been false / over implication of some accused. In the written report, it was alleged that after 20-30 minutes Bablu, Dhanni, Raghuveer, Natthi, son of Raghuveer and about 15-20 persons came back with lathis and `chantiyas'. Bhupesh, Bablu and Satish inflicted lathi blows on the head, back and the thumb of the left hand of deceased Mamman and then lathi blow was inflicted by Natthi and Dhanni on body of Samay Singh. Bablu inflicted a lathi blow on the hand of Kampuri. 13. Sri Chand (PW-4), informant, in his court statement has however stated that when Mannan reprimanded the accused Bhupesh and Shankar for their indecent behaviour with Smt. Maya, accused Shankar, Bhupesh, who threatened him with dire consequences. After about 20-30 minutes, Natthi, Dhanni, Raghuveer, Bhupesh, Bablu, Shankar and Kallu and 15-20 other persons came with lathis. Bhupesh, Natthi and Bablu inflicted lathi blows on the head of his father Mamman. When Samay Singh tried to save him, Natthi and Raghuveer inflicted lathi blows on his head. Kampuri also tried to save the deceased Mamman, whereupon Bablu inflicted a lathi blow on his hand. Bhupesh, Natthi and Bablu inflicted lathi blows on the head of his father Mamman. When Samay Singh tried to save him, Natthi and Raghuveer inflicted lathi blows on his head. Kampuri also tried to save the deceased Mamman, whereupon Bablu inflicted a lathi blow on his hand. When Somoti tried to save him, Bhupesh threw a stone at his left buttock. Bhupesh inflicted another stone on the chest of this witness. 14. Kampuri (PW-2) has similarly stated that Mamman reprimanded Bhupesh and Shankar for forcibly applying colour on the face of Smt. Maya, they left their house after threatening Mamman and 20-30 minutes thereafter, Natthi, Bablu, Bhupesh, Raghuveer, Dhanni, Kallu and Shankar came back with lathis. Natthi inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Mamman. Then Bhupesh and Bablu inflicted a lathi blow on him. Thereafter when Mamman fell down, Raghuveer, Dhanni, Shankar and Kallu also inflicted lathi blows on him. When Samay Singh tried to intervene, Dhanni and Natthi also beat him by lathis. When this witness tried to save Mamman, Bablu inflicted lathi blow on her hand. Sri Chand also tried to intervene, thereupon Bhupesh caused an injury on his chest by stone. Shankar and Kallu also inflicted lathi blow on the head of Tara Chand who tried to intervene. When Somoti tried to save him, Bhupesh threw a stone at her. Samay Singh (PW-3) has also made similar statement with regard to manner in which incident unfolded and stated that Natthi was the first accused who inflicted lathi blow on the head of Mamman and Bhupesh and Bablu also inflicted lathi blows on the head of Mamman. When he fell down, Raghuveer, Dhanni, Shankar and Kallu also gave him beating with lathi. In efforts to save Mamman, this witness has also received injuries by lathi on his head by Dhanni and Natthi. When he cried, Raghuveer hit his face leading to loss of teeth. Bhupesh caused injury by stone on the chest of Sri Chand, who intervened. Natthi inflicted lathi blows on the back of Sri Chand. When Tara Chand tried to save deceased Mamman, Kallu and Shankar, he inflicted lathi blow on his head and similarly Kampuri received a lathi blow on her hand at the hands of Bablu and Bhupesh caused injury at the back of Somoti by stone. Natthi inflicted lathi blows on the back of Sri Chand. When Tara Chand tried to save deceased Mamman, Kallu and Shankar, he inflicted lathi blow on his head and similarly Kampuri received a lathi blow on her hand at the hands of Bablu and Bhupesh caused injury at the back of Somoti by stone. Maya (PW-5) has however stated that Natthi inflicted a lathi blow on the head of her father-in-law Mamman and thereafter Raghuveer and Dhanni inflicted the lathi blows on him. This witness thus makes deviation from the statement of the earlier four witnesses, who attributed the first injury on the head of deceased Mamman to accused Natthi, but stated that immediately thereafter Bhupesh and Bablu also inflicted lathi blows on his head. Her husband Tara Chand (PW-6) however corrected her by corroborating the statement of earlier four witnesses. While he stated that Natthi was the first accused, who inflicted lathi blow on the head of deceased Mamman followed by Bablu and Bhupesh, who too delivered lathi blows on his head when he fell down, Dhanni, Ranveer, Kallu and Shankar also inflicted lathi blows on him. When his aunt Kampuri tried to save him, Bablu inflicted lathi blow on her hand and when he (this witness) tried to save Mamman, accused Kallu and Shankar inflicted lathi blows on his head. Bhupesh caused an injury by stone at the buttock of Somoti and when Sri Chand intervened, Bhupesh pelted a stone on his chest. Even if therefore the statement of Ranjeet (PW-7) and Thawaria (PW-9) are not believed accepting the argument of the defence that they are planted witnesses and in view of their version that they were engaged by the complainant on the day of holi festival (`dhulandi') for undertaking some construction work, evidence of the other witnesses is otherwise sufficient to substantiate the allegation at least against three accused namely; Natthi, Bablu and Bhupesh as regards the injuries sustained by the deceased. Contention therefore that Somoti (PW-8) named only accused Natthi for the simple injury caused on deceased, she should be believed, cannot be accepted because the depositions made by Kampuri (PW-2), Samay Singh (PW-3), Sri Chand (PW-4), Maya (PW-5) and Tara Chand (PW-6)? cannot be ignored altogether. 15. Contention therefore that Somoti (PW-8) named only accused Natthi for the simple injury caused on deceased, she should be believed, cannot be accepted because the depositions made by Kampuri (PW-2), Samay Singh (PW-3), Sri Chand (PW-4), Maya (PW-5) and Tara Chand (PW-6)? cannot be ignored altogether. 15. The statement of the aforesaid eye witnesses however at the same time shows tendency of over implication because if there were as many as 7 named and 15 unnamed accused and all armed with lathis and `chantiya', it cannot be believed that only six injuries would be suffered by four other injured on the side of the complainant-party. Tara Chand (PW-6) has received only one abrasion, which was simple by blunt weapon as proved by Ex.P12. Kampuri (PW-2) has received only two injuries; one being abrasion on left hand and another contusion on left wrist joint, both of them were simple and plane as proved by Ex.P13. Somoti (PW-8) received only one contusion on left joint and no injury at all at the back alleged to have been caused by stone on her buttock by accused-appellants. Samay Singh (PW-3) has received two simple injuries by a blunt weapon namely; one lacerated wound and another influsion. The other four injuries of the deceased were also abrasions. None of the injuries either of the deceased or of the injured have been caused by any sharp edged weapon. The allegation in the first information report and the statement of witnesses that some of the accused were also having `chantiya' is thus not substantiated. Allegation of the witnesses that when Sri Chand tried to intervene, Bhupesh caused an injury on his chest by stone is also not substantiated because he has not been found to suffer any such injury. The allegation of witnesses that when Tara Chand tried to save deceased Mamman, Shankar and Kallu inflicted lathi blows on his head is also doubtful because Tara Chand received one simple injury on occipital region of head, which is only abrasion of 2 cm x ¼ cm as alleged, therefore, role attributed to both of them also becomes doubtful. Besides, the allegation of the witnesses that after receiving the first lathi blow on the head at the hands of Natthi, Bhupesh and Bablu, deceased Mamman fell down on the ground and thereafter Raghuveer, Dhanni, Shankar and Kallu also gave him beating by lathis, was also not substantiated. 16. Besides, the allegation of the witnesses that after receiving the first lathi blow on the head at the hands of Natthi, Bhupesh and Bablu, deceased Mamman fell down on the ground and thereafter Raghuveer, Dhanni, Shankar and Kallu also gave him beating by lathis, was also not substantiated. 16. We are inclined to uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that in so far as accused-appellants Raghuveer Singh, Dhanni @ Dhaniram and Shankar @ Ravi Shankar are concerned, there appears to have been an effort on the part of the prosecution to falsely implicate them. In view of the nature of evidence and totality of circumstances, they are held entitled to benefit of doubt. However, we are not inclined to uphold his contention with regard to other accused-appellants namely; Bhupesh, Bablu @ Chandresh and Ghanshyam that there was no prior meeting of mind and premeditation on the part of these accused. The evidence clearly proves that the incident had its roots in the incident when the accused first tried to apply the colour on the face of Smt. Maya and when deceased reprimanded them from doing so, Bhupesh gave ultimatum to the deceased and threatened him of dire consequences. He then came back with other accused and in the incident, which took place thereafter, Mamman died at their hands. The recovery of one lathi each has been made at the instance of Natthi @ Ghan Shyam vide Ex.P23, Bablu vide Ex.P24 and Bhupesh vide Ex.P11, which has been proved by statement of Birju Singh (PW-10), ASI and Dr. H.L. Bairwa (PW-12) and the cause of death opined therein that deceased Mamman died as a result of injuries to the skull and brain as mentioned in the postmortem report and that such injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. There were two injuries to the skull. Injury no.1 is diffused swelling on the right fronto-parieto temporal region of the scalp and another is diffused swelling on the left side of the fronto-parieto region. It was also observed in the postmortem report that there was fracture of left side of fronto-temporal bone in same line and there was fracture of left parietal bone and fracture of left anterior cranical fossa and left middle cranial fossa present and there is haematoma at fracture sites present. It was also observed in the postmortem report that there was fracture of left side of fronto-temporal bone in same line and there was fracture of left parietal bone and fracture of left anterior cranical fossa and left middle cranial fossa present and there is haematoma at fracture sites present. Extra dural haematoma 4 x 3 cms over left fronto-parietal region and another extra dural haematoma 5 x 4 cms over left side fronto-temporal region was present lateraly and subdural haematoma on both sides of the cerebral heamesphere and cerebellum region was present. 17. The cited judgement in the case of Shivappa Buddappa Kolkar @ Buddappagol, supra may not be of any help to the appellants because therein a single blow was inflicted with axe on the head of deceased resulting in depressed fracture on skull bone and the injury was not shown to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, it was held that clause thirdly of Section 300 of IPC was not attracted. Such is not the position in the present case because there are two injuries and the opinion of the Medical Officer is specific. 18. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed in part. While we uphold the conviction of accused-appellants Bhupesh, Bablu @ Chandresh and Ghanshyam with the modification that instead of conviction for offence u/S.302/149 IPC, they shall stand convicted for offence u/s.302/34 of IPC and 323/34 of IPC, we acquit them of the offence u/s.148 IPC. However, the accused-appellants Raghuveer Singh, Dhanni @ Dhaniram and Shankar @ Ravi Shankar are acquitted of all the charges. They are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds and surety bond shall stand discharged. 19. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.