Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1222 (GAU)

Zakir Hussain v. State of Assam

2015-09-21

C.R.SARMA, PRASANTA KUMAR SAIKIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : C.R. Sarma, J. 1. The judgment and order, dated 31.7.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, in Sessions Case No. 80/2009, is in challenge in this appeal. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 447/323/325/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for 15(fifteen) days for their conviction under Section447/34 IPC; pay fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for 1(one) month for their conviction under Section 323/34 IPC and suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for 1(one) month for their conviction under Section 302/34 IPC. The prosecution case, which has arisen out of the FIR, lodged by Musstt Akheja Bibi, on 21.12.2008, in a nutshell, is that, on 20.12.2008, at about 5 P.M., when a quarrel was going on between herself and accused Zakir Hussain, in the house of one Joynuddin, the other accused persons suddenly appeared there and assaulted her with iron rod and lathi causing injury to her person. She, being so assaulted, her husband, Md. Selimuddin (PW-6) and another person, namely, Abul Hussain (hereinafter called 'the deceased') rushed to the place of occurrence to resist the accused persons, but they were also assaulted. Deceased Abul Hussain was given blows with a dao on his head and he succumbed to the injuries. On receipt of the said FIR, Police registered a case, under Sections 442/326/34 IPC and, after investigation, submitted the charge-sheet. 2. The offence under Section 302 IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhubri, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 447/323/302/34 IPC against the accused persons. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11(eleven) witnesses, including the Medical Officers (P W-9 and P W-10) and the Investigating Officers (PW Nos. 8 and 10). The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations, brought against them and examined 1(one) witness as defence witness. 4. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11(eleven) witnesses, including the Medical Officers (P W-9 and P W-10) and the Investigating Officers (PW Nos. 8 and 10). The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations, brought against them and examined 1(one) witness as defence witness. 4. The defence plea was that, on the date of occurrence, at the relevant time, when the accused Warish and Zakir were returning from market, the informant, along with Abul, Jahanuddin, Ramesh, Jainuddin, Rofiqul and Sofiqul assaulted them with rod as a result of which the quarrel had taken place between both the parties and the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. 5. Considering the evidence, on-record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons, as indicated above. 6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted persons, as appellants, have come up with this appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the appellants and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent and perused the impugned judgment and order and the records. 8. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants, taking us through the evidence, on-record, has submitted that at first the informant side had attacked the appellants and that the accused persons including the deceased sustained injuries in the said quarrel. The learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that the appellants had no intention to cause the death of the deceased and that the fact that the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 29.12.2008 indicates that the death of the deceased was not the immediate cause of the alleged assault, which took place on 20.12.2008. It is also submitted that the delay (i.e. one day's delay) in filing the FIR, also raises doubt about the prosecution version. 9. Referring to the medical evidence, the learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that absence of any injury, in respect of the husband of the informant, who is alleged to be assaulted by the accused persons, negates the prosecution version that he was as saluted. It is also submitted that, as none of the members of the family of the deceased came forward to depose against the appellants, it can be safely concluded that the appellants were not involved with the death of the deceased. It is also submitted that, as none of the members of the family of the deceased came forward to depose against the appellants, it can be safely concluded that the appellants were not involved with the death of the deceased. It is further submitted, on behalf of the appellants, that the learned Sessions Judge failed to properly appreciate the evidence, on-record and committed error by holding the appellants guilty of the offences aforesaid. The learned Sr. Counsel has also submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case, against the appellants, beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 10. Controverting the said argument, advanced by the learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that there is substantive evidence to show the involvement of the appellants and that the learned Sessions Judge committed no error by recording the conviction and sentence aforesaid. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one day's delay in filing the FIR, is not fatal for the prosecution. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that, considering the types of the weapons used i.e. rod, dao and the place of inflicting the injury (i.e. head) etc., it can be safely contended that the appellants had assaulted the deceased with intention to cause his death. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned conviction and sentence, has submitted that the judgment and order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge needs no interference. 12. Having heard the learned Counsel, appearing for both the parties, we have carefully perused the evidence, on-record and the impugned judgment and order. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments, advanced by the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we proceed to scrutinize the evidence, on-record, as follows: 14. Musstt. Akheja Bibi, who lodged the FIR, deposing as PW-1, stated that, as soon as she had visited the house of Mr. Joinuddin (PW-3), the accused persons started assaulting her with lathi and that, alarm being raised, her husband and the deceased rushed to the place of occurrence and they were also assaulted by the accused persons. She further stated that accused Md. Joinuddin (PW-3), the accused persons started assaulting her with lathi and that, alarm being raised, her husband and the deceased rushed to the place of occurrence and they were also assaulted by the accused persons. She further stated that accused Md. Kalu Seikh gave a dao blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which he had fallen down and that the other accused persons also assaulted him with lathi. She further stated that her husband also sustained injury and that at the arrival of the villagers, the accused persons fled the place. As stated by PW-1, she was medically treated in the Phulbari Hospital, while her husband and the deceased were shifted to Goalpara Hospital, wherefrom the deceased was referred to Guwahati, wherein, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. Her said evidence, despite cross-examination, remained unshakened. 15. Dr. Chandi Prasad Das, deposing as PW-2, stated that, on 21.12.2008 i.e. on the following day of the occurrence, he examined Salimuddin Ali i.e. husband of the informant and found no injury on his person. Hence, the said medical evidence has belied PW-1's evidence that her husband also sustained injury in the said incident. 16. Md. Joinuddin (PW-3), in whose courtyard, the alleged occurrence had taken place, supporting the evidence of PW-1, stated that when P.W-1 had entered his compound, the accused persons i.e. appellants started assaulting her and that Mr. Salimuddin and the deceased, who rushed to the place of occurrence, were also assaulted. He clearly stated that appellants, Baten and Billal had given blows on the deceased with rod and the accused Kalu had given dao blow on the head of the deceased. He also stated that, at the arrival of the villagers, the accused persons had left the place of occurrence. He further stated that the deceased was taken to Gauhati Medical College Hospital (GMCH), wherein he expired due to the injuries sustained by him. Though this witness was cross-examined by the defence, his evidence that the appellants had assaulted PW-1, her husband and the deceased, remained undemolished. Hence, it is found that there is corroboration, on material point, in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. 17. Md. Mosum Ali Mandal, deposing as P.W-4, stated that he saw the appellants assaulting Salimuddin and the deceased with rod and lathi. Hence, it is found that there is corroboration, on material point, in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. 17. Md. Mosum Ali Mandal, deposing as P.W-4, stated that he saw the appellants assaulting Salimuddin and the deceased with rod and lathi. He also stated that when the deceased tried to resist the accused persons, Billal and Kalu had attacked him and Kalu gave a dao blow on his head. This witness was also cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons, but his evidence, that the appellants had assaulted Salimuddin and deceased, could not be demolished. From the evidence of PW-4, it is found that, while returning from market, he visited the place of occurrence. Hence, it is clear that he did not see the first part of the occurrence. Therefore, his silence regarding attack on PW-1 is quite natural. 18. Mr. Billal Hussain, deposing as PW-5, stated that, hearing hue and cry, he visited the house of Mr. Joynuddin (PW-3) and found the appellants assaulting Mr. Salimuddin and his wife. He also stated that he saw Belial Hussain, Kalu Sk., Baten, Bahar, Zakir, Orage Ali and Azizur Ali assaulting Salimuddin and Akheja. This witness further stated that, Abut Hussain (deceased) also appeared in the place of occurrence after performing Namaj and Kalu gave him dao blow on his head, as a result of which he had fallen down. In his cross-examination, PW-5 expressed his ignorance about any quarrel that took place between the accused persons and the husband of the informant. This witness was also subjected to cross-examination. His evidence that the appellants had assaulted Mr. Salimuddin and the deceased remained unshakened. 19. Mr. Selimuddin Sk., husband of the informant, deposing as PW-6, stated that, on the day of occurrence, after his wife (PW-1) had visited the house of Joynuddin (PW-3) and hearing her cries, he rushed to the house of PW-3 and found the appellants assaulting her, for which, he had resisted the accused persons. According to this witness, on being so resisted, the appellants had assaulted him. He further stated that the deceased, who also protested, was given dao blow, on his head, by accused Kalu, as a result of which he had fallen down and that other accused persons also assaulted the deceased with lathi, rod etc. The defence failed to elicit any major contradiction to discredit the said evidence, given by PW-6. 20. Md. He further stated that the deceased, who also protested, was given dao blow, on his head, by accused Kalu, as a result of which he had fallen down and that other accused persons also assaulted the deceased with lathi, rod etc. The defence failed to elicit any major contradiction to discredit the said evidence, given by PW-6. 20. Md. Aynal Hoque Munshi, deposing as PW-7, stated that, hearing noise, in the house of his brother i.e. PW-3, he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the quarrel that was going on between both the parties. He further stated that, though he had raised protest, none paid any heed to his request and that the accused Kalu had given a dao blow on the head of the deceased. This witness was also cross-examined on behalf of the defence, but nothing could be elicited to render his evidence disbelievable. According to this witness, accused Kalu had given a dao blow on the head of the deceased. Hence, it appears that this witness had appeared in the place of occurrence after the occurrence had taken place. He supported the prosecution version that accused Kalu had given blow on the head of the deceased. 21. From the above discussed evidence, it is found that all of the said witnesses have supported the prosecution version and there is sufficient corroboration in their evidence. Their unshaken evidence clearly lead to believe that the appellants had assaulted P.W-1, her husband and the deceased. 22. Dr. N.R. Marak, deposing as PW-9, stated that, on 20.12.2008, he examined Mustt. Akheja Bibi (PW-1) and found lacerated wound measuring 2 x 1 cm., on the parietal region of her head. He opined that the injury was simple in nature, fresh and caused by blunt object. He exhibited his report as Ext. 5 and his signature thereon as Ext. 5(1). From his evidence, coupled with the evidence, given by PW-1 and other witnesses aforesaid, it is found that she (PW-1) sustained injury in the said occurrence. 23. Dr. Kanak Ch. Das, deposing as PW-11, stated that, on 29.12.2008, Dr. R.K. Baruah performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Abul Hussain (deceased). He opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to injury on his head. He also stated that the injuries were ante mortem, caused by blunt weapon and homicidal in nature. 23. Dr. Kanak Ch. Das, deposing as PW-11, stated that, on 29.12.2008, Dr. R.K. Baruah performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Abul Hussain (deceased). He opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to injury on his head. He also stated that the injuries were ante mortem, caused by blunt weapon and homicidal in nature. He has exhibited the post mortem report as Ext. 9 and the signature of Dr. R.K. Baruah as Ext. 9(1), which he knew. He also stated that he was the in-charge of Police Surgeon. Though the said Medical Officer was cross-examined, on behalf of the defence, his evidence aforesaid remained undemolished. According to PW-11, injuries were found on the vault of the scalp, causing fracture of the skull bone and extra-dural haematoma in the occipital lobe of the brain with defused intra cerebral haemorrhage. From the said medical evidence, it is clearly found that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him on his head and that the said fatal injuries were caused by blunt weapon. 24. PW-8 Rabin Biswas was the Investigating Officer. He stated that, during the investigation, he recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared sketch map (Ext. 3), seized a dao (Ext. 4) and collected the injury report. From the cross examination of the said I.O., no major contradiction could be elicited to discredit the evidence, given by the prosecution witnesses, aforesaid. 25. Muslem Ali (PW-10), one of the Investigating Officers, stated that the investigation of the case was completed by PW-8 and that due to transfer of the earlier Investigating Officer, the Officer in-charge had entrusted him to complete the investigation of the case. This witness stated that he collected the inquest report (Ext. 6), the dead body challan, the post mortem report (Ext. 7) and submitted the charge-sheet (Ext. 8). 26. From the above discussed evidence, it is found that both PW-1 and the deceased sustained injuries in the incident, that took place on 20.12.2008. All the above stated non official witnesses clearly stated that the incident took place on 20.12.2008, in the courtyard of PW-3. PW-1, who was the first person alleged to be assaulted by the accused persons, clearly stated that, initially a quarrel had taken place between herself and the accused persons and that she was assaulted by them. All the above stated non official witnesses clearly stated that the incident took place on 20.12.2008, in the courtyard of PW-3. PW-1, who was the first person alleged to be assaulted by the accused persons, clearly stated that, initially a quarrel had taken place between herself and the accused persons and that she was assaulted by them. From her evidence, it is found that, alarm being raised, her husband and the deceased rushed to the place of occurrence and they were also assaulted, as a result of which the deceased died. 27. Dr. N.R. Marak (PW-9) who examined PW-1 on the date of occurrence itself, supported her evidence by stating that he found lacerated injury on the head of the PW-1. All the other relevant non official witnesses have supported the evidence of PW-1 regarding the incident aforesaid. Hence, there is sufficient corroboration regarding the injury sustained by PW-1. 28. A careful scrutiny of the evidence, on-record, clearly reveals that, in the said incident that took place in the house of the P W-3, the accused persons had assaulted PW-1, her husband (P W-6) and the deceased. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses aforesaid that the accused Kalu had given dao blow on the head of the deceased remained undemolished. All of them corroborated each other's evidence regarding the injury sustained by the deceased at the hands of Mr. Kalu. 29. As discussed above, we find sufficient corroboration, in the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses, believe that, in the said occurrence, the accused persons had assaulted PW-1, her husband and the deceased. 30. PW-1 i.e. the informant, PW-3, in whose compound the occurrence took place, P W-4, another eye witness to the occurrence, PW-6 i.e. the husband of the informant, clearly stated that when the deceased had fallen down, on being inflicted a dao blow on his head by Kalu, other accused persons had also assaulted him. From the above evidence, it is found that all the accused persons armed with various types of weapons had jointly attacked the said victim, in the premises of PW-3. In view of the above, there is no difficulty in understanding that all the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had assaulted the PW-1, her husband, PW-6 and the deceased. There is no dispute that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him at the hands of the accused persons. In view of the above, there is no difficulty in understanding that all the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had assaulted the PW-1, her husband, PW-6 and the deceased. There is no dispute that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him at the hands of the accused persons. The medical evidence, given by PW-11 supports the prosecution version that the deceased died due the injuries sustained by him on his head. 31. Md. Moksed Ali, who was examined as defence witness (DW-1), stated that, on the day of occurrence, while returning home, in the evening, after purchasing some articles in the market, he did not see any occurrence. In his cross-examination, he stated that he neither knew the informant and nor saw the incident. Hence, it appears that this witness failed to demolish the prosecution case. 32. From the above, it appears that defence failed to negate the above discussed forceful evidence, adduced by the prosecution witnesses. We find sufficient corroboration in their evidence to believe that, on 20.12.2008, the occurrence took place, in the compound of the PW-3 and the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had assaulted P.W-1, her husband and the deceased. It has also been proved that, in the said incident, PW-1 sustained injuries on her head and the deceased, who also sustained injuries, died due to injuries, sustained on his head. Hence, it has been abundantly proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused persons had assaulted PW-1 causing injury to her person and death to the deceased. 33. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 447/323/302/34 IPC. Admittedly, the occurrence took place in the compound of the PW-3 and not in the compound or property of the informant or the deceased. Section 441 IPC, which defines criminal trespass, reads as follows: "441. Criminal Trespass.--Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. Or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence. is said to commit "criminal trespass". 34. Or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence. is said to commit "criminal trespass". 34. The terms' such property' and 'such person' appearing in the said definition indicates that, in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 447 IPC, the trespass must be into the property or the compound of a person with intention to commit the offence or intimidate or insult or annoy such person in possession of the property. 35. In the present case, neither the injured persons, nor the deceased were in possession of the property. PW-3 was in possession of the premises, wherein the occurrence took place. There was no attack on PW-3. In fact, PW-3 did not lodge any FIR or complaint against the accused persons. Therefore, as the incident took place in the premises in possession of PW-3, who being a third party, was not a victim of the occurrence. Hence, the penal provision prescribed by Section 447 IPC, will not be applicable in the present case. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the conviction and sentence, recorded under Section447/34 IPC, can't be maintained and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, we do so. In the result, the appellants are acquitted of the offences under Sections 447/34IPC. 36. In view of the above discussion, as PW-1 sustained simple injury, caused by blunt object, in our considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has rightly recorded the conviction under Section 323 IPC. Hence, the conviction and sentence under Section 323/34 IPC needs no interference. 37. Now, coming to the conviction under Section 302 IPC, we find that the occurrence, initially took place between PW-1 and the accused persons, in the premises of PW-3. The deceased was not present in the place of occurrence at the beginning of the occurrence. As revealed by the P.W-1, the deceased and her husband, arrived in the place of occurrence after hearing alarm, raised by her. They arrived there for resisting the accused persons from assaulting PW-1. From the above discussed evidence, it is found that, on being resisted by the deceased and the husband of PW-1, the accused persons, who were assaulting the PW-1 had also assaulted the deceased and he died due to the injury sustained by him, on his head. They arrived there for resisting the accused persons from assaulting PW-1. From the above discussed evidence, it is found that, on being resisted by the deceased and the husband of PW-1, the accused persons, who were assaulting the PW-1 had also assaulted the deceased and he died due to the injury sustained by him, on his head. Admittedly, the accused persons were armed with lathi, rod and dao etc. It is not a case that the appellants had picked up or collected the said weapons of assault, after finding the deceased in the place of occurrence. The said accidental arrival of the deceased, in the place of occurrence, where quarrel between PW-1 and accused were going on was the cause of the death of the deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the deceased sustained the injuries due to his arrival in the place of occurrence. Had he not arrived in the place of occurrence to resist the appellants from attacking PW-1, in all probability, he would not have sustained the injuries. Therefore, it can be safely gathered that the accused persons, who picked up the quarrel with PW-1, had no intention to assault or cause death to the deceased. The deceased sustained the fatal injury, in a sudden fight that took place only after his arrival in the place of occurrence. His attempt to resist the accused persons, from assaulting P.W-1, prompted and provoked the accused persons to inflict blows on the deceased. Fact remains that the deceased persons had neither charged, nor initially attacked the deceased. The initial absence of the deceased in the place of occurrence clearly indicates that they had no intention to assault the deceased. 38. In order to constitute offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the basic ingredient i.e. the intention to cause death must exist 39. As provided by Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. 40. Considering the above discussed attending facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the deceased had voluntarily appeared in the place of occurrence and provoked the accused persons by resisting them from assaulting PW-1. 40. Considering the above discussed attending facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the deceased had voluntarily appeared in the place of occurrence and provoked the accused persons by resisting them from assaulting PW-1. Therefore, it can be safely held that the accused persons, being annoyed, had given the said blow, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries. The said facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the appellants had no intention or pre meditation to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the death caused by the appellants does not come within the definition of murder, as defined by Section 300 IPC. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the death, caused by the appellants, was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 41. Admittedly, the deceased did not die instantly after receiving the said injuries. He died after about 9(nine) days, while undergoing treatment in the hospital. From the medical evidence, given by PW-11, it is found that the deceased sustained only one fatal in-juries i.e. on the head (scalp). The other injury was found to be an injury, partially healed abbression over the dorsal of the right hand. As the dao blow was given on the head of the deceased, there is reason to believe that the assailant had no knowledge that the said blow was likely to cause death. 42. The medical evidence, given by PW-11, reveals that the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. All the non official witnesses stated that a dao blow was given on the head of the deceased. The said evidence, given by the eye witnesses and the medical evidence indicate that, probably, the reverse side of the dao (i.e. the blunt edge) and not the sharp edge of the dao was used. Therefore, the use of the blunt side of the dao i.e. the weapon of assault, clearly lead to believe that the assailant had inflicted the said blows without any intention to cause the death. Had he any intention to cause death, he would have certainly given the blow with the sharp edge of the dao and he would have given more blows on the head. 43. Therefore, in our considered opinion, we find it safe to conclude that the offence committed, was the offence under Section 304 part (ii). Had he any intention to cause death, he would have certainly given the blow with the sharp edge of the dao and he would have given more blows on the head. 43. Therefore, in our considered opinion, we find it safe to conclude that the offence committed, was the offence under Section 304 part (ii). From the evidence, on-record, it has been established, that, after the blow was given by the accused Kalu, other accused persons also, assaulted the appellants with lathi etc. Therefore, we find sufficient evidence to believe that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention to assault and cause injury had caused the said fatal injury on the deceased. 44. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302 IPC can not be maintained and the same is liable to be modified to one under Section 304 Part (II) IPC. Accordingly, we set aside the said conviction and sentence, recorded under Section 302 IPC and modify the conviction to one under Section 304 Part (ii) IPC. 45. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the sufferings undergone by the appellants, during the long litigation, we are of the considered opinion that, though the maximum sentence of imprisonment, provided by Section 304 Part (ii) IPC is imprisonment for 10(ten) years, it would be just and proper to impose sentence for a lesser period. Accordingly, we sentence each of the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5(five) years and pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for 1(one) month for their conviction under Section 304 Part (ii)/34 IPC. 46. In view of earlier decision, the conviction and sentence under Section 447/34 IPC is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offence under Section 447/34 IPC. 47. We make no interference in respect of the conviction and sentence recorded under Sections 323/34 IPC and direction made under Section 357 Cr.P.C. With the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Return the LCR.