JUDGMENT : 1. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: That on 2022006 at about 6.45 p.m. at Garvale village, Somawarpet Taluk, accused Nos.1 to 6 being members of an unlawful assembly, holding deadly weapons in their hands, raised a quarrel with the husband of PW.7 the complainant, the wife of the deceased, who were carrying bags of rice and rice bran near the land of CW.15. On account of the previous enmity, accused No.1 and his wife accused No.2, holding kathi in their hands assaulted the deceased. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 caught hold of the hands of the deceased, accused No.1 assaulted with a kathi on his head and accused No.2, assaulted with a kathi on his left hand and caused grievous injuries. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 instigated the other accused, stating that they should kill the deceased. CWs.1 and 2 proceeded to rescue the deceased, but the accused threatened them, by showing kathi. 2. Based on these averments, a complaint was lodged before the Somawarpet Police Station, wherein a FIR was lodged against all the accused, for the offences punishable under Sections341, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 506(2), read with Section 149 of IPC. Investigation was taken up. Accused No.1 was arrested on 332006, accused Nos.2 to 4 were arrested on 2122006 and accused Nos.5 and 6 on the same day at 5.30 p.m. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and marked Exhibits-P.1 to P. 24(a) along with 11 Material Objects. The defence examined two witnesses and marked 19 documents. The accused were convicted and sentenced as follows: “(i) Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC. (ii) Accused No.1 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 506(2) read with Section 149 of IPC. (iii) Accused No.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC and acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. (iv) Accused Nos.3 and 4 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341 read with Section 149 of IPC and acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. (iii) Accused No.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC and acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. (iv) Accused Nos.3 and 4 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341 read with Section 149 of IPC and acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. (v) Accused No.6 was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 144 read with Section 149 of IPC and acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. (vi) Accused Nos. 1,2,3,4 & 6 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 143 read with Section 149 of IPC, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.600/each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offences punishable under Sections 144 and 147 read with 149 of IPC each, except accused no.1. (vii) Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/for the offence punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 of IPC, sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.600/for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC. The duration of life imprisonment is till last breath and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC and fine imposed to the other offence proved against accused No.1 were to be recovered by attaching movables and immovables of accused No.1 in view of the sentence passed against him to undergo imprisonment for life till last breath. (viii) Accused No.2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment or a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 of IPC. (ix) Accused No.3 and accused No.4 were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.100/each for the offence punishable under Section 341 read with 149 of IPC. (x) Accused No.6 was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.100/for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 114 read with 149 of IPC each. 4. Aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 has filed Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2013. Accused No.5 died during the pendency of the trial, before the trial Court. Accused Nos. 2 has filed Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2013. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants contend that the impugned order of the trial Court convicting the accused is erroneous. The trial Court failed to consider the evidence and material on record. That the evidence ledin by the prosecution does not bring home the guilt of the accused. That there are various discrepancies in the prosecution case, which has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. Hence, he pleads that the appeals be allowed by acquitting the accused. 6. On the other hand, the learned State Public Prosecutor disputes the same. He contends that there are two eyewitnesses to the incident. That they have clearly supported the case of the prosecution. That the recoveries have also been proved. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he pleads that the appeals be dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court. 7. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. (a) PW.1 is the police constable who handed over the express FIR for delivering it to the JMFC, Somawarpet. (b) PW.2 is another constable who was deputed to guard the dead body of the deceased. (c) PW.3 is the panch for the seizure of MO.4 namely, the shirt of accused No.4. (d) PW.4 is the constable who has delivered the articles to the FSL for examination. (e) PW.5 is the Head Constable who apprehended accused No.1 on 332006. (f) PW.6 is the Head Constable who apprehended accused Nos. 2 to 4 on 2122006 at 12.00 noon. (g) PW.7 is the wife of the deceased. She is an eyewitness to the incident. She has sated that she knows all the accused. That accused Nos. (e) PW.5 is the Head Constable who apprehended accused No.1 on 332006. (f) PW.6 is the Head Constable who apprehended accused Nos. 2 to 4 on 2122006 at 12.00 noon. (g) PW.7 is the wife of the deceased. She is an eyewitness to the incident. She has sated that she knows all the accused. That accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are the residents of Gharwale village, whereas accused Nos. 3 and 4 are from Surlabbi village. The villages are at a distance of two kilometres apart. Accused No.1 is the husband of accused No.2. That on 2022006 her husband carried paddy bags in the jeep of Biji Gunda Devaiah to the Rice Mill at Somawarpet at 4.00 a.m. He returned at about 4.00 p.m. on the same day. The goods were unloaded on the road at the bus-stop. There was no road for the vehicle upto their house. Thereafter, the deceased took the stored rice bags to the other side of the stream. The last bag he shifted was that of rice bran. He brought it on his head and crossed the river. The witness wanted to get the cow which was on the other side of the river. At that time, the son of the witness came there from College in the bus. Thereafter, she heard the deceased scream. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were dragging the deceased in the land of Nampada Babu. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were holding kathi in their hands and accused Nos. 3 and 4 were holding the hands of the deceased. Accused No.1 attacked the deceased with the kathi on his head. Accused No.2 attacked with the kathi on the elbow and fingers of the deceased. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 surrounded the deceased by preventing him from escaping. Accused No.5 instigated the others to attack the deceased. The witness and her son started screaming. On seeing them, the accused threatened them not to come to the spot. Thereafter, the witness and her son crossed the river and came near the place where the deceased was lying. He had suffered serious injuries. He had fallen on the ground. The blood was spread all over. Her son removed his shirt and tied it to the head of the deceased. He went there and brought water and gave it to the deceased. He had suffered serious injuries. He had fallen on the ground. The blood was spread all over. Her son removed his shirt and tied it to the head of the deceased. He went there and brought water and gave it to the deceased. Thereafter, they went to the house of Poovayya to make a telephonic call to the police station. Thereafter, they returned. Madavara police came there at about 9.00 p.m. At about 11.00 p.m., Somawarpet police came there. They recorded the oral complaint of the witness as per Ex.P4. In the cross-examination various suggestions were made to the witness, which has been denied. It is suggested that it takes about 15 minutes to cross the river from the bus stand which has been denied. To a suggestion made since there were quarrels between the PW7 and the second accused in connection with water dispute, the accused has been falsely implicated, the same has been denied. The witness has by and large reiterated the contents of the evidence. The witness has also reiterated the manner in which the assault took place and the involvement of each one of the accused. We do not find anything worthwhile in the cross-examination to disbelieve the statement of the eye witness. (h) PW.8 is the panch witness to Ex.P5, the seizure mahazar for recovery of weapons, MOs 5 & 6, Ex.P6 is the seizure Mahazar for recovery of clothes (nighty) of accused No.2. (i) PW.9 is the PSI who registered the complaint in terms of Exs.P7 and 8. (j) PW.10 is the CPI who filed the charge-sheet and collected the FIR in terms of Ex.P9. (k) PW.11 speaks about conducting the investigation. (l) PW.12 is the Engineer who prepared the sketch. (m) PW.13 is the son of the deceased and who is an eyewitness. He has stated in his evidence that he knows all the accused. That on 2022006 at 6.30 a.m., he had gone to the College in the bus. On the particular day, his father had carried paddy in the Jeep of N. Devaiah to Rice Mill at Somawarpet. At about 6.00 p.m. on the same day, he returned back from the College. He got down from the bus at Gharvale, which is situated about half a Kilometer away from his house. At that time, his father was carrying the rice bag. He was slightly behind him. At about 6.00 p.m. on the same day, he returned back from the College. He got down from the bus at Gharvale, which is situated about half a Kilometer away from his house. At that time, his father was carrying the rice bag. He was slightly behind him. His mother was also along with them by holding the cow. His father was proceeding ahead. He and his mother were behind, about 100 feet. At that time, all the accused restrained his father. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 caught hold of his father. Accused No.1 assaulted on the head of his father with a kathi and accused No.2 also assaulted with another kathi on his father. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 and others were instigating the other accused to finish him off. After the assault, he went to procure water from the nearby stream for his father. That immediately after the incident, he went to the house of Poovayya and telephoned the police about the incident. Thereafter, the police came to the scene of offence and the complaint was lodged. Various suggestions were put to him in the cross-examination, which he has denied. There is nothing worthwhile in the cross-examination with regard to the incident to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. All the suggestions made to him have been denied. In fact he has reiterated the averments made by him, in his evidence. Hence, we find no reason to disbelieve the same. (n) PW.14 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination in terms of Ex.P11. He has submitted his opinion in terms of Ex.P12. He has stated that there were as many as 8 injuries inflicted on the injured. That the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the head injury. (o) PW.15 is the Gram panchayat Member who speaks about the residential Certificate issued to the deceased. (p) PW.16 is the Head Constable who arrested accused Nos. 5 & 6 on 2122006 at 5.30 p.m. (q) PW.17 is the PSI who received the complaint and registered the FIR. He also speaks about apprehending accused Nos. 3 and 4. (r) PW.18 is the panch in terms of Ex.P17, the Inquest Mahazar. (s) PW.19 is the inquest for the seizure of shirt of accused No.3 as MO. 9(a). (t) PW.20 is the driver of the Jeep who picked up the deceased from Garvale to Somawarpet. He also speaks about apprehending accused Nos. 3 and 4. (r) PW.18 is the panch in terms of Ex.P17, the Inquest Mahazar. (s) PW.19 is the inquest for the seizure of shirt of accused No.3 as MO. 9(a). (t) PW.20 is the driver of the Jeep who picked up the deceased from Garvale to Somawarpet. (u) PW.21 is the panch for seizure Mahazar, Exs. P18 and 19, the clothes of accused Nos. 3 & 4. (v) PW.22 is the elder brother of the deceased, who speaks about coming to know about the death of the deceased from the daughter of the deceased. (w) PW.23 is the panch for seizure Mahazar, shirt of accused No.1 from his house. (x) PW.24 is the Investigation Officer who speaks about conducting the investigation. (y) PW.25 is the Chemical Analyst who submitted reports in terms of Exs.P9 and P24. 8. The accused have setup an alibi. They have stated that they were not present at the scene of offence. DW.1 in his evidence has stated that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were present at Ashwini hospital on 2022006. They had been to the hospital to see the sister of accused No.2 who was admitted to Ashwini Hospital. DW.2 is the sister of accused No.2. She states she was admitted to hospital due to ill-health. That accused Nos. 2 to 4 were in the hospital and taking care of her on the said day. Exs.D9 and 19 are the medical reports of DW.2. 9. With regard to the earlier dispute between the accused and the deceased, the accused herein have produced the certified copy of the order sheet, charge sheet, deposition etc., in terms of Exs.D1 to D8. 10(a). The entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of PWs 7 & 13. PW.7 is the wife of the deceased. She has clearly narrated the manner in which the incident occurred. That she along with her husband were transporting the bags of rice from the main road to their house. The deceased had crossed the stream. She was in the process of taking the cow to their house. At that time, she heard the scream of the deceased. She found all the accused were standing there. Accused Nos. 3 & 4 were holding the hands of the deceased. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 assaulted the deceased on the head and on the shoulder. She was in the process of taking the cow to their house. At that time, she heard the scream of the deceased. She found all the accused were standing there. Accused Nos. 3 & 4 were holding the hands of the deceased. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 assaulted the deceased on the head and on the shoulder. Accused Nos.5 & 6 were exalting to commit the offence. She has seen all the accused. At that time, her son PW.13 returned home from College in the bus. He has also witnessed the incident. There is nothing worthwhile in the cross-examination to disbelieve the statement of the eye witness. The statement made by the eyewitness is clear and cogent. Hence, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. (b). In identical terms, PW.13, namely, the son of the deceased in his evidence has also supported the case of the prosecution. He has also seen all the accused. He has narrated the acts committed by each one of the accused. 11(a). The first contention of the appellants’ counsel is on delay. He contends that according to the case of the prosecution, the incident took place at about 6.45 p.m. In the complaint it is narrated that PW.13 went to the house of Poovayya and made a telephone call to the police at about 8.30 p.m. That the distance between the place of the incident and the house of Poovayya is about 2 kilometers. That he went by walk and informed the police at about 7.30 p.m. Thereafter, the Madavara police came at 9.30 p.m. Thereafter, Somawarpet police came there at about 10.30 p.m. They recorded the statement of the complainant at the scene of occurrence at 11.00 p.m. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged and reached the Magistrate. It is therefore contended that there is huge delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate. That the complaint was registered at 3.00 a.m. and reached the Magistrate at 6.00 a.m. (b) However, the material on record indicates that there is a distance of at least 30 kilometers from the place of incident to Somawarpet police station. Therefore, after the receipt of the complaint at about 11.00 p.m. the police had to go back and register the case. Therefore, the travelling time of 30 Kilometers in the middle of the night would have to be taken into consideration. Therefore, after the receipt of the complaint at about 11.00 p.m. the police had to go back and register the case. Therefore, the travelling time of 30 Kilometers in the middle of the night would have to be taken into consideration. The FIR was registered at 3.00 a.m. on 2122006. After registration of the FIR, the same was sent to the Magistrate. It is said to have reached the Magistrate at 6.10 a.m. If these factors are taken into consideration, we do not find that there is a delay of such a gigantic nature that would lend credence to the case of the appellants of any fabrication. The police have reacted at the earliest possible time. There is no delay that has occurred to suspect any manipulation of records by the police. The complaint was registered at 11.00 p.m. That they had to travel a distance of 30 Kilometers to register the case. Registration takes an appropriate time. Immediately, thereafter it reaches the Magistrate. There cannot be a mathematical calculation to explain every single minute. Realities of the situation have to be considered in a fair manner, keeping in mind, the fact it took place in the middle of the night. Therefore, we are of the view that the contention of the appellants that there is a delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate is not borne out from the records. If there is a delay as contended, the same is only marginal and that cannot lead to an inference of any manipulation by the prosecution. Therefore, we are of the view that such a contention cannot be accepted. 12(a). The second contention urged is based on recovery. The contention is that the recovery of MOs 5 & 6 namely, the kathi is not established by the prosecution. The recovery of MOs.5 and 6 is supported by the evidence of Mahazar witness PW.8. At one stage, he states that the recoveries were made from the house of the complainant and in another place he states that it is made from the house of accused No.2. Therefore, it is contended by the appellants that this is an evidence that cannot be believed. (b). The learned Public Prosecutor disputes the same. He contends that there is an error in recording of the evidence itself. Therefore, it is contended by the appellants that this is an evidence that cannot be believed. (b). The learned Public Prosecutor disputes the same. He contends that there is an error in recording of the evidence itself. That the prosecution has proved the recoveries from the house of the accused and therefore to state that it is from the house of the deceased is inappropriate. Having considered the entirety of the material produced, we are of the view that the same indicates that the recoveries have been made at the behest of the accused, from his house itself. Even otherwise, we find that the evidence of the eye witnesses PWs 7 & 13 are strong and reliable. We find absolutely no reasons to disbelieve the same. If the evidence of the eye witnesses are acceptable, the other evidence recedes to the background. 13(a). The third contention advanced is that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive. That in the absence of proving motive, the appellant cannot be convicted. (b). The motive to commit the offence has been established through the evidence of PW.7 is the wife of the deceased. She has stated that there was enmity between her and accused No.2 with regard to taking water for agricultural purposes. With regard to another dispute between PW.7 and accused No.2, another case was also pending between them. Therefore, the accused had a grudge not only against PW.7 but also against her husband. There were frequent quarrels with regard to the same. Therefore, the motive has been established. Therefore, the plea of the prosecution that they have established the motive for commission of the offence requires to be accepted. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has clearly and cogently established the motive for the accused to commit the offence, notwithstanding the fact that the eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. 14. The further case is that accused Nos.2 to 4, were not present at the scene of offence. They relied on the evidence of DWs 1 & 2 for the said purpose. DW.2 was admitted to the Ashwini hospital on 2022006. She has stated in her evidence that accused Nos.2 to 4 came to see her at the hospital. That the witness is the sister of accused No.2. DW.1 also supports the fact that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were at Ashwini hospital on 20022006. DW.2 was admitted to the Ashwini hospital on 2022006. She has stated in her evidence that accused Nos.2 to 4 came to see her at the hospital. That the witness is the sister of accused No.2. DW.1 also supports the fact that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were at Ashwini hospital on 20022006. The medical records in terms of Exs.D9 to D19 also indicate that DW.2 was admitted to the hospital. Except these material there is no other evidence to indicate that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were physically present in the hospital. Even though Exs.D9 to 19 are her medical records, the same are not proof enough that accused Nos.2 to 4 were present at the hospital. Cogent material has to be produced by the accused to establish their presence at the hospital. Except indicating that DW.2 was admitted to the hospital, there is nothing to indicate the presence of accused Nos.2 to 4. Therefore, the alibi has not been established by the accused. Hence, they have failed to convince the Court that they were not present at the scene of offence on the relevant date. Hence, the plea of alibi has not been proved. 15. The trial Court on considering all these aspects have clearly come to the conclusion that accused No.1 is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506(2), read with Section149 of IPC. He has been convicted for life till his last breath. Accused No.2 has been convicted for the offence under Section326 read with Section149 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused Nos.3 and 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section341 read with Section149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.100/each. Accused No.6 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections341, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.100/. 16. Accused No.6 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections341, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.100/. 16. The appellants’ counsel contends that the sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment till his last breath is harsh and excessive. He contends that the trial court can only award a sentence of imprisonment for life and nothing more than that. Any sentence greater than that could only be awarded by the High Court. Hence, he pleads that the sentence be reduced. The same is disputed by the learned State Public Prosecutor. He contends that keeping in mind, the gravity of the offence committed, the trial court was justified in sentencing the accused for imprisonment till is last breath. Hence, no interference is called for. 17. We have considered the contentions with regard to the power of the trial court to award sentence for a specific period. On the very issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case UNION OF INDIA vs. V.SRIHARAN ALIAS MURUGAN AND OTHERS reported in (2016) 7 SCC 1 , has held at Paragraphs 105 and 106 as under: “105. We, therefore, reiterate that the power derived from the Penal Code for any modified punishment within the punishment provided for in the Penal code for such specified offences can only be exercised by the High Court and in the event of further appeal only by the Supreme Court and not by any other court in this country. To put it differently, the power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convict’s life as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior court. 106. Viewed in that respect, we state that the ration laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2) that a special category of sentence; instead of death; for a term exceeding 14 years and put that category beyond application of remission is well founded and we answer the said question in the affirmative. 106. Viewed in that respect, we state that the ration laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2) that a special category of sentence; instead of death; for a term exceeding 14 years and put that category beyond application of remission is well founded and we answer the said question in the affirmative. We are, therefore, not in agreement with the opinion expressed by this Court in Sangeet v. State of Haryana that the deprival of remission power of the appropriate Government by awarding sentences of 20 or 25 years or without any remission as not permissible is not in consonance with the law and we specifically overrule the same.” Therefore, the trial court could not have granted a sentence of life imprisonment till the end of the convicts life. That the same can only be awarded by the High Court. 18. The mitigating circumstance as pointed out by the appellants’ counsel is the fact that accused No.1 herein had lodged a complaint against the deceased and his wife, PW.7, which is pending consideration. Therefore, it is only in this background, the same should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. It is submitted that the allegation is that the deceased attempted to molest the wife of accused No.2. Therefore, these are the serious allegations against the deceased therein. 19. In terms of Ex.P8, which is a copy of the FIR wherein the case was registered for an offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 341, 354, 376, 511 read with 506 of IPC. It is however contended that subsequently the charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections341 and 354 which is pending adjudication. Therefore, the proceedings were pending as on the date of the incident. Therefore, keeping in mind, the totality of the circumstances involved and the statement of the eye witnesses PWs.7 & 13, the allegation against the deceased that he attempted to molest the wife of accused No.1, namely, accused No.2, we deem it just and necessary to sentence the accused for imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The fine ordered for the offence punishable under Section302 IPC is confirmed. The rest of the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court is undisturbed and upheld. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are partly allowed. Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2013 filed by accused No.2 is dismissed. The fine ordered for the offence punishable under Section302 IPC is confirmed. The rest of the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court is undisturbed and upheld. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are partly allowed. Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2013 filed by accused No.2 is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2013 filed by accused No.1 is partly allowed. The sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC is modified. He is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with payment of fine as ordered by the trial court. The fine awarded by the trial court is sustained. The rest of the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court is undisturbed and upheld. The appeals are disposed off accordingly.