Judgment : Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 20.9.1983 passed by III-Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No.27 of 1982, arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 1981 under Section 302/34 IPC, whereby the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment the appellants along with co-accused. It is pertinent to mention that appellant no.1 Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ramesh Singh, appellant in connected Criminal Appeal No.2239 of 1983 and Shiva Kumar Singh appellant in connected Criminal Appeal No. 2277 of 1983 died during pendency of this appeal, therefore, the appeals filed on their behalf, stood abated by order of this Court dated 23.7.2015. Now, this appeal is confined to the only surviving appellant Ram Nath. Prosecution story, as emanates from perusal of the record, appears to be that complainant Mein Kumar Singh son of Raghuraj Singh Thakur lodged written report at Police Station - Bilsanda, District Pilibhit on 14.3.1981 at 11.10 a.m. to the effect that some litigation took place between his father Raghuraj Singh and one Ramesh Singh son of Shiv Narain Ji on the one side and Budhpal Singh son of Ravidas Singh on the other side. In this litigation, some sort of compromise worked out and the case was settled between the father (Deceased Raghuraj Singh) of complainant and Budh Pal Singh. Due to this Ramesh Singh and his brother Shiv Kumar Singh were having grudge against complainant's father. In due course of time, Babu (Budhpal Singh) began to visit house of the complainant. Six or seven days ago from the date of incident, Ramesh Singh came to his house and asked his father that Budhpal Singh is visiting his house and this is not fair and in case Budhpal Singh came to his house then, he will not spare him. Yesterday Babu (Budhpal Singh) came to his house and left his house today in the morning. At about 10 O' clock, complainant's father was present at home when Shiv Kumar Singh came to him and enquired about Budhpal Singh, whereupon complainant's father told that Budhpal Singh has left in the morning. At this, Shiv Kumar Singh asked the complainant's father to come out from house for some talks. Complainant's father followed him upto outside the house. Complainant (Mein Kumar Singh), his mother and his brother Vinod Kumar also followed them. At this, Shiv Kumar Singh asked the complainant's father to come out from house for some talks. Complainant's father followed him upto outside the house. Complainant (Mein Kumar Singh), his mother and his brother Vinod Kumar also followed them. They saw Ramesh Singh standing on the terrace of Noor Hasan possessing a single barrelled gun. Outside the house, complainant's father began to talk to Shiv Kumar Singh standing on the terrace of his house (Deceased's another house) situated to the western side of the kharaja lane. In the meanwhile Ramesh Singh exhorted "maro sale ko" and fired on his father. The fire hit his father who fell down on the terrace. In the meanwhile, Shiv Kumar Singh also fired from his S.B.B.L. gun (on his father). Bhanu Pratap Singh son of Ramesh Singh and co-villager Ram Nath 'Kumhar' were standing on the street. Complainant along with others tried to intervene but they were compelled to hold back by pointing the gun towards them. At that point of time, both Ram Nath 'Kumhar' and Bhanu Pratap Singh son of Ramesh Singh tried to drag away the dead body of Raghuraj Singh, when a number of villagers arrived on the spot and the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. The dead body is lying on the spot. This report is Exhibit Ka-1 on record. Relevant entries of the aforesaid report were made in the Chik FIR No.65 at 11.10 a.m. on 14.3.1981 at Crime No.71 of 1981, under Section 302 IPC. Relevant entry was also made in the concerned GD (Exhibit Ka-4) and case was registered at Crime No.71 of 1981, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Bilsanda, District Pilibhit. Thereafter investigation of the case started and inquest report was got prepared by P.W.7 Satya Deo Singh Yadav by dictating it to S.I. Vijendra Kumar Verma, the very same day on 14.3.1981. The inquest commenced at 12.45 p.m. and was concluded at 2.15 p.m. In the opinion of panchan, the postmortem examination was required to be done in order to know the real cause of death. Inquest report is Exhibit Ka-5. The Investigating Officer also prepared relevant papers for sending the body to mortuary for postmortem examination. Challan of dead body is Exhibit Ka-6 and photonash is Exhibit Ka-7. Inquest report is Exhibit Ka-5. The Investigating Officer also prepared relevant papers for sending the body to mortuary for postmortem examination. Challan of dead body is Exhibit Ka-6 and photonash is Exhibit Ka-7. Post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Raghuraj Singh was conducted on 15.03.1981 at 2.45 p.m. in the mortuary at district Hospital, Pilibhit wherein the following antemortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased: 1. Multiple gun shot wound of entry with lacerated and inverted margins, wounds varying in size from 0.75 cm x 0.75 cm to 1.0 cm x 1.0 cm in size dispersed in an area of 15 cm x 8 cm on the right side front of abdomen 1.5 cm below right sub-costal margin. On exploration the peritoneum, omeulium, stomach and small intestine were lacerated underneath the injury, ten small size pellets were recovered from omenlium, stomach and intestine. The wound was situated close to mid line and no blackening, scorching and tattooing was found. 2. Multiple gun shot wounds of entry with lacerated and inverted margins varying in size from 0.6 cm x 0.6 cm to 1.0 cm x 1.0 cm on the right side front of chest in axilla 10 cm below the superior axillary fold. The wounds dispersed in an area of 9 cm x 8 cm. No blackening, scorching and tattooing was found. On explaration V & VI ribs were found broken in several pieces. On further exploration, lower lobe of right lung was badly lacerated and superior and right lobe of liver was badly lacerated and 28 small size pellets with wedding (Tikli) pieces were recovered from the tissue of liver. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of aforesaid ante-mortem injuries. Post-mortem examination report is Exhibit Ka-2 on record. Besides, the Investigating Officer also recorded statement of various witnesses and prepared the site plan, which is Exhibit Ka-9. After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against accused persons including the present appellant under Section 302 IPC, which is Exhibit Ka-10 on record. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions from where case was made over to the trial court for trial. The accused-appellant was heard on the point of charge and prima-facie ground was found existing for framing charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions from where case was made over to the trial court for trial. The accused-appellant was heard on the point of charge and prima-facie ground was found existing for framing charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Therefore, charge was, accordingly, framed and explained to the accused-appellant, who denied the charge and opted for trial. Thereafter, the prosecution was directed to adduce its evidence. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. P.W.-1 Mein Kumar Singh and P.W.-2 Vinod Kumar Singh are the eye-witnesses of occurrence. P.W. 1 Mein Kumar Singh has proved the report as Exhibit Ka-1. P.W.2 Vinod Kumar Singh has described the very manner and style of occurrence. P.W. 3 is constable Om Prakash who took the dead body of Raghuraj Singh to mortuary from village Bilsanda, P.W.-4 is Budh Pal Singh who has testified that he had settled his dispute with deceased Raghuraj Singh and was having cordial relation with him. P.W.-5 is Dr. V.P. Agarwal who conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased and has proved the same as Exhibit Ka-2. P.W.-6 HC Shishu Pal Singh has proved preparation of Chik FIR Exhibit Ka-3 and also the relevant entries made in the concerned GD Rapat No.14 dated 14.03.1981 at crime no.71/1981, under Section 302 IPC. P.W.-7 Satya Dev Singh Yadav, who was the Investigating Officer of this case and described the steps taken by him in completing the investigation. Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement, appellant termed his implication false and has submitted that he has no enmity with Raghuraj Singh. He has been falsely implicated on account of village partybandi. He opposed candidature of Shridhar in the election of Gram Pradhan. He was asked whether he would prefer to adduce his testimony on his behalf whereupon, he answered in the negative. However, record shows that one defence witness has also been produced as D.W.-1 Omkar Swaroop Dixit. He has deposed to the fact of attendance register of Class-9thA of Gandhi Smarak Sunder Lal Inter College, Bilsanda. He has been cross-examined by learned Government Advocate. However, record shows that one defence witness has also been produced as D.W.-1 Omkar Swaroop Dixit. He has deposed to the fact of attendance register of Class-9thA of Gandhi Smarak Sunder Lal Inter College, Bilsanda. He has been cross-examined by learned Government Advocate. Thereafter, the matter was posted for argument of the parties and after considering the submission so made the learned lower court vide judgment and order dated 20.9.1983 convicted the appellant Ram Nath u/s 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Heard Sri Raza Ullah Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the name of the appellant has been deliberately dragged-in just to give colour to the story and in order to falsely implicate the appellant along with other accused persons. There was no motive, whatsoever, to kill Raghuraj Singh on the part of appellant and the motive is woefully wanting. Intention to kill the deceased on the part of appellant Ram Nath is neither discernible nor proved. His act at the most, can be said to be confined within the purview of Section 201 IPC. He did not share any common intention. His role has been admittedly confined to that of dragging the dead body to a little distance after the deceased had died. In this way, even common intention has been wrongly inferred. His act cannot be said to be in furtherance of common intention of the main assailants. All the ingredients of Section 34 IPC are neither attracted nor established under the facts and circumstances of the case. The testimony on record profusely indicates that Ram Nath at the most remained passive on the spot. Appellant had no personal enmity with the deceased and this particular statement has been made in reply to question put u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In the absence of any common intention or common object, the individual act of the appellant alone will fix criminality, though the same is denied. Even the dead body does not bear either any bruise or abrasion on account of alleged act of dragging away the dead body. Therefore, contention regarding dragging of dead body by the appellant has no testimonial corroboration. In reply to aforesaid contention, learned A.G.A. submitted that testimony on record is apparently self-evident. Even the dead body does not bear either any bruise or abrasion on account of alleged act of dragging away the dead body. Therefore, contention regarding dragging of dead body by the appellant has no testimonial corroboration. In reply to aforesaid contention, learned A.G.A. submitted that testimony on record is apparently self-evident. The appellant remained present on the spot and was ready to assist the other assailants and he participated in the very act to give it final shape and accomplishment. In that way there was an intention to accomplish a pre-determined task and annihilation of deceased is very much obvious, which needs no corroboration. All facts and circumstances against appellant are well established and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Considered the above rival submissions and perused the record. Before we proceed to deal with the merit of the case, particularly the occurrence, it would be appropriate at this stage to have a dip into factual aspect, germane to the incident. The very perusal of the first information report reflects that the same was lodged at 11.10 hours on 14.3.1981 after the incident took place at 10 a.m. Allegations have been made on the two main offenders Ramesh Singh and Shiv Kumar Singh. The motive and the very cause of murder assigned to them is basically confined to intensify grudge and enmity on the part of the above two main offenders, due to newly developed cordial relation between Budh Pal Singh and the deceased Raghuraj Singh, after they entered into compromise in litigation wherein Ramesh Singh was also co-accused with Raghuraj Singh. In fact deceased Raghuraj Singh did not enter into compromise with Ramesh Singh. As per testimonial narration of the incident, it has been alleged that on the fateful day Shiv Kumar Singh came to the house of deceased Raguraj Singh and asked about Budhpal Singh whether he had visited his house or not, whereupon he was told by the deceased that Budh Pal has left his home in the morning. At this Shiv Kumar Singh asked the deceased to come out of his house for having some talks with him. The deceased accompanied Shiv Kumar Singh outside the house upto the place of occurrence i.e. the terrace of another house of deceased. At this Shiv Kumar Singh asked the deceased to come out of his house for having some talks with him. The deceased accompanied Shiv Kumar Singh outside the house upto the place of occurrence i.e. the terrace of another house of deceased. Ramesh Singh, the another offender was standing at that point of time on the terrace of Noor Hasan possessing S.B.B.L. gun while the deceased and Shiv Kumar Singh were talking to each other, Ramesh Singh exhorted "maro sale ko" and he fired upon the deceased which hit him and the deceased fell down on the terrace. While the deceased was so falling, Shiv Kumar Singh also fired upon him with his S.B.B.L. gun, which he was possessing at that point of time. The deceased died on the spot. Informant and other family members were also present on the spot and they witnessed the incident. They tried to intervene but they were threatened pointing the S.B.B.L. gun. The present appellant Ram Nath and son of Ramesh Singh (Bhanu Pratap Singh) then began to drag the dead body of Raghuraj Singh, whereupon, alarm was raised and various persons of the village arrived at the spot then they ran away from the place of occurrence leaving behind the dead body. In this backdrop of testimonial revelation, eye-witness account has come forth from P.W.1 Mein Kumar Singh and P.W.2 Vinod Kumar Singh. P.W.1 Mein Kumar Singh has corroborated the version of FIR in his examination-in-chief and has stated on point of motive that some litigation was going on between his father and accused Ramesh Singh, on the one side with Budh Pal Singh on the other side. In this litigation, some compromise was made and the case was settled between deceased Raghuraj Singh and Budh Pal Singh and their relation became cordial and Budh Pal Singh began to visit at the house of deceased Raghuraj Singh. This emergence of cordial relationship and visitation very much annoyed Ramesh Singh and this was the real cause and motive for committing the murder. P.W.1 Mein Kumar Singh has been cross-examined by the defence, wherein he has testified to the fact of incident having taken place before him. This emergence of cordial relationship and visitation very much annoyed Ramesh Singh and this was the real cause and motive for committing the murder. P.W.1 Mein Kumar Singh has been cross-examined by the defence, wherein he has testified to the fact of incident having taken place before him. It has also come in his testimony that he was student of Class-9th and school timing was ranging between 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. He has specifically stated that on the fateful day, he did not go to school and in his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that his father had asked him not to go to school because there was some household work to be accomplished due to forthcoming Holi festival. At this stage, defence has come out with specific submission that the witness was in fact attending his classes on the fateful day on 14.3.1981. In order to substantiate its claim, defence has produced D.W.1 Omkar Swaroop Dixit, who claimed himself to be the class teacher of class-9A in the year 1981 and he has produced for perusal of trial court the relevant attendance register of Class-9A of year 1980-81. However, on cross-examination, various apparent anomalies have come out. The very total number of students attending the class has not been properly given. The cuttings made at various place in this register, have not been properly explained and observation of the trial court has come forth to the effect that the ink used in certain columns was differently used and suggestion has been given by the prosecution to this witness that in fact the students, who used to be absent, their column in the attendance register was kept empty and it was filled up at convenience. In this view of the matter, the authenticity of presence of P.W.1 in the class room on the relevant date (14.3.1981) generates doubt and it cannot be said that on the fateful day on 14.3.1981, P.W.1 was infact physically present in his class from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. At this stage, we may take note of argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant that the FIR is ante-timed. In this context, the very consideration of the facts and circumstances and the prosecution evidence, makes it obvious that the FIR was in fact lodged by P.W.1 at the police station Bilsanda on 14.3.1981 at 11.10 a.m. This fact is very much corroborated by the testimony of P.W.6 HC Shishu Pal Singh, who has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that the original report (Exhibit Ka-1) was presented by informant (P.W.1) and entries of the same were noted down in the Chik Report, Exhibit Ka-3. Relevant entries were also made in Rapat No.14 at 11.10 a.m. on 14.3.1981 in the GD and the case was registered. He has been cross-examined, wherein, it has been stated by this witness that special report regarding the crime was sent at 12.20 p.m. on 14.3.1981 through Constable Rampal Singh. In view of above, clear cut testimony it is self-evident that the special report of the crime had already been sent from the police station to the higher authorities the very same day just after lodging of the FIR at 12.20 p.m. and this very fact has not been specifically challenged by the defence. Further very perusal of the inquest report also indicates that the very crime number and the section of the offence have been mentioned at the time of preparation of inquest report. The inquest report commenced at 12.45 p.m. on 14.3.1981 and was completed at 2.15 p.m., the very same day. Therefore, mere allegations that FIR is ante-time, is not acceptable and the claim so made, under the facts and circumstances of the case is not justified. Further, apart from PW-1, we may take note of the fact that presence of P.W.2 is also very much established on the spot, because his presence in the house; at the time of occurrence is natural. He himself has stated that on the fateful day he was present in his home along with his family members. He has also testified more or less on the same line as has been testified by P.W.1 and has given consistent description of incident being caused by the accused persons including the present appellant. The trial court itself put one question to this witness regarding his studies, whereupon, this witness replied to the same that he studied upto class-5th, now he has left his studies. The trial court itself put one question to this witness regarding his studies, whereupon, this witness replied to the same that he studied upto class-5th, now he has left his studies. This witness has also been extensively cross-examined, wherein, also he has proved the incident in the very manner and style as stated in the first information report. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased. Injury no.1 is multiple gun shot wounds of entry with lacerated and inverted margins wound varying in size front of abdomen. Injury no.2 is multiple gun shot wounds of entry with lacerated and inverted margins on right side front of chest. These two ante mortem injuries have been well explained by both the witnesses of fact, therefore, their version and testimony of incident are reliable and inspiring confidence. Creditworthiness of their testimony cannot be doubted by any stretch of imagination. Innocuous version of incident has been proved by both the witnesses. As per their testimony Ramesh Singh exhorted "maro sale ko" and fired upon Raghuraj Singh and during process of his falling down or just before its completion second shot was fired from S.B.B.L. gun by Shiv Kumar Singh due to which he died. Bhanu Pratap Singh and Ram Nath then tried to drag away the body of Raghuraj Singh. We further notice that the appellant has challenged fact of litigation between accused Ramesh Singh and deceased Raghuraj Singh on the one side and Budh Pal Singh on the other side and further that no compromise ever took place between deceased Raghuraj Singh and Budh Pal Singh and Budh Pal Singh never visited house of deceased Raghuraj Singh. Here we may take note of the testimony of P.W.4 Budh Pal Singh himself on the above specific challenge by the defence/appellant. In his testimony, he has testified to the effect that he is acquainted with the accused persons. Raghuraj Singh and Ramesh Singh were in one group and this witness was in another group and in due course of time relation between this witness and Raghuraj Singh became cordial which caused embarrassment to the accused Ramesh Singh. He has further testified that deceased Raghuraj Singh had told him that Ramesh Singh was very much annoyed with him due to his visit to the house of Raghuraj Singh. He has further testified that deceased Raghuraj Singh had told him that Ramesh Singh was very much annoyed with him due to his visit to the house of Raghuraj Singh. He has further testified that the day before the incident he had stayed in the house of Raghuraj Singh and had left his house in the early morning on the fateful day i.e. 14.3.1981. As per testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, we have taken note of fact that the very cause of incident as suggested was the visit of Budh Pal Singh to the house of deceased. Testimony of P.W.4 corroborates their testimony on point of visitation and nothing adverse has emerged from the cross-examination of P.W.4, which may create any doubt on his testimony. It is obvious that the incident in question took place at 10 a.m. on 14.3.1981 when Budh Pal Singh had already left house of deceased Raghuraj Singh. Therefore, the very motive also stands proved for committing the crime. We may observe that this being case of eyewitness account of incident therefore, motive to kill cannot be strongly pressed still the motive suggested stands proved by the testimony of P.W.1 Mein Kumar Singh, P.W.2 Vinod Kumar Singh and P.W.4 Budh Pal Singh. Further, we may note that suggestion has been made on behalf of the appellant that the death in question might have occurred in the darkness in forest and the complainant side brought with them the dead body, as soon as they came to know about the murder. Here we may consider the testimony of doctor witness P.W.5 Dr. V.P. Agarwal. In his examination-in-chief in the very last para/line, he has specifically stated that the death in question is possible at 10 a.m on 14.3.1981 and the injuries so caused can be caused by firearm. This specific piece of testimony has not been specifically challenged by the defence. Moreso, no whisper is gathered from circumstances either that may give credence to the suggestion of defence that the death was caused in darkness and the dead body was brought on the place of occurrence. In this view of the matter, this specific testimony regarding time of death vis-a-vis attendant circumstances and testimony of eyewitnesses cannot be overlooked. Moreso, no whisper is gathered from circumstances either that may give credence to the suggestion of defence that the death was caused in darkness and the dead body was brought on the place of occurrence. In this view of the matter, this specific testimony regarding time of death vis-a-vis attendant circumstances and testimony of eyewitnesses cannot be overlooked. But it is established that death in question took place at 10 a.m. The place of occurrence is very much proved by fact that the investigating officer prepared memo of simple earth and blood stained earth from the spot. Memo simple soil and blood stained soil has been proved as Exhibit Ka-8. Besides, he has also proved the site plan Exhibit ka-9 Upon careful perusal of the evidence and circumstances of the case, we find that the incident in question stands proved. However, we may also take note of contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that a holistic view of the occurrence profusely reflects that Ramnath had no motive to cause death of deceased Raghuraj Singh and he had no enmity with deceased Raghuraj and this fact has been specifically stated in this statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He claims that he has been wrongly roped in, in this case because of village partibandi as he had opposed candidature of Sridhar Pradhan in Gram Pradhan election. In this context, we have carefully scanned the entire record and testimony. It is obvious that the sole surviving appellant had no particular motive to cause death of Raghuraj Singh and the testimony on record vis-a-vis circumstances elegantly indicate and establish mere passive presence of appellant on the spot and his role cannot be attributed and explained in terms of sharing common intention. The another co-accused Bhanu Pratap Singh, who happens to be the son of main offender Ramesh Singh may have motive and intention to assist his father and uncle in furtherance of their common intention, but Ramnath may not be imputed with sharing any common intention for causing murder of Raghuraj Singh under present facts and circumstances. After careful analysis of testimony on record it trickles out that eye-witnesses testimony imputes act of dragging away the dead body of Raghuraj Singh after the gun shot had hit the deceased and he fell on the ground. After careful analysis of testimony on record it trickles out that eye-witnesses testimony imputes act of dragging away the dead body of Raghuraj Singh after the gun shot had hit the deceased and he fell on the ground. The entire act from its very commencement upto the stage of murder being caused is miserably silent about any overtact or gesture on the part of present appellant Ramnath towards commission of murder. Here the motive becomes relevant. If Ramnath had no enmity with the deceased and had no motive at all to cause death of Raghuraj Singh then obviously common intention cannot be inferred to have been shared by him with the other co-accused persons. Here cumulative reading of the evidence vis-a-vis circumstances positively establish that Ramnath did not share any common intention with other accused persons to cause murder of Raghuraj Singh and it cannot be said that the appellant was present on the place of occurrence due to some pre-arranged plan or any prior concert and prior meeting of the mind stands ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt mere presence on the spot is sufficient to impute common intention of the assailant, but the common intention is to be inferred from action giving rise to some pre-arranged plan which pre-suppose, prior concert, therefore, prior meeting of mind is sine qua non to attract principle of common intention. There is nothing on record to establish that the common intention developed on the spot. However, the evidence on record is sufficient to establish beyond doubt the fact that as soon as the murder was caused, appellant Ramnath along with Bhanu Pratap Singh dragged away the dead body to some paces (two steps). However, they left behind the dead body and fled away from the place of occurrence, after arrival of a number of persons on the spot including the deceased's sons and wife. In such factual background of this case, the act of dragging alone will be punitive against the appellant and his act at the most can be encompassed within the purview of section 201 IPC, which relates to causing of disappearance of evidence of offence (of murder). Therefore, conviction of appellant under Section 302/34 IPC is not justified but appellant is liable to be punished for offence under Section 201 IPC. Therefore, conviction of appellant under Section 302/34 IPC is not justified but appellant is liable to be punished for offence under Section 201 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction so recorded under Section 302/34 IPC is modified and confined to Section 201 IPC. Obviously, the offence proved is that of murder, which inter alia prescribes punishment of death also, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence prescribed under Section 201 IPC regarding capital offences will have to be weighed proportionately to the offence proved against the appellant. In such case Section 201 IPC mandates sentence of imprisonment extending upto 7 years in reference to offences punishable with death. We find that the offence in question was committed for causing disappearance of evidence relating to offence of murder, therefore, considering entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant will have to suffer 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs.5000/-, in case of default, he will have to suffer additional imprisonment for one year, as that would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence pronounced by the trial court under Section 302/34 IPC against appellant Ramnath is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appellant is on bail. His personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He shall be taken into custody forthwith by the court concerned in order to serve out the sentence so imposed upon him. Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Let copy of this order be certified to the court concerned for necessary follow up action. ———————