Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 63 (RAJ)

Dhara Singh v. State of Rajasthan through PP

2017-01-05

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Eighteen persons all belonging to Gurjar community, residents of Girdharpura, Police Station Bandikui, were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa. The said Court vide impugned judgment dated 05.01.2012 held Dhara Singh s/o Nathulal guilty of offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 452, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326 and 302 IPC. Similarly, the Court held Gobind Sahai s/o Kanhaiya Lal guilty of offences under Sections 148, 447, 452, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 and 302 IPC. Thus, two accused Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai were substantively convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC for having caused murder of Ram Sahai. Remaining sixteen accused, namely Pappu s/o Beerbal, Vijay s/o Beerbal, Smt. Narbada w/o Gobind Sahai, Ram Kishan s/o Mangelal, Jairam s/o Mangelal, Sitaram s/o Beerbal, Badri s/o Prabhati, Harji s/o Shriya Ram, Motilal s/o Shriya Ram, Sardar Singh @ Lohadiya s/o Prabhati Lal, Nathu s/o Kanhaiya, Lala s/o Kanhaiya, Ram Ratan @ Ratan s/o Kanhaiya, Prahlad s/o Jairam, Smt. Kamli w/o Nathu and Mannu @ Man Singh s/o Harji, were convicted for offences under Sections 148, 447, 452, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 and 302/149 IPC. Thus, these all sixteen accused being members of unlawful assembly for causing simple injuries with blunt and incised weapon and for causing grievous injuries with blunt and incised weapon, for causing murder, have been convicted with aid of Section 149 IPC. The trial court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the accused as under :- Accused, Dhara Singh "U/s. 302 IPC Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional one year rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 326 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 325/149 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 323/149 IPC One year simple imprisonment. U/s. 447 IPC Three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 452 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 323/149 IPC One year simple imprisonment. U/s. 447 IPC Three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 452 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment." Accused, Gobind Sahai "U/s. 302 IPC Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional one year rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 326/149 IPC Five years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 325/149 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 323/149 IPC One year simple imprisonment. U/s. 447 IPC Three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 452 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment." Accused, Pappu, Vijay, Smt. Narbada, Ram Kishan, Jairam, Sitaram, Badri, Harji, Motilal, Sardar Singh @ Lohadiya, Nathu, Lala, Ram Ratan @ Ratan, Prahlad, Smt. Kamli and Mannu @ Man Singh "U/s. 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 326/149 IPC Five years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 325/149 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 323/149 IPC One year simple imprisonment. U/s. 447 IPC Three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 452 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment." (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.) 2. U/s. 323/149 IPC One year simple imprisonment. U/s. 447 IPC Three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 452 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment." (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.) 2. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, ten accused namely Dhara Singh s/o Nathulal, Pappu s/o Beerbal, Vijay s/o Beerbal, Smt. Narbada w/o Gobind Sahai, Sitaram s/o Beerbal, Gobind Sahai s/o Kanhaiya, Nathu s/o Kanhaiya, Lala s/o Kanhaiya, Ram Ratan @ Ratan s/o Kanhaiya and Smt. Kamli w/o Nathu, have filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.53/2012, whereas remaining eight accused, namely Ram Kishan s/o Mangelal, Jairam s/o Mangelal, Badri s/o Prabhati, Harji s/o Shriyaram, Motilal s/o Shriyaram, Sardar Singh @ Lohadiya s/o Prabhati Lal, Prahlad s/o Jairam and Mannu @ Man Singh s/o Harji, have preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.38/2012. 3. Since in both the above said appeals same common impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence have been assailed, therefore, we shall decide both the appeals together. 4. Complainant party belong to Jogi community. There was a land dispute between the accused belonging to Gurjar community and the complainant party. Over the possession of the land in question occurrence had ensued. 5. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Ex.P.56) presented by Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8) before Sub Inspector Kan Singh (PW.34). Kan Singh (PW.34) in court deposed that on 25.6.2005 he was posted as Second Officer at Police Station Bandikui. He was having charge of the Police Station. On the said date at 9.00 AM he received a telephonic information that in village Girdharpura persons belonging to Gurjar and Jogi community had a fight over the land and number of persons have been injured, ^^xwtjksa o tksfx;ksa ds chp tehu dks ysdj >xMk gks x;k gSA** . He was further informed that the injured from the place of occurrence have been brought to Bandikui Hospital. Kan Singh (PW.34) arrived at the hospital where Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8) presented written report (Ex.P.56). The said written report (Ex.P.56) through Constable Hansraj was sent to police station for registration of case. He was further informed that the injured from the place of occurrence have been brought to Bandikui Hospital. Kan Singh (PW.34) arrived at the hospital where Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8) presented written report (Ex.P.56). The said written report (Ex.P.56) through Constable Hansraj was sent to police station for registration of case. On the basis of written report (Ex.P.56) formal FIR (Ex.P.57) bearing FIR No.371/2005 was registered at Police Station Bandikui for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 307, IPC. Written report (Ex.P.56) when translated into English, reads as under :- "To, The SHO Sahab, Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa. Sub. : Regarding trespass into fields and the beating given. Sir, It is submitted that I am a resident of Village Girdharpura. Today on 25.6.2005 at 9.00-10.00 AM, I along with my family members, my grandfather Ram Sahai, Surjan, Kanchan, Mohan, Ganga Sahai, Sedu, Kamlesh, Smt. Prabhati, Kamla, Kailashi, Batti, Pooni and Kali etc. were cleaning the fields. Suddenly, residents of the village Gobind Sahai, Ratan, Lala sons of Kanhaiya, Jairam s/o Mangelal, Prahlad s/o Jairam, Bachhu, Ramesh s/o Ram Kishan, Moti s/o Shriya, Mukesh s/o Bhagirath, Sardar s/o Prabhati, Harji s/o Shriya, Mannu s/o Harji, Dhara Singh s/o Nathu, Nathu s/o Kanhaiya, Sitaram, Pappu, Vijay sons of Beerbal, Badri s/o Prabhati, Narbada w/o Gobind Sahai, Kamla w/o Nathu, Ratna, Santara accompanied by 5-7 other persons came on a tractor. Immediately on arrival, they caused injuries to us with lathi, kulhadi, Talwar (sword), Barchi (spear), Danda. They destroyed the millet crop sown by us. They plied the tractor over the land in which we had sown the crop. The above said persons by asserting might is right, forcibly intended to take possession of the land which was with us. Gobind Sahai was armed with Barchhi (spear), Harji was also armed with Barchhi (spear), Lala was armed with Talwar (sword) and others were having Danda, lathies. Prahlad and Dhara were armed with Barchhi (spear). Gobind Sahai caused a Barchhi blow to Kanchan, Ratan caused a Barchhi blow to Ganga Sahai, Lala caused a Talwar (sword) injury to Sedu. Dhara caused a Barchhi blow to Ram Sahai and Prahlad caused an injury to Surjan and Mohan with a Barchhi. Ratan caused a Barchhi blow on my head. Thereafter they all with an intention to kill, caused injuries to us. Dhara caused a Barchhi blow to Ram Sahai and Prahlad caused an injury to Surjan and Mohan with a Barchhi. Ratan caused a Barchhi blow on my head. Thereafter they all with an intention to kill, caused injuries to us. Believing all of us to be dead, they ran away from the spot. We were having land dispute with them. Due to this grudge, with an intention to finish my family, they have opened a attack on us. Our neighbours also reached at the spot. They have seen the occurrence. Our family has been brought to the hospital, where they are admitted. We all have received injuries. Legal action be taken. Sd/- Dinesh Kumar Jogi s/o Kanchan Lal" 6. Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) on 25.6.2005 was posted as Senior Medical Officer at Community Health Center, Bandikui. Vide injury report (Ex.P.15) on 25.6.2005 at 11.05 AM he examined Surjan (PW.10). He found twelve injuries on his person. Injuries No.1 to 4 were on head i.e. on parietal and occipital region. Injury No.5 was a bruise on right side of chest. Injuries No.6 and 7 were also bruise on right shoulder. Injury No.8 was a bruise on left hand. Injuries No.9 and 10 were abrasions on tip of nose and lip. Injury No.11 was an incised wound on left forearm and injury No.12 was again a bruise on left shoulder. Injuries No.1 to 8 and 12 on the person of Surjan (PW.1) were advised X-ray. 7. Dr. Abha Jain (PW.5) being Radiologist declared injury on left shoulder and left ring finger as grievous. 8. On the same day on 25.6.2005 at 11.30 AM, Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) had examined Smt. Prabhati (PW.13) and as per injury report (Ex.P.16) he found two injuries on her person. Injury No.1 was an incised wound on left parietal and occipital region and injury No.2 was a contusion on left shoulder. 9. On the same day on 25.6.2005 at 11.10 AM, Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) examined Kanchan (PW.19) and vide injury report (Ex.P.17) had noted eight injuries on her person. Injury No.1 was on right parietal region, whereas other injuries were on feet and hands. Injuries No.2, 4 and 5 were caused by incised weapon, whereas other injuries were caused with blunt weapon. 10. On the above said date i.e. on 25.6.2005 at 11.00 AM, Dr. Injury No.1 was on right parietal region, whereas other injuries were on feet and hands. Injuries No.2, 4 and 5 were caused by incised weapon, whereas other injuries were caused with blunt weapon. 10. On the above said date i.e. on 25.6.2005 at 11.00 AM, Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) also examined Ram Sahai, aged 60 years, and as per injury report (Ex.P.18) noted following two blunt injuries on his head :- "1. A Lacerated wound of 10 x 3 cm x bone deep with fresh bleeding seen from wound on right parieto occipital region. There is blackening and diffuse swelling of right eye is also noted. 2. A Lacerated wound of 3 x 1 cm x subcutaneous deep x fresh bleeding seen on left supra cerebral region." Ram Sahai later in the night of 25.6.2005 at 9.00 PM expired. 11. Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) also examined Mohan Lal (PW.9) on 25.6.2005 at 11.15 AM and as per injury report (Ex.P.19) he found nine injuries on his person. Injury No.1 was a blunt injury on right parieto-occipital region. Injury No.2 was a bruise on left arm. Injury No.3 was a lacerated wound on left shoulder. Injury No.4 was a bruise on right forearm. Injury No.5 was bruise on left thigh. Injuries No.6 and 7 were also bruise on left thigh. Injury No.8 was a bruise on left elbow and injury No.9 was a bruise on chest. Injuries No.1, 4, 8 and 9 were advised X-ray. 12. On the said date on 25.6.2006 at 11.20 AM, Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) also examined Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8). As per injury report (Ex.P.20), Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8) had suffered four injuries. Injury No.1 was lacerated wound on head, whereas injuries No.2, 3 and 4 were bruises caused on right wrist, right hand thumb and right elbow respectively. 13. Ganga Sahai (PW.20) was also examined by Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6). Doctor in the medical report (Ex.P.21) had noted eight injuries on the person of Ganga Sahai (PW.20). 14. On same day, Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) also examined Kamla (PW.14) w/o Ganga Sahai (PW.20) and vide injury report (Ex.P.22) had noted thirteen injuries on her person. 15. Kailashi (PW.12) w/o Kanchan (PW.19) was also examined by Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) and the doctor in injury report (Ex.P.23) had found three injuries on her person. 16. Same Dr. 14. On same day, Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) also examined Kamla (PW.14) w/o Ganga Sahai (PW.20) and vide injury report (Ex.P.22) had noted thirteen injuries on her person. 15. Kailashi (PW.12) w/o Kanchan (PW.19) was also examined by Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) and the doctor in injury report (Ex.P.23) had found three injuries on her person. 16. Same Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) had also examined Smt. Batti (PW.11) w/o Surjan (PW.10) and noted six injuries on her person. They were noted in the injury report (Ex.P.24). All the injuries were caused with blunt weapon. 17. Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) on 25.6.2005 at 11.50 AM also examined Sedu Ram (PW.24) and in the injury report (Ex.P.25) found three blunt injuries on his person. 18. On the said date at 11.55 AM, Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) also examined Pooni (PW.16) and vide injury report (Ex.P.26) he found five injuries on her person. Doctor opined that injury No.5 was caused with incised weapon, whereas all other injuries were caused with blunt weapon. The Doctor advised X-ray. 19. Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) also examined Kali (PW.18) on 25.6.2005 at 12.00 noon and found one blunt injury on her person as per injury report (Ex.P.27). 20. Kamal @ Kamlesh (PW.22) was also examined by Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) on the said day at 6.15 PM and he noted presence of four injuries on his person as per medical report (Ex.P.28). 21. After X-ray examination, on 28.6.2005 doctor opined that Mohan Lal (PW.9) had suffered fracture of humerous bone. 22. On 23.7.2005 the doctor after examining the X-ray report opined that Ganga Sahai (PW.20) had suffered fracture of right fibula and of tibia bone of left foot. He had also suffered fracture of right wrist being a fracture of radius. Ganga Sahai (PW.20) had also suffered fracture of metacarpal phalanyx. 23. After X-ray examination, doctor declared injury suffered by Smt. Pooni (PW.16) to be grievous. 24. Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) on 5.8.2005 examined X-ray of Kanchan Lal (PW.19) and came to the conclusion that he had suffered fracture of right fibula and tibia bone. Doctor further stated that Kanchan Lal (PW.19) had also suffered fracture of right forearm, elbow and fingers of right hand. 25. Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) in cross-examination admitted that when Ram Sahai was examined, he had suffered excessive hemorrhage and bleeding. 26. In cross-examination Dr. Doctor further stated that Kanchan Lal (PW.19) had also suffered fracture of right forearm, elbow and fingers of right hand. 25. Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) in cross-examination admitted that when Ram Sahai was examined, he had suffered excessive hemorrhage and bleeding. 26. In cross-examination Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) admitted that on 25.6.2005 at 10.00 AM he had examined Kamla accused wife of Nathu Lal and in the injury report (Ex.D.3) he had noted three simple injuries on her person. On the same day he also examined Nathu Lal accused and in the injury report (Ex.D.4) had noted five blunt injuries on the person of Nathu Lal. On the same day at 10.15 AM he had also examined Gobind Sahai accused and had noted five blunt injuries on his person. On the same day at 10.20 AM he examined Ram Ratan accused and in the injury report (Ex.D.6) had noted six blunt injuries suffered by him. Doctor had opined X-ray for injuries No.1 and 2. 27. Dr. Shriram Sain (PW.6) further stated that X-ray advised qua injuries noted in injury reports (Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.6) were not examined by him as they were never put before him. 28. As stated earlier, Ram Sahai on 25.6.2005 itself at 9.00 PM had expired. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma (PW.7) had conducted his autopsy. As per post-mortem report (Ex.P.55), upon opening of skull doctor had noted depressed fracture of parieto-temporal bone. Membrances of brain were lacerated. As per opinion of the doctor, cause of death was coma as a result of injuries No.1 and 2. 29. Prosecution in order to secure conviction of the appellants, examined 37 witnesses and proved on record documents, Exhibits-P.1 to P.135. 30. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied the same. All the accused pleaded false implication. 31. In defence, accused examined Pappu @ Om Prakash as DW.1 and relied upon the documents, Exhibits-D.1 to D.31. 32. Before we revert to the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, it may be noticed here that Ram Sahai had five sons, namely Mohan Lal (PW.9), Surjan (PW.10), Kanchan (PW.19), Ganga Sahai (PW.20) and Sedu Ram (PW.24). Parbhati (PW.13) is wife of deceased Ram Sahai. Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8) is grandson of deceased-Ram Sahai being son of Kanchan (PW.19). Kailashi (PW.12) is wife of Kanchan (PW.19). Parbhati (PW.13) is wife of deceased Ram Sahai. Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8) is grandson of deceased-Ram Sahai being son of Kanchan (PW.19). Kailashi (PW.12) is wife of Kanchan (PW.19). Chhoti (PW.17) is wife of Mohan Lal (PW.9). Kali (PW.18) is wife of Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8). Batti (PW.11) is wife of Surjan (PW.10) and daughter in law of deceased-Ram Sahai, whereas Pooni (PW.16) is wife of Sedu Ram (PW.24). Kamla (PW.14) is wife of Ganga Sahai (PW.20). Kamal (PW.22) is son of Ganga Sahai (PW.20). 33. Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8) in court deposed that he along with his family members was cleaning the fields, when accused came on a tractor DI-Messy armed with lathi, danda, Kulhadi, talwar (sword) and barchhi (spear). The accused destroyed the crop sown by the complainant party. The witness stated that Gobind Sahai, Ratan Lal, Dhara Singh, Nathu, Pappu, Vijay, Sita Ram, Sardar, Badri, Jai Ram, Prahlad, Bacchu, Ramesh, Harji, Moti, Mannu, Mukesh were armed with lathi, danda, Kuladhi, talwar (sword) and barchhi (spear). Gobind Sahai, Ratan Lal, Dhara Singh, Prahlad and Harji were armed with barchhi (spear), whereas Lala Ram was armed with talwar(sword) and others were armed with lathi, danda, Kulhadi. According to the witness, Dhara Singh gave a barchhi (spear) blow from its reverse side to Ram Sahai, Gobind Sahai also gave a barchhi(spear) blow from reverse side on the forehead of Ram Sahai. 34. The witness further stated that Ratan had caused barchhi (spear) blow on the head of Ganga Sahai. Gobind Sahai also caused barchhi (spear) blow from its reverse side to Kanchan. Prahlad caused barchhi (spear) blow from its reverse side on the head of Surjan and Mohan Lal. Ratan gave a barchhi (spear) blow from reverse side on the head of the witness Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8). They ran away from the spot. Accused followed them and caused them injuries at their house. According to the witness, Lala Ram, Mannu, Mukesh, Bacchu and Ramesh came to their house. There they caused injuries to his uncle Sedu Ram and aunt Pooni. Lala Ram gave a talwar (sword) blow to Sedu Ram. He and his brother Kamlesh on a motorcycle came in front of Bandikui Court from there they gave a call to police station from a STD booth. He told the police that qua the land a fight had taken place between Jogi and Gurjar community. Lala Ram gave a talwar (sword) blow to Sedu Ram. He and his brother Kamlesh on a motorcycle came in front of Bandikui Court from there they gave a call to police station from a STD booth. He told the police that qua the land a fight had taken place between Jogi and Gurjar community. The exact words of the witness are reproduced below :- ^^eSa o esjk HkkbZ deys'k ogka ls eksVjlkbfdy ysdj ckanhdqbZ dksVZ ds lkeus vk x;s] tgka ls ,l-Vh-Mh- dh nqdku ls Fkkus ij Qksu dj fn;k o dgk fd tehu ij tksxh o xwtjksa dk >xM+k gks x;k] ftlesa vkneh ej x;Sa** 35. The witness further stated that in the hospital he had not met his grandfather as he was referred to hospital at Jaipur. The witness stated that he is not aware that the land in Khasra No.81 consisting of 2 bighas was allotted on the name of Narbada accused-appellant, wife of accused Gobind Sahai. However, the witness admitted that in the Board of Revenue litigation is pending regarding this land. However, the witness stated that they had obtained a stay from the Board of Revenue. The witness further stated it to be correct that Kanchan, Mohan Lal and Surjan all brothers are residing separately. The witness denied the suggestion that Narbada and her husband Gobind Sahai were having possession over the land bearing Khasra No.81. 36. Mohan Lal (PW.9) in court deposed that the accused came armed with lathi, danda, barchhi(spear) and talwar(sword). They started cultivating the land. When they restrained the accused, they caused injuries to him and his family members. In his cross-examination the witness stated that their fields are in Khasra Nos.81 to 88 and khatedari of the land is in the name of his father Ram Sahai. Mohan Lal (PW.9) specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that Dhara Singh had caused barchhi(spear) blow with reverse side on the head of Ram Sahai. Gobind Sahai also caused barchhi (spear) blow on the forehead of Ram Sahai. The witness denied the suggestion that land in Khasra No.81 was allotted to Narbada and her husband Gobind Sahai accused. As per Revenue record, there is stay in their favour and they are having actual physical possession over the land. 37. Surjan (PW.10) stated that the accused came in a Messy Tractor. Immediately on arrival, they started cultivating their land. The witness denied the suggestion that land in Khasra No.81 was allotted to Narbada and her husband Gobind Sahai accused. As per Revenue record, there is stay in their favour and they are having actual physical possession over the land. 37. Surjan (PW.10) stated that the accused came in a Messy Tractor. Immediately on arrival, they started cultivating their land. On the protest raised as to why they were cultivating the land in their possession, the accused started abusing. Then Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai caused a barchhi (spear) blow to Ram Sahai. To appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, we reproduce following lines from the testimony of Surjan (PW.10) :- ^^;g eSlh VªsDVj ysdj gekjs [ksrksa ij vk x;s] ;g gekjs [ksrksa esa ?kqldj tksr fudkyus yx x;s] geus budks euk fd;k fd gekjs [ksr dks rqe D;ksa tksr jgs gks rc ;g xkyh fudkyus yx x;s] /kkjk us cjNh dh jkelgk; ds ekFks esa cjNh dh mYVh dh ns ikM+h] xkfoUn lgk; us jkelgk; ds cjNh dh iM+s gq, ds yykV ij ekjhA** 38. Batti (PW.11) also stated that when they were cleaning their field the accused came there and Gobind Sahai and Dhara Singh caused a barchhi(spear) blow to his father-in-law Ram Sahai. The witness in cross-examination admitted that cleaning of the fields is done before sowing the crop. 39. Kailashi (PW.12) wife of Kachan has also stated that they were working in their fields when accused came and caused injuries. 40. To similar effect are the statements made by Parbhati (PW.13) wife of deceased-Ram Sahai and Kamla (PW.14) wife of Ganga Sahai (PW.20), Pooni(PW.16) wife of Sedu Ram (PW.24), Chhoti(PW.17) wife of Mohan Lal (PW.9) and Kali (PW-18) wife of Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8). 41. Kanchan (PW.19) and Ganga Sahai (PW.20) have also given same narration of the occurrence. 42. Ganga Sahai (PW.20) has specifically stated that his father was caused injury by Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai with a barchhi (spear). 43. We have heard counsel for the parties and have taken note of the rival submissions advanced before us. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under :- "149. 42. Ganga Sahai (PW.20) has specifically stated that his father was caused injury by Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai with a barchhi (spear). 43. We have heard counsel for the parties and have taken note of the rival submissions advanced before us. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under :- "149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.- If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence." 44. A perusal of Section 149 IPC describes the offence in two parts. The first part prescribe the offence which is committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of that assembly, whereas the second part describe the offence which the members of that assembly know that the same is likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. Therefore, to invoke Section 149 IPC an endeavour has to be made to find as to what was the common object of the unlawful assembly and the knowledge of the members of that assembly as to what offence is likely to be committed in furtherance of the common object. Regarding Section 149 IPC, the Supreme Court in Mizaji and Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 572 , has observed as under :- "5. Counsel for the appellants relied on Queen v. Sabid Ali 20 Suth W.R. Cr 5, and argued that section 149 was inapplicable. There the learned Judges constituting the full bench gave differing opinions as to the interpretation to be put on section 149, Indian Penal Code. That was a case where the members of an unlawful assembly went to take forcible possession of a piece of land. There the learned Judges constituting the full bench gave differing opinions as to the interpretation to be put on section 149, Indian Penal Code. That was a case where the members of an unlawful assembly went to take forcible possession of a piece of land. The view of the majority of the Judges was that finding unexpected opposition by one member of the party of the complainants and also finding that they were being overpowered by him, one of the members of the unlawful assembly whose exact time of joining the unlawful assembly was not proved fired a gun killing one of the occupants of the land who were resisting forcible dispossession. It was also held that the act had not been done with a view to accomplish the common object of driving the complainants out of the land, but it was in consequence of an unexpected counter-attack. Ainslie, J., was of the opinion that the common object of the assembly was not only to forcibly eject the occupants but to do so with show of force and that common object was compounded both of the use of the means and attainment of the end and that it extended to the committing of murder. Phear, J., said that the offence committed must be immediately connected with that common object by virtue of the nature of the object. The members of the unlawful assembly must be prepared and intend to accomplish that object at all cost. The test was, did they intend to attain the common object by means of murder if necessary ? If events were of sudden origin, as the majority of the learned Judges held them to be in that case, then the responsibility was entirely personal. In regard to the second part he was of the opinion that for its application it was necessary that members of the assembly must have been aware that it was likely that one of the members of the assembly would do an act which was likely to cause death. Couch, C.J., was of the opinion that firing was not in prosecution of the common object of the assembly and that there was not much difference between the first and the second part of section 149. Couch, C.J., was of the opinion that firing was not in prosecution of the common object of the assembly and that there was not much difference between the first and the second part of section 149. He said :- "At first there does not seem to be much difference between the two parts of the section and I think the cases which would be within the first, offences committed in prosecution of the common object, would be, generally, if not always, within the second, namely, offences which the parties knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common object. But I think there may be cases which would come within the second part and not within the first." Jackson, J., held in the circumstances of that case that the assembly did not intend to commit nor knew it likely that murder would be committed. Pontifex, J., interpreted the section to mean that the offence committed must directly flow from the common object or it must so probably flow from the prosecution of the common object that each member might antecedently expect it to happen. In the second part "know" meant to know that some members of the assembly had previous knowledge that murder was likely to be committed. 6. This section has been the subject matter of interpretation in the various High Court of India, but every case has to be decided on its own facts (Emphasis supplied).The first part of the section means that the offence committed in prosecution of the common object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the common object. It is not necessary that there should be a preconcert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly as to the common object; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them. In order that the case may fall under the first part the offence committed must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused were members. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under section 149 if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under section 149 if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed. The expression 'know' does not mean a mere possibility, such as might or might not happen. For instance, it is a matter of common knowledge that when in a village a body of heavily armed men set out to take a woman by force, someone is likely to be killed and all the members of the unlawful assembly must be aware of that likelihood and would be guilty under the second part of section 149. Similarly, if a body of persons go armed to take forcible possession of the land, it would be equally right to say that they have the knowledge that murder is likely to be committed if the circumstances as to the weapons carried and other conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly clearly point to such knowledge on the part of them all. There is a great deal to be said for the opinion of Couch, C.J., in Sabid Ali's case 20 Suth W.R. Cr. 5, (supra) that when an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, it would generally be an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. That, however, does not make the converse proposition true; there may be cases which would come within the second part, but not within the first. The distinction between the two parts of section 149, Indian Penal Code cannot be ignored or obliterated. In every case it would be an issue to be determined whether the offence committed falls within the first part of section 149 as explained above or it was an offence such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object and falls within the second part." (Emphasis supplied). 45. In every case it would be an issue to be determined whether the offence committed falls within the first part of section 149 as explained above or it was an offence such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object and falls within the second part." (Emphasis supplied). 45. Therefore, taking benefit of interpretation given by the Supreme Court it can be safely said that in each case upon the facts and circumstances of the case a Court has to find what was the common object of the assembly and what was known to the members of that unlawful assembly regarding the offence which can be committed in furtherance of the said common object. No water tight jackets can be laid. In each case common object and knowledge of the members of unlawful assembly will differ. Where the members of the unlawful assembly in order to take possession arrive in disputed filed armed with lethal weapons and immediately upon arrival open the attack, it can be well assumed that the common object of the assembly was to take possession and members of unlawful assembly knew that murder can be caused. 46. In Sambhu Nath Singh And Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 SC 725 , three Judges of the Bench of Supreme Court dealt with a case where Sambhu Nath Singh was convicted for causing murder and remaining members of the unlawful assembly were convicted under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. To give the details of the facts of the case pertaining to Sambhu Nath Singh (supra) we reproduce Para 3 of the judgment as under :- "3. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner held that on the day of the incident, Baran Kahar was in possession of the land in which rioting took place and that the accused who were convicted had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and had committed rioting and that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit an assault and that the members of the unlawful assembly, because they were armed with diverse weapons "must have known that grievous hurt was likely to be caused" in prosecution of the common object. He accordingly held accused Nos. He accordingly held accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 14 guilty of offences under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the act of the 1st accused in causing gun shot injuries resulting in the death of Baran Kahar and his son Nanhu Kahar. The 1st accused Shambhu Nath Singh was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For some reason which it is not easy to appreciate, the learned Judge convicted the 1st accused also of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code." 47. Having noted the facts, the Supreme Court dealt with threadbare with the law pertaining to Section 149 IPC and held as under :- "5. The question which then falls to be determined is whether the conviction of accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 14 for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code may be sustained when no offender is found guilty of the substantive offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the appellants submits that these accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in the absence of evidence to prove that grievous hurt was in prosecution of the proved common object caused by a member of the assembly their conviction for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 is in law unwarranted. The 1st accused Shambhu Nath Singh has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the other accused have been convicted of the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the appellants contends that in the absence of evidence to show that grievous hurt was caused by one of the accused in prosecution of the common object, the court was incompetent to record a conviction for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Counsel for the appellants contends that in the absence of evidence to show that grievous hurt was caused by one of the accused in prosecution of the common object, the court was incompetent to record a conviction for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is declaratory of the vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or for such offences as the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. If an unlawful assembly is formed with the common object of committing an offence, and if that offence is committed in prosecution of the object by any member of the unlawful assembly, all the members of the assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even if one or more, but not all committed the offence. Again, if an offence is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly and that offence is one which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object, every member who had that knowledge will be guilty of the offence so committed. But "members of an unlawful assembly may have a community of object upto a certain point, beyond which they may differ in their objects, and the knowledge possessed by each member of what is likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object may vary not only according to the information at his command, but also according to the extent to which he shares the community of object and as a consequence of this the effect of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code may be different on different members of the same unlawful assembly." Jahiruddin v. Queen Empress, ILR 22 Cal 306. (Emphasis supplied) 7. Therefore a conviction for an offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code may be recorded against the members of an unlawful assembly, even if it be established that an offence of murder was committed by a member of that assembly. (Emphasis supplied) 7. Therefore a conviction for an offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code may be recorded against the members of an unlawful assembly, even if it be established that an offence of murder was committed by a member of that assembly. The offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is in its relation to the offence of murder a minor offence and the language used in Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code does not prevent the court from convicting for that minor offence merely because an aggravated offence is committed. Counsel for the accused however sought to place reliance upon certain authorities in support of his contention. We may briefly deal with those authorities. 12. In Sidhu Gope v. Emperor, : AIR 1946 Pat 84, it was held, that : "the members of an unlawful assembly are not necessarily guilty of the same offence as the principal offender. It has to be determined with reference to the facts of the case, what offence the members must have known to be likely to be committed; if such offence is a minor offence, then they should be convicted accordingly." 13. But in the same volume, there is another case at page 242 of AIR 1946 Pat.; Ram Charan Rai v. Emperor, where preference is indicated for the view expressed in Ram Prasad Singh's case, ILR 1 Pat 753 : (AIR 1923 Pat 50.) 14. By Section 149 the vicarious liability of the members for offence committed in prosecution of the common object or for offences which were known to be likely to be committed by the members of the unlawful assembly is declared. The offence of murder being in its nature an aggravated form of the offence of grievous hurt, we are unable to hold that because no offender was proved to have caused grievous hurt to the victims, the conviction of accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 14 for an offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal. 15. The common object of the unlawful assembly was in this case as found by the courts below to cause grievous hurt; and death was caused by one of the members of the assembly. For causing the death, it is found that the other members of the unlawful assembly are not responsible. 15. The common object of the unlawful assembly was in this case as found by the courts below to cause grievous hurt; and death was caused by one of the members of the assembly. For causing the death, it is found that the other members of the unlawful assembly are not responsible. But the conviction for the offence of causing grievous hurt in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly is maintainable. Conviction of accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 14 for offences under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was therefore properly recorded." 48. In the present case in written report (Ex.P56) it was specifically stated that the accused persons by asserting might is right, forcibly intended to take possession over the land which was with the complainant party. Investigating Officer before proceeding to the spot in daily diary report noted that in village Girdharpura persons belonging to Gurjar and Jogi community had a fight over the land, ^^xwtjksa o tksfx;ksa ds chp tehu dks ysdj >xM+k gks x;k gSA** 49. It is also admitted by complainant Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW-8) that he along with his brother Kamlesh from the STD booth relayed information to the Police Station that over the land persons belonging to Jogi and Gurjar community had a fight and a person has died. 50. It is admitted case of the complainant party that the accused upon their arrival had not opened the attack and had not caused the injuries. Immediately on arrival, they started cultivating the land. Therefore, the common object of the assembly from the facts enumerated by us above is evident. All the family members of the accused had gathered to take possession over the land which was allotted to Narbada wife of Gobind Sahai accused. Thus, it can be also inferred that members of the unlawful assembly knew that in prosecution of the common object injuries can be caused. To fortify our above finding, hereinafter we shall discuss the prosecution case. 51. Ganga Sahai (PW.20) in court stated that the land of Khasra No.81 is Siwai Chak land. They were in possession of the land. Thus, it can be also inferred that members of the unlawful assembly knew that in prosecution of the common object injuries can be caused. To fortify our above finding, hereinafter we shall discuss the prosecution case. 51. Ganga Sahai (PW.20) in court stated that the land of Khasra No.81 is Siwai Chak land. They were in possession of the land. The witness stated in court as under :- ^^;g lgh gS [kljk ua0 81 flok;pd tehu gS ysfdu bl ij dCtk gekjk pyk vk jgk gSA ;g lgh gS fd bl [kljk ua- 81 esa ls 50 ,;j tehu xksfoUnlgk; dh iRuh uoZnk ds uke vykV gqbZ FkhA ;g xyr gS fd vykVesUV dh fnuakd ls ml tehu ij xksfoUn lgk; o mldh iRuh dk dCtk gks cfYd tkudkjh gksus ds ckn geus vkj0,0,0 ls Lvs ys fy;k FkkA ;g lgh gS vkj0,0,0 dh vihy [kkfjt gks xbZ ijUrq ge jsoU;w cksMZ ls Lvs ys vk;s FksA** 52. Rajendra Kumar Gaur (PW.1) was posted as revenue Patwari of the area. This witness stated that he was called by the police to furnish details regarding possession and ownership of the land where occurrence had taken place. According to the witnesses occurrence took place in Khasra No.81. The witness stated that after examining the record he came to the conclusion that the land in Khasra No.81 was a Government land and on 20.12.2004 same was allotted to Narbada accused wife of Gobind Sahai accused. However, this witness stated that due to stay granted by the Board of Revenue, in Jamabandi the land has not been shown in the name of Narbada. We need not notice the testimony to formal witnesses or those who are witnesses to recovery of weapon or had participated in the investigation. 53. From the prosecution case it is evident that the occurrence had taken place in Khasra No.81. Khasra No.81 is a part of shamlati land. Somewhere the khatedari rights of the land in question were allotted to Ram Sahai deceased. It has come in evidence that in February, 2004 this land was allotted to Narbada-accused wife of Gobind Sahai-accused. Family of Ram Sahai deceased obtained a stay order and on the date of occurrence, stay granted by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer was operating in the favour of complaint party. It has come in evidence that in February, 2004 this land was allotted to Narbada-accused wife of Gobind Sahai-accused. Family of Ram Sahai deceased obtained a stay order and on the date of occurrence, stay granted by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer was operating in the favour of complaint party. It has also come in evidence that the appeal filed by the complainant party before the Revenue Appellate Authority was dismissed and they had filed second appeal or revision before the Board of Revenue wherein stay was granted in their favour. Prosecution witnesses in their testimony have specified the sequence of events. According to the prosecution witnesses, all accused, eighteen in number, came armed on a tractor and intended to sow the land in question. It has come in evidence that on the day of occurrence the complainant party was cleaning the field and preparing the same for sowing the crop. Therefore, before sowing the crop accused came armed and started cultivating the land by a tractor. Gobind Sahai accused to whose wife Narbada land was allotted, wanted to assert possession over the land. 54. Therefore he gathered persons from his community. It has come in evidence that immediately on arrival, the accused had not opened the attack. First they started cultivating the land and when the complainant party restrained them, accused party had given abuses. When the complainant party persisted and not permitted the accused to cultivate the land, then only injuries were caused to the family of complaint party. Deceased Ram Sahai had suffered two injuries, one of the skull and another on the forehead. These two injuries are specifically attributed to Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai accused. Accused were 18 in number. Out of 18 accused, 16 accused have not caused any injury to Ram Sahai deceased. Though Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8) in court made a departure from the initial version given in written report (Ex.P.56) that the accused after causing injuries went towards the house of the complainant and caused injuries to Sedu Ram (PW.24) and his wife Pooni (PW.16). Pooni (PW.16) in court has not stated so. She has stated that they were working in the field, accused 20-25 in number came and started causing them injuries. 55. Sedu Ram (PW.24) in court has specifically stated that they were having possession over the Siwai Chak land. Pooni (PW.16) in court has not stated so. She has stated that they were working in the field, accused 20-25 in number came and started causing them injuries. 55. Sedu Ram (PW.24) in court has specifically stated that they were having possession over the Siwai Chak land. During possession of the land, with them, Gobind Sahai accused got the land allotted in the name of his wife Narbada. His brother had filed a suit and had obtained a stay. As per Sedu Ram (PW. 24) all the accused cultivated the land and gave beating to his family members. The witness stated that he ran away from the spot and came to his house. Then Lala Ram and Prahlad had followed him and caused him injuries. 56. Be that as it may, Lala Ram and Prahlad had caused injuries to Sedu Ram (PW.24) after two fatal blows were already caused to Ram Sahai deceased. Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW.8) in written report (Ex.P.56) has specifically stated that the accused after making a 'Giroh' wanted to take possession of the land in their favour. Thus, from the prosecution case and deposition of the witnesses, it is apparent that the accused constituted an unlawful assembly with an object to take possession of Khasra No.81 which was allotted to Narbada wife of Gobind Sahai accused. 57. Thus unlawful assembly intended to dispossess the complainant party and during pendency of the status quo order obtained by complained party, accused party intended to assert and establish their possession over the land in dispute. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to take possession of the land and the accused armed with weapons knew that while fulfilling the object of taking possession, of the disputed land grievous injuries can be caused to the family of deceased. Thus, two of the accused Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai exceeded the object of common assembly by causing fatal injury each to Ram Sahai deceased. Therefore, Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai will be individually liable for causing murder of Ram Sahai and they have been rightly convicted by the trial court substantively for offence under Section 302 for causing murder of Ram Sahai. 58. Therefore, Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai will be individually liable for causing murder of Ram Sahai and they have been rightly convicted by the trial court substantively for offence under Section 302 for causing murder of Ram Sahai. 58. So far remaining 14 accused except two ladies are concerned, they have gone for taking possession over the land knowing fully well that grievous injuries in the process of taking possession, can be caused to the members of the complainant party. Consequently, Section 149 IPC will not be applicable qua the remaining accused so far offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned. 59. Occurrence in the present case had taken place on 25.06.2005 at 09:00 AM. Written report (Ex.P56) was submitted by Dinesh Kumar Jogi (PW-8) on the same day i.e. 25.06.2005 at 12:10 PM. Special report reached the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate on 27.06.2005 at about 08:00 AM. Police Station and the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate are situated in Bandikui, which is a small town. Thus, there is a delay of more than 43 hours in reaching of the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate. 60. The Supreme Court in the case of Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar [ 2002 (9) SCC 147 ] taking note of delay in reaching of special report to Ilaqa Magistrate has observed as under :- "6. This Court in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. held that FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case, is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if known to the informant. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. 7. Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the only external check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. 7. Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the only external check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed. The delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but shall put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the court was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved in the commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied). Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 CrPC is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. (Emphasis supplied). It is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it. 8. In the instant case, the copy of the report referred to in Section 157 CrPC is shown to have been received by the Magistrate on 27-8-1991. Even though there is a mention in the FIR that its copy was sent through special messenger, yet no date or time of sending the said report is mentioned. The Magistrate, receiving the copy of the report, has also not noted the time of its receipt on 27-8-1991. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate receiving reports under Section 157 CrPC, particularly when it relates to the commission of the heinous crime are required to note not only the date but also the time of the receipt of the copy thereof. Mr. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate receiving reports under Section 157 CrPC, particularly when it relates to the commission of the heinous crime are required to note not only the date but also the time of the receipt of the copy thereof. Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has pointed out the existence of various circumstances which may perhaps be the cause of delay in sending the copy of the report and its receipt by the Magistrate but surely there is a difference between the "may be" and "must be". The prosecution has apparently failed to explain the delay in sending the copy of the said report in terms of Section 157 CrPC to the Magistrate of the area. This aspect has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that many of the accused were innocent and wrongly roped in the case allegedly on account of enmity existing between the complainant and the accused party. There is some substance in such a submission." 61. Due to large scale implication by the complainant we have to examine whether all the 18 accused had participated in the occurrence or not? 62. In the written report (Ex.P56) no specific role has been assigned to the two ladies namely Smt. Narbada and Smt. Kamli. We find no justification as to why two ladies of the house, Smt. Narbada whose name land has been allotted, and Smt. Kamli wife of Nathu Lal, shall accompany sixteen male members of the family. Thus, taking delay in reaching of special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate, we are of view that a case is made out for sifting the grain from the chaff. Taking into consideration the fact that in the written report (Ex.P56) no specific injury has been attributed to the two ladies, we find that their names have been introduced to pressurize the accused party by involving the ladies of the house. Therefore, delay in reaching of special report to Ilaqa Magistrate is a justifiable ground to acquit the two ladies namely Smt. Narbada and Smt. Kamli. 63. As a result of above discussion, we affirm the substantive conviction of Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai for offence under Section 302 IPC. We also affirm their conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court on various other counts. 63. As a result of above discussion, we affirm the substantive conviction of Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai for offence under Section 302 IPC. We also affirm their conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court on various other counts. However, we acquit all other accused-appellants except Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai, namely Pappu, Vijay, Ram Kishan, Jairam, Sitaram, Badri, Harji, Motilal, Sardar Singh @ Lohadiya, Nathu, Lala, Ram Ratan @ Ratan, Prahlad, and Mannu @ Man Singh, for offence under Section 302/149 IPC. However, we affirm their conviction qua remaining offences recorded by the trial court. 64. All accused, except Dhara Singh, have been awarded five years sentence for offence under Section 326/149 IPC. In the present case, occurrence had taken place in June, 2005. Appellants have already suffered a protracted trial for more than a decade. Considering sufferance of protracted trial as a mitigating circumstance and number of injuries as aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that the ends of justice would meet in case sentence of five years awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 326/149 IPC upon the appellants, except Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai, whose conviction and sentence for all the offences has been affirmed by us, and except Smt. Narbada and Smt. Kamli, who have been acquitted by us, is reduced to four years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine and default clause. 65. To sum up, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.53/2012 qua accused-appellants Dhara Singh and Gobind Sahai is dismissed. However, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.53/2012 qua accused-appellants Smt. Narbada and Smt. Kamli is allowed by extending them benefit of doubt by way of abundant caution and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court upon them is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.53/2012 qua accused-appellants Pappu, Vijay, Sitaram, Nathu, Lala and Ram Ratan @ Ratan, and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 38/2012 filed by Ram Kishan, Jairam, Badri, Harji, Motilal, Sardar Singh @ Lohadiya, Prahlad, Mannu @ Man Singh are partly allowed. Appellants Pappu, Vijay, Sitaram, Nathu, Lala, Ram Ratan @ Ratan, Ram Kishan, Jairam, Badri, Harji, Motilal, Sardar Singh @ Lohadiya, Prahlad and Mannu @ Man Singh are acquitted of offence under Section 302/149 IPC. Their conviction for offences under Sections 148, 447, 452, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149, recorded by the trial court is upheld. Appellants Pappu, Vijay, Sitaram, Nathu, Lala, Ram Ratan @ Ratan, Ram Kishan, Jairam, Badri, Harji, Motilal, Sardar Singh @ Lohadiya, Prahlad and Mannu @ Man Singh are acquitted of offence under Section 302/149 IPC. Their conviction for offences under Sections 148, 447, 452, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149, recorded by the trial court is upheld. However, their sentence for offence under Section 326/149 IPC is reduced from five years rigorous imprisonment to four years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine and default clause. The sentence awarded upon the above said appellants for various counts shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to them for offence under Section 326/149 IPC. The period already undergone by the said appellants shall be set off from the sentence reduced by this court. 66. Accused appellants Gobind Sahai, Pappu, Vijay, Sitaram, Nathu, Lala, Ram Ratan @ Ratan, Ram Kishan, Jairam, Badri, Harji, Motilal, Sardar Singh @ Lohadiya, Prahlad and Mannu @ Man Singh are stated to be on bail. Their bail bonds are forfeited and they are directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith to serve their remaining sentences. 67. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C, the appellants, namely Smt. Narbada and Smt. Kamli, are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount each, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Appeal of D and G dismissed - Appeal of N and K allowed - Other appeals disposed of as above.