Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 643 (RAJ)

Hariya v. State of Rajasthan

2017-02-28

DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. The instant criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of CrPC, 1973 has been preferred by the accused/appellant Hariya son of Shri Tundal and Natthi son of Shri Hariya against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13/01/2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 79/2003 (86/2003), whereby both the accused/appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years' extra rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30/04/2003 at 8.30 pm in Govt. Hospital, Alwar, Anil Sharma (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex.P-1) to SHO, Police Station Sadar, Alwar stating therein that today in evening, neighbour Hariya son of Tundal, Natthi son of Hariya, Bhura wife of Hariya, Radha wife of Natthi with a common object, beat my uncle Om Prakash and while beating took him to well and pushed him into the well, by which he died. We are having dispute with neighbour Hariya for encroachment on the way. This encroachment is continuing till today. Earlier, Hariya & his family members beat us and have even threatened to kill us. Today at the time of quarrel, I, my deceased uncle Om Prakash, my father Ramottar, neighbour Ganga Singh Gurjar, Natthu Ram Sharma and 2-3 other persons were present on the place of occurrence. Hariya and others pushed my uncle into the well in our presence and beat us also. They pelted stones and made us to run away. Hariya and his associates murdered my uncle. At the time of quarrel, Hariya was with his 5-6 associates, whom we recognize by appearance. 3. On this written report, FIR No. 122/2003 was registered in Police Station Sadar, Alwar for offence under Section 143, 341, 323 and 302 of IPC and investigation commenced. During Investigation, site plan of place of occurrence and panchayatnama were prepared, autopsy of the corpse was performed by Medical Board, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused persons were arrested and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellants, Jagdish and Pappu for offence under Section 306 of IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Alwar, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Alwar. Later on, the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar. 4. The learned trial Court framed charge for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC in alternative for offence under Section 306 of IPC against accused/appellants and for offence under Section 306 of IPC against co-accused Pappu and Jagdish. Charges were read over and explained to the accused/appellants and co-accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried. 5. In order to support it's case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. Thereafter, learned trial Court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to the accused/appellants and co-accused persons under section 313 of CrPC, 1973. In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused/appellants denied the prosecution evidence and stated that they did nothing and they are innocent. Accused persons examined three witnesses in defence and marked police statements of five witnesses to be Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5. After completion of trial, learned trial Court while acquitting co-accused Pappu and Jagdish Prasad, convicted the accused/appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced them as indicated herein above. 6. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, the accused/appellants preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 13/01/2004. 7. Mr. Kapil Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality in not going through the entire material on record. There is allegation that the appellants and others blocked the way in front of the house of complainant party and when the deceased came to object it, they started beating him. At that time Smt. Radha, Smt. Usha and Ramottar were present there and when they tried for rescue of Om Prakash, the accused persons pelting stones made them to run away from the spot. They witnessed the incident standing at their house. It is also stated that the complainant on one hand states that he witnessed the incident with his eyes but on other hand, he states that they all were standing at their house, because accused/persons blocked the way in front of their house, thus the prosecution case is totally false. 8. They witnessed the incident standing at their house. It is also stated that the complainant on one hand states that he witnessed the incident with his eyes but on other hand, he states that they all were standing at their house, because accused/persons blocked the way in front of their house, thus the prosecution case is totally false. 8. Learned Amicus Curiae also contended that the learned trial Court has not properly scrutinized the entire evidence in its true perspective while holding the accused/appellants guilty of the charge under Section 302/34 of IPC, as such the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court suffer from illegality and material irregularity. The learned trial Court in the instant case, has not considered this legal aspect of the case as such, the findings of the learned trial Court are bad in law and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that the accused/appellants in fact did never commit such crime. Wife of Om Prakash is a deaf and dumb lady, she has no issue (child) therefore, Om Prakash was extremely frustrated of it and due to this reason he committed suicide. The deceased Om Prakash himself committed suicide by jumping into the well and due to enmity, the complainant party taking benefit of such opportunity, has implicated the appellants giving it colour of murder case, whereas DW-2 Man Singh has specifically stated before the Court that Om Prakash jumped into the well at his own. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that all the defence witnesses have come with clear evidence that the deceased Om Prakash was not murdered by the accused persons and he himself committed suicide due to own compelling family circumstances. The learned trial Court has believed the entire contradictory evidence of prosecution but has disbelieved the reasoned evidence adduced by the defence. Learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that the prosecution witnesses gave false evidence against the accused/appellants. It has been proved from the evidence on record that there was some dispute between the deceased and the complainant party. Anil Kumar (PW-1) was having intention to get employed in place of deceased Om Prakash and for this reason, the complainant party created such circumstances that he (Om Prakash) was compelled to commit suicide under frustration. It has been proved from the evidence on record that there was some dispute between the deceased and the complainant party. Anil Kumar (PW-1) was having intention to get employed in place of deceased Om Prakash and for this reason, the complainant party created such circumstances that he (Om Prakash) was compelled to commit suicide under frustration. Though the appellants at the time of the alleged incident, were not even present at the place of incident. 11. The contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon for holding the appellants guilty of the charges. 12. The learned Amicus Curiae also contended that the fact of dispute between both the parties has also been verified from the statement of PW-2 Ganga Singh, who is alleged to be a witness of the incident. Learned Amicus Curiae also contended that PW-8 Dr. Phool Singh Chaudhary is the Medical Jurist and injuries were detected on legs and chest of the deceased. Evidence of witness Dr. Phool Singh (PW-8) has falsified the entire evidence of other prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel also contended that the very motive, as alleged by the prosecution, is itself unbelievable and not based on any material whatsoever. The allegations are absolutely absurd, baseless and inconsistent, thus are not tenable. 13. Learned Amicus Curiae contended that there is not even a single iota of evidence to prove that the appellants did ever harass to the deceased Om Prakash or committed his murder. Even then the learned trial Court has convicted them without there being any evidence. 14. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on surmises and conjectures as such the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellants is bad in the eye of law. Without going through the entire material on record and without application of mind, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion of guilt of the appellants thus, the conviction of the appellants is bad in law hence, the judgment and order of the learned trial Court deserve to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court and the appellants deserve acquittal. 15. On the other hand, Mr. 15. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Saini, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellants on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence which proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 16. We gave our anxious consideration to rival contentions of learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellants and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 17. PW-1 Anil Sharma is nephew of the deceased Om Prakash, on whose written report the FIR was registered. The witness deposed that on 30/04/2003 at about 6-6.30 pm, Hariya, Natthi and Bhura beat my uncle and pushed him into the nearby well, by which his uncle Om Prakash died. The witness also deposed that earlier also, quarrel took place on the issue of encroachment on their way. Ganga Singh, Jagdish Gujar, Hariram, Natthu Pandit and the witness himself were present there at that time. The corpse was got out of the well and he lodged the written report Ex.P-1. The witness proved his signatures on written report Ex.P- 1, site plan Ex.P-2, memo of condition of dead body Ex.P-3, panchayatnama Ex.P-4 and receipt of corpse Ex.P-5. In cross-examination, the witness stated that we tried for rescue of my uncle but pelting stones, they made us to run away, thus we were standing at distance. Accused persons took Om Prakash to the well. The witness also stated that other members of his family except him, were at home because the way was blocked by the accused persons. The witness also stated that the well is not visible from his house. 18. PW-2 Ganga Singh has deposed that 5-6 months ago at about 6-6.30 pm, Hariya, Natthi, Bhura and Radha were beating Om Prakash, and Anil was crying for rescue of his uncle Om Prakash. He saw that Hariya, Natthi, Radha and Bhura were beating Om Prakash. Radha and Bhura were pelting stones. While giving fists and kicks, they took Om Prakash to the well and pushed him into the well. Dispute is going on between Om Prakash and Hariya for last 15 years for encroachment on the way. Thereafter, Dinesh Pandit got out of the well, dead body of Om Prakash. Radha and Bhura were pelting stones. While giving fists and kicks, they took Om Prakash to the well and pushed him into the well. Dispute is going on between Om Prakash and Hariya for last 15 years for encroachment on the way. Thereafter, Dinesh Pandit got out of the well, dead body of Om Prakash. During cross-examination, when confronted with relevant portions of his earlier statement (Ex.D-1) recorded by the police under section 161 of CrPC, 1973 the witness denied having given such statement. In earlier statement (Ex.D-1) of the witness Ganga Singh (PW-2), it is mentioned that on 30/04/2003, Hariya and Natthi both were taking out abuses to Om Prakash, saying that neither your shop nor you will remain more. Om Prakash was in his house. Thereafter, Natthu and Hariya called Jagdish Nai and Pappu Mali, and all the four persons blocked the way of house of Om Prakash. Om Prakash told that I cannot win from them. They kept me upset. Now I have to die. Saying this, he suddenly came out of the house and jumped into the well and died. He has been so 19. PW-3 Natthu Lal, PW-4 Ramottar who is elder brother of the deceased, PW-6 Radha who is sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of troubled by Natthu, Hariya, Jagdish and Pappu for so many days that forced him (Om Prakash) to jump into the well and gave up life.Om Prakash, the deceased and PW-7 Usha who is near relative of Om Prakash, gave almost similar statement as given by PW-1 Anil Sharma and PW-2 Ganga Singh. These witnesses deposed that dispute between Om Prakash and Hariya is going on with regard to encroachment on the way of Om Prakash. On the day of incident, Hariya and Natthi while beating Om Prakash, took him to the well and pushed him into the well, by which he died. During cross-examination, when confronted with relevant portions of their earlier statement Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3, Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5 respectively, recorded by the police under section 161 of CrPC, 1973 these witnesses denied having given such statements. In earlier statements Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3, Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5, it is mentioned that on 30/04/2003, Hariya and Natthi both were taking out abuses to Om Prakash, saying that neither his shop nor he will remain more. Om Prakash was in his house. In earlier statements Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3, Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5, it is mentioned that on 30/04/2003, Hariya and Natthi both were taking out abuses to Om Prakash, saying that neither his shop nor he will remain more. Om Prakash was in his house. Thereafter, Natthi and Hariya called Jagdish Nai and Pappu Mali, and all the four persons blocked the way of house of Om Prakash. Om Prakash told that I cannot win from them. They kept me upset. Now I have to die. Saying this, he suddenly came out of the house and jumped into the well and died. He has been so troubled by Natthu, Hariya, Jagdish and Pappu for so many days that forced him (Om Prakash) to jump into the well and gave up life. 20. PW-9 Janesh Singh was SHO of Police Station Sadar, Alwar at the relevant time and he conducted the investigation of the case. The witness gave a detailed account of the investigation and proved the documents prepared by him and stated that during investigation, he recorded statements of witness Ganga Singh, Natthuram, Ramottar, Smt. Radha, Smt. Usha, Anil Sharma, Smt. Keshar, Smt. Barfi, Totaram and Girraj. He recorded the statement as stated by the witnesses. In cross-examination, the witness deposed that in statement Ex.D-1 to EX.D-5, the witnesses stated that the deceased was upset and he jumped into the well on his own. The witness also admitted that after investigation of the matter, he came to the conclusion that the deceased was troubled by the accused persons that forced him to jump into the well to commit suicide. 21. From the statement of PW-1 Anil Sharma given in cross-examination, it transpires that no member of his family was present on the well at the time of the incident, thus it is doubtful that he or any member of his family would have witnessed the incident. It also transpires that the well is not visible from the house of complainant party, thus it is doubtful that PW-1 Anil Sharma, PW-3 Ramottar and PW-6 Radha would have witnessed the incident. 22. In cross-examination, Natthulal PW-3 has stated that he was not present when Om Prakash fell into the well as he was on his shop, which is lying near the house of Ramottar and Hariya. 22. In cross-examination, Natthulal PW-3 has stated that he was not present when Om Prakash fell into the well as he was on his shop, which is lying near the house of Ramottar and Hariya. The witness also stated that Ganga Singh, Hariram and Jagdish told that Hariya and others pushed Om Prakash into the well. Thus, this witness is not an eye witness of the incident. 23. PW-4 Ramottar, elder brother of the deceased Om Prakash, has stated that on 30/04/2003 at 6-6.30 pm, he was at his house. He saw Hariya, Natthu, Bhura and Radha were blocking the way of their house by fence. They (accused/appellants) caught Om Prakash and while beating, took him to the well. While crying, Anil followed them. The witness jumped the fence and reached there, and saw that these persons pushed Om Prakash into the well, by which he died. Whereas, Anil (PW-1) has clearly stated that when complainant party chased the accused persons, pelting stones, the accused persons made us to run away, thus they remained at their house. Anil also stated that all members of his family except him, were at their house. Statement of Anil given in cross-examination, creates doubt on the presence of Ramottar (PW-4) at the well, the place of occurrence and having witnessed the incident. Radha (PW-6) and Usha (PW-7) also stated that they could not go to the well as their way was obstructed by fence. PW-8 Dr. Phool Singh is Medical Jurist in Government Hospital, Alwar, who stated that on 01/05/2003 on police request, as a member of Medical Board, he performed autopsy of the corpse of Om Prakash son of Heera Lal Sharma and found four injuries of abrasion on right leg, left leg, left side of chest and ride side of chest respectively. On dissection of chest, there was sub cut haematoma on left side of chest. There was fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th rib at the anterior auxiliary line. Pleural cavity had 100 cc blood with injury to middle lobe on left side. On right side of chest, there was injury to lobe with involvement of pleura. There was 200 ml of blood present in pleural cavity. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Death of Om Prakash took place within 24 hours of post-mortem. Pleural cavity had 100 cc blood with injury to middle lobe on left side. On right side of chest, there was injury to lobe with involvement of pleura. There was 200 ml of blood present in pleural cavity. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Death of Om Prakash took place within 24 hours of post-mortem. Members of the Medical Board were of opinion that cause of death is shock due to injury to lungs which is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross-examination, the witness stated that there was no injury on both the hands of the deceased. 24. DW-1 Girraj is neighbour of the deceased Om Prakash, who deposed that seven months ago, Om Prakash jumped into the well at his own and died due to enmity with his brothers and nephews. On that day, he was on the temple at the time of the incident. Before one month of the incident, Om Prakash got constructed a shop on the way between him and Hariya and on this issue, altercation took place between Om Prakash and Hariya. Hariya and Natthi were not there on the spot at the time of incident. During cross-examination, when confronted with relevant portions of his earlier statement Ex.P-12 recorded by the police, the witness denied having given such statement. In earlier statement Ex.P-12, it is mentioned that Om Prakash was troubled by Hariya and Natthi both, for so many days and used to abuse him and were intending to demolish the newly constructed shop of Om Prakash. On 30/04/2003 at 6-6.30 pm, all the four accused persons were blocking the way of house of Om Prakash with fence. Om Prakash told that them I cannot win from you. You kept me upset. Now, I have to die. Saying this, he suddenly came out from his house and jumped into the well, which is situated near the temple. The witness also stated that no one pushed Om Prakash into the well. He has been so troubled by Natthi, Hariya, Jagdish and Pappu, that forced him to jump into the well and gave up life. 25. DW-2 Man Singh is also a neighbour of the parties, who deposed that 7-8 months ago, Om Prakash jumped into the well at his own and died. He has been so troubled by Natthi, Hariya, Jagdish and Pappu, that forced him to jump into the well and gave up life. 25. DW-2 Man Singh is also a neighbour of the parties, who deposed that 7-8 months ago, Om Prakash jumped into the well at his own and died. At the time of incident, the witness was on the temple and he did not stop him (Om Prakash) because he came and jumped directly. The witness also stated that there was no dispute between Hariya and Om Prakash. The witness further stated that Om Prakash was upset because his wife is deaf, dumb and blackish and he is issueless. The witness also stated that before one month of the incident, altercation took place between Hariya and Om Prakash because Om Prakash got constructed a shop on the way. The witness further stated that when Om Prakash was got out of the well, he was alive and was taken to the hospital in a tempo, but he died in the way. 26. DW-3 Totaram is also a neighbour of the place of occurrence, who deposed that Om Prakash died 7-8 months ago. He had enmity with his brothers. Man Singh, Girraj and the witness himself, got out Om Prakash from the well. Om Prakash was issueless and his wife is deaf, dumb and blackish. The witness also stated that son of Ramottar was having intention to get employed in place of Om Prakash and for this reason, this false report has been lodged. The witness further stated that before one month of the incident, Om Prakash and Ramottar got constructed a shop, which was objected to by Hariya, and which was the cause of antagonism with Hariya. Hariya was not there on the spot at the time of incident. During cross-examination, when confronted with relevant portions of his earlier statement Ex.P-13 recorded by the police under section 161 of CrPC, 1973 the witness denied having given such statement. In relevant portions of his earlier statement Ex.P-13, it is mentioned that Om Prakash has been troubled by Hariya and Natthi for so many days and they used to abuse him. On 30/04/2003 at 6.30 pm, Natthi, Hariya, Jagdish and Pappu were blocking the way of house of Om Prakash and they were saying to Om Prakash that how he will come out. On 30/04/2003 at 6.30 pm, Natthi, Hariya, Jagdish and Pappu were blocking the way of house of Om Prakash and they were saying to Om Prakash that how he will come out. Om Prakash told them that I cannot win you. You kept me upset. Now, I have to die. Saying this, he suddenly came out from his house and jumped into the well and died, which is situated near the temple. No one pushed Om Prakash into the well. Om Prakash has been so troubled by Natthi, Hariya, Jagdish and Pappu that forced him to jump into the well and gave up life. The witness also gave statement that Om Prakash jumped into the well at his own, being upset due to his family distress. In cross-examination, the witness deposed that he doesn't know about any case of encroachment pending between them but a case regarding construction of a shop in the way is in his knowledge. The witness denied the suggestion that Hariya and others brought Om Prakash on the well while beating him and pushed him into the well. 27. According to written report Ex.P-1, the complainant party was having a dispute with the appellant Hariya for encroachment on the day and the encroachment was continuing till the date of incident. Witnesses examined in defence have also stated about the dispute between the complainant party and the appellant Hariya with regard to encroachment. Thus, it is not in dispute that there was a dispute between the deceased Om Prakash and the appellant Hariya regarding encroachment on the day. 28. According to written report Ex.P-1, accused persons beat Om Prakash and also to other members of complainant party but it does not reveal from the report that any other member of the family of the deceased Om Prakash, would have sustained any injury in the incident. According to the prosecution, the accused persons while beating Om Prakash, took him to the well and at that time prosecution witnesses Anil Sharma (PW-1), Radha (PW-6), Usha (PW-7), Ramottar (PW-4), Ganga Singh (PW-2) & Natthuram (PW-3) were present but it is strange that none of them made any effort for rescue of Om Prakash, which creates doubt on the prosecution story, as stated. As discussed above, Anil Sharma (PW-1) stated in cross-examination that he tried for rescue of his uncle Om Prakash but pelting stones, the accused persons made us to run away, thus, we were standing at distance. The witness also stated that other members of his family except him, were at their house because the way was blocked by the accused persons. He also stated that the well is not visible from his house, which creates doubt on the testimony of Anil Sharma (PW-1), Ramottar (PW-4), Radha (PW-6) & Usha (PW-7) that they witnessed the incident. 29. Holistic analysis of the statements of witnesses Ganga Singh (PW-2), Natthuram (PW-3), Ramottar (PW-4), Radha (PW-6) & Usha (PW-7) reveal that these witnesses made significant improvements when examined in the Court and gave exaggerated statements, which are not in consonance with their earlier statements Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5 respectively. Therefore, deposition of these witnesses given in Court, can not be made the basis of conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC, particularly when Investigation Officer Janesh Singh (Pw-9) has specifically deposed that he recorded the statements of witnesses, as whatever stated by them, neither he added something nor subtracted. 30. From the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as by the accused/appellants, it transpires that it is not in dispute that death of Om Prakash occurred due to falling in the well. Now, we have to find out whether the accused persons gave beating to Om Prakash and while beating, took him to the well and pushed him into the well, due to which he died, or the deceased jumped into the well on his own and committed suicide. 31. During cross-examination, Investigation Officer Janesh Singh (PW-9) deposed that in statements Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5, the witnesses stated that deceased was upset and he jumped into the well on his own. The witness also admitted that after investigation of the matter, he came to the conclusion that the deceased was troubled by the accused persons, that forced him to jump into the well to commit suicide. As discussed above Ganga Singh (PW-2), Natthuram (PW-3), Ramottar (PW-4), Radha (PW-6) & Usha (PW- 7) in their earlier statements Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5 respectively, stated that on the day of incident, Hariya and Natthuram (the appellants herein) were taking out abuses to Om Prakash, saying that neither his shop nor he will remain more. As discussed above Ganga Singh (PW-2), Natthuram (PW-3), Ramottar (PW-4), Radha (PW-6) & Usha (PW- 7) in their earlier statements Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5 respectively, stated that on the day of incident, Hariya and Natthuram (the appellants herein) were taking out abuses to Om Prakash, saying that neither his shop nor he will remain more. Om Prakash was in his house. Thereafter, Natthu and Hariya called Jagdish and Pappu, and they blocked the way of house of Om Prakash by fence. The witnesses also stated that Om Prakash told that I cannot win from them, they kept me upset, now, I have to die and saying this, he suddenly came out of the house and jumped into the well and died. It is also mentioned in earlier statements of the witnesses that Om Prakash has been so troubled by Natthu, Hariya, Jagdish & Pappu for so many days that forced him to jump into the well and gave up life. Defence witnesses also deposed that being upset, Om Prakash Jumped into the well and committed suicide. 32. In view of above, the prosecution could not prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellants while beating Om Prakash, took him to the well and pushed him into the well, by which he died. The prosecution did not prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt by producing legal evidence thus, in absence thereof, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused/appellants. But it is proved that there was a dispute between Om Prakash and Hariya, the appellant with regard to encroachment on the way. It is also proved that on the day of incident, the accused/appellants took out abuses to Om Prakash and said that neither his shop nor he will remain more and thereafter, they blocked the way of house of Om Prakash. Then, Om Prakash told that he cannot win from them, the appellants kept him upset, now he has to die and saying this, Om Prakash suddenly came out of his house and jumped into the well and died. It is also proved that Om Prakash has been so troubled by the accused/appellants for so many days that forced him to jump into the well and gave up life. 33. It is also proved that Om Prakash has been so troubled by the accused/appellants for so many days that forced him to jump into the well and gave up life. 33. In view of the discussions made above, offence under Section 302/34 of IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/appellants thus, they cannot be held guilty for the charge levelled against them. But it is proved that the accused/appellants abated Om Prakash to commit suicide therefore, they are liable to be convicted for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC. 34. In view of above discussion, present appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the accused/appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC is set aside and instead they are convicted for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to regorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default whereof, each of the accused/appellant shall further undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment. As per report of Superintendent, Central Jail, Alwar dated 09/02/2017, accused/appellant Hariya has already undergone sentence of more that 13 years and 8 days and accused/appellant Natthi has already undergone sentence of more that 13 years and 3 days, therefore, they be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 35. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants, namely, Hariya and Natthi are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- 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 Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, each of them, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.