Mahesh and Others vs State of U.P.

K.S. Rakhra, J.—Seven appellants in this appeal have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 21101981 passed, by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Sessions Trial No. 793 of 1979 where trial Court has convicted appellant Ganga Singh under Section 302, IPC and rest of the appellants Mahesh, Durbin, Ram Phal, Kalyan, Shyam Pal and Ram Vir under Sections 302/149, IPC for the murder of Soran and has sentenced each of them to serve life imprisonment. Jointly all the appellants have further been convicted under Sections 302/149, IPC for committing the murder of Kashmir and have been sentenced to life imprisonment on that score. They have been further convicted under Sections 307/149, IPC with sentence seven years RI for attempting to murder Sukhram and Chheda Lal. Appellant Shyam Pal and Kalyan have further been convicted under Section 147, IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment was the remaining appellants have been further convicted under Section 148, IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment.

The dispute which had generated the murderous assault lies in the dispute of ownership of a teak tree which was standing on the boundary of the two villagesNagla Padam and Nagla Ahibaran. The former village Nagla Padam falls in district Etah whereas Nagla Ahibaran a hamlet of Bahbalpur is within the revenue district of Farrukhabad. The distance between the two villages is one mile. Appellant Ganga Singh is the father of appellants Mahesh and Durbin. Appellants Ram Phal, Kalyan and Shiam Pal are the real brothers and appellant Ramvir is the son of Ram Phal. All of them belong to the genelogy of Ganga Singh.

According to the prosecution allegations, the dispute was with regard to said teak tree standing on the plot No. 204 in village Bahbalpur district Farrukhabad. This plot, in the revenue records was registered in the name of Siya Ram, Babu, Rajju and Yograj whereas the complainant Phulwari, Chheda Lal, Bateshar were recorded to be in possession. 32 Shisham trees are shown standing on this plot as per khasra entry of 1386 Fasli (Ex. Ka22), while Khatauni entry (Ex. Ka23) of 1384 to 1389 Fasli is in the names Phulwari, his brother Chhela Lal, and Batesar, all residents of Nagla Padma in district Etah. Prosecution claimed that on 62 1979 at about 11 a.m. Phulwari was collecting green fodder for his Cattles in his field when his son Harbir Singh informed him that the disputed teak tree was being cut by some persons. Phulwari gave a call to other persons present in the adjoining fields and rushed towards the tree. He was followed by Soran, Ugrasen, Kitab Singh, Chheda Lal and Kashmiri. At the spot they found that the appellants Shyam Pal and Kalyan were cutting the tree while appellants Ram Phal, Ramvir, Ganga Singh and Mahesh all armed with guns and appellants Durbin having spear were standing nearby. The complainant Phulwari and his companions objected to felling of the tree whereupon an altercation, ensued. When Soran and Kashmiri made a strong protest the appellants chased the first informant and his companions. The first informant and his companions ran back and reached in the field of Bhola when appellant Ganga Singh opened a fire, killing Soran on the spot. Appellant Mahesh opened another fire on Kashmiri who fell down in the field whereafter appellant Durbin attacked him with spear. Clarifying this the witnesses said, they saw Mahesh firing and Kashmir falling but did not know whether Kashmir sustained gun shot injury or not. It may be pointed out here that Kashmir did not sustain any firearm injury. Appellants Shyam Lal and Kalyan had thrown away their axe and picked up lathis chasing the complainant and his companions. Shyam Lal and Kalyan assaulted Chheda Lal and Shukhram with lathis. Thereafter the appellants left the scene of the incident.

Report of this crime was lodged by Phulwari, P.W. 1 at police station Sikandarpur vaish, district Etah on the same day at 3.15 p.m. covering the distance of 15 miles.

Two injured Soran and Kashmiri lost their lives in the assault and Chheda Lal P.W. 3., Sukh Ram P.W. 2 and Ugrasen received injuries. How ever Ugrasen was not medically examined.

Investigation of the crime (crime No. 19 of 1979) was commenced by Sub Inspector Sri S.C. Vidyarthi, P.W. 7. According to him it was raining heavily and the papers relating to this crime were delivered to him in village Badhola and therefore, he could not reach at the place of the occurrence in the night itself. He reached village Nagla Padam on 721979 at about 11 O'' clock or 12 in the noon. The dead bodies of Soran and Kashmir, by that time had been shifted to a nearby school. The bodies were dispatched for autopsy examination after completing necessary formalities and preparation of the inquest reports and other relevant documents. The Investigating Officer thereafter recorded the statement of first informant injured and other witnesses and conducted spot inspection and prepared site plan. He did not find any blood in the field where incident had occurred because it was inundated with rain water but found the standing crops trampled and crushed. He also inspected the site where the disputed there was alleged to have been cut and from there he collected small pieces of scattered woods. During investigation informant handed over to the I.O. four empty cartridge shells collected by him from the place of the incident. I.O. also sent Chheda Lal and Sukhram for their medical examination after noting their injuries. Completing the investigation I.O. Sri Vidyarthi charge sheeted the appellants.

Medical examination of Chheda Lal on 821979 at 6 p.m. by Dr. R.K. Singh, P.W. 4 indicated following injuries to have been sustained by him vide his injury report Ex. Ka2 :

One lacerated wound 21/2 cm. x 1/2 x muscle deep on the left side of head, 9 cm. above the left ear, spindle shaped cells in deeper parts of wounds seen, margin of wound inflamed.

One lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the right side of head, 71/2 cm. above the right ear, wound is muscle deep wound is healing with spindle shaped cells in deeper part.

One lacerated wound 41/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep on the left side of fore head, 5 cm above the left eyebrow wound is healing in deeper part.

Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm. on the suprascapular region of left side of back 8 cm. away from middle.

Dr. R.K. Singh also found following injuries on the person of Sukh Ram on 821979 at 5.15 p.m. vide Ex. ka3 :

Abrasion 1 cm. x 1/4 cm on the left side of head, 10 cm. above the left ear.

Red contusion 9.5. cm. x 3 cm. on the left side of back suprascapular region 13 cm. below left shoulder joint.

Red contusion 8 cm. x 2 cm. on the middle portion of left side of back 7 cm. below the injury No. 2.

Red faint contusion 8 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the lower portion of left side of back 15 cm. below the injury No. 3.

Complaint of pain in outer back part left elbow.

Complaint of pain in left side of back of hip.

The injuries of both these injured persons, in the opinion of the doctor, were simple in nature and were caused by blunt weapon. Their duration of these injuries was assessed to be 2 to 3 days old.

On 821979 at about 2 p.m. body of Kashmir Singh son of Phulwari was subjected to postmortem examination by P.W. 6 Dr. P.K. Jain. Following antemortem injuries were found on his dead body :

Two incised wound each measuring 11/2 x 1/2 cm. Into subcutaneous tissue deep, 5 cm. apart, on the outer side and upper part of left upper arm.

One punctured wound 11/2 x 1/2 into cavity deep on the upper part of left chest, at anterolateral aspect. Margins were clean cut. Direction downward and backward.

On internal examination third rib on the left side under injury No. 2 was found fractured and pleura and left lung were found punctured.

In the opinion of the doctor his death had occurred two days ago on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury No. 2.

Similarly postmortem examination on the deadbody of Soran son, of Ram Chandra was conducted on 821979 at 3 p.m. by Dr. P.K. Jain, P.W. 6 and following antemortem injuries were found on it :

Multiple firearm wounds of entry each measuring 1/4 x 1/4 cm. some skin deep and some cavity deep on the left side of front of chest, upper abdomen and left shoulder and left side of the face. Margins inverted and lacerated. No blackening and tattooing present.

On internal examination pleura was found perforated and 13 ozs free and clotted blood was found in cavity Left lung was lacerated. In the opinion of the doctor his death had taken place two days before due to shock and haemorrhage on account of ante mortem injuries.

Before proceeding further it may be mentioned here that the appellants, besides pleading false implication also pleaded right of self defence. From their side appellant Shyam Pal lodged a report (NCR) on 621979 at 5 p.m. at police station Kampil district Farrukhabad. The version given by him to the police in the said report was that on 621979 at about 10 a.m. in village Ahibaran Nagla within police station Kampil four persons namely Dayal Singh, Ganga Singh, Phulwari and Kitab Singh had tried to cut teak tree standing on the land of Gram Samaj of village Ahibaran Nagla. It was further alleged that in the past also these persons from another village of another district used to cut and steal away the teak woods which belonged to Gram Samaj. On the date time and place of the incident when the accused were cutting the teak tree of Gram Samaj, Shyam Pal with Prithvipal Singh and Rais Singh went to the spot and objected to the said cutting. Dayal Singh etc. claimed that the tree belonged to them and was on their own land. It was further alleged in the NCR that on the heated altercation Phulwari and Kitab opened assault causing lathi injuries to Rais Singh and Prthivi Pal Singh. This incident was witnessed by Ganga Singh son of Roshan Singh and Ram Phal of village Ahibran Nagla. (Ex. kha3) is the copy of NCR lodged by Shyam Pal Singh).

Clearly this report lodged by Shyam Pal Singh neither referred to nor showed the presence of Soran, Kashmir, Chheda Lal, Sukhram of Ugrasen who had received injuries on the side of the prosecution. The time of incident given in the NCR was 10 a.m. whereas the time of the incident as given in crime No. 19 of 1979 of police station Sikandarpur was 11.30 a.m.

The two injured Prithvi Pal Singh and Rai Singh mentioned in the NCR of Shyam Pal were also medically examined by Dr. Ramesh Chandra Gupta, D.W. 1 Medical Officer Inchage of PHC Kayamganj District Farrukhabad. He found following injuries on the person of Rais Singh on 721979 at 10.15 a.m., vide Ex. Kha1.

Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep on the right side front of head obliquely situated, adjacent to mid line. Margin irregular. Serum deposited over the wound.

Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep on the right side head, 10 cm. above the right ear. Vertical to mid line. Margin irregular. Serum deposited over the wound.

Lacerated wound 21/2 cm. x 1/2 x scalp deep on the top of head, over the mid line. Margin irregular. Serum deposited over the wound.

Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep on the inner side of right little finger, terminal part Margin irregular. Serum deposited over the wound.

All the injuries, in the opinion of the doctor, were caused by hard and blunt object and were simple in nature and one day old at the time of examination.

Similarly on the person of Prithvi Pal Singh the same Doctor found following injuries on 721979 at 10.30 a.m.

Lacerated wound 11/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x skin deep on the right side top of head, obliquely situated. Margin irregular. Serum deposited over the wound.

In the opinion of the doctor, these injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. They were simple in nature and their duration was one day. Injury report is Prithvi Pal is Ex. kha2.

The stand taken by the prosecution in this regard is that Rais Singh and Prithvi Pal Singh were not present at all at the time of the incident in question which according to it had occurred at 11.30 a.m. Thus, the prosecution has not given any explanation with regard to injuries suffered by Rais Singh and Prithvi Pal Singh. Similarly the defence has not given any explanation with regard to injuries suffered by Chheda Lal and Sukhram and death of Soran and Kashmir who lost their lives in this incident.

From the side of the prosecution besides producing documentary evidence seven witnesses were examined. P.W. 1 Phulwari, P.W. 2 Sukh Ram and P.W. 3 Chheda Lal are the witnesses of fact, out of which Sukhram and Chheda Lal were also injured witnesses. They supported the prosecution story fully. Dr. R.K. Singh Chauhan P.W. 4 had examined the injuries of Chheda Lal and Sukhram on 821979 and had issued injury reports Ex. ka2, and 3. Ram Charan Singh, P.W. 5 Head Moharrir of police station Sikandarpur Vaish has deposed that at 3.15 p.m. on 621979 one Kaptan Singh of village Nagla Padam came and delivered the written report Ex. ka1 of Phulwari at the police station. He registered the crime and also made relevant entries in the general diary of the police station. P.W. 6 Dr. P.K. Jain had conducted postmortem examination on the bodies of Soran and Kashmir and P.W. 7 S.I. Sri S.C. Vidyarthi is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation. All the witnesses have tried to support the prosecution story.

In defence the appellants examined Dr. N.C. Gupta who proved the injury reports Ex. kha1 of Rais Singh and Ex. kha2 of Prithvi Pal Singh D.W. 2 Nisar Ahmad had registered the NCR (Ex. kha3) lodged by Shyam Pal Singh on 621979 at 5 p.m. at P.S. Kampil district Farrukhabad.

We have heard Sri Brijesh Sahai and Sri R.P. Singh advocates for the appellants and Sri Danish Iqbal Faridi, learned brief holder for the State and have also carefully cogitated through the evidence record.

On behalf of the appellants it has been argued by the learned Counsels that teak tree in question belonged to Gram Samaj of village Nagla Ahibarnpur a hamlet of Bahabalpur district Farrukhabad of which appellant Ganga Singh was the Gram Pradhan. According to them the deceased Kashmir and others tried to fell the teak tree and on being stopped from doing so they attacked Prithvi Pal Singh and Rais Singh whereafter people of Bahbalpur or Nagla Ahibaran opened retaliatory attack resulting into the death of Soran and Kashmir and injuries to Chheda Lal and Sukhram. Learned Counsel contended that all this was done in exercise of right of private defence of property and person. It was further argued that prosecution evidence is not reliable and that independent witnesses have not been examined.

So far as the prosecution evidence is concerned, after going through it we are of the opinion that the said evidence is wholly reliable. P.W. 1 Phulwari has explained that witnesses Ram Niwas, Kitab Singh and Pan Singh have been won over by the appellants and therefore, they were not examined. However, it is well settled legal preposition that partisan or related witness cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground of their relationship with complainant or the victim, although their testimony would be required to be examined with caution and reliance should be placed on it only if it is cogent and credible. For this reference can be made to the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 and Main Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 2158.

In the present case the testimony of P.W. 1 Phulwari, P.W. 2 Sukhram, P.W. 3 Chheda Lal are consistent with each other and are corroborated by the FIR Ex. Ka4 which was lodged without delay. Sukh Ram and Chheda Lal are the injured witnesses whose presence at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. The description of the incident given by these witnesses is further fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the circumstances. From the statements of these witnesses it is also established beyond doubt that the complainant Phulwari alongwith Chhote Lal and Batesar are recorded to be in possession over plot No. 240 in village Bahabalpur district Farrukhabad which was recorded in the name of original owner Siya Ram, Babu, Rajju and Yogram. Ex. ka 23 is extract of khatauni and Ex. ka22 is the extract of Khasra for 1386 fasli showing the existence of teak tree on this plot. From the deposition of these, witnesses it is also clearly established that there is no Gram Samaj land or Shisham tree of any body else in the close vicinity of plot of Phulwari. Thus, we do not find any good reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence adduced in this regard. The only shortcoming in it is that it has failed to give an explanation of injuries suffered by Rais Singh and Prithvi Pal Singh.

Now let us consider the plea of private defence being raised by Sri Sahai. It is significant to note that no oral evidence has been led by the appellants to show a different genesis of this incident. They have only examined D.W.1 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Gupta who proved the injuries of Rais Singh and Prithvipal Singh which have been described earlier. Injuries suffered by these two persons were simple in nature and in the opinion of the doctor could have been suffered on 621979 at 10 a.m. The second witness examined by the defence is D.W.2 H.C. Nisar Ahmad who had registered NCR on the report of the appellant Shyam Pal Singh (copy of which is Ex. kha3). He has also stated that he had sent Rais Singh and Prithvi Pal Singh for medical examination.

It is significant to note that in the NCR the appellant Shyam Pal had not shown the presence of Sukhram, Chheda Lal, Ugrasen, Soran or Kashmir on the spot. The appellants are being tried for committing murder of Soran and Kashmir and for making life attempt on Chheda Lal and Sukhram. Ex. Kha3 does pot give any explanation or indication with regard to manner or the circumstance in which Soran and Kashmir lost their lives and Chheda Lal and Sukhram received serious injuries. On the other hand it names P.W. 1 Phulwari as an accused alongwith Kitab Singh, Ganga Singh son of Dular Singh admits the presence of Ram Phal and Ganga Singh son of Roshan Singh Yadav on the spot.

The prosecution witnesses have been suggested by the defence Counsel in their crossexamination that when Rais Singh and Prithvi Pal were assaulted villagers became aggressive and attacked Soran, Kashmir, Chheda Lal and Sukhram. Significantly the report Ex. Kha3 does not set up any such story. We further find that no evidence was adduced by the appellants to show that Shisham tree in question belonged to any of the appellants or Gram Samaj.

Burden of proving that the case of an accused comes within any of the exceptions lies on the accused himself. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act provides as follows :

�105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions. When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.�

At this stage it would also be proper to refer to Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act which is as follows :

�101. Burden of proof. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.�

A comparison of two sections referred to at above clearly shows that the onus is on the accused, to establish that his action was, in exercise of right of private defence. This plea can be established either by leading defence evidence or from the prosecution evidence itself, but cannot be based on speculation or mere surmises. The accused need not take the plea explicitly. He can succeed in his plea if he is able to bring out from the evidence of the prosecution or other evidence that the criminal act was committed by them in the exercise of his right of private defence. He should make out a circumstance that would have reasonably caused apprehension in his mind that he would suffer death or grievous hurt if he does not exercise his right or private defence. There is clear distinction between the nature of burden that is cast on the accused under Section 105, Indian Evidence Act to establish the plea of private defence and the burden that is cast on the prosecution under Section 101 of the Evidence Act to prove its case. The burden on the accused is not as onerous as that of the prosecution. While prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, accused can discharge his onus by establishing a preponderance of probability. Reliance can be placed on the case of Sekar v. State of Rajasthan, 2005 SCC (Crl) 16.

The evidence led by the prosecution as well as by the accused as discussed earlier appears to be not giving true and complete picture of the incident whereas the prosecution has failed to give explanation of the injuries suffered by Rais Singh and Prithvi Pal Singh, the NCR lodged by Shyam Pal does not give any explanation of the injuries suffered by Sukh Ram, Chheda Lal and death of Soran and Kashmir. While considering the right of private defence we are to look into the circumstances of the case. In Sekar''s case referred to above it was held that question of right of private defence is a question of fact to be determined on the fact and circumstances of each case. No test in the abstract for determining such a question can be laid down. In determining this question of fact, the Court must consider all the circumstances. It is not necessary for the accused to plead in so many words that he acted in self defence. If the circumstances show that the right of private defence was legitimately exercised, it is open for the Court to consider such a plea. In a given case, the Court can consider it even if the accused has not taken it, if the same is available to be considered from the material on record.

Further in the case of Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2003(1) JIC 736 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 976, the Court held that an accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not required to call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to the circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself. The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea.

In the case of Rajesh Kumar v. Dharamvir, 1997 JIC 1091 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 3769, it was held that the right of private defence is a right of defence only but not to retaliate. An accused cannot be exonerated by giving him right to retaliate and attack the complainant party. Further in case of Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1980 SC 660. The Apex Court laid down following principles for exercise of right of private defence :

There is no right of private defence against an act which is not in itself an offence under the Indian Penal Code.

The right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit some offence. Although the offence may not have been committed, it is coterminus with the duration of such apprehension.

It is defensive and not a punitive or retributive right. Therefore, in no case more harm than is necessary to inflict in defence is permissible.

The right extends to killing of the actual or potential assailant when there is a reasonable and imminent apprehension of the crimes enumerated in the six clauses of Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code.

Now let us analyse the facts and the circumstances relating to the case before us. There is no doubt in our mind that on the side of the appellants Prithvipal Singh and Rais Singh had received serious injuries which have already been, mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Three of the injuries found on Rais Singh on 721979 at 10.15 a.m. were lacerated wounds of various description but scalp deep, on his head. Similarly, Prithvipal Singh had suffered a lacerated wound on the top of his head. Dr. Ramesh Chandra, D.W.1 has stated that these injuries to Rais Singh and Prithvipal Singh were not superficial injuries. The seat and nature of the injuries rule out the possibility of their being self suffered injuries. The doctor''s evidence relates injuries of these persons to the time of occurrence. All this is corroborated by the report (NCR) lodged by Shyam Pal at Police Station Kampil district Farrukhabad on 621979 at 17 hours. In view of these facts and the circumstances it was obligatory for the prosecution to have explained the injuries of these two persons on the side of the accused. Prosecution witnesses were crossexamined on this point but instead of giving any explanation of injuries they have denied the presence of Rais Singh and Prithvipal Singh at the place of occurrence. The witnesses have pleaded total ignorance about their injuries. We are, however, of the opinion that Rais Singh and Prithvipal Singh had received injuries in this occurrence and defence version to this extent appears to be probable and convincing. There is however no material on record to substantiate the defence suggestion that when Rais Singh and Prithvipal received these injuries, the villagers of Bhabalpur or Nagla Ahibaran attacked the prosecution party causing injuries to Chheda Lal and Sukh Ram and taking away the life of Soran and Kashmir.

Reading the evidence from two sides together it appears that on the dispute of felling of the tree a fight had taken place on the spot and Phulwari and his companions must have attacked Rais Singh and Prithvipal Singh in order to protect their trees and when accused persons saw this they challenged Phulwari and party who took to their heels. They were chased and in the field of Bhola, appellant Ganga Singh fired killing Soran on the spot, appellant Mahesh fired on Kashmir who fell down although the fire did not strike him. Appellant Durbin then gave Bhala blow to Kashmir and killed him. The prosecution evidence further shows that that Shyampal had belaboured Chheda Lal and Kalyan had belaboured Sukhram with, lathi.

From the above discussion we come to the conclusion that although Ganga Singh, Mahesh, Durbin, Shyampal and Kalyan had chased the prosecution party and opened attack with a view to protect Rais Singh and Prithvipal Singh but their action of inflicting injuries when informant Phulwari and his companions were running back clearly shows that they had exceeded the right of private defence. In fact as soon as Phulwari and his companions stopped causing injuries and returned back, the right of private defence came to an end. Appellants Ganga Singh, Mahesh, Durbin, Shyam Pal and Kalyan will, therefore, be responsible for their individual retaliatory action attributable to each of the accused appellant separately. However Ganga Singh and Durbin can further claim that on account of grave and Sudden provocation given to them by Phulwari and his associates, their action may fall into exception 1 and 4 of Section 300, IPC and in our opinion their case shall be covered by Section 304, Part I instead of Section 302, IPC as these murders appear to have been committed without premeditation, in heat of passion upon, sudden quarrel, on cutting of the tree.

From this point of view appellant Ramvir and Ramphal cannot be attributed any criminal action as they caused no injury to any one. Appellant Ganga Singh can be held guilty under Section 304, Part I, IPC for committing culpable homicide of Soran. Mahesh can similarly be held guilty under Section 307, IPC for making attempt on the life of Kashmir and appellant Durbin is guilty of committing culpable homicide of Kashmir by giving a Bhala blow on his chest as the injury caused by Bhala was responsible for the death of Kashmir and was likely to cause death as opined by Dr. P.K. Jain, P.W. 6. Appellants Shyam Pal and Kalyan in the circumstances referred to above can be held guilty only for causing simple injuries under Section 323, IPC.

The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. Appellants Ramvir and Ramphal are acquitted of all the charges. Ganga Singh is found guilty and convicted under Section 304, Part I, IPC for committing culpable homicide of Soran and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ but is acquitted of all remaining charges. Appellant Mahesh is held guilty and convicted under Section 307, IPC and is sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ for making attempt on the life of Kashmir and is acquitted of all other charges. Appellant Durbin is held guilty and is convicted under Section 304, Part I, IPC for committing culpable homicide of Kashmir and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 and appellants Shyampal and Kalyan are held guilty under Section 323, IPC and each of them is sentenced to imprisonment for period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and are acquitted of rest of the charges.