JUDGMENT : GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, J. 1. This criminal appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.PC') has been filed by five accused-appellants, namely, Mahavir Prasad, Smt. Bhanwari Devi, Jamanlal, Parmeshwarlal and Lalchand, assailing judgment and order dated 07.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.(173/10) 57/2012, whereby learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as follows:- Accused-appellants Sentence under Section of the IPC Mahavir Prasad, Smt. Bhanwari Devi, Jamanlal, 147 To undergo one year RI with fine of Rs. 200/-; in default, to further undergo one month imprisonment. Parmeshwarlal and Lalchand 148 To undergo two years RI with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default, to further undergo two months imprisonment. 447 To undergo two months RI with fine of Rs. 100/-; in default, to further undergo fifteen days imprisonment. 323/149 To undergo six months RI with fine of Rs. 100/-; in default, to further undergo fifteen days imprisonment. 324/149 To undergo two years RI with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default, to further undergo two months imprisonment. 307/149 To undergo Five years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default, to further undergo three months imprisonment. 302/149 Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default, to further undergo six months imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.09.2010 at 1:15 P.M PW4-Sohan Lal s/o Kalu Ram by caste Mali, aged 35 years r/o Dhani Pakodiya Wali, Tan Chirana gave a Parcha-bayan (Ex.P26) which was recorded by Dharampal (PW18), Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Udaipurwati to the effect that he is resident of Dhani Phakodiya Wali Tan. He is agriculturist and resides in a kachha house built in the field. On 26.09.2010 at about 11:00 A.M Mahavir s/o Kallaram, Jaman Lal s/o Mahavir, Lala s/o Mahavir, Parmeshwar s/o Mahavir, Hemraj s/o Mahavir, Bhanwari w/o Jamanlal, Ladodi w/o Mahavir, by caste Mali residents of Dhani Dhakala Wali Tan Chirana entered at his field armed with gandasi, dantla, kulhadi (axe), jaily, kasiya in their hands and started to harvest the millet crop. When they forbid to harvest the millet crop then all these persons gave beatings to complainant, Mukesh, Mangla Ram, Smt. Santosh, Smt. Babudi with the weapons in their hands with intention to kill. When they forbid to harvest the millet crop then all these persons gave beatings to complainant, Mukesh, Mangla Ram, Smt. Santosh, Smt. Babudi with the weapons in their hands with intention to kill. Ram Chandra Mali and other neighbouring persons, who resided in the Dhani, saved them, otherwise they would have been killed by the accused persons. Thereafter, they were taken to Chirana Hospital, where Mangla Ram succumbed to injuries. 3. On the basis of aforesaid Parcha-bayan (Ex.P27), an F.I.R. No. 236/2010 (Ex.P27) was registered at Police Station Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 307 IPC. Investigation commenced. 4. The police arrested the accused-appellants and filed challan against them for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323 or 323/149, 324 or 324/149, 307 or 307/149, 302 or 302/149 IPC. The trial court framed charges for the said offences. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 26 witnesses and also exhibited 47 documents. The defence, in support of its case, did produce any evidence but the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C, 1973were marked as Exhibits D1, D2 and D3. 5. Learned trial court, after hearing both the parties, vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the accused appellants argued that the learned trial court has erred in taking note of the Parcha-bayan (Ex.P26) given by PW4-Sohan Lal. PW4-Sohan Lal has specifically stated that he was unconscious and he did give any reply as regards Parcha-bayan (Ex.P26). Learned counsel argued that PW2-Babudi, PW3-Mukesh, PW4-Sohan Lal, PW5-Santosh Devi, PW6-Ramchandra and PW15-Suman Devi are the injured persons and eye witnesses of the incident but they all are interested witnesses and have enmity with the accused party, their evidence is corroborated by any independent witness. Learned counsel further argued that the trial court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter that PW24-Satish Kumar, I.O in his statement has specifically accepted that at the time of incident several persons were doing agriculture work in nearby fields but the prosecution has failed to produce any such neighbourer. The statement of this witness is also in consonance with the site-plan (Ex.P1). The statement of this witness is also in consonance with the site-plan (Ex.P1). Learned counsel argued that the learned trial court has erred in taking into consideration the fact that PW4-Sohan Lal in his statement before the Court deposed that in the adjoining field which is the place of incident, Mahavir etc. sown the millet crop. This witness also accepted possession of the accused on the said land. Other prosecution witnesses also accepted possession of the accused on the disputed land. Thus, when the accused were having possession over the place of incident, their presence at the place of incident cannot be said to be an unlawful assembly. Learned counsel further argued that the accused party had every right of private defence of person and property. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court failed to consider the statement of PW23-Dr. Dipali. This witness has deposed that possibility cannot be ruled out that the injured received injury on account of falling. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment and referred to testimony of all the witnesses. He argued that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is perfectly justified and does call for any interference. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions of learned counsel for the accused-appellants as also learned Public Prosecutor and also minutely scanned the material on record. 9. Before proceeding further, we think it just and proper to mention the ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased Mangla Ram and nature of injuries found on the persons of injured, as per injury reports, recorded by Dr. Deepali Pathak (PW23) and Dr. Mahavir Prasad (PW12). 10. Postmortem report of deceased Mangla Ram is Ex.P35. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 1.10.2010 by Dr. Deepali Pathak. During the course of autopsy following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:- "1. Post operative stitched wound 10 cm. long vertical on mid frontal region anterior posterior with stitches in situ' along with another post operative stitched wound 11 cm. long horizontally present on left parietal region from medial to lateral side. On dissection there is sub scalp hematoma dark red in colour on both frontal and both parietal temporal regions. On examination triangular bone flap of size 7 cm. x 6 cm. long horizontally present on left parietal region from medial to lateral side. On dissection there is sub scalp hematoma dark red in colour on both frontal and both parietal temporal regions. On examination triangular bone flap of size 7 cm. x 6 cm. found replaced with burn holes and stitches in situ. On further dissection membrane is pale. On further dissection there is with gel foam. There is a hole done surgically on left multiple contusion 1 cm. x 1cm x cm. to cm. x cm. on parietal region. Left frontal, left temporal parietal region. On further dissection there sub dual hematoma on left frontal region on examination there is fracture left frontal bone and roof of left orbit with ante mortem hematoma. 2. Stitched wound 6.0 cm. long on left parieto occipital region with hard brown scab in between surfaces with stitches in situ anterior posterior vertical on left side with underlying sub-scalp phantoms on both occipital region. 3. Stitched wound 2 cm. long oblique on left side nape of neck blow to hair line with hard brown scab at margins. 4. Abrasion of size 2 cm.x1 cm. with hard brown scab on left side back of neck 1 cm. below injury No. 3 and lateral to its. Duration about 4-6 days in duration. 5. Abrasion 2 cm. x 2 cm. with hard brown scab on both scapula prior to death. All above injuries are ante mortem in nature. The opinion given as to cause of deceased Mangla Ram is reproduced as under:- "Regarding cause of death is 'Coma' brought about as a result of ante mortem head injury No.(1) sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature." 11. Dr. Mahavir Prasad (PW12) deposed that on 26.9.2010 he was posted as Senior Medical Officer, C.H.C., Chirana. He examined Mangla Ram (deceased). He sustained two injuries. The first injury was incised wound with dimension 7.6cm. X 1.5 cm. deep to bone on left lateral side of parietal region of scalp, for which the doctor advised for X-ray. Second injury was incised wound in the size of 5.5cmx 1 cm deep to bone on parallel and left lateral side, for which the doctor advised for X-ray. Both the injuries were of sharp edged weapon. 12. Dr. Mahavir Prasad (PW12) further deposed that on 26.9.2010 he examined Babudi Devi (PW2). She sustained three injuries. Second injury was incised wound in the size of 5.5cmx 1 cm deep to bone on parallel and left lateral side, for which the doctor advised for X-ray. Both the injuries were of sharp edged weapon. 12. Dr. Mahavir Prasad (PW12) further deposed that on 26.9.2010 he examined Babudi Devi (PW2). She sustained three injuries. The first injury was incised wound with dimension 2.5cm. X 0.5 cm. on back of left lateral ear pinna, which was of sharp edged weapon and was simple in nature. Second injury was lacerated wound in the size of 1 cm x 1 cm on lateral angle of left eye, which was of blunt weapon and was simple in nature. Third injury was swelling with tindemy on left side of chest, which was of a blunt weapon, for which the Doctor advised for X-ray. As per X-ray report (Ex.P20) of Babudi Devi (PW2), the nature of injury was found to be simple in nature. 13. Dr. Mahavir Prasad (PW12) deposed that on 26.9.2010 he examined Mukesh (PW3). He sustained two injuries. The first injury was lacerated wound with dimension 3cm. x 1.5 cm. deep to muscle on lateral angle of right eye extent above domuah, which was of blunt weapon and was simple in nature. Second injury was abrasion with dimension 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on right shoulder, which was of blunt weapon and was simple in nature. 14. Dr. Mahavir Prasad (PW12) further deposed that on 26.9.2010 he examined Sohan Lal (PW4). He sustained three injuries. The first injury was incised wound with dimension 5cm. x 1 cm. on middle of occipital region of skull extent above domuah, which was of sharp edged weapon and was simple in nature. Second injury was lacerated wound with dimension 3 cm x 1 cm on lower one third of lateral side of left forearm, which was of blunt weapon and was simple in nature. Third injury was complaining of pain on both shoulder. 15. Dr. Mahavir Prasad (PW12) further deposed that on 26.9.2010 he examined Sanotsh Devi (PW5). She sustained three injuries. The first injury was lacerated wound with dimension 2.5cm. x 1 cm. deep to bone on top of skull, which was of blunt weapon and was simple in nature. Third injury was complaining of pain on both shoulder. 15. Dr. Mahavir Prasad (PW12) further deposed that on 26.9.2010 he examined Sanotsh Devi (PW5). She sustained three injuries. The first injury was lacerated wound with dimension 2.5cm. x 1 cm. deep to bone on top of skull, which was of blunt weapon and was simple in nature. Second injury was lacerated wound with dimension 1 cm x 1 cm deep to muscle on back side of middle finger of right hand, which was of blunt weapon and was simple in nature. Third injury was complaining of body pain. 16. Now we have to examine as to whether the trial court has rightly found that the appellants, with common object, committed murder by causing the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the deceased or not. 17. As per the case of the prosecution, the eye witnesses of the incident are Babudi Devi (PW2), Mukesh (PW3), Sohan Lal (PW4), Santosh Devi (PW5) who are also injured persons, and Ram Chadra (PW5), neighbourer of the adjoining field. They have deposed about the role of the appellants in commission of the crime. 18. Complainant Sohan Lal ( PW4) brother of deceased Mangla Ram, who gave a Parcha-bayan (Ex.P26), deposed that incident took place in the rainy season (Chomasa) at the field. On that day at about 10-11 A.M he was at his dwelling house situated in the field. His elder brother Mangal Singh, Santosh (brother's wife) came at the field. In the field all of them were harvesting millet crop. Mahavir, Jaman, Bhanwari, Lala, Parmeshwar etc. were also at the field. Bhanwari was having dantli, Jaman was having Gandasi, Lala was having kasiya, Parmeshwar was having lathi, Mahavir was having Jaily in their hands. Sohan Lal (PW4) deposed that they told them that they shall harvest the millet crop and upon protest they gave beating to them. 19. Babudi Devi (PW2) deposed that at about 11:00 A.M approx. nine years ago she along-with Mukesh, her sister Santosh went to the field to harvest millet crop. When they came back, her Jeth Mangla Ram, Mahavir and Jaman went there for harvesting millet crop. Mangla Ram forbid Mahavir, Jaman, Parmeshwar, Bhanwari, Lalu @ Lal Chandra to harvest millet crop in the field. Mangal Ram objected and told that millet crop was sown by them. All the above-named five persons encircled Mangla Ram. When they came back, her Jeth Mangla Ram, Mahavir and Jaman went there for harvesting millet crop. Mangla Ram forbid Mahavir, Jaman, Parmeshwar, Bhanwari, Lalu @ Lal Chandra to harvest millet crop in the field. Mangal Ram objected and told that millet crop was sown by them. All the above-named five persons encircled Mangla Ram. Wife of Jaman Lal inflicted blow with dantli, Parmeshwar was having 'Dantla' in his hands, Lalu inflicted blow with Kasya. Jaman Lal inflicted blow with a 'Gandasi' on the head of his sister Santosh. Parmeshwar inflicted blow with 'dantla' and Laliya inflicted blow with 'Kasiya'. When she went there and tried to intervene, Jaman Lal inflicted blow with 'dantla' on the ear. Bhanwari, Parmeshwar and Laiya caught hold of her. Thereafter her husband Sohan Lal came there. Mahavir inflicted a Jaily blow, Jaman inflicted a gandasi blow, Parmeshwar inflicted a lakdi (stick) blow due to which her hand got fractured. Babudi Devi (PW2) deposed that Mangla Ram died in Jaipur during the course of treatment. Babudi Devi (PW2) further deposed that Mahavir went to harvest the millet crop which was situated in 20 Bighas land, the quarrel took place as they objected the accused to harvest the said millet crop. 20. Similarly, Mukesh (PW3) who was the injured witness stated that:- *esjs rkm eaxykjke us mudks dgk fd vki cktjk D;ks dkV jgs gks rks eaxykjke ds mij ekjus ds fy;s geyk dj fn;k rks teuyky us flj es nks pksV xaM+klh dh ekjh] eaxykjke ds tehu ij fxjus ij egkohj us flj esa tsyh dh ekjhA esjs rkm dks t;iqj jsQj fd;k tgka bykt ds nkSjku mudh e`R;q gks x;hA ;g dguk xyr gS fd mDr 20 ch?kk tehu caVokjs ds ckn egkohj ds fgLls es vk;h gks ;g ckr lgh gS fd mls mjyk [ksr dgrs gSA ;g lgh gS fd >xM+k cktjk dkVus dh ckr ij gqvk FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd jkepUnz o mldh iRuh lqeu >xM+k gksus ds ckn vk;h FksA* 21. Mukesh (PW3) deposed that at about 10-11 A.M on 26.9.2010 he went to the filed along-with Mangla Ram (his grand uncle), Santosh (grand aunty), Babudi (mother), Sohan Lal and Prakash. He further deposed that when they were harvesting millet crop, Mahavir, Jaman Lal (Mahavir's son), Parmeshwar, Bhanwari (Jamna's wife), Lal Chand came and all of them started to harvest millet crop on the other side. He further deposed that when they were harvesting millet crop, Mahavir, Jaman Lal (Mahavir's son), Parmeshwar, Bhanwari (Jamna's wife), Lal Chand came and all of them started to harvest millet crop on the other side. His grand uncle told to do so. They attacked on Mangla Ram with a view to kill him. Jaman Lal inflicted two gandasi blows on the head of Mangla Ram. On falling of Mangla Ram on the ground, Mahavir inflicted jaily blow on his head. His grand aunty Santosh fell down on the person of Mangla Ram with a view to save him then Bhanwari inflicted a dantli blow on his head and Mahavir inflicted a jaily blow. Jaman Lal inflicted a gandasi blow on the chest of Mangla Ram. Mukesh (PW3) further deposed that Babudi Devi (mother) with a view to save him fell down on his person then Bhanwari inflicted a dantli blow, Jaman Lal inflicted a rapadi blow, Lal Chand inflicted a kasiya blow on his right eye. Parmeshwar caught hold him then Lal Chand inflicted a kasiya blow. Ram Chandra, Suman Devi (Ram Chandra's wife) and Banwari Gurjar came to save them. Suman made a call on 108. They took them to Chirana Hospital. Lateron they were taken from Chirana Hospital to Sikar. They were treated in Sikar. His grand uncle was referred to Jaipur where he died during the course of treatment. 22. Santosh Devi (PW5) deposed that at about 10-11 A.M near-about 13 months of the date of accident she along with her husband were harvesting millet crop. Thereafter, her devar Sohan Lal, her sister, Babudi (Devrani) and her nephew Mukesh came there. In that field Mahavir etc. were harvesting millet crop. When they forbid to harvest millet crop they gave beatings to them. Jaman Lal inflicted a gandasi blow, Mahavir inflicted a Jaily blow on the back side, Bhanwari inflicted a Dantli blow, Parmeshwar inflicted a stick blow on the person of her husband. When she tried to save him, Mahavir inflicted a 'jaili' blow on her head and hand. Bhanwari inflicted 'dantli' blow on her back side. Jaman also inflicted a blow. Parmeshwar and Lal Chand inflicted a stick blow. Lateron her 'devar' Sohan came. When her 'devar' tried to save, he was also beaten. Jaman inflicted a gandasi blow, Mahavir inflicted a 'Jaily' blow on his head, Parmeshwar inflicted a lathi blow on the back side. Bhanwari inflicted 'dantli' blow on her back side. Jaman also inflicted a blow. Parmeshwar and Lal Chand inflicted a stick blow. Lateron her 'devar' Sohan came. When her 'devar' tried to save, he was also beaten. Jaman inflicted a gandasi blow, Mahavir inflicted a 'Jaily' blow on his head, Parmeshwar inflicted a lathi blow on the back side. Lal Chand inflicted a kasiya blow. Jaman Lal inflicted a 'gandasi' blow on the ear of her sister Babudi. 23. Ram Chandra (PW6) neighbour of the adjoining field and eye witness of the occurrence deposed that his field is situated in Phagediyoeoen Ki Dhani. The field of Mangla Ram is situated just adjacent to his field. About 13-14 months ago at about 10-11 A.M the family members of Sohan Lal and Mahavir were quarreling. Mukesh called him to save his mother and father. Thereafter he along-with his wife came there. Mangal Chand was lying there in an unconscious condition. Mahavir, Jaman Lal, Bhanwari, Lal Chand were giving beating to Sohan Lal and Mangal Chand. Mahavir was having 'Jaili', Jaman was having 'Dantla', Bhanwari was having 'Dantli' and Lal Chand was having 'Kasiya' in their hands. 24. Suman Devi (PW8) deposed that Mahavir Prasad is her Jeth. Mangla Ram and Sohan Lal used to reside in a house in the field. Her field and their field are situated nearby. Suman Devi (PW8) deposed that Jaman was having gandasi, Mahavir was having jaily, Lal Chand was having Kasliya, Bhanwari Devi was having Dantli, Parmeshwar was having lathi in their hands. Jaman Lal inflicted a gandasi blow on the person of Mangla Ram due to which he fell down. All the above five persons gave beatings to Mangla Ram. 25. It is clear from a reading of the examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examination, that short of injured eye-witnesses being able to tell the Court as to how many injuries were received by the deceased and with what weapons. The factum of their being beaten up by the persons who were named, is shaken. 26. Learned counsel for the accused appellants further argued that Sohan Lal (PW4), who is brother of the deceased and also informant in the case, admitted that the quarrel took place regarding harvesting the millet crop. The factum of their being beaten up by the persons who were named, is shaken. 26. Learned counsel for the accused appellants further argued that Sohan Lal (PW4), who is brother of the deceased and also informant in the case, admitted that the quarrel took place regarding harvesting the millet crop. The genesis of the occurrence as mentioned by the prosecution and written in FIR is that the accused party was harvesting the millet crop and deceased Mangla Ram along-with injured witnesses raised objection to that. It was a sudden fight and as alleged by the witnesses the accused party was having the agriculture instruments in their hands, which were quite natural. There was no pre-meditation between the accused party and they were also not aware of the fact that deceased will come there and stop them from harvesting. They all acted in independent manner without consultation to each other and there was no common object for unlawful assembly. Section 149 IPC provides that mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is out of those set out in Section 141. The expression in prosecution of common object as appearing in Section 149 IPC has to be strictly construed as equivalent to in order to attain the common object. 'Common object' is different from a 'common intention' as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. The 'common object' of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. The learned trial court wrongly held the accused liable under section 149 IPC. 27. So far as the present case is concerned, as discussed above, it is clear that all the five accused appellants did not assemble at a particular place and time to form an opinion to commit murder of deceased Mangla Ram. The statement of Suman Devi (PW15) is corroborated by the statement of Santosh Devi (PW5). She has also stated that Jaman Lal inflicted a gandasi blow on the person of Mangla Ram due to which he fell down. The statement of Suman Devi (PW15) is corroborated by the statement of Santosh Devi (PW5). She has also stated that Jaman Lal inflicted a gandasi blow on the person of Mangla Ram due to which he fell down. Statement of Santosh Devi (PW5) is corroborated by the statement of Mukesh (PW3). Mukesh (PW3) deposed that Jaman Lal inflicted a gandasi blow on the person of Mangla Ram. On falling of Mangla Ram on the ground, Mahaveer inflicted 'jailly' below on his head. All the prosecution witnesses explained as to why the quarrel started over harvesting the millet crop in the disputed field by the accused appellants. There was no pre-meditation and the accused appellants were having agricultural equipments in their hands and the act was in the course of sudden fight. In the case at hand, there is, in our opinion no evidence to show that the accused appellants knew in furtherance of the common object of harvesting the millet crop that the members of the assembly or any one of them was likely to commit the murder of the deceased. There is indeed no evidence even to show that the appellants knew the agriculture equipments carrying with Jaman Lal and Mahaveer and they could use the same. However, upon going through the evidence and the evidence of injured witnesses and the Investigating Officer together with the opinion of Dr. Deepali Pathak (PW23) that "cause of death is "Coma' brought about as a result of ante mortem head injury No. (1) sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature", it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt that so far as fatal injuries on the head of deceased Mangla Ram is concerned, the same were inflicted by accused Mahavir and Jaman Lal and other injuries on the person of deceased were not found to be fatal and it is not clear as to which accused inflicted the said injuries. As per medical evidence, there were only two injuries on the person of the deceased which were found to be fatal, which are too attributed to accused Mahavir and Jaman Lal. We are of the view that the learned trial court committed an illegality in convicting the remaining three accused appellants Smt. Bhanwari Devi, Parmeshwar Lal and Lal Chand except accused appellants Mahavir Prasad and Jaman Lal with the aid of section 149 IPC. 28. As per testimony of Dr. We are of the view that the learned trial court committed an illegality in convicting the remaining three accused appellants Smt. Bhanwari Devi, Parmeshwar Lal and Lal Chand except accused appellants Mahavir Prasad and Jaman Lal with the aid of section 149 IPC. 28. As per testimony of Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Meena (PW12), Medical Jurist, all the injured witnesses received only simple injuries and no injury was found to be dangerous to life. So no offence under section 307 IPC is made out because the accused appellants were not having any intention to commit murder of any person. As per prosecution witnesses there is no repetition of injury by any person. It was a case of sudden fight and complainant party was aggressor and the accused party was having only agriculture instruments in their hand for harvesting of field, so accused party should be acquitted of the offence under section 307/149 IPC. 29. In view of above discussion, the criminal appeal filed by the accused appellants is partly allowed. Accused appellants Mahavir Prasad and Jaman Lal are convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-I in-stead of section 302/149 IPC and for the above offence under section 304 Part-I they are sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. For rest of the offences, conviction and sentence of the accused appellants Mahavir Prasad and Jaman Lal shall remain as it is but they are acquitted of the charges punishable with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The conviction of accused appellants Smt. Bhanwari Devi, Parmeshwar Lal and Lal Chand under section 302/149 IPC is set aside. Their conviction for remaining offences under sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 307 IPC except with the aid of Section 149 IPC shall remain as it is. However, they are sentenced for the period already undergone by them in confinement. They are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled and they be set at liberty forthwith. The impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court is modified to the above extent.