ORDER : Mr. Mohammad Rafiq, J. These two criminal appeals are directed against common judgment dated 09.12.2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.2, Bharatpur, Camp Kaman, in Criminal Case No.35/2009, whereby appellants, ten in number, were convicted and sentenced in following manner:- Name of accused-appellant Conviction and sentence Balram S/o Lalluram (in Appeal No.115/2011) u/S 148 IPC - to suffer three years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months RI u/S 302 IPC - to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's RI u/S 307/149 IPC – to suffer seven years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's RI u/S 323/149 IPC – to suffer one year's RI with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' RI Samayram S/o Lalluram (in Appeal No.115/2011) u/S 148 IPC - to suffer three years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months RI u/S 302/149 IPC - to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's RI u/S 307 IPC – to suffer seven years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's RI u/S 323/149 IPC – to suffer one year's RI with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' RI Lalaram S/o Lalluram (in Appeal No.115/2011), Munshi S/o Ramswaroop, Dulichand S/o Chunniram, Badleram @ Badli S/o Vishan, Mahavir S/o Ramhet, Balluram S/o Sitaram, Sukhram S/o Chunniram and Ramhet S/o Mawasi (in Appeal No.2/2011) u/S 148 IPC – each to suffer three years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months RI u/S 302/149 IPC - each to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's RI u/S 307/149 IPC – each to suffer seven years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's RI u/S 323/149 IPC – each to suffer one year's RI with fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's RI u/S 307/149 IPC – each to suffer seven years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's RI u/S 323/149 IPC – each to suffer one year's RI with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' RI 2. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that one Omprakash lodged a written report (Exhibit P-31) at Police Station Gopalgarh on 14.11.2007 wherein it was alleged that on 13.11.2007 a 'panchayat' was convened in his village Tajullabas at the temple on the issue of burning the 'kadbi' of Jalsingh. About 40-50 villagers attended the 'panchayat'. At that time, following heated exchange of talks, accused Balram pelted a stone at Tejram S/o Parbhati Ram, who was sitting in the 'panchayat' and went to his house. After some time, accused Balram, Chetram, Samayram, Lalaram, Ramvir, Balluram, Pooran, Munshi, Harchand, Khemi, Ramhet, Mahavir, Sukhram, Dulichand, Ratanlal, Mukesh, Ratti, Badli, Pooran, Dayaram, Dharamvir, Kishandei, Laxmi, Prem, Jamna, Javitri, Meera, Saroj, Batuni, Motor and Kishan came armed with gun, 'katta', 'lathi', 'farsa' and stone. Accused Lalaram, Balram, Balluram and Chetram opened fire from gun and 'katta' at Baljit, as a result of which Baljit died on the spot. As soon as the complainant along-with Tekchand, Bhanwar Singh, Khubiram, Shyamlal, Indersingh, Bijendra, Tejram, Bhagwat, Kamal Singh, Nanak Chand, Jal Singh, Battan Devi and Bachchuram reached near Baljit, all these persons gave beating to them by gun, 'katta', 'lathi', 'farsa' and stones as a result of which they received injuries on different parts of their bodies. Dharam Singh, Jalsingh, Pappuram and Kapurchand were eyewitnesses of the incident and they saved them. Tekchand and Bhanwar Singh received serious injuries and were taken to Kaman hospital. Baljit was also taken to Kaman hospital. 3. On receipt of aforesaid report, the police registered regular First Information Report No.122/2007 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 307, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation commenced. Postmortem was conducted on the body of deceased Baljit and doctors opined that the death took place due to hemorrhagic shock, which was caused by firearm injury to vital organs and that the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. 4. During course of investigation, accused were arrested. Postmortem was conducted on the body of deceased Baljit and doctors opined that the death took place due to hemorrhagic shock, which was caused by firearm injury to vital organs and that the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. 4. During course of investigation, accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against accused for offence under Sections 147, 148, 148, 323, 336, 341, 307 and 302 IPC and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Charges were framed against Balram and Samayram for offence under Sections 148, 323 or 323/149, 302 or 302/149, 307 or 307/149 IPC and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, and against remaining accused, charges were framed for offence under Sections 148, 323 or 323/149, 302 or 302/149 and 307 or 307/149 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced as many as 29 witnesses and got 118 documents exhibited. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Defence produced five witnesses and got 47 documents exhibited. 5. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court, vide impugned judgment, while acquitting co-accused Pooran, Kishandei, Jamna, Smt. Prem and Smt. Laxmi for offence under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 IPC, and accused Balram and Samayram for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated above. Hence these two appeals on behalf of two sets of accused-appellants. 6. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned senior counsel for accused-appellants in Appeal No.2/2011, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, argued that there was no evidence to justify the conclusion arrived at by learned trial court as to formation of unlawful assembly. The incident took place suddenly at the spur of moment when both the parties with other villages assembled at the temple for convening 'panchayat' to settle the dispute. Accused-appellants have been held guilty only because their houses are adjacent to temple where the meeting of 'panchayat' was convened. Learned trial court has failed to appreciate the statement of the investigating officer Ram Prasad (PW-29) as also independent witnesses, namely, Battan (PW-19), Ayub (PW-20) and Ratiram (PW-21), who stated that both the sides were engaged in pelting stones at each other and the incident took place all of a sudden. Their testimony has also been corroborated with the statement of I.O. Ram Prasad (PW-29). Their testimony has also been corroborated with the statement of I.O. Ram Prasad (PW-29). It is argued that both the parties suddenly indulged in altercation and started pelting stones at each other. There were number of persons for both the sides. It was argued that both the parties grappled with each other, which was followed by a free fight. In such facts, there could be no common object of any unlawful assembly as the ingredients for formation of unlawful assembly are totally absent. 7. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned senior counsel, further argued that it was a case of gross over/false implication. In the typed report submitted to the police, the complainant named as many as thirty persons as accused. But the police, on conclusion of investigation, filed challan only against fifteen persons out of them. After protracted trial, learned trial court acquitted five of the accused out of them. The very fact that the complainant sought to implicate the accused by over/false implication raises serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Genesis of the incident has thus been withheld from the court. It is argued that no specific overt act has been attributed to accused-appellants except accused-appellants. 8. Balluram and Samayram, as per the F.I.R., statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and statements recorded in the trial court. The trial court has acquitted co-accused Balluram for offence under Section 302 IPC and Samayram for offence under Section 307 IPC, which clearly signifies the fact that they were also held guilty for individual liability. Even then, learned trial court convicted all other accused with the aid of Section 149 IPC only because they happened to be present in the 'panchayat. Their whole-sole conviction under Section 149 IPC is wholly unjustified. The accused-appellants are therefore entitled to benefit of doubt impugned judgment is thus liable to be set aside. 9. Mr. Manish Gupta, learned counsel for accused-appellants in Appeal No.115/2011, has argued that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution to prove the guilty of the accused-appellants. All the witnesses, on whose statements reliance has been placed by learned trial court, are family members of the complainant side and therefore, they are interested and inimical witnesses. No reliance can be placed on their testimony. All the witnesses, on whose statements reliance has been placed by learned trial court, are family members of the complainant side and therefore, they are interested and inimical witnesses. No reliance can be placed on their testimony. It is argued that learned trial court has acquitted the accused-appellants Balram and Samayram for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, yet their conviction for offence under Section 302 and 307, respectively, cannot be justified. There can be no justification for conviction of accused-appellant Balram for offence under Section 302 IPC because 'katta' recovered at his instance has not been tested, examined or otherwise subjected to examination by expert to prove that the fire arm injuries received by deceased were caused by this 'katta' and person, who allegedly examined the 'katta' in FSL, has not been produced in the court. 10. It is argued that learned trial court failed to appreciate that all the witnesses have deposed that gunshot was fired at the deceased by accused Balram from the distance of 5-6 feet, whereas, as per the site plan, it was fired from the distance of 27 feet. This even otherwise is not corroborated from the medical evidence. The distance from which the fire was opened, as per the prosecution witness, has not been corroborated from medical evidence. This distance could not have been 5-6 feet, because there was no charring or tattooing present over the entry wound of the deceased. Dr. Pramod Bansal (PW-23), who conducted autopsy of the deceased, has failed to clarify as to from which distance the fire was opened. The prosecution has thus failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Mr. Manish Gupta, learned counsel, submitted that learned trial court erred in law in convicting accused-appellant Balram for offence under Section 302 IPC and accused-appellant Samayram for offence under Section 307 IPC and convicting all other accused with the aid of Section 149 IPC for those offences. The injuries sustained by injured Khubiram, Indersingh, Tekchand, Bhanwarsingh were opined to be simple and none of them sustained any bony injury. There was no opinion of the doctor that any of the injuries sustained by them was sufficient to cause death and as such conviction of accused under Section 307 or 307/149 IPC is illegal. It is argued that the F.I.R. was lodged after due consultation and was delayed in time. There was no opinion of the doctor that any of the injuries sustained by them was sufficient to cause death and as such conviction of accused under Section 307 or 307/149 IPC is illegal. It is argued that the F.I.R. was lodged after due consultation and was delayed in time. Despite that, story narrated in the F.I.R. does not find corroboration in the evidence. The trial court did not consider that even though thirty accused were named in the F.I.R. but the police did not believe the allegation of the complainant and did not file challan against as many as fifteen accused. Learned trial court has further disbelieved the case of the complainant by acquitting five accused. The accused-appellants are therefore entitled to benefit of doubt. 12. Mr. Manish Gupta, learned counsel for accused-appellants, in support of his arguments, has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 289 , and argued that the Supreme Court in that case, of which the facts were identical, converted conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC into Section 304-I, IPC. 13. Mr. B.N. Sandu, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent, opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment. He referred to various statements to bring home the point that the accused-appellants have rightly been convicted. Even if accused-appellant Balram has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter, and the accused-appellant Samayram has been convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC simpliciter, since all the accused formed unlawful assembly, it would be deemed as if each one of them committed the same offence. They have been rightly convicted for these offences with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 14. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 15. A typed written report (Exhibit P-31) submitted by Om prakash (PW-5), makes it evidently clear that complainant in this case sought to enrap as many as thirty accused, but the police, after thorough investigation, filed charge-sheet only against fifteen accused. Thus originally named fifteen accused were found to have been falsely implicated. Further more, five of them have been acquitted by the trial court. In order to therefore appreciate the truthfulness of the prosecution case, its record has to be critically scrutinized. Thus originally named fifteen accused were found to have been falsely implicated. Further more, five of them have been acquitted by the trial court. In order to therefore appreciate the truthfulness of the prosecution case, its record has to be critically scrutinized. Scrutiny of the record indicates that deceased Baljit, apart from abrasion on left leg in the size of 8x5cm, sustained multiple firearm injuries resulting into entry wounds, oval in shape, magazines were blackish and twisted inside; metallic pallets palpable in some wounds, having wholes; one pallet each was on left knee, left leg, medial side of right elbow, right forearm, right mastoid region, two pallets on right arm, left arm, right lateral surface of head, nine on abdomen, six on right side of chest, 37 on left side of chest. The cause of his death has been opined in the postmortem report (Exhibit P-58) to be firearm injuries to vital organs. 16. There are then other injured as well. Injury-report of Khubiram is Exhibit P-60, according to which he sustained three injuries, out of which injuries no.2 and 3 are simple in nature and injury no.1 is punctured wound in the size of ½ x ½ cm oval in shape on left molar region of face, which was caused by firearm. X-ray report of Khubiram is Exhibit P-69, according to which there was no evidence of any bony injury seen. Injury report of Nanak is Exhibit P-61, according to which he sustained one simple injury, which is swelling and complaint of pain and tenderness on posterior aspect of right shoulder. Injury-report of Kamal Singh is Exhibit P-62, according to which he sustained three simple injuries, out of which injury no.1 is swelling and complaint of pain on left parietal prominence of scalp, injury no.2 is bruise in red colour on ant surface left shoulder and injury no.3 is also bruise in red colour on right anterior surface of chest. Injury report of Inder Singh is Exhibit P-63, according to which he sustained one lacerated wound, oval in shape, margin invested blackening around the wound. He was advised X-ray and his X-ray report is Exhibit P-71, according to which there is no evidence of any pallet and bony injury. Injury report of Inder Singh is Exhibit P-63, according to which he sustained one lacerated wound, oval in shape, margin invested blackening around the wound. He was advised X-ray and his X-ray report is Exhibit P-71, according to which there is no evidence of any pallet and bony injury. Injury report of Bhagwati is Exhibit P-64, according to which he sustained two injuries, out of which injury no.1 was bruise in red colour and injury no.2 was swelling, complaint of pain and tenderness. Injury report of Shyamlal is Exhibit P-65, according to which he sustained two injuries and both of which were lacerated wounds. X-ray was advised for both the injuries. His X-ray report is Exhibit P-72, according to which both the injuries were caused by firearm. There was fracture of metacarpal bone in ring finger of left hand. Pallet was found to have entered but there was no bone injury seen. Injury report of Smt. Ramkali is Exhibit P-66, according to which she sustained two simple injuries, out of which injury no.1 was bruise in red colour on left scapular region of chest and injury no.2 was bruise in red colour on lateral surface of right thigh. Injury report of Tej Singh is Exhibit P-67, according to which he sustained three simple injuries and all of them were swelling and complaint of pain with tenderness. Injury report of Jal Singh is Exhibit P-68, according to which he sustained four simple injuries caused by blunt weapon, out of which injury no.1 was swelling and complaint of pain with tenderness, remaining three injuries were bruise in red colour. Injury report of Bachchu Singh is Exhibit P-45, according to which he sustained one simple injury caused by blunt weapon, which is swelling and complaint of pain with tenderness. Injury report of Tekchand is Exhibit P-45, according to which he sustained three injuries, out of which two were simple caused by fire arm and for injury no.1, X-ray was advised as the same was caused by firearm. His X-ray report is Exhibit P-70, according to which there is no any bony injury seen. Injury report of Bhanwar Singh is Exhibit P-55, according to which he sustained five injuries, out of which two injuries were simple in nature. Four injuries were caused by blunt weapon. For injuries no.1, 2 and 4, X-ray was advised. His X-ray report is Exhibit P-70, according to which there is no any bony injury seen. Injury report of Bhanwar Singh is Exhibit P-55, according to which he sustained five injuries, out of which two injuries were simple in nature. Four injuries were caused by blunt weapon. For injuries no.1, 2 and 4, X-ray was advised. His X-ray report is Exhibit P-73, according to which there is no evidence of any pallet and bony injury seen. 17. While there can be no gainsaying the fact that fire opened by accused-appellant Balram resulted into unfortunate death of Baljit, and fire opened by accused-appellant Samayram resulted into injuries to various other injured and other injured have also sustained very simple injuries at the hands of other accused but what is required to be considered is whether it was actually a case of unlawful assembly or a sudden fight at the spur of moment when hot altercation took place between two groups at the time of convening 'panchayat'. The first version in the written report itself admits that at the time of incident, a 'panchayat' was convening and about 40-50 persons were participating therein and members of both the parties were present there. During the meeting of 'panchayat', accused Balram pelted a stone at Tejram and left the meeting for his house. Thereafter the accused persons came there with gun, 'katta', 'lathi', 'farsa' and stones. It is alleged that Lalaram, Balram, Balluram, Chetram opened fire with gun and 'katta', which led to death of Baljit and injuries to other persons. Dharam Singh (PW-1) has stated that the 'kadbi' (remains of harvest after grains are extracted) of Jalsingh was put on fire by the accused on 09.11.2007 at about 10-11 in the morning. It was on that complaint that 'panchayat' was convened on 11.11.2007. 'Panchayat' imposed a fine of Rs. 4000/- and Balram was held liable to make payment of such fine to the complainant. Balram appealed to the 'panchayat' to reduce the amount of fine. Thereupon the 'panchayat' reduced the amount by Rs. 300/- and maintained fine of Rs. 3700/-. Jalsingh was paid a sum of Rs. 3000/- on the spot by Balram, who agreed to pay remaining amount of Rs. 700/- on the following day, which was paid by him through Ratiram on the next day. Thereupon the 'panchayat' reduced the amount by Rs. 300/- and maintained fine of Rs. 3700/-. Jalsingh was paid a sum of Rs. 3000/- on the spot by Balram, who agreed to pay remaining amount of Rs. 700/- on the following day, which was paid by him through Ratiram on the next day. But then the dispute again arose between the parties and 'panchayat' was reconvened on 13.11.2007 at around 4-5 PM at the temple. Balram told Tejram that his wife was hurling abuses at them, which was disputed by Tejram. When he enquired from Kishan, he told that wife of Jalsingh was also hurling abuses at the accused-party. This witness then alleged that Balram became furious and started pelting stones by both his hands at Tejram. Then Balram, Samayram, Lalaram, Chetram, Munshi, Ballo, Puran, Badli, Ramhet, Mahavir, Harchand, Rattiram, Dulichand, Sukhram went to their houses and brought 'lathi', guns, 'farsa' etc., and then fired at Baljit. Other accused had 'lathis'. Accused Balram opened fire at Baljit, which he received on his chest and fell down. Accused Samayram opened fire causing injuries to Bhanwar Singh, Tekchand, Khubi, Shyamlal etc. Chetram also opened fire, as a result of which, this witness Dharam Singh sustained injuries. It is significant to note here that no charge-sheet was filed against his accused (Chetram) by the police. 18. Kapurchand (PW-3) has also made similar statement. This witness has also alleged that deceased Baljit sustained fatal firearm injuries at the hands of Balram and other injured at the hands of accused Samayram. Jalsingh (PW-4) has also made similar allegation against accused Balram of opening fire at deceased Baljit and allegation against accused Samayram of opening fire at Tekchand, Bhanwar Singh, Khubi, Inder etc. Complainant Omprakash (PW-5) has also made similar allegation and stated the same thing which he narrated in the complaint. He stated that Balram pelted stones by his both hands at Tejram and thereafter all the members of accused party rushed to their houses, which were situated near the temple, where the meeting of 'panchayat' was convened. After few minutes, they came back. Balram had 'katta' in his hand, Chetram, Samayram and Balluram had guns in their hands, Ratti, Puran and Mahavir had 'farsa' in their hands, and other accused had 'lathis' and stones in their hands. After few minutes, they came back. Balram had 'katta' in his hand, Chetram, Samayram and Balluram had guns in their hands, Ratti, Puran and Mahavir had 'farsa' in their hands, and other accused had 'lathis' and stones in their hands. Balram, immediately on reaching back the place of occurrence, opened fire at Baljit with 'katta', as a result of which he instantaneously fell on the ground. Samayram opened fire with gun causing firearm injuries to Bhanwarsingh, Tekchand, Khubiram, Shyamlal. 19. Khubiram (PW-6), Bachchu (PW-7), Tekchand (PW-9), Nanakchand (PW-10), Kamalsingh (PW-11) and Inder Singh (PW-12) have made similar statements. It would be significant to note that all these witnesses are injured. They have received multiple injuries and most of which are simple in nature, except one, which is metacarpal bone injury in ring finger of left hand of Shyamlal. These witnesses have consistently made allegations against accused Balram for causing fatal injury to Baljit leading to his death. They have also made allegations against accused Samayram for opening fire causing injuries to causing firearm injuries to Bhanwarsingh, Tekchand, Khubiram and Shyamlal. They have alleged that other accused also indulged in beating all injured. 'Katta' has been recovered at the instance of accused Balram vide Exhibit P-11, which has been proved by the investigating officer Ramprasad (PW-29). Further 'katta' has been recovered at the instance of accused Samayram vide Exhibit P-12, which has also been proved by investigating officer Ramprasad (PW-29). But recoveries of only 'lathis' have been shown to have been made at the instance of other accused. 20. Evidence clearly shows that the incident took place when the 'panchayat' was convened and suddenly altercation took place between two parties followed by allegations and counter allegations. It is only two accused, namely, Balram and Samayram, who reached at the place of occurrence with deadly weapons. It has not been proved that there was any other accused armed with deadly weapon. Mere recovery of 'lathis' at their instance, does not prove that they had any intention to cause murder of members of complainant party. It is only two accused, namely, Balram and Samayram, who reached at the place of occurrence with deadly weapons. It has not been proved that there was any other accused armed with deadly weapon. Mere recovery of 'lathis' at their instance, does not prove that they had any intention to cause murder of members of complainant party. In view of the above, it is clear that members of both the groups were present at the place of occurrence because 'panchayat' was being convened and they were participating therein to resolve the issue and therefore other accused cannot be held to have shared a common object and also cannot be held to be members of unlawful assembly. 21. On this evidence of the prosecution, while it can be said that accused Balram and Samayram had prior meeting of mind and had a common intention because both of them went to their houses and returned with firearms, but same cannot be said true of other accused, who happened to be present in the meeting of 'panchayat'. The evidence thus clearly shows that while accused-appellants, namely, Balram and Samayram had common intention and were guilty of committing offence under Section 304-I read with 34 and 307 read with 34 IPC, respectively, other accused did not share the common intention with them, therefore, they can at the maximum be convicted for their individual act of causing injuries to the injured, which are simple and insignificant in nature. 22. The Supreme Court in Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh – (2012) 8 SCC 289 , while dealing with the case where both, the accused-appellant and deceased, were related to each other. There was no animosity between them. The incident occurred due to the dispute between the accused and deceased with regard to construction of ladauri by the deceased to prevent garbage from being thrown on his open land. The accused had broken the ladauri and thrown garbage on the vacant land of the deceased. There was heated exchange of words between the deceased and the accused. The deceased had thrown the accused on the ground. They were separated by two persons. It was in that state of anger that the accused went to his house, took out the rifle and from a distance shot at the deceased. But before shooting, he expressed his intention to shoot by warning his brother to keep away. The deceased had thrown the accused on the ground. They were separated by two persons. It was in that state of anger that the accused went to his house, took out the rifle and from a distance shot at the deceased. But before shooting, he expressed his intention to shoot by warning his brother to keep away. He actually fired in response to the challenge that was thrown at him by the deceased. In those facts, which are somewhat similar to the facts of the present case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in Para 30 of the report, observed as under:- “30. Another very important aspect is that it is not a case of previous animosity. There is nothing on record to show that the relation between the families of the deceased and the appellant was not cordial. On the contrary, there is evidence that the relations between them were cordial, as deposed by PW 1. The dispute between the parties arose with a specific reference to the ladauri. It is clear that the appellant had not committed the crime with any pre-meditation. There was no intention on his part to kill. The entire incident happened within a very short span of time. The deceased and the appellant had an altercation and the appellant was thrown on the ground by the deceased, his own relation. It was in that state of anger that the appellant went to his house, took out the rifle and from a distance, i.e., from the roof of Muneshwar, he shot at the deceased. But before shooting, he expressed his intention to shoot by warning his brother to keep away. He actually fired in response to the challenge that was thrown at him by the deceased. It is true that there was knowledge on the part of the appellant that if he used the rifle and shot at the deceased, the possibility of the deceased being killed could not be ruled out. He was a person from the armed forces and was fully aware of consequences of use of fire arms. But this is not necessarily conclusive of the fact that there was intention on the part of the appellant to kill his brother, the deceased. The intention probably was to merely cause bodily injury. He was a person from the armed forces and was fully aware of consequences of use of fire arms. But this is not necessarily conclusive of the fact that there was intention on the part of the appellant to kill his brother, the deceased. The intention probably was to merely cause bodily injury. However, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the appellant had the knowledge that such injury could result in death of the deceased. He only fired one shot at the deceased and ran away. That shot was aimed at the lower part of the body i.e. the stomach of the deceased. As per the statement of PW 2, Dr. A.K. Rastogi, there was a stitched wound obliquely placed on the right iliac tossa which shows the part of the body the appellant aimed at.” 23. In the result, we partly accept both the appeals. Conviction of accused-appellant Balram for offence under Section 302 IPC is altered to one under Section 304-I read with Section 34 of the IPC and he is sentenced to suffer ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. His conviction under Sections 148 and 307/149 and 323/149 IPC is set aside. Conviction of accused-appellant Samayram for offence under Sections 302/149 and 307 IPC is altered to the one under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and he is sentenced to suffer ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. His conviction for offence under Sections 148 and 323/149 is set aside. Appellants Balram and Samayram are in jail. They have to serve out remaining period of sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment. Conviction of accused-appellants Lalaram, Munshi, Dulichand, Badleram, Mahavir, Balluram, Sukhram and Ramhet for offence under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 IPC is set aside and instead they are convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC and each of them is sentenced to the period already undergone by them with fine of Rs. 500/-. Sentence of accused-appellants, namely, Lalaram, Munshi, Dulichand, Badleram, Mahavir, Balluram, Sukhram and Ramhet was suspended by this court. They have already served out the sentence so awarded to them. They need not to surrender. 500/-. Sentence of accused-appellants, namely, Lalaram, Munshi, Dulichand, Badleram, Mahavir, Balluram, Sukhram and Ramhet was suspended by this court. They have already served out the sentence so awarded to them. They need not to surrender. The judgment and order dated 09.12.2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bharatpur, Camp Kama, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No.35/2009, impugned in these appeals, is modified in the above terms. 24. Both the appeals accordingly stand disposed of. This also disposes of D.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Application for Suspension of Sentence No.1123/2013. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellants, namely, Lalaram, Munshi, Dulichand, Badleram, Mahavir, Balluram, Sukhram and Ramhet are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.