JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. 1. Palkot P.S case No.33 of 2011 was registered on 03.07.2011 against Ghuran Sahu, Vimal Sahu, Kariya Sahu, Sudheshwar Sahu, Bhim Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Mutu Sahu and Budheshwar Sahu under sections 147/148/149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and section 27 of the Arms Act. After the death of Jehlu Sahu section 302 IPC was added in the report on 29.08.2011. In her fardbeyan which was recorded at 10:15 PM on 02.07.2011 at village-Nawadih, Sumati Sahu, wife of Jehlu Sahu, has stated that in the evening of 02.07.2011 her husband was at home. At about 08:30 PM, when she was talking to her husband her co-villagers, namely, Ghuran Sahu, Vimal Sahu, Kariya Sahu, Sudheswar Sahu, Bhim Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Budheswar Sahu and Mutu Sahu came there, Ghuran Sahu entered the houses and, shot at the neck of her husband from point blank range. On sustaining firearm injury her husband fell on the ground and became unconscious and the accused persons fled away firing shots in the air; She has claimed that she could identify the accused persons, in the electric light and stated that the reason for the Occurrence was an old land dispute. She has further stated that the other accused persons were carrying lathi-danda. 2. After the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against Ghuran Sahu, Vimal Sahu, Kariya Sahu, Sudheswar Sahu, Bhim Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Budheswar Sahu and Mutu Sahu and the appellants have faced the trial in the charge under sections 302/149, 147/149 and 148/149 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act - Bhim Sahu was found juvenile and therefore his trial was separated whereas the trial against Sudheswar Sahu was split up due to his abscondence. During the trial the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses out of whom PWI-Dwarika Sahu, PW2-Sumati Sahu and PW3-Krishna Sahu are close relatives of Jehlu Sahu, the deceased. The other prosecution witnesses who are the co-villagers said to be distantly related to the deceased. The accused persons have examined 3 witnesses to set-up a defence that they were falsely implicated in this case, due to past enmity. The another defence taken by the accused persons is that the deceased, namely, Jehlu Sahu was done to death by Mangal Nagesia or the extremists at the instance of Lalu Kharia with whom he had a bitter fight about one year ago. 3. Dr. The another defence taken by the accused persons is that the deceased, namely, Jehlu Sahu was done to death by Mangal Nagesia or the extremists at the instance of Lalu Kharia with whom he had a bitter fight about one year ago. 3. Dr. Mira Shashmal who has conducted the post-mortem examination has found multiple antemortem crust abrasions of varying sizes ranging from pin-head to 4-5mm in diameter, spread from lower part of deltoid to upper part of thyroid cartridge. She has made the following observations about the injuries on the person of Jehlu Sahu: "(1) The eyes of deceased were closed and conjunctiva pale, Cornea was hazy, mouth was Closed with the tongue inside the teeth. Rigor mortis strong in the neck and all limbs. The decomposition absent. P.M Livibity fixed on the back. History of body being kept in the cool environment of morgue house. (2) There was multiple antemortem crust from abrasions of sizes varying from pin head to 4 to 5 millimeter diameter distributed over an area of lower part of deltoid 10" in length up to upper part of thyroid cartilages 6" wide. The space between the crust shows patchy bum wounds. The crust appeared as a forceful hot materials spread from lateral to medial direction. (3) There was an antemortem stitch wound of length 6" x 3/4" wide x 1/2" depth at the posterior boarder of right eastern-mastoid muscle on the neck and gradually becomes dipper towards interior middle part of the neck which is 1-1/2" deep. This is a lacerated wound. (4) The mandible adjacent to this wound is broken and lacerated. The flour of the lacerated wound showed destroyed muscle and vessels and other soft tissues. The margin of and flour of the wound is infected with presence of pus. The age of this injury is 3 to 5 days prior to death of the deceased. 4. The. learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla has held that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case on date, time, place and manner of occurrence and minor, contradictions in their testimony are not sufficient to discard their evidence altogether. He has further held that the accused persons shared common intention (sic, common object) and though a single bullet injury was found on the dead body of Jehlu Sahu all are responsible for causing death of Jehlu Sahu. He has further held that the accused persons shared common intention (sic, common object) and though a single bullet injury was found on the dead body of Jehlu Sahu all are responsible for causing death of Jehlu Sahu. The learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I has finally arrived at the following conclusions: "26. All the prosecution witnesses examined before the Court have narrated the sequence of events taking place on that fateful night. There is consistency in their statement regarding occurrence. The chain of events as stated by them is well corroborated in their deposition. The defence witnesses examined before the Court have stated the reason behind this occurrence. The date, time and place of occurrence, as stated by them corroborates the FIR and statement of other witnesses. There are some minor discrepancies in their statement on oath. But I do not find any reason to disbelieve them and it suggests guilty mind on the part of accused persons. 27. There was common intention on the part of these accused persons to commit this occurrence as is clear from the facts of this case. I do not find any force in the submission of learned defence counsel that there was a single bullet injury and 6 persons shall not be held responsible for the same. The law relating to joint liability emerging in Section 149 of IPC was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in several other cases the law now is fairly well settled. All the accused persons were knowing what was going to happen, they actively participated in the commission of the consequent happenings and done everything in their power in furtherance thereof to achieve their common object and as is settled law of this land that if common object is proved which has animated by the, offenders to do the offence then everybody, who has participated in, furtherance of that common object, must share the liability jointly and severally. Hence, I find that this is a fit case where even though the death was caused by one of the accused, namely, Ghuran Sahu and as has come in the deposition of eyewitness PW-2 that only accused Ghuran Sahu fired on the deceased, the liability of causing this occurrence of murder of the deceased must be shared by all of them. As the intention was common so be the liability. 28. As the intention was common so be the liability. 28. On the basis of discussions made above I find that all the 6 accused persons, namely, Ghuran Sahu, Vimal Sahu, Mutu Sahu, Karia Sahu, Budheshwar Sahu and Rajendra Sahu have agreed in between themselves to cause this occurrence (murder of deceased). They put themselves to a task to achieve the common target. The task as set and achieved by them was illegal hence they must be punished for the same. I find, that the prosecution has successfully proved all the charges levelled against these six accused persons under sections 302/149, 147/149, 148/149 IPC. Further I find that the prosecution has successfully Proved, the charge levelled against accused Ghuran Sahu, under section 27 of the Arms Act beyond all shadows of reasonable doubts.” 5. In Sessions Trial Case No. 250 of 2011, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- each under section 302/149 IPC, R.I for 2 years under section 147/149 IPC and R.I for 3 years under section 148/149 IPC. Ghuran Sahu was further convicted and sentenced to R.I for 3 years and a fine of Rs.2000/- under section 27 of the Arms Act. 6. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, namely, Ghuran Sahu [Criminal Appeal (DB) No.48 of 2016] has raised three fold contentions: (i) testimony of the informant is so cryptic as to inspire confidence, (ii) evidence of the witnesses who are highly interested should not be made basis for the conviction, and (iii) on account of proved enmity there is clear motive for false implication of the appellant. The alternative argument raised on behalf of Ghuran Sahu is that he is liable to be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for the death has occurred about four days after Jehlu Sahu suffered firearm injury. 7. PWI-Dwarika Sahu, PW3-KrishnaSahu and PW11-Dev Kumar Sahu are the brothers of Jehlu Sahu; PW2-Sumati Sahu is the wife of Jehlu Sahu; PW5-Yadunath Sahu is the cousin brother of Jehlu Sahu, and; PW7-Tilakdhari Sahu is the nephew of Jehlu Sahu. PW4-Ishwar Sahu, PW8-Netlal, Sahu and PW10-Premchand Sahu are the, co-villagers and some of them are also gotiyas (agnates) or, distantly related to Jehlu Sahu, PW 1 has deposed in the Court that at about 08:30 P.M. in the night of 02.07.2011 he was in his courtyard. PW4-Ishwar Sahu, PW8-Netlal, Sahu and PW10-Premchand Sahu are the, co-villagers and some of them are also gotiyas (agnates) or, distantly related to Jehlu Sahu, PW 1 has deposed in the Court that at about 08:30 P.M. in the night of 02.07.2011 he was in his courtyard. At that time a shot was fired in the house of Jehlu Sabu and when he came out from his house saw Ghuran Sahu, Bhim Sahu, Vimal Sahu, Mutu Sahu, Kariya Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Sudheswar Sahu and Budheswar Sahu fleeing away. Ghuran Sahu was firing from a country-made pistol and the other accused were carrying lathi-danda. He has seen Jehlu Sahu drenched in blood with a firearm injury on his neck. He has further stated that Sumati Saha who is the wife of Jehlu Sahu told him that Ghuran Sahu has shot at her husband. Thereafter on his information the police came and recorded the statement of Sumati Sahu. Jehlu Sahu was first taken to Gumla Sadar Hospital from where, he was referred to Ranchi and thereafter he was admitted at Panpos Hospital, Rourkela. PW2 is the informant who has stated in the Court that she identified all the accused persons who came to her house in the night of 02.07.2011, amongst them Ghuran Sahu had fired at her husband. PW3, PW4, PW6, PW7 and PW8 were also at home in the evening of 02.07:2011 and on hearing the sound of firing had gone to the house of Jehlu Sahu. They have also claimed that they have seen the accused persons fleeing away and at that time Ghuran Sahu was carrying a country-made pistol and others lathi-danda. PW5 is a seizure witness, and PW 10 and PW 11 are the inquest witnesses. PW 11 has stated in his cross-examination that the inquest report was prepared by the officer-in-charge of Palkot P.S at Rourkela Hospital and he has signed the inquest report on 07.07.2011 at about 03:30 PM. He has further stated that there was no land dispute as the partition was already affected, though he admits that there was a panchayati (baithaki) in the family of Budheswar Sahu and Sudheswar Sahu for partition of the land. He has further stated that there was no land dispute as the partition was already affected, though he admits that there was a panchayati (baithaki) in the family of Budheswar Sahu and Sudheswar Sahu for partition of the land. PW12, the investigating officer has deposed in the Court that in the night of 02.07.2011 an information was received in the police station that some miscreants pad, injured one person of village Koleng, Nawadih by firing at him and the information was duly entered vide Sanha No.34 of 2011 dated 2.7.2011. He has identified his signature on the seizure-memo and inquest report. He has inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of Jehlu Sahu and recorded statement of the witnesses. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the contents of the information received in the night of 2.7.2011 are not recorded in the case diary arid any information about name of the accused was also of given. He has recorded the fardbeyan at 10:15 PM on 2.7.2011 and a First Information Report was, lodged at 06:30 a.m. on 3.7.2011. 8. The case of the prosecution is that Jehlu Sahu had a land dispute with Sudheswar Sahu and his brother, namely, Budheswar Sahu. In the night of 02.07.2011 the accused persons entered the house of Jehlu Sahu and Ghuran Sahu fired at him. The wife of Jehlu. Sahu has seen firing at her husband by Ghuran Sahu and the other witnesses have seen the accused persons fleeing away immediately after a shot was fired in the house of Jehlu Sahu. A witness may be related to the victim or inimical to the accused. Sometimes a related witness may be interested in prosecution of the accused but on that ground the testimony of a related or inimical witness cannot be discarded. The law on the point is well-settled that merely because a witness is a close relative is not enough to reject his testimony, if it is otherwise cogent and credible. It is difficult to conceive that a wife would implicate his close relatives for murder of her husband and conceal identity of the real culprits. The informant has stated in the Court that at about 08:30 PM on 02.07.2011 she was talking to her husband. It is difficult to conceive that a wife would implicate his close relatives for murder of her husband and conceal identity of the real culprits. The informant has stated in the Court that at about 08:30 PM on 02.07.2011 she was talking to her husband. Her presence in her house is quite natural and she is a competent witness who can tell the Court what had happened in the fateful night. Her testimony is cogent and consistent and she has clearly stated in the Court that Ghuran Sahu had fired at her husband and she has identified all the persons who were there with Ghuran, Sahu. The defence has set-up a case of false implication on the ground of past enmity. The defence witnesses have stated in the Court that there was a panchayati for partition of land between Jehlu Sahu and Sudheswar Sahu and Budheswar Sahu. The informant has admitted in her cross-examination that there was a land dispute and in this regard a meeting was convened at the Community Center in which it was decided that half share in the property shall be given to Budheswar Sahu and Sudheswar Sahu. She has also admitted that whatever share was decided in the meeting was not given to Budheswar Sahu and Sudheswar Sahu by her father-in-law. From the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the other accused persons have taken a defence that they were falsely implicated in the case for murder of Jehlu Sahu for the reason that they had taken sides with Sudheswar Sahu and Budheswar Sahu. But their presence at the house of the informant is established and they were found fleeing away with Ghuran Sahu immediately after a shot was fired in the house of Jehlu Sahu. What we could gather from the materials on record is that it is not established that the informant has falsely implicated the accused persons. She has made specific allegation of firing against Ghuran Sahu and not against Budheswar Sahu or Sudheswar Sahu, and there is no suggestion to her by the defence that she had any animosity with Ghuran Sahu. In Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 3 SCC 654 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that proof of motive recedes into the background in cases where the prosecution relies upon an eyewitness account of the occurrence. In Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 3 SCC 654 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that proof of motive recedes into the background in cases where the prosecution relies upon an eyewitness account of the occurrence. How far the complicity of other accused persons in the occurrence is established can be ascertained only after analysing the prosecution evidence but we are not inclined to accept that they were implicated in the case only on suspicion. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6, PW7 and PW8 who are related to Jehlu Sahu have supported the informant. In the background of the testimony of the informant, the evidence of these witnesses that they have seen the accused persons fleeing away immediately after they heard firing of a gun shot in the house of Jehlu Sahu is a highly incriminating circumstance. 9. Another defence set-up by the accused persons is that murder of Jehlu Sahu was committed by Mangal Nagesia, a extremist, who has owned responsibility for the murder, or, by Lalu Kharia with whom Jehlu Sahu had bitter relation and who had attacked him about one, year back. The informant has admitted marpit between her husband and Lalu Kharia. She has stated that Lalu Kharia had recently been released from jail, yet she has not implicated him in the occurrence. If the plea of past enmity set-up by the accused persons has to be believed, for such reasons the informant could have easily implicated Lalu Kharia for murder of her husband. We also find that Mangal Nagesia issuing a press release which was published in the newspaper is quite irrelevant. It is common knowledge that the extremist organisations would own responsibility for a murder with a view to create terror in the mind of general public. Ghuran Sahu has set-up an alibi that at the time of the occurrence he was at Gumla. The informant has admitted that on 02.07.2011 the wife of Ghuran Sahu who was expecting a child was admitted in a hospital at Gumla and Ghuran Sahu was looking after his wife in the hospital. However what follows next in her cross-examination is sufficient to reject the plea of alibi set-up by Ghuran Sahu. The informant has stated that at about 05:00 PM in the evening she had seen Ghuran Sahu in the village and the distance between her village and Gumla is about Twenty kilometers. However what follows next in her cross-examination is sufficient to reject the plea of alibi set-up by Ghuran Sahu. The informant has stated that at about 05:00 PM in the evening she had seen Ghuran Sahu in the village and the distance between her village and Gumla is about Twenty kilometers. Statutory illustration (a) to section 11 of the Evidence Act which is relevant in the context of the defence set-up by Ghuran Sahu provides a guide how a plea of alibi shall be dealt with by the Court. Even assuming that Ghuran Sahu was attending his wife in the hospital at Gumla, it was quite possible for a person to be present in the hospital after committing murder at a place just about Twenty kilometers away. 10. The testimony of the informant is sufficient to prove firing by Ghuran Sahu at her husband, She is the only eye-witness to the actual occurrence and she has remained firm to her grounds on her presence in her house in the night, when Ghuran Sahu has fired at her husband. As general rule, the Court may act on the testimony of a single eye-witness and there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the basis of sole testimony of an eyewitness. Section 134 of the Evidence Act says that no particular number of witnesses is required in any case for the proof of a fact. The import of section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act is that the Court may act on the testimony of a single eyewitness, provided he is wholly reliable. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that: “even if the case against the accused hangs on the evidence of a single eyewitness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a, competent honest man, although as a rule of prudence Courts call for corroboration." 11. However, conviction of Ghuran Sahu under section 302/149 IPC for causing death of Jehlu Sahu is not proper. 12. PW9 who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 07.07.2011 has found one stitched wound of Size "6 inches x 3/4 inch x 1/2 inch" over the posterior boarder of right eastern-mastoid muscle. However, conviction of Ghuran Sahu under section 302/149 IPC for causing death of Jehlu Sahu is not proper. 12. PW9 who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 07.07.2011 has found one stitched wound of Size "6 inches x 3/4 inch x 1/2 inch" over the posterior boarder of right eastern-mastoid muscle. In the opinion of the doctor it was a lacerated wound, mandible around this wound was broken and muscles and vessels around the wound were destroyed. The doctor has not rendered a definite opinion about the cause of death, however, she has stated that the type of injury found on Jehlu Sahu can be caused by a gun shot. The death has Occurred after four days and at the time of the post-mortem examination the wound was infected - the doctor has found 'pus' In the wound. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 48 of 2016 has relied on the decisions in Govind and Others v. State of M.P,. 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 536 and Sanjay v. State of U.P., (2016) 13 SCC 203 to press hard that Ghuran Sahu is liable to be convicted under section 304 Part II IPC or in the worst under section 304 Part I IPC. 13. It was late in the evening when Ghuran Sahu has fired at Jehlu Sahu and from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the informant, we gather that identification of the accused persons by the informant was challenged on the ground that there was insufficient light in the house of Jehlu Sahu. The accused persons were not unknown to the Informant and there was some light in the house sufficient to identify the accused persons and, therefore the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I has rightly accepted the, evidence of the prosecution witnesses on identification of the accused persons. But what is significant to note is, that the informant has said very little about the actual Occurrence and given the background of the Source of light in the house it is difficult to hold that Ghuran Sahu fired at Jehlu Sahu with an intention to murder. The injury to Jehlu Sahu which was caused on non-vital part of the body is another fact from which an intention to cause death cannot be inferred. 14. The injury to Jehlu Sahu which was caused on non-vital part of the body is another fact from which an intention to cause death cannot be inferred. 14. Section 300 IPC provides that culpable homicide would amount to murder if act alleged against an accused falls under anyone of four clauses under section 300 IPC. However, section 300 IPC also provides five specified exceptions to the general law and the exception contained under Exception-4 reads as under: Exception 4. - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 15. In Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory Chandigarh (1989) 2 SCC 217 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: '7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant has not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation' or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is note a decisive factor but what, 'is important is that the occurrence must have acted in. a fit of anger of, course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage-or acted in a cruel manner where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly…." 16. Ghuran Sahu had no personal enmity with Jehlu Sahu. Ghuran Sahu has not fired a second shot and the prosecution has not proved a circumstances establish that he has taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. A gunshot injury would be dangerous to life and it may cause death if sustained on a vital part of the body but then the injury caused to Jehlu Sahu on the area covering deltoid cannot be considered on a vital part of the body so as to infer knowledge as envisaged under clause Fourthly to section 300 IPC. A gunshot injury would be dangerous to life and it may cause death if sustained on a vital part of the body but then the injury caused to Jehlu Sahu on the area covering deltoid cannot be considered on a vital part of the body so as to infer knowledge as envisaged under clause Fourthly to section 300 IPC. He was treated at Sadar Hospital Gumla, RIMS, Ranchi and at Rourkela, however, what medicines were administered to him has not been brought on record and the doctors who attended him have not been examined so as to establish the extent of the injury suffered by Jehlu Sahu. For the aforesaid reasons, we would hold that Ghuran Sahu cannot be convicted for murder rather he is entitled to the benefit under Exception-4 to section 300 IPC. 17. Accordingly, conviction and sentence of Ghuran Sahu under section 302/149 IPC and under section 27 of the Arms Act are set-aside. He is convicted and sentenced to R.I for 10 years under section 304 Part I IPC. 18. In so far as involvement of the appellants in the other two appeals is concerned, we find that their conviction under section 302/149 IPC is also liable to be set-aside. 19. Mr. K. S. Nanda, the learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 900 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 949 of 2015 has submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that the death of Jehlu Sahu was caused in furtherance of common object of the unlawful assembly. 20. In so far as the complicity of other accused persons, namely, Kariya Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Budheswar Sahu, Vimal Sahu and Mutu Sahu in the occurrence is concerned, we find that the informant has deposed in the Court that all the accused persons had entered her house. However, her cross-examination in paragraph no. 20. In so far as the complicity of other accused persons, namely, Kariya Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Budheswar Sahu, Vimal Sahu and Mutu Sahu in the occurrence is concerned, we find that the informant has deposed in the Court that all the accused persons had entered her house. However, her cross-examination in paragraph no. 12 suggests that she was confronted with her statement in the fardbeyan wherein she has alleged that Ghuran Sahu had entered the house while the others had remained outside, and though in the cross-examination she has denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not enter her house the stand taken by her in the Court is so different from her statement in the fardbeyan that seriously affects the nature of participation of the other accused persons in the occurrence and, therefore, we would ignore her statement to the extent that the other appellants had entered her house. So, what remains in the prosecution evidence is that these appellants were carrying lathi-danda and had accompanied Ghuran Sahu to the house of Jehlu Sahu and the other prosecution witnesses have seen them fleeing away. The specific allegation of assault has been found proved against Ghuran Sahu who has fired at Jehlu Sahu. There is no allegation of any overt act on the part of these appellants in the occurrence and though for applicability of section 149 IPC it is not necessary that every member of the unlawful assembly must have played some part, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish that they shared common object to cause death of Jehlu Sahu. They were standing at the door of the informant's house but did not participate in the occurrence. 21. In Lalji v. State of U.P. 1989 1 SCC 437 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly extends only to the acts done in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, or to such offences as the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. It is the prosecution evidence that the others were carrying lathi-danda but no other overt act has been imputed to them. It is the prosecution evidence that the others were carrying lathi-danda but no other overt act has been imputed to them. They had accompanied Ghuran Sahu to the house of Jehlu Sahu, but from this evidence it cannot be inferred that the common object of their assembly, was to cause death, and that the shared the common object to cause death of Jehlu Sahu has not been established. However, from the prosecution evidence this much can be inferred that the common object, of the accused persons was to cause grievous hurt to Jehlu Sahu. Keeping in mind the aforesaid circumstances, we hold that the appellants, namely, Kariya Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Budheswar, Sahu, vimal Sahu and Mutu Sahu are liable to be convicted under section 325/149 IPC. 22. The conviction of an accused cannot both under sections 147 as well as 148 IPC [refer, Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel, (2018) 7 SCC 743 ] and, therefore, conviction 'and' sentence of the appellants under section 147/149 IPC are set-aside. 23. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 29.09.2015 and the order of sentence dated 30.09.2015 against the appellant, namely, Ghuran Sahu, for the offence under sections 302/ 149, 147/149 and 148/149 IPC and under section 27 of the Arms Act and against the appellants, namely, Kariya Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Budheswar Sahu, Vimal Sahu and Mutu Sahu for the offence under sections 302/149, 147/149 and 148/149 IPC passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla in Sessions Trial Case No. 250 of 2011, are set-aside. 24. The appellants, namely, Kariya Sahu, Rajendra Sahu and Budheswar Sahu [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 900 of 2015] and Vimal Sahu and Mutu Sahu [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 949 of 2015] are convicted and sentenced to R.I for 3 years under section 325/149 IPC with fine of Rs.5000/- each. 25. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned A.P.P states that the appellant, namely, Ghuran Sahu who is in custody has served sentence of more than 11 years, with remission, and the appellants, namely, Kariya Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Budheswar Sahu, Vimal Sahu and Mutu Sapu who have remained in custody for about one year are on bail. 26. Accordingly the appellant, namely, [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 48 2016] who is in custody, shall be set free forthwith if not wanted in connection to any other case. 27. 26. Accordingly the appellant, namely, [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 48 2016] who is in custody, shall be set free forthwith if not wanted in connection to any other case. 27. The appellants, namely, Kariya Sahu, Rajendra Sahu and Budheswar Sahu [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 900 of 2015] and Vimal Sahu and Mutu Sahu [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 949 of 2015] who are on bail shall surrender forthwith to serve the remaining sentence. Their bail-bonds are cancelled. 28. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.48 of 2016, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 900 of 2015, and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 949 of 2015, are partly allowed. 29. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and the concerned jail superintendent through 'Fax'. 30. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.