Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 274 (ALL)

SHEO DEO SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-01-22

RAMESH SINHA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha, J.—Heard Sri M.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rahul Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri P.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned AGA for the State. 2. This present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.9.1981 passed by VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1977 convicting and sentencing the appellants No. 2,3,4,5,6 to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 147 I.P.C., appellant No. 1 to undergo R.I. for 18 months under Section 148 I.P.C., all the appellants to undergo R.I. for 2 years under Section 324/149 I.P.C., all the appellants to undergo R.I. for 6 years under Section 304/149 I.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Appellant No. 6 Tribhuwan Singh, son of Lal Bahadur Singh, is stated to have expired during the pendency of the appeal and his appeal has already been ordered to be abated vide order dated 11.9.2006 passed by this Court. The prosecution case, in brief, is that all the accused except Hardeo Singh belong to one family and Hardeo Singh belongs to their party. On 1.6.1975 Sher Bahadur Singh Singh, son of the complainant Vikramajeet Singh, and his brother Bhairo Singh were sitting at their house, situate in village Manpur at about 8 p.m. They heard a cry for help which was coming from the ‘Kachar’ which is towards North of the village. Both the brothers ran towards that direction and when they reached there, they saw that their brother Sultan Singh was surrounded by accused Shoe Deo Singh, Purshottam Singh, Sat Shankar Singh, Tribhuwan Singh, Vijai Lal Singh, Rajendra Singh, Virendra Singh and Hardeo Singh. Accused Sat Shankar Singh gave a lathi blow to Sultan Singh who having been hurt, fell down on the ground. Sher Bahadur Singh and Bhairoa Singh tried to save their brother, but accused Rajendra Singh gave a ‘Pharsa’ blow to Sher Bahadur Singh. Bhairoa Singh was also given a ‘Pharsa’ blow by Rajendra Singh and Virendra Singh hit him with lathi. 4. They raised an alarm on which winesses Masuriadin, Ram Khilawan Singh, Arjun Singh, Amar Pal Singh, and many others of the village arrived. Accused Sheo Deo Singh threatened to open fire in case the witnesses came near. The accused then went away towards East. 4. They raised an alarm on which winesses Masuriadin, Ram Khilawan Singh, Arjun Singh, Amar Pal Singh, and many others of the village arrived. Accused Sheo Deo Singh threatened to open fire in case the witnesses came near. The accused then went away towards East. During this incident accused Sheo Deo Singh and Vijai Lal Singh were armed with guns, Rajendra Singh was armed with a ‘ Pharsa ‘ and the rest of them had Lathis on them. 5. On enquiry Sultan Singh told that someone had taken out his Titan wrist watch and Rs. 1940/- from his pocket. Sultan Singh was then brought to his house where Sher Bahadur Singh Singh told his father Vikramjeet Singh about the entire incident. Vikramjeet Singh dictated the written report, Ext.ka.1, and it was written by Sher Bahadur Singh Singh. Injured Sultan Singh was then brought by boat to Allahabad by Sher Bahadur Singh and Bhairo Singh. He was medically examined at S.R.N. Medical College, Allahabad, on 2.6.1975 at about 5:30 a.m. and was admitted in the hospital. Injured Bhairo Singh was also medically examined on 2.6.1975 at 7:45 a..m. in S.R.N. Medical College Hospital, Allahabad. The injuries of Sher Bahadur Singh were medically examined in T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad, on 3.6.1975 at 1:30 p.m.. Meanwhile the written report, Ext,ka.1, was submitted at the Police Station on the basis of which S.I. Anand Shankar Tiwari (PW 6), the then Head Moharrir of P.S. Bara, wrote the F.I.R., Ext.Ka-4, at 5:10 a.m.. He entered a case Under Sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 379 I.P.C.. In the general diary the same day at report No. 4, an extract of which is marked Ext. Ka-5. 6. Injured Sultan Singh died in the Hospital on 4.6.1975 and the case was converted into Section 304 I.P.C.. Dr. V. K. Khanna (PW 12) had medically examined Sultan Singh on 2.6.1975 at 5:30 a.m. in S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad and had found the following injuries on his person : (1) One lacerated wound on the frontal bone on left side 1-1/2" x 1/3" x skin deep, 4" above from the left eye brow. (2) One traumatic swelling at left upper eye lid covering whole of the left upper eye lid. (3) Traumatic swelling over left thigh 3" x 1" 5" above from the left knee. Injury Nos. (2) One traumatic swelling at left upper eye lid covering whole of the left upper eye lid. (3) Traumatic swelling over left thigh 3" x 1" 5" above from the left knee. Injury Nos. 2 and 3 were simple in nature and were about one day old at the time of the examination. Injury No. 1 was kept under observation and the injured was admitted in the hospital. The injuries had been caused by some blunt object. Dr. Khanna had prepared the injury report, marked Ext.Ka-15, at the time of the examination. Dr. Khanna (earlier examined as PW 3) had also medically examined Bhairo Singh on 2.6.1975. at 7:45 a.m. and had found the following injuries on his person : (1) One incised wound over middle of the head 1-1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep, approx. 6" above the left eyebrow, direction transverse. (2) One incised wound 1" x 1/4" x skin deep on right parietal region 4" above the right eyebrow, Direction verticle. (3) A traumatic swelling over left forearm extending from elbow joint to 3" above the wrist joint on posterior aspect. (4) One traumatic swelling over left leg 3" above left ankle joint, size 4" x 2". (5) Contusion 3/4" x 2" over left upper abdomen 3-1/2" lateral to umblicus. (6) Complains pain in dorsal aspect of left upper extremity. (7) A lacerated wound over terminal phalynx of right index finger, size 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep on palmer aspect. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 were simple in nature and had been caused by some sharp edged weapon and were about one day old at the time of the examination. Other injuries had been caused by some blunt object, and were also simple in nature. X-ray of injury No. 3 was advised. Dr. Khanna had prepared the injury report, marked Ext.ka.2, at the time of the examination. Dr. J. K. Satsangi (PW5), the then Emergency Medical Officer, T. B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad, had medically examined Sher Bahadur Singh on 3.6.1975 at 1:30 p.m. and had found the following injuries on his person : (1) Incised wound 3" x 1/2" on the left side of head 4" above the left ear. Pus is seen at the base of the wound. Scalp deep. No grannualtion tissue is seen. Margin of wound is clear cut. Pus is seen at the base of the wound. Scalp deep. No grannualtion tissue is seen. Margin of wound is clear cut. (2) Abraded contusion 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep on outer side of right hand on its dorsal aspect. Murcurocrome already painted. Both the injuries were simple in nature and were less than 2 days old at the time of the examination. Injury No. 1 had been caused by some sharp edged weapon and injury No. 2 had been caused by some blunt object. Dr. Satsangi prepared the medical examination report, marked Ext.Ka-3 at the time of the examination. Sultan Singh injured died in S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad on 4.6.1975 on 5.6.1975, S.I., S. B. Singh (PW 8) received memo regarding the death of the injured. He went to the hospital and prepared the Panchnama, Ext.ka-6 and scaled the dead body. He prepared other necessary papers, Exts.ka.7 to ka.9, and handed over the dead body to Costables Ravindra Nath and Sahabuddin for post-mortem. 7. The post-mortem was conducted on 5.6.1975 at 4:10 p.m. by Dr. P. L. Nigam (PW 9), the then Medical Officer I/C P.G.S., T. B. Sapru Hospital , Allahabad. He found rigor mortis present in the entire body. Clotted blood present over both nostrils and drained downside from right nostril. He had found those very ante-mortem injuries which have been detailed in the medical examination report, Ext. Ka-15. On internal examination, the Doctor found fracture of the left occipetal, left partial and left temporal bones. Linear fracture extending to medial part of right parietal bone. Extra dural haemorrhage present in an area of 4" x 3" on the left side of the brain. Meningies are congested on both sides. Left side of brain is full of altered blood about 100 ml. Brain congested on both sides. Stomach and small intestine were empty and the large intestine was half full of foecal matter. In the opinion of Doctor Nigam, death had occurred about one day back and the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The doctor had prepared the post-mortem report Ext. Ka-11 at the time of the examination. 8. The investigation was conducted by S.I. Uma Kant Sachan (PW11). He recorded the statement of the complainant Vikramajeet Singh in the village and proceeded to the place of the incident. The doctor had prepared the post-mortem report Ext. Ka-11 at the time of the examination. 8. The investigation was conducted by S.I. Uma Kant Sachan (PW11). He recorded the statement of the complainant Vikramajeet Singh in the village and proceeded to the place of the incident. He inspected the spot and made the site plan, marked Ext. Ka-12. The same day he recorded the statements of witnesses Masuriadin, Arjun Singh, Amar Pal Singh and others and then made a search for the accused. Next day he recorded the statement of Sher Bahadur Singh Singh and had sent him for medical examination. On 6.6.1975 he took the blood stained Bushirt of Sher Bahadur Singh Singh in his custody and sealed the same and prepared its memo Ext. Ka-13. On 11.6.1975, he received the papers regarding the death of injured Sultan Singh and he converted the case into 304 I.P.C. On 18.6.1975 he recorded the statements of the accused and after completing the investigations, submitted the charge-sheet Ext. Ka-14 against the accused. He could not take the statement of injured Bhairon Singh since for a number of days he was not available in the village and later on he went to join his duties in the army. 9. A charge under Section 147 I.P.C. was framed against the accused Sat Shanker Singh, Purshottam Singh, Rajendra Singh, Hardeo Singh, Virendra Singh and Tribhuwan Singh, and accused Sheo Deo Singh and Vijai Lal Singh were charged under Section 148 I.P.C. All the eight accused were further charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 324 read with Section 149 and Section 395 read with Sectioin 397 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty. They have stated that Sheo Deo Singh and Tribhuwan Singh had been beaten by Sultan Singh and others and their guns had also been snatched away by them. The accused had beaten them in order to save Sher Bahadur Singh Singh and Sultan Singh. A cross case of this incident is also pending and in order to save themselves the complainant has filed this false case with the connivance of the police. The witnesses are all relatives. The accused examined Dr. J.N. Bajpai (DW1) in their defence. 10. Dr. A cross case of this incident is also pending and in order to save themselves the complainant has filed this false case with the connivance of the police. The witnesses are all relatives. The accused examined Dr. J.N. Bajpai (DW1) in their defence. 10. Dr. J.N. Bajpai was the Radiologist in Moti Lal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad on 3.6.1975 and on that date he got the X-ray of of Sheo Deo Singh accused done in his presence. The X-ray plate is marked Ext.I. On the basis of this plate, he gave his report Ext. Kha-4, according to which there was dislocation of the inter digital joint of the left middle finger. There was no fracture in the skull. He also proved the injury reports of Sheo Deo Singh, Ext. Kha-5, and Tribhuwan Singh, Ext. Kha-6. This medical examination was conducted by Dr. L.K. Bhargava on 3.6.1975 between 11.25 a.m. and 11.45 a.m. 11. The accused have also filed a copy of the FIR of the cross case lodged by accused Rajendra Singh, Ext. Kha-1, against Gulab Singh, Sher Bahadur Singh Singh, Sultan Singh, Bhairon Singh, Ram Khilawan Singh, Danpal Singh, Ram Lakhan Singh, Jai Singh Rajendra Singh S/o Ram Khilawan Singh. This report was lodged on 2.6.1975 at 4 a.m. under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 I.P.C. 12. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in all, in support of its case against the accused. Out of these witnesses, Dr. V.K. Khanna (PW3), the Medical Officer who had examined the injuries of Bhairo Singh and Sultan Singh, deceased, Dr. J.K. Satsangi (PW5), the Medical Officer who had examined the injuries of Sher Bahadur Singh Singh, S.I. Anand Shankar Tewari (PW6), the scribe of the FIR and report No. 4 of the general diary dated 2.6.1975, Sri K. Bothaju (PW7), who had filed the original medico-legal register of S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad of the year 1975, in which there is the original medical examination report of Sultan Singh, since deceased. S.I., S.B. Singh (PW8) the Police Officer who had prepared the panchnama of the dead body of Sultan Singh and other associated papers, Dr. S.I., S.B. Singh (PW8) the Police Officer who had prepared the panchnama of the dead body of Sultan Singh and other associated papers, Dr. P.L. Nigam (PW9) , the Medical Officer who had conducted the post-mortem examination of Sultan Singh on 5.6.1975, Sri Hemant Kumar (PW10), the Assistant record Keeper of police office, Allahabad, who had come to depose that the original general diaries of the year 1975 relating to police station Bara have been weeded out vide order dated 6.4.1981 of C.O. Office Sri S.P. Singh and S.I., U.K. Sachan (PW11), the investigator, are all formal witnesses. The incriminating evidence against the accused comprises the statements of Sher Bahadur Singh Singh (PW1), injured, Sri Masuriadin (PW2), eye-witness, and Sri Bhairon Singh (PW4) injured. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the medical report of the two injured, namely, Sher Bahadur Singh Singh (PW1) and Bhairoa Singh (PW4) does not corroborate with the version given in the FIR, wherein it has been stated by the informant Vikramjeet Singh, who is the father of the two injured, that the accused Sheo Deo Singh was armed with gun, whereas other accused persons were armed with lathis and they have assaulted the two injured alongwith Sultan Singh who was also an injured and succumbed to his injuries. He further submits that the injured, namely, Sher Bahadur Singh received one incised wound on his person and the other injured, namely, Bhairoa Singh received two incised wounds on his person. He further submits that as per the FIR, none of the accused were armed with sharp edged weapons and Sher Bahadur Singh who dictated the FIR of the incident to his father Vikramajeet Singh had not mentioned about the fact that any of the accused were armed with sharp edged weapons. Moreover, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also, the said two injured witnesses have also not mentioned about the fact that any of the accused were armed with sharp edged weapons and it was for the first time in the Court they have deposed that the accused appellant No. 4 Rajendra Singh was armed with pharsa who had caused the injuries to the said two injured Bhairon Singh and Sher Bahadur Singh. He further submits that this improvement in the evidence of the two injured witnesses cast doubt about their testimony, hence it is not worthy to be believed, hence, the prosecution story appears to be a false one. Thus, the conviction and sentence of the appellants by the trial Court be set aside and the appellants be acquitted. 14. He further submitted that a cross version of the incident was also lodged from the side of the accused appellants by Rajendra Singh against Gulab Singh, Sher Bahadur Singh Singh, Sultan Singh, Bhairoa Singh, Ram Khilawan Singh, Danpal Singh, Ram Lakhan Singh, Jai Singh, Rajendra Singh, which was registered as Case Crime No. 55 of 1975, under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 I.P.C. at Police Station Bara, District Allahabad with respect to the present incident on 2.6.1975 at 4 a.m. and two persons, namely Sheo Deo Singh and Tribhuwan Singh have also received injuries in the said incident. There is no explanation given by the prosecution regarding their injuries. 15. He further argued that the FIR of the incident dated 1.6.1975 which had taken place at about 8 p.m. in the night in which two accused persons, namely, Sheo Deo Singh and Tribhuwan Singh had received injuries, was lodged prior to the FIR of the prosecution side and the trial Court has erred in recording a finding that it was the appellants who were the aggressors and had caused the injuries to the four persons, out of which one of the injured, namely, Sultan Singh succumbed to his injuries from the prosecution side. 16. Lastly it was further argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that from the evidence of PW1 Sher Bahadur Singh and PW4 Bhairo Singh, it is clear that the fatal injuries which is said to have been responsible for the death of the injured Sultan Singh is concerned that has been attributed to co-accused Sat Shankar Singh who was stated to have assaulted with lathi and other accused persons who were also armed with lathi and have taken into account the evidence of PW1 and PW4 with respect to Rajendra Singh that he was armed with Pharsa has inflicted the injuries to them may if taken into account then the role of appellant No. 2 Sat Shankar Singh be adjudged by this Court separately. 17. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants has lastly submitted that the present appeal has come up for hearing after incident is 39 years old and the appeal has come up for hearing after 33 years and appellants have undergone in jail for about one month during the trial and after their conviction by the trial Court after which the appellants filed the present appeal and were released on bail during the pendency of the appeal, hence, rest of the sentence of the appellants may be converted into fine and the same shall not be treated as enhancement of sentence. He further submits that appellant No. 1Sheo Deo Singh aged about 70 years, appellant No. 2 Sat Shanker Singh aged about 60 years, appellant No. 3 Purshottam Singh aged about 53 years, appellant No. 4 Rajendra Singh aged about 60 years and appellant No. 5 aged about 58 years respectively and they have settled with their families and to send them jail would be too harsh and further their families would be put to great hardships. 18. Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has vehemently opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that so far as the non-mentioning of any sharp edged weapon in the FIR as well as in the statement of the injured and the eye-witness is concerned , the said variance in the FIR and the statement of the injured witnesses before the trial Court can hardly be taken into account as the incident had taken place in the night and one of the accused person, namely, Tribhuwan Singh received one incised wound on his person and it could not have been noticed as to who was carrying the sharp edged weapon at the time of incident in the night and, hence, the prosecution case cannot be found to be false on this count only. He further submitted that three persons have received injuries in the incident at the hands of the appellants who were armed with lathis and two injured persons also suffered lathis injuries on their person. Moreover, the deceased Sultan Singh also received lathi injuries on his person and on account of which he succumbed to his injuries on 4.7.1975. He further submitted that three persons have received injuries in the incident at the hands of the appellants who were armed with lathis and two injured persons also suffered lathis injuries on their person. Moreover, the deceased Sultan Singh also received lathi injuries on his person and on account of which he succumbed to his injuries on 4.7.1975. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the post-mortem report of the deceased which shows that the internal examination of the deceased shows that there was a fracture of left occipetal, left parietal and left temporal bones. Linear fracture extending to medial part of right parietal bone, which is proved to be fatal injury and on account of which the injured Sultan Singh succumbed to the said injuries. He further submitted that the internal examination of the head of the deceased shows that the lathis blows were hurled simultaneously on the head of the deceased by the appellants. Hence, their participation in the incident cannot be ruled out as per the evidence of PW1 Sher Bahadur Singh and PW4 Bhairon Singh who are the injured witnesses of the occurrence. He further pointed out that the appellants have admitted the date and time of the incident and they have taken a plea in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they assaulted the three injured persons out of whom one injured succumbed to his injuries in his self defence. 19. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that no doubt the accused Sat Shankar Singh has caused fatal blow to Sultan Singh who succumbed injuries by lathis but role of other accused appellants cannot be brushed aside as they were also part of an unlawful assembly with a common object of causing injuries to the injured and death of the deceased Sultan Singh. Hence, their participation in view of Section 304/149 I.P.C. cannot be lessened. He further submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence which they have been charged with and prayed that the present appeal of the appellants be dismissed. 20. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. He further submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence which they have been charged with and prayed that the present appeal of the appellants be dismissed. 20. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The arguments which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the medical report of the two injured persons does not corroborate the version given in the FIR as there is no explanation about the incised wound on their persons and it was for the first time the Pharsa was introduced by the two injured witnesses in their evidence before the trial Court stating that it was the accused Rajendra Singh who was armed with Pharsa and has caused the injuries to the two injured persons with it. No doubt their appears to be some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the said improvement being made by the witnesses before the trial Court, but one cannot forget of the fact that the appellants were stated to have been armed with lathis and three injured persons received lathi injuries as well and the injured Sultan Singh received lathis injuries on his persons and subsequently succumbed to his injuries on 4.6.1975 which was caused by lathis by which the appellants were armed with. 21. The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant appears to have force that looking to the internal examination of the head and skull of the deceased Sultan Singh, it is apparent that there was a fracture of left occipetal, left parietal and left temporal bones. Linear fracture extending to medial part of right parietal bone were caused by lathi by which the appellants were armed with, which have also caused injuries to the two injured persons. Hence, the prosecution case is supported by the post-mortem report as well as medical evidence of the two injured persons. The appellants have lodged a cross version of the incident against the injured and other persons stating that accused Sheo Deo Singh and Tribhuwan Singh also received injuries on their person. Hence, the appellants have admitted the date and time of the incident and their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. 22. The appellants have lodged a cross version of the incident against the injured and other persons stating that accused Sheo Deo Singh and Tribhuwan Singh also received injuries on their person. Hence, the appellants have admitted the date and time of the incident and their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. 22. The appellants have further pleaded that they have assaulted the injured from the prosecution side in their self defence but taking into account that one of the injured from the prosecution side namely Sultan Singh who had succumbed to his injuries due to assault made by lathis to him alongwith two other injured person namely, PW1 Sher Bahadur Singh and PW 4 Bharon Singh. 23. It is established that they have exceeded their rights of of self defence and moreover the injuries which have been suffered by accused Sheo Deo Singh and Tribhuwan Singh are simple in nature except injury Nos. 2 and 6 which were kept under observation and X-ray report of the said injured shows that there was a dislocation present in the inter digital joint of middle finger and no bony injury was seen on skull and one incised wound was received by accused Tribhuwan Singh which was found in simple in nature by the doctor. Hence, it is a well established law that the injuries which have been received on the side of the accused need not be explained if the same are not serious in nature and cross version given by the defence can also be not relied upon. 24. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, 2001 SCC (Crl) 1070, wherein it was held in paragraph No. 17. “17. It cannot be held as a matter of law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved. “17. It cannot be held as a matter of law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved. Before non-explanation of the injuries on the persons of the accused persons by the prosecution witness may affect the prosecution case, the Court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions:((i) that the injury on the person of the accused was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. Non-explanation of injuries assumes greater significance when the evidence consists of interested or partisan witnesses or where the defence gives a version which completes in probability with that of the prosecution. Where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries on the side of the accused persons are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently the whole of the prosecution case.” 25. It is noteworthy to mention here that PW1 and PW4 in their statements before the trial Court has also submitted that the injuries which have been received by accused Sheo Deo Singh and Tribhuwan Singh were caused during fight with them. Hence, it cannot be said that the injuries from the side of accused have also not been explained by the prosecution. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, as argued above, does not find force rather the argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the complainant appears to be more reasonable and believable. 26. Moreover, from the evidence on record it is established that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants does not call for any interference by this Court and the same is upheld accordingly. 26. Moreover, from the evidence on record it is established that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants does not call for any interference by this Court and the same is upheld accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, looking into the age of the appellants and taking into account that the incident is 39 years old and the appeal has come up for hearing after 33 years and the position of the appellants as on date, it is directed that rest of the sentence of the appellants be converted into fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- out of which Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be paid by appellant No. 2 Sat Shanker Singh who caused fatal blow by lathi to deceased Sultan Singh and Rs. 5,000/- each by appellant Nos. 1,3,4 & 5, namely, Sheo Deo Singh, Purshottam Singh, Rajendra Singh and Virendra Singh respectively in the Court of C.J.M.,Allahabad within a period of three months from today. Out of which, Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Sultan and Rs. 5,000/- to the two injured, namely, Sher Bahadur Singh and Bhairo Singh and Rs. 10,000/- shall go to the State. In default of payment of fine, as directed above, the appellants shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence, as ordered by the trial Court. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the C.J.M. concerned for its compliance.