JUDGMENT : Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. Since both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Sessions Trial No.17/2017, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In Criminal Appeal No.788 of 2021, the appellants (Phoolsai, Shiv Prasad @ Selgu and Gomti) have been convicted and sentenced as under:- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 148 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and payment of fine of Rs.500/- to each of the appellants Under Section 302 (Two count) of IPC Life Imprisonment (on two count) and fine of Rs.5,000/- (on two count) to each of the appellants Under Section 324/149 (Two count ) of IPC One year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- (on two count) to each of the appellants In default of payment of fine, each of the appellants have to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 3. In Criminal Appeal No.387 of 2021, the appellants (Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad) have been convicted and sentenced as under:- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 148 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and payment of fine of Rs.500/- to each of the appellants Under Section 302 (Two count ) of IPC Life Imprisonment (on two count) and fine of Rs.5,000/- (on two count) to each of the appellants Under Section 324/149 (Two count ) of IPC One year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- (on two count) to each of the appellants In default of payment of fine, each of the appellants have to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 4. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of this appeal, are that on 13.03.2017 at about 3.30 PM at Village Kudri, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, the appellants (Phoolsai) and his family members and other accused persons in furtherance of their common object have formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and committed the murder of Resham Lal Khunte and Mehettar Khunte and have injured Hira Lal, Gayatri Bai and Dhaneshwari with regard to the land dispute. A merg intimation was lodged by Dhaneshwari, the widow of Resham Lal Khunte with regard to the death of her husband and brother-in-law (Mehettar) on 13.03.2017 before the Police Station Dabhra vide Ex.P-3 & P-4, who in turn, registered the FIR (Ex.P-5) on 13.03.2017 against the accused persons namely Phoolsai, Shiv Prasad, Gomti Bai, Kanhaiya, Laxmi, Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad and Chhotu under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of IPC in connection with Crime No.86 of 2017. Inquest of the dead body of Resham Lal and Mehettar was conducted on 13.03.2017 vide Ex.P-17 and Ex.P-18 and spot map was prepared on 08.11.2017 Vide Ex.P.1. The injured Hira Lal and Dhaneshwari Bai were sent for their medical examinations. The dead body of Resham Lal and Mehettar was sent for autopsy on 13.03.2017, which was conducted by Dr. Hemant Kumar Sahu, (PW-11), who opined that the cause of death was due to cardio-respiratory failure vide Postmortem Report (Ex.P-20 & P-21), as a result of shock and hemorrhage and, accordingly cause of death was opined to be homicidal in nature. On the basis of disclosure statements of the appellants, an iron rod was recovered from the appellant-Phoolsai vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P-36) and an axe was recovered from his son Shiv Prasad and wife Gomti Bai vide Seizure Memos Ex.P-35 & P-34, respectively and lathi (stick) was recovered from the appellants-Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad vide Seizure Memos Ex.P-33 & P-32 respectively. The alleged articles were sent for its chemical examinations and Forensic Science Laboratory Report was thereupon submitted vide Ex.P-52. The appellants were arrested and the statement of witnesses were recorded and after due investigation, the appellants were chargesheeted for the commission of offence as mentioned hereinabove and the final report was accordingly submitted by the Investigating Officer before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, who in turn, has committed the matter to the Court of Sessions in exercise of the powers enumerated under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. for its trial. 5. The appellants have denied the charges so framed and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses, while one defence witness was examined by the appellants in rebuttal. 7. 5. The appellants have denied the charges so framed and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses, while one defence witness was examined by the appellants in rebuttal. 7. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court for the offences mentioned hereinabove. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.788 of 2021 submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court, without considering the evidence led by the parties in its proper manner, is apparently contrary to law, while learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.387 of 2021 submits that the appellants (Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad) were not present at the time of occurrence of the incident, yet they have been held liable for the conviction of the alleged crime. While inviting attention to the injuries inflicted upon the dead body of the deceaseds as well as injured persons, it is contended that it was found to be caused with sharp weapons, whereas the appellants were holding stick, therefore, the alleged injuries cannot be held to be caused by these weapons (lathis). Further contention of him is that the appellants (Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad), who are not the family members of the said Phoolsai, were wrongly held to be the member of the unlawful assembly, therefore, the findings of the Court below holding them liable with the aid of Section 149 of IPC, is apparently contrary to law. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the Court below. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 11. From perusal of the record, it appears that the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased-Resham Lal and Mehettar was conducted by Dr. Hemant Kumar Sahu (PW-11) and according to him, cause of death were found to be cardio-respiratory failure which came as a result of shock and hemorrhage and accordingly, it was held to be homicidal in nature as evidenced by the reports (Ex.P-20 and P-21). Hemant Kumar Sahu (PW-11) and according to him, cause of death were found to be cardio-respiratory failure which came as a result of shock and hemorrhage and accordingly, it was held to be homicidal in nature as evidenced by the reports (Ex.P-20 and P-21). After considering those postmortem reports, which are duly supported by his statement, the learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly arrived at a conclusion that the cause of death of deceased persons are homicidal in nature and we accordingly affirmed the same. 12. It is now to be considered as to whether the alleged crime was committed by the appellants or not and/or, whether the appellants (Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad) in Criminal Appeal No.387 of 2021 were present at the time of the alleged incident or whether under the facts and circumstances of the case unlawful assembly has been formed by the appellants with common object of causing death of said Resham Lal and his brother-Mehettar, who have lost their lives in the alleged incident. 13. Hira Lal Khunte (PW-1) is the son of the deceased-Mehettar and, it was stated by him that on the fateful day, i.e. 13.03.2017 at about 3.30 PM, Phoolsai, Gomti, Shiv Prasad, Laxmi Prasad, Tikam, Manish Kumar and elder brother of Tikam namely Amar Prasad have murdered his father Mehettar Lal and uncle Resham Lal and when he intercepted the matter, he was also assaulted by them on his head, owing to which, he sustained the injuries. It was deposed further that his mother thereafter came and he was admitted into the hospital at Kharsiya and wherefrom, he was referred to the hospital at Raigarh for his treatment. According to him, the appellant-Phoolsai was holding the iron rod, his wife (Gomti) and son (Shiv Prasad) were holding axe, while Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad were holding lathi (stick) and Laxmi Prasad, the absconding accused, was holding Kopta (latasa)and with the aid of those weapons, they killed his father and uncle. It was stated further that Shiv Prasad with an intention to kill him, assaulted severally on his head, but, he saved himself by his hand and sustained injuries. It was stated further that when his mother Gayatri Bai came, she was also assaulted by Phoolsai and his son Laxmi. It was stated further that Shiv Prasad with an intention to kill him, assaulted severally on his head, but, he saved himself by his hand and sustained injuries. It was stated further that when his mother Gayatri Bai came, she was also assaulted by Phoolsai and his son Laxmi. It was further deposed by him that because of the previous enmity with regard to the land dispute, his father and uncle were murdered by them. When a suggestion was put to him by the counsel appearing for the appellants (Amar and Tikam) that they were not present at the place of incident, it was denied that they were not present, though, according to him, he was not assaulted by them. It was stated further specifically that his father and uncle were assaulted by Phoolsai with the aid of iron pipe and his wife Gomti Bai and son Shiv Prasad with the aid of axe and Amar Prasad, Tikam Prasad and Manish have assaulted them with the aid of lathi (stick) and have murdered his father and uncle with the aid of axe and lathi (stick). It was denied by him in his statement that his father and uncle were assaulted by Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad with the aid of lathi (stick) when a specific question was put to him in this regard and it was denied further that owing to the previous enmity, he named their names. He was, thus, firm in his crossexamination and deposed specifically that at the time of occurrence of the alleged incident, both Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad were also present and they have assaulted his father and uncle with the aid of lathi (stick). 14. Smt. Gayatri Khunte (PW-7), who is the widow of the deceased- Mehettar and mother of injured-Hira Lal has also narrated the same fact by saying that her husband (Mehettar) and brother-in-law (Resham Lal) have been murdered by the appellants, while her son Hira Lal was inflicted and sustained injuries, when he intercepted the matter. 15. Smt. Dhaneshwari Khunte (PW-2) is the widow of deceased-Resham Lal, who furnished the merg intimations (Ex.P-3 & P-4) on 13.03.2017 regarding the death of her husband-Resham Lal and brother-in-law Mehettar to the concerned police station and based upon which, the FIR, (Ex.P-5) was registered against the appellants. 15. Smt. Dhaneshwari Khunte (PW-2) is the widow of deceased-Resham Lal, who furnished the merg intimations (Ex.P-3 & P-4) on 13.03.2017 regarding the death of her husband-Resham Lal and brother-in-law Mehettar to the concerned police station and based upon which, the FIR, (Ex.P-5) was registered against the appellants. It was stated by her that a quarrel took place between her brother-in-law (Jeth)-Mehettar and the appellants-Shiv Khunte and his family members and they were assaulting Ashwani Khunte, (son of her said Jeth) and, therefore, her husband Resham Lal came for rescue, but, they dragged him and he took an assault with axe. It was stated further that during the course of saving her husband by her Jeth, he was assaulted by them with the aid of axe and lathi (stick). It was stated further that when Hira Lal, son of her Jeth, came for rescue, he was also assaulted on his head by Shiv Prasad with the aid of tangi (axe), owing to which, he sustained injuries and blood was oozing and she was also assaulted when she intervened the matter. It reveals further from her testimony that the said incident was seen by her minor son Prem, who informed her another brother-in-law namely Samakram and upon receiving the said information, he reached the spot. She deposed further that she reported the matter to the police station Dabhra, who has registered the offence against the appellants. In her cross-examination, when a specific question was put to her by the counsel that the appellants (Amar Prasad and Tikarm Prasad) were not present at the spot, was, however, denied specifically by her and denied further that they came only when she shouted and, it was denied further that she implicated them (Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad) falsely. 16. Santoshi Khunte (PW-3) is the wife of Barat Ram, the brother of the deceased-Resham Lal and Mehettar and according to her, she was preparing the food at home, when she received the information about the alleged incident and had seen that the said Resham Lal was being dragged by the appellant-Phoolsai, who assaulted him with the aid of iron pipe and Shiv Prasad, his son, with axe (tangi), while Laxmi on his hand with Gandasa. 17. 17. Rewati Bai (PW-5) is the sister-in-law of deceaseds’ Resham Lal and Mehettar and has stated in her examination-in-chief that she has seen the appellants assaulting them and Phoolsai was holding an iron rod while Laxmi was holding a gandasa and Shiv Prasad and Gomti both were holding tangi (axe) at the relevant point of time. She states further that the appellants (Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad) were holding lathi (stick) and it was denied by her that she was not on the spot when a suggestion was made by the counsel for the appellants (Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad) in this regard and, it was denied further that she has falsely implicated them (Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad), as they have been acquitted in the case of the murder of her husband-Ganga Prasad. 18. Barat Ram (PW-6), is the brother of the deceaseds’-Mehettar and Resham Lal, who has also seen the incident and according to him, his brothers were murdered by Phoolsai, Laxmi, Shiv, Chhotu, Amar, Tikam and Gomti. 19. Prem Lal Khunte (PW-8) is the minor son of the deceased-Resham Lal and according to him, his father and uncle-Mehettar were murdered by Laxmi, Phoolsai, Gomti Bai, Chhotu, Amar Prasad and by Tikam Prasad. His father was assaulted by Shiv Prasad on his head with the aid of axe and Laxmi has assaulted his uncle with axe, owing to which, he sustained injuries on his head and his brother-Hira Lal was assaulted by Laxmi. In his crossexamination, when a question was put to him that the appellants-Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad were neither present at the relevant point of time nor they were assaulted, but, the said fact was denied specifically by him. 20. Ashwani @ Ganesh Kumar (PW-9) is the son of the deceased- Mehettar and according to him, he was initially assaulted by Phoolsai and Laxmi and when it was intervened by his father, then the appellants have assaulted him and also to his uncle with the aid of axe and stick and on account of which, they died on the spot. It was stated further that his brother- Hira Lal was assaulted by Shiv Prasad, the son of Phoolsai, with the aid of axe and they have also assaulted to his mother-Gayatri Bai and aunt- Dhaneshwari Bai, the widow of deceased-Resham Lal when they came for rescue. It was stated further that his brother- Hira Lal was assaulted by Shiv Prasad, the son of Phoolsai, with the aid of axe and they have also assaulted to his mother-Gayatri Bai and aunt- Dhaneshwari Bai, the widow of deceased-Resham Lal when they came for rescue. In his cross-examination, it was deposed further that the appellants- Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad have assaulted his father and uncle-Resham Lal with the aid of lathi (stick). 21. Dr. Hemant Kumar Sahu (PW-11), who examined Dhaneshwari, has found in his report (Ex.P-19) as many as four injuries, which were simple in nature and were found to be caused with hard and blunt object. He has conducted the autopsy of deceased-Mehettar and Resham Lal, where, following injuries were found in his reports vide Ex.P-20 & P-21, as under:- Injuries of Mehettar :- 1. Incised wound forehead upward. Frontal head, Middle 2” x 1/4” x 1 ½” . [Clotted blood+ right underlying muscle, tendon, ligament damaged, adbone ] 2. Incised wound left frontal 2 ½” x ¼” x 1 ½” 3. Incised wound Right parietal -Middle head 2 ½ “ x ½ “ x 1 ½” 4. Abrasion – chest upper Middle & lateral (Lt)-3 Facharat ….. 1 ½” x ½ “ 5. Abrasaion- Rt. Thigh – Middle -Medially – 5” x 5” ---- 1 ½ x 1” 6. Both supra orbital hematoma-both eye- black eye. ---1 ½ x 1” Injuries of Resham Lal:- 1. Incised wound- 2 ½“ x ¼” back of left ear, head, underlying Muscles, vessels, tendon, damaged, swelling ear that area 2”x2”, skull bone of underlying area fracture, there was profuse clotted blood. 2. Incised wound- Left elbow 1” x 1/2” x 1/4” 3. Incised wound- Left wrist -Post Laterally 1” x 1/2” x 1/4” 4. Incised wound- Right wrist post Medially 2” x 1” x 1/2” 5. Swelling Right forehead 2 ½ x 1” 6. Abrasion c swelling lateral to Right eye 2” x 1” - reddish black 7. Abrasion- Right Forearm – Middle -Medially 1” x ½ “ 8. Incised wound- 2”x 1/4” x 1 ½”, underlying, muscle, vessels, tendon, damage bone. 22. Incised wound- Right wrist post Medially 2” x 1” x 1/2” 5. Swelling Right forehead 2 ½ x 1” 6. Abrasion c swelling lateral to Right eye 2” x 1” - reddish black 7. Abrasion- Right Forearm – Middle -Medially 1” x ½ “ 8. Incised wound- 2”x 1/4” x 1 ½”, underlying, muscle, vessels, tendon, damage bone. 22. After the aforesaid examination, the cause of their death was found to be cardio-respiratory failure which came as a result of shock and hemorrhage and the injuries inflicted upon them were found to be caused with sharp and blunt object and the nature of death was found to be homicidal in nature. It opined further after examination of the seized articles, i.e. lathi (stick), tangi (axe) and iron rod that the injuries upon the dead bodies could be caused by those seized articles by way of submitting his query report (Ex.P-55). 23. Injured Hira Lal Khunte, the son of deceased-Mehettar, was examined by Dr. Sajan Agrawal (PW-12) and according to him, the incised wound was found on his head vide his report (Ex.P-22) and it was observed further that the alleged injuries could be caused by hard and sharp weapon. 24. Kashi Prasad Markam (PW-14) is the Investigating Officer, who registered the FIR, (Ex.P-5) on 13.03.2017, based upon the report lodged by Dhaneshwari, the widow of the deceased Resham Lal, against the accused persons and has supported the prosecution story. 25. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence would thus show that initially, Ashwani @ Ganesh Kumar, the son of the deceased-Mehettar was being assaulted by the appellants-Phoolsai and Laxmi and when it was intervened by his father-Mehettar, then, the appellants started assaulting him and his uncle (Resham Lal) with the aid of axe and lathi (stick), owing to which, they died on the spot. It reveals further from their testimonies that they caused a serious injury on the head of Hira Lal, the son of the deceased-Mehettar as well as caused injury to Dhaneshwari, the widow of the deceased-Resham Lal and the alleged injuries were found to be caused with sharp and blunt object and the presence of appellants-Amar Prasad and his brother-Tikam Prasad were found, who were armed with lathi (stick) at the time of occurrence of the alleged assault. 26. 26. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the appellants (Phoolsai, Shiv Prasad @ Selgu and Gomti) have rightly been held liable for the commission of the alleged crime and accordingly, their conviction and sentences as awarded by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed and, the appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.788 of 2021, is thus dismissed. 27. In so far as conviction of the appellants-Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad for the offence punishable under Sections 302 (two counts) and 148 of IPC is concerned, the same, however, deserves to be set aside, as from the analysis of the entire prosecution witnesses, as observed hereinabove, we do not find any cogent and reliable evidence of conspiracy or common object of theirs so as to hold them liable for the commission of the alleged crime as per the provision prescribed under Section 149 of IPC. The said provision is relevant for the purpose, which reads as under:- 15. Section 149 IPC reads as under:- “149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. —If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.” 16. As is clear from the plain language, in order to attract the provision of Section 149, following ingredients are to be essentially established:- (i) There must be an unlawful assembly. (ii) Commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly. (iii) Such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly; or must be such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed. 17. If the abovementioned three elements are satisfied, then only a conviction under Section 149 IPC may be substantiated, and not otherwise. In the facts of the present case, we find that common object of the assembly has not been proved, even if it is presumed that there was an unlawful assembly. 17. If the abovementioned three elements are satisfied, then only a conviction under Section 149 IPC may be substantiated, and not otherwise. In the facts of the present case, we find that common object of the assembly has not been proved, even if it is presumed that there was an unlawful assembly. The expression “in prosecution of the common object' occurring in this section postulates that the act must be one which has been done with a view to accomplish the common object attributed to the members of the unlawful assembly. This expression is to be strictly construed as equivalent to in order to attain common object. It must be immediately connected with common object by virtue of nature of object. However, in the instant case, even the evidence is not laid on this aspect, yet the court below has inferred the common object of the appellants (Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad). 18. At this juncture, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Mukteshwar Rai v. State of Bihar” reported in 1992 (Suppl.)(1) SCC 727 is to be seen, where the accused persons were alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly, gathered in a village and set some houses on fire and ransacked. Two persons died as they got burnt and two could not be traced. The Hon’ble Supreme Court agreed with the finding of the High Court as to the formation of the unlawful assembly. But as to the finding that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder took somewhat a different view and observed at paragraph 4 as under: “4…..the specific overt acts attributed to A-1 and five others who are said to have actively participated in setting the fire and thrown some of the victims into the fire stand disbelieved. It may also be noted that none of the PWs is injured and we find from the judgment of the High Court that none of the witnesses say that any one of these appellants were armed. The learned Judge has extracted the incriminating part in each of the witnesses against these appellants. It stated that these accused were identified by those respective witnesses mentioned therein in discussing the case against each of the accused. There is nowhere any mention that any one of these appellants was armed. The learned Judge has extracted the incriminating part in each of the witnesses against these appellants. It stated that these accused were identified by those respective witnesses mentioned therein in discussing the case against each of the accused. There is nowhere any mention that any one of these appellants was armed. In such a situation, the question is whether these appellants also had a common object of committing the murder. We have given earnest consideration to this aspect. Taking a general picture of the case and after a close scrutiny of the evidence we find that two persons were charred to death. This must have been the result of setting fire to those houses. With regards the other two missing persons it cannot be concluded that they were murdered in the absence of any iota of evidence. Under these circumstances, we find it extremely difficult to hold that a common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder.” 19. We would also like to quote the following passage from Thakore Dolji Vanvirji v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 534: “3. …Now the question is whether all the accused would constructively be liable for an offence of murder by virtue of Section 149 IPC. So far as A-1 is concerned, it is the consistent version of all the eyewitnesses that he dealt a fatal blow on the head with a sword and the medical evidence shows that there was a fracture of skull and the blow must have been very forceful because even the brain was injured. Therefore, he was directly responsible for the death of the deceased and the High Court has rightly convicted him under Section 302 IPC. Now coming to the rest of the accused, all the eyewitnesses have made an omnibus allegation against them. Even A- 2, according to the eyewitnesses, gave only one blow and that the remaining accused gave stick-blows. All these injuries were not serious and were simple. The injury attributed to A-2 was on the cheek and the doctor did not say that it caused any damage. So it must also be held to be a simple injury. Then we find only a bruise and an abrasion on the right arm and some bruises on the back. These injuries did not result in any internal injuries. There was not even a fracture of rib. So it must also be held to be a simple injury. Then we find only a bruise and an abrasion on the right arm and some bruises on the back. These injuries did not result in any internal injuries. There was not even a fracture of rib. Therefore, they must also be simple injuries. It is only Injury 1 which was serious and proved fatal. Therefore, the question is whether under these circumstances common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause the death of the deceased and whether every member of the unlawful assembly shared the same? No doubt Section 149 IPC is wide in its sweep but in fixing the membership of the unlawful assembly and in inferring the common object, various circumstances also have to be taken into consideration. Having regard to the omnibus allegation, we think it is not safe to convict every one of them for the offence of murder by applying Section 149 IPC. On a careful examination of the entire prosecution case and the surrounding circumstances, we think the common object of the unlawful assembly was only to cause grievous hurt. But A-1 acted in his own individual manner and caused one injury with the sword which proved fatal.” 28. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, we thus hold that there was no pre-conceived common object of committing the murder of deceased-Resham Lal and Mehettar by these appellants. Accordingly, the conviction of these appellants (Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad) under Section 148, 302 (two counts) of IPC is hereby set aside and they are held to be liable and convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 324 (two counts) IPC and the sentence as awarded to them by the Court below is hereby affirmed. 29. In view of the aforesaid background, the appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.788 of 2021 (Phoolsai, Shiv Prasad @ Selgu and Gomti) is dismissed, while appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.387 of 2021 (Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad) is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove and, since these appellants (Amar Prasad and Tikam Prasad) have already undergone the said sentence, therefore, they shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. A copy of this order be placed in the connected matter also.