Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2582 (ALL)

RAM GOVIND v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-08-25

NAHEED ARA MOONIS, SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard Sri S.V.Goswami learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State and have been taken through the record. 2. The instant appeal was preferred on behalf of the quadruple appellants against the judgement and order dated 23.8.1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Deoria whereby the appellant Nos. 2,3 and 4 namely Awadh Bihari alias Bihari, Ram Naresh @ Naresh and Lala alias Subhas have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 IPC and Ram Govind, the appellant No. 1 has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC vide Sessions trial No. 261 of 1981 (State v. Ram Govind) arising out of Case Crime No. 177 of 1980 under Sections 302 IPC Police Station Rudrapur District Deoria to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment. At the very inception learned counsel for the appellant Sri S.V.Goswami, fairly submitted that during the pendency of appeal, the appellant No. 1 Ram Govind has died on 22.9.2007 and the appellant No. 2 Awadh Bihari alias Bihari has also died about two years back thus the appeal stood abated against both the appellants vide order dated 13.10.2009 and 30.11.2009. Learned counsel for the appellants is now mooting his arguments on behalf of the appellants No. 3 and 4 Ram Naresh alias Naresh and Lala alias Subhas. The genesis of the prosecution in a short conspectus is that an F.I.R. was lodged by Nazeer Ahmad on 16.7.1980 at 3.00 p.m. with respect to the incident of the same day dated 16.7.1980 at 2.00 p.m. against Ram Govind, Awadh Bihari, Naresh and Lala alias Subhas resident of village Kedar, Police Station Rudrapur District Deoria vide Case Crime No. 177 of 1980 under Sections 302 IPC with the allegation that litigation was going on between Shiv Lochan Yadav and Ram Newaj in the consolidation Court. The brother of the complainant Yaseen has given evidence on behalf of Shiv Lochan on account of which the family members of Ram Newaj were nurturing animus and grudge against him. On the fateful day of occurrence, the complainant, his brother Yaseen, Abdul Kalam and Shiv Lochan, were heading towards their village and his nephew Mohd. Kameel and Isha were coming back from the market situated at Rudrapur. On the fateful day of occurrence, the complainant, his brother Yaseen, Abdul Kalam and Shiv Lochan, were heading towards their village and his nephew Mohd. Kameel and Isha were coming back from the market situated at Rudrapur. When they reached near Korwa village at about 2.00 p.m. Ram Govind armed with Lathi, Avadh Bihar armed with pistol and his relative Naresh and Lala alias Subhash equipped with pistols encircled Yaseen. Ram Govind the appellant No. 1 exhorted that he will teach a lesson for giving the testimony against him. On his exhortation, Awadh Bihari, Naresh and Subhas started firing from their respective weapons which hit him fatally as a result of which he fell down on the ground raising shrieks and shrill grappling with his life. Taking the advantage of his grievous hurt, Ram Govind began to thrash him with lathi. The complainant and the other persons of the locality raised alarm and chased the assailants but the assailants fled towards east crossing the fields. The complainant and the other witnesses could not chase him on account of fear and intimidation. The complainant took the victim on Tanga (horse cart) to the police station but the victim could not survive and succumbed to injuries on the way. The complainant reached at the police station Rudrapur with the dead body of the victim Yaseen and the First Information Report was immediately lodged at the concerned police station. After registration of the case, the investigating officer swung into action and prepared the inquest report, diagram, challan of the dead body. The corpse was put in a sealed cover and was sent to mortuary for autopsy with constable Asfandyar Beg. The investigating officer interrogated the witnesses at the police station and reached at village Korwa, the place of occurrence where he collected blood stained and plain earth. The corpse of the deceased Yaseen reached at the mortuary and the autopsy was conducted by Dr. V.P.Gupta on 17.7.1980 at 11:30 a.m. and following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person : 1. Gun shot injury 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x diffused tissues, depth on the left side of cheat outer aspect, 8 cm below and outer to the inferior angle of the left scapula. 2. Gunshot injury 1 cm x 1cm x bone deep on the left side root of the nose. 3. Gun shot injury 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x diffused tissues, depth on the left side of cheat outer aspect, 8 cm below and outer to the inferior angle of the left scapula. 2. Gunshot injury 1 cm x 1cm x bone deep on the left side root of the nose. 3. Gun shot injury 1 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right side root of the nose. Injuries No. 2 and 3 are communicating to each other. 4. Gun shot injury 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep on the right side of skull,5 cm 10 cm above the right ear. 5. Gun shot injury 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep on the right side of the scull. 10 cm back to the right ear and 8 cm below injury No. 4 6. Gun shot injury 0. 5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the right side of neck 5 cm below the right ear lobula. 7. Gun shot injury 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the left side of neck, back aspect 12 cm the left ear. 3. During the course of autopsy, the doctor on the internal examination found that the tenth rib on the left side fractured, pleura and the left lung were punctured. About 100 grams semi digested food was present in the stomach. Small and the large intestines were full of gases. Liver was also ruptured and punctured. The doctor opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a consequence of ante-mortem injuries. The doctor had testified that the death had occurred in between 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. on 16.7.1980 on account of gun shot injuries inflicted on his person. 4. The investigating officer proceeded with the investigation and recorded the statement of Nazir Ahmad (P.W.1), Mohammad Qamil (P.W.2), Mohammad Isa (P.W.3) the eye-witnesses of the occurrence who supported the prosecution version. The investigating officer after collecting the material and credible evidence showing the complicity of the appellants submitted charge-sheet against them under Section 302/34 IPC. Charges were framed under Section 302/34 IPC by the learned District and Sessions Judge Deoria on 12.11.1981 which were read over and explained to the accused persons.. The accused -appellants denied all the charges and claimed to be tried. Charges were framed under Section 302/34 IPC by the learned District and Sessions Judge Deoria on 12.11.1981 which were read over and explained to the accused persons.. The accused -appellants denied all the charges and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution had examined as many as seven witnesses namely the three witnesses of fact are Nazir Ahmad (P.W.1), Mohd. Qamil (P.W.2) and Mohd. Isha P.W.3 the formal witnesses, Constable Afsadyan Beg, Constable Dawan Chaubey (P.W.5) and Dr. V.P.Gupta (P.W.6). The accused persons in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the allegations and pleaded for innocence. They stated that they have been implicated in the present case on account of personal grudge and animosity. The learned trial Judge on the basis of material on record held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted them. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment and order passed by the Court below whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the civil litigation was going on between Shiv Lochan and Ram Niwas and the victim had given his testimony against Ram Niwas. All the witnesses produced by the prosecution were highly partisan and interested. They were already nurturing and fostering animus and grudge against the appellants and his family members. It renders highly improbable the entire prosecution version that appellants were aware that the victim and other persons were returning to their village from Rudrapur after transacting in the market at the relevant point of time. It was also pointed out that the victim was a man of shabby and shaky character. He had developed carnal relation with a lady belonging to the scheduled caste community. The conduct of the victim surfaced and the close persons of that lady were in search of eliminating the victim so as to efface their relationship for ever. They may have plotted to eliminate the victim in tandem with other persons. All the witnesses are claiming themselves to be present at the crucial juncture of incident but none of them has suffered even the slightest injury and no efforts have been made by them to save the victim while the witnesses were also in numbers. There is material inconsistency in the medical report and the prosecution version. All the witnesses are claiming themselves to be present at the crucial juncture of incident but none of them has suffered even the slightest injury and no efforts have been made by them to save the victim while the witnesses were also in numbers. There is material inconsistency in the medical report and the prosecution version. There was only 100 grams semi-digested food particle in the stomach of the deceased which contradicts the time of the incident. The incident must have occurred in between 6.00 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. and none has seen the incident. The witnesses had come later at the place of occurrence after hearing about the said incident and the appellants have been roped on account of suspicion. The motive assigned to the appellants for committing the gruesome offence is not supporting the prosecution version that Yaseen had appeared as a witness for Shiv Lochan in the consolidation proceeding because of which enmity originated and the appellants made up their mind to eliminate him. It is also the case of the prosecution that the complainant alongwith victim and the other persons were going on the next day of Ramzan at 7-7:15 a.m. to purchase macaroni (sewain) and spices etc. P.W.2 Mohd. Kamil who is the nephew of Yasain (deceased) had also gone with him to the market appears to be the chance witness. The testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 cannot be relied upon which is unworthy of any credence. 6. The testimony of P.W.3 Mohd. Isha also appears to be doubtful who had supported the prosecution version that he had gone to Rudrapur for purchasing the spare parts of the cycle. There is no evidence corroborating his presence on the fateful day of occurrence. The P.W.4 Mohd. Isha has tried to support the prosecution version but his testimony is distinct from the story set up by the prosecution. The defence has also adduced a copy of the report and the charge-sheet showing that the victim was a man of shaky and shoddy character and was having carnal relation with the daughter of Banshi Harijan which could have ignited his family to commit his murder in association with some stranger and the appellants have been roped on account of suspicion. For the sake of argument, even if the prosecution story may be accepted in toto that there was enmity on account of giving testimony in favour of Shiv Lochan Yadav against Ram Niwas in the consolidation proceeding. The presence of Awadh Bihari S/o Ram Govind, Naresh and Lala attributing role of firing upon the victim to corroborate the post-mortem report clearly shows their false implication. They have also been convicted under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment. There is material inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses with regard to place, manner and time of incident viz.a.viz post-mortem report coupled with motive. The inconsistency and the falsehood are so glaring that it would destroy the verity and the probity of the prosecution version. There is improbability of the prosecution version, doubtful presence of the eye-witnesses and unnatural conduct of the complainant. The trial judge has committed manifest error in passing the impugned judgment and order giving pivotal significance to the prosecution witnesses without delving into their demeanour and conduct and also overshadowing the material inconsistency in the medical evidence, hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial judge being patently erroneous and untenable deserves to be rendered nugatory and may be set aside. 7. Per contra learned AGA Sri Rajeev Gupta appearing on behalf of State opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that all the appellants have been named in the First Information Report. The date, place of occurrence and the manner of assault is fully corroborated by the prosecution witnesses. The post-mortem report also corroborates the role of indiscriminate firings by the three appellants. The three appellants started firings indiscriminately on the exhortation and provocation of Ram Govind who was equipped with lathi. Minor discrepancy and aberration in the prosecution version will not overshadow the entire prosecution case as the First Information Report was lodged just after the occurrence of the incident. There is no embellishment in the prosecution version. The victim has succumbed to unnatural death. There is no reason to disbelieve the presence of the accused persons as the accused persons avoided to appear and surrender before the Court below and were hiding in mysterious places. On account of the disappearance of the accused persons, process under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. were issued against them. The investigating officer collected credible and clinching evidence showing the complicity of the appellants. On account of the disappearance of the accused persons, process under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. were issued against them. The investigating officer collected credible and clinching evidence showing the complicity of the appellants. There is no scope for mistaken identity as the accused persons were well known to the complainant and the witnesses. The motive behind the commission of the gruesome and barbarous murder strongly proved by the evidence connecting them with the crime as the victim had given his testimony against Ram Niwas in the consolidation proceeding. The incident had taken place on 16.7.1980. The statement of the victim was recorded in the consolidation proceedings which was going on between Shiv Lochan and Ram Govind on 21.6.1980 and the case was posted for 9.7.1980. On 9.7.1980 the case was again posted. During the interregnum period the appellants were apprehensive that on the basis of testimony of victim, they will not succeed in the consolidation proceeding which prompted them to eliminate the victim. It is intrinsically wrong to say that Ram Naresh was not related with Ram Govind. Ram Naresh has admitted his relations in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused persons had prior meeting of mind to eliminate Yaseen who was to give testimony on behalf of Shiv Lochan in the consolidation proceeding. There is common intention of all the accused persons to do a particular criminal act and in furtherance of that common intention, all of them joined together with each other in the commission of the act in case anyone of these persons may not do the act but he helps by his presence, he would be held to have actual participation in the commission of the said incident. There is conspicuous pre-arranged plan anterior in point of time to the commission of the offence and the criminal act has been done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. The act has been done in furtherance of the common intention. The evidence has been judged and weighed cautiously and warily with great circumspection as all the eye-witnesses were examined by the prosecution who had supported the prosecution version with respect to time of incident, place of occurrence and the manner of assault. They did not have any apprehension that the accused persons were in search of the victim. The evidence has been judged and weighed cautiously and warily with great circumspection as all the eye-witnesses were examined by the prosecution who had supported the prosecution version with respect to time of incident, place of occurrence and the manner of assault. They did not have any apprehension that the accused persons were in search of the victim. As soon as the complainant with other persons including the victim reached near the road of Korwa village at about 2.00 p.m. all the accused persons armed with their respective weapons emerged and started firings indiscriminately as a result of which victim sustained fatal injuries and fell down on the ground. The accused Ram Govind assaulted him with lathi. There is no deviation or aberration in the manner of assault as divulged by the prosecution. All the accused persons joined together and committed the gruesome crime in a very dastardly and barbarous manner culminating into fatal and grievous injuries. The accused persons clearly acted in concert and played potential role to liquidate the victim. The minor variation in the evidence of the witnesses and the medical is of no consequence. The presence of the eye-witnesses cannot be doubted. There is no reason to implicate the appellants falsely leaving to the actual assailants who had taken the life of an innocent person. No adverse inference has been elicited in the cross-examination by the defence so as to discredit the prosecution version. The creation of any doubt that the complainant had gone to purchase macaroni (sewai) and spices etc just after two days of initiation of Ramzan and while returning from market,the victim was subjected to indiscriminate firings as a result of which he fell on the ground and Ram Govind thrashed him with lathi will not smear the prosecution version. This fact was fully corroborated by the independent witnesses. 8. It has also been submitted that co-accused Ram Naresh had no motive to join alongwith co-accused persons is absolutely false as accused Ram Naresh had admitted that he had relation with co-accused Ram Govind. Specific question was put to him while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Ram Govind and Awadh Bihari are father and son and. Lala alias Subhas is the relative of Ram Govind who had replied in affirmative. Similar question was put to other co-accused persons who had also accepted the relation with Ram Govind. Specific question was put to him while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Ram Govind and Awadh Bihari are father and son and. Lala alias Subhas is the relative of Ram Govind who had replied in affirmative. Similar question was put to other co-accused persons who had also accepted the relation with Ram Govind. Ram Govind was fostering grudge and animosity against Shiv Lochan as the consolidation proceedings were going on and Yaseen (deceased) had appeared to give testimony on behalf of Shiv Lochan. This motive has been re-iterated by all witnesses of fact who had divulged the entire prosecution version in a very natural manner. The victim was done to death in a very unnatural and dastardly manner with gunshot injuries. Specific role of firing has been attributed to Awadh Bihari alias Bihari s/o Ram Govind, Lala @ Subhash and Ram Naresh which hit to the victim as a consequence whereof he fell down on the ground and was thrashed by Ram Govind with lathi. No doubt can be cast that the complainant was keeping fast and his brother (victim) was not keeping fast who accompanied with him to purchase macaroni (sewai) and spices etc. and had taken last meal at Hindu Hotel at about 12 or 12.30 noon. His murder was committed in between 2 to 3 p.m. and 100 grams semi-digested food was found in his stomach at the time of conducting the autopsy. The doctor has specifically stated that the death could have been caused between 2 to 3 p.m. on 16.7.1980. The inference drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants that on the basis of the stomach contents, the incident would have taken between 6.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. has no leg to stand. On the internal examination it was discovered that tenth rib on the left side was fracture, pleura and left lung were punctured. Since the doctor was not cross-examined with regard to fracture of tenth rib, defence cannot derive any benefit. According to the post-mortem report, gun shot injury on the left side of the chest and the pellet inside the body could hence resulted into fracture of the rib. The accused appellant No. 1 Ram Govind had also assaulted him with lathi and the victim fell down having sustained gun shot injuries. The defence had not cross-examined about this internal injury. The accused appellant No. 1 Ram Govind had also assaulted him with lathi and the victim fell down having sustained gun shot injuries. The defence had not cross-examined about this internal injury. The manner of assault and the statement of the doctor cannot be discarded on this count alone. The contents of 100 grams semi digested food cannot be a solitary ground to discard the entire prosecution version. It is well-settled proposition of law that the time of death cannot be determined on the basis of contents of stomach. 9. It is not a valid criteria to assess the time of occurrence as it depends upon a number of factor viz. the quality of food and when it was taken. So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, no doubt can be created as the site plan was prepared on the same day after registration of the First Information Report. The investigating officer reached on the spot and collected blood stained and plain earth. The incident had taken place near a culvert. The allegation of having illicit relation with the daughter of Banshi Harijan is not sufficient to hold Yaseen as a man of disrepute character. The appellants were named in the First Information Report and there is clinching and credible material showing their complicity. The incident had taken place in broad day light and there is consistent testimony showing complicity of the appellants thus the appellants do not deserve to be exculpated at the dint of passing the animosity with other persons. The appellants have rightly been convicted for murder as eye-witness account was consistent and reliable. The presence of the eye-witness was natural and their evidence was found reliable. The eye-witness testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence. The bullets were recovered from the body of the deceased. It would not be proper to overshadow the entire prosecution for want of any independent witness when the case is fully corroborated by the testimony of the witnesses and the medical evidence. No adverse inference would be drawn against the prosecution with regard to probability if any suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants. 10. The prosecution has presented a vivid account of the entire occurrence ascribing positive role of all the assailants therefore, the question of any deliberation amongst the members of the prosecution party stands clearly ruled out. No adverse inference would be drawn against the prosecution with regard to probability if any suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants. 10. The prosecution has presented a vivid account of the entire occurrence ascribing positive role of all the assailants therefore, the question of any deliberation amongst the members of the prosecution party stands clearly ruled out. There is no improvement or prevarication on the part of the prosecution witnesses. There is no justification to set aside the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the medical testimony on the ground of surmises and conjectures as well as preponderance of probabilities therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below deserves to be upheld and the appellants may be taken into custody as they are still extending threats to the prosecution party. 11. Before expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it would be feasible to analysis the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the prosecution version and the defence taken by the accused appellants. It is conspicuous that the First Information Report was lodged by Nazeer P.W.1, the brother of the victim against the accused appellants divulging the facts that unnatural death was caused to Yaseen on account of gun shot injuries inflicted by them. The complainant has also given vivid description for rearing animus and grudge against the victim because of giving testimony on behalf of Shiv Lochan against Ran Niwas in the consolidation proceedings. Ram Niwas was closely related and associated with Ram Govind (accused). The accused persons were highly apprehensive that the testimony of the victim would prove fatal for Ram Niwas therefore, they had made a pre-arranged plan to eliminate the victim and waylaid him while coming back from the market. 12. The appellants had already demonstrated their conduct of eliminating the victim for his testimony on behalf of Shiv Lochan in the consolidation proceeding. These utterances have consistently been stated by all the witnesses who had narrated the incident in a very natural and articulatory manner. The overt act of the accused persons accompanied with participatory conduct at the relevant spur of the moment and the circumstances from which the inference of guilt was drawn is fully established and unimpeachable beyond a shadow of doubt consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused appellants. The overt act of the accused persons accompanied with participatory conduct at the relevant spur of the moment and the circumstances from which the inference of guilt was drawn is fully established and unimpeachable beyond a shadow of doubt consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused appellants. All the circumstances were of conclusive nature and the chain of evidence conspicuously shows that within all human probability the act has been done by the accused appellants. The manner in which the victim was done to death by gunshot has portrayed very inhuman and gruesome state of mind of the accused appellants. The occurrence is fully supported by the testimony of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence which cannot be overclouded by any stretch of imagination or suspicion. The accused appellants fled away after committing the brutal and gruesome crime. The police party could not nab the accused persons after hectic efforts thus the process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were issued. In the course of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, defence side has tried to evolve a story of carnal relation of the victim with the daughter of scheduled caste community to overshadow the devilish and diabolical act of the accused appellants. No person was examined on behalf of the defence in substantiation of this fact. The defence has also failed to produce any substantive bit of evidence to fortify its submission. It is in the evidence that the place of occurrence is about one furlong from the Harijan locality but no-one came forward on hearing the firings and also shrill and shriek of the victim. The First Information Report was lodged by Nazir Ahmad scribed by Nizamuddin which was very natural under the circumstances of the case. It cannot be doubted if the scribe of F.I.R. was not examined as prosecution witness. The First Information Report was lodged on the dictate of the complainant who is the brother of the deceased. It has also been stressed that Shiv Lochan with whom consolidation proceeding was going on with Ram Gopal has also not been examined by the prosecution to support the prosecution case. Mohd. Isha P.W.3 alone has been examined as an independent witness who had supported the prosecution version thus his testimony cannot be doubted to discredit about verity and probity of entire prosecution version. Mohd. Isha P.W.3 alone has been examined as an independent witness who had supported the prosecution version thus his testimony cannot be doubted to discredit about verity and probity of entire prosecution version. It can also not be doubted that he had not seen the accused persons who had perpetrated the crime in a very inhuman and devilish manner.There is no material contradiction in the statement of witnesses regarding manner of participation of all the appellants. From the evidence on record, it is obvious that the First Information Report was lodged promptly. The P.W. 5 Dhawan Chaube entered the same in the G.D. It has been averred by the P.W.5 that deceased was brought by the complainant. The testimony of the P.W. 5 has not been disbelieved as he has not been cross-examined by the defence. The surviving appellants namely Ram Naresh alias Naresh and Lala @ Subhash have been attributed the specific role of causing injury with fire-arm weapon alongwith Awadh Behari (since deceased) to commit murder of Yasin who had sustained several injuries on the vital parts of the body. They have equally participated in the commission of crime and it is immaterial as to whose shot was fatal. The joint liability of the accused appellants can very well be inferred from their conduct and from other relevant circumstances coupled with the medical evidence on record. When several persons simultaneously attack with common intent, no distinction between causing the fatal and non-fatal wounds could be drawn while allocating the guilt. The Apex Court in H.P. Thakore v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 4 SCC 640 , succinctly observed: when a murderous assault by many hands with many knives has ended fatally, it is legally impermissible to dissect the serious ones from the others and seek to salvage those whose stabs have not proved fatal. When people play with knives and lives, the circumstances that one man’s stab falls on a less or more vulnerable part of the person of the victim is of no consequence to fix the guilt for murder. Conjoint complicity is the inevitable inference when a gory group animated by lethal intent to accomplish their purpose cumulatively. Section 34 IPC fixing constructive liability conclusively silences such a refine plea of extrication. See Amir Hussain v. State of U.P., (1975) 4 SCC 247 ; Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 2 SCC 827 . Conjoint complicity is the inevitable inference when a gory group animated by lethal intent to accomplish their purpose cumulatively. Section 34 IPC fixing constructive liability conclusively silences such a refine plea of extrication. See Amir Hussain v. State of U.P., (1975) 4 SCC 247 ; Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 2 SCC 827 . Lord Sumners classic legal shorthand for constructive criminal liability, expressed in the Miltonic verse. They also serve who only stand and wait a fortiori embraces cases of common intent instantly formed, triggering a plurality of persons into an adventure in criminality, some hitting, some missing, some splitting hostile heads, some spilling drops of blood. Guilt goes with community of intent coupled with participatory presence or operation. No finer juristic niceties can be pressed into service to nullify or jettison the plain punitive purpose of the Penal Code. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge being reasoned and judicious deserves to be upheld. 13. In the light of verbose and prolix discussion, we come to the irreversible and irrevocable conclusion that the judgment and order dated 23rd August 1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Deoria does not suffer from any infirmity or vulnerability warranting interference by this Court. The conviction and sentence of the appellants as awarded by the learned trial judge is hereby maintained and upheld. 14. Resultantly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellants Ram Naresh @ Naresh and Lala @ Subhas who are on bail may be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as awarded by the Court below. Office is directed to send back the record to the trial Court. 15. Judgment be certified and placed on record.