Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Government Appeal No.15 of 2011 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus 1. [ENTITY] 2. [ENTITY] 3. [ENTITY] 4. [ENTITY] 5. [ENTITY] 6. [ENTITY] Respondents Mr. [ENTITY], Dy. A.G. for the State. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the respondent nos.4 to 6. Dated: November 10, 2017 Coram: Hon'ble [ENTITY] , J.
Hon'ble [ENTITY] , J.
Per: Hon. [ENTITY], J.
The State has come up in appeal challenging the judgment dated 30.7.2010 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in [CASE NUMBER], whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for the offences of [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT], were acquitted.
2. Case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that an FIR was lodged by PW1 [ENTITY], to the effect that on 8.5.2008 at 6 PM, [ENTITY] armed with [ENTITY], [ENTITY] armed with [ENTITY], [ENTITY] armed with [ENTITY], [ENTITY] armed with [ENTITY], [ENTITY] armed with knife and Pratp armed with iron rod, came to his compound. They attacked [ENTITY]. After hearing the commotion, [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Smt. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] came on the spot. They persuaded the respondents not to beat [ENTITY]. All the respondents attacked them with their respective weapons due to which they received serious injuries. All the injured were taken to the hospital where [ENTITY] was declared dead.
3. The post-mortem was conducted on the dead body. The F.I.R. was registered. The matter was investigated and the Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.
4. Prosecution has examined as many as twenty one witnesses in support of its case.
5. Respondents were also examined u/[SECTION] [ACT] They denied the case of prosecution. According to them, they were falsely implicated.
6. Respondents were acquitted by the Trial Court, as noticed hereinabove. Hence this appeal.
7. Learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Learned Counsels, appearing for the respondents, have supported the judgment dated 30.07.2010.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record carefully.
10. PW1 [ENTITY] testified that on 7.5.2008, he had no altercation with the respondents. On 8.5.2008 at about 6 PM, some people armed with [ENTITY]s, [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], knife and iron rod trespassed into his compound. All of a sudden, they attacked [ENTITY]. On hearing the noise, he along with [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] came on the spot. They were also attacked by the assailants. He collapsed. He could not identify the assailants due to sudden attack. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by learned ADGC. In cross-examination, he deposed that he had not got the report written but he only signed the same.
11. PW2 [ENTITY] deposed that he was a milk vendor. He saw many people near the house of [ENTITY]. He reached there. He saw that [ENTITY] and 3-4 other people were lying injured. He removed them to Roorkee hospital. [ENTITY] was declared dead. Others were medically examined. He was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned ADGC.
12. PW3 [ENTITY] deposed that on 8.5.2008 at about 6-6:30 PM, he did not hear any noise from the house of [ENTITY]. According to him, respondents have not given beatings to the complainant party i.e. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. He was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned ADGC.
13. PW4 [ENTITY] has also not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile.
14. PW5 [ENTITY] is the material witness. He is the eyewitness. According to him, on 8.5.2008 at about 5-6 PM, he was sitting in the verandah of his house near the water tap. [ENTITY] armed with a spade, [ENTITY] armed with a knife and [ENTITY] armed with an iron rod, trespassed into his house. [ENTITY] attacked him with an iron rod. He tried to save himself due to which he received injury on his thumb. He shouted for help. [ENTITY] reached on the spot. He asked the afore-named respondents as to why they were attacking his uncle. [ENTITY] gave a blow of spade on the head of [ENTITY]. His son [ENTITY] and wife [ENTITY] also reached the spot. [ENTITY] gave the blow of knife on the calf muscle of his wife. [ENTITY] also received injuries. His nephews [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] also came on the spot. They were also attacked by the assailants. [ENTITY] also reached the spot. He was also attacked by them. His cousin brother [ENTITY] also reached the spot. He also received the injuries. [ENTITY] fell down. Injured persons were removed to the hospital. [ENTITY] was declared dead. He has categorically deposed that [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were the assailants. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] had not attacked them. At this stage, he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor. In the cross-examination, he gave the size of spade. He further deposed that [ENTITY] gave one blow on the head of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] was facing [ENTITY]. The distance between [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] was 2-3 feet. He further deposed that blood was oozing out from his injury. He further deposed that he was attacked by [ENTITY] only. He also attended the last rites of deceased.
15. PW6 [ENTITY] deposed that on 8.5.2008 at 5- 5:30 PM, he was in his house along with his brother [ENTITY]. He heard the noise of his uncle. They both reached on the spot. They saw that [ENTITY] was carrying spade, [ENTITY] was having knife and [ENTITY] was having an iron rod. They had already attacked his uncle. [ENTITY] was bleeding. His aunt [ENTITY] had also received the injuries. His uncle [ENTITY] was also injured. [ENTITY] was lying unconscious. He was hit on his head by [ENTITY]. His brother was also attacked by them. According to him also, [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] had not come on the spot. In his cross-examination, he has reiterated that he was only hit by [ENTITY].
16. PW7 [ENTITY] deposed that on 8.5.2008, he had gone to Civil Hospital, Roorkee. Police reached the hospital and prepared the inquest report of the dead body of [ENTITY].
17. PW8 [ENTITY] was declared hostile. According to him, neither [ENTITY] nor [ENTITY] had got the [ENTITY] or spade recovered in his presence.
18. PW9 Dr. [ENTITY] has conducted the post- mortem examination. He has proved the post-mortem report. He noticed following injuries on the dead body: -
"1. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm bridge of nose, bone deep, bleeding (clotted blood) present.
2. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm, left side occipital region of scalp, 10 cm behind left ear, bleeding present (clotted blood) bone deep."
19. There was fracture of occipital bone. Sub-dural Hematoma was found on the left side of head. Cause of death of deceased was ante-mortem head injury.
20. In his cross-examination, he deposed that injury no.2 was on the backside of head and it could not be received if the person is hit from the front side but the injury could be received if the person falls on his back.
21. PW10 [ENTITY] testified that on the date of incident, [ENTITY] armed with spade, [ENTITY] armed with knife and [ENTITY] armed with iron rod, trespassed into his house. According to him, they have attacked his father. He came to the rescue of his father. He was also attacked by the assailants. He received multiple injuries. [ENTITY] reached the spot. [ENTITY] was also attacked. He received grievous injuries and collapsed. His uncle [ENTITY] along with [ENTITY] and cousin brothers [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] also came on the spot. They were also attacked by the assailants. The assailants then ran away from the spot. [ENTITY] was declared dead. He also deposed that [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were not on the spot.
22. PW11 Dr. [ENTITY] has examined the injured witnesses. He has noticed two injuries on the body of [ENTITY]. According to him, injuries to [ENTITY] were caused by heavy blunt weapon. Injuries were fresh in nature. He has also examined [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
23. PW12 [ENTITY] has corroborated the statement of his brother [ENTITY] (PW6). According to him, [ENTITY] armed with spade, [ENTITY] armed with knife and [ENTITY] armed with iron rod had attacked his uncle. [ENTITY] was lying unconscious. [ENTITY] was bleeding from the head. His aunt was also lying in the compound. Blood was oozing out from her leg. He and his brother [ENTITY] have received the injuries.
24. PW13 [ENTITY] has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile.
25. PW 14 S.I. [ENTITY] deposed that [ENTITY] has made the disclosure statement that he has concealed the spade and Balkati in the field and the same were recovered from a sugarcane field.
26. PW15 [ENTITY] is a formal witness.
27. PW16 [ENTITY] has not supported the prosecution case except that he has stated that he has pointed towards the field of [ENTITY] for the purpose of recovery.
28. PW17 [ENTITY] deposed that she was sitting with her son [ENTITY]. Her husband was washing hands on the tap. At about 5-5:30 PM, [ENTITY] armed with spade, [ENTITY] armed with knife and [ENTITY] armed with iron rod, trespassed into their house. They attacked her husband. She raised the alarm. Her husband had received grievous injuries. She was pushed by [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] attacked her with knife. Her son was also attacked with a knife. She fell down and she became unconscious. In her cross- examination, she deposed that blood was oozing out from the injuries received by her husband.
29. PW18 [ENTITY] is the father of deceased. He has stated that on 8.5.2008, he received information that his son [ENTITY] has received the injuries. He reached the spot. Then he came to know that his son was taken to the hospital. When he reached the hospital, [ENTITY] was dead.
30. PW19 [ENTITY] is a formal witness.
31. PW20 Dr. [ENTITY], Radiologist, has undertaken the X-ray of [ENTITY]. According to him, there was a fracture of Second Metacarpal Bone in the left hand of [ENTITY]. The distal phalangeal bone of his thumb was also dislocated.
32. PW21 [ENTITY] did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.
33. Prosecution has not led any evidence to link [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] with the offence. No witness has deposed against them.
[SECTION]. However, there is overwhelming evidence available on record against the respondents [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
35. PW1 [ENTITY], though was declared hostile, has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that few persons have entered his compound armed with [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], knife and iron rod. They attacked [ENTITY]. He along with [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] had reached the spot. PW5 [ENTITY] has categorically deposed that [ENTITY] was armed with a spade, [ENTITY] was armed with a knife and [ENTITY] was having an iron rod. [ENTITY] attacked him with iron rod. He tried to save himself. [ENTITY] hearing the noise came on the spot. [ENTITY] hit [ENTITY] on the back of his head by spade. His son [ENTITY] and wife [ENTITY] also came on the spot. They were also attacked. [ENTITY] pushed his wife with the knife. PW10 [ENTITY] also deposed that [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have entered his house. His father was attacked by them. He was also beaten up. [ENTITY] reached on the spot. [ENTITY] was also attacked by them. His mother also received the injuries. PW12 [ENTITY] has corroborated the statement of his brother [ENTITY] (PW6). He also deposed that they reached the house of their uncle. He had seen that [ENTITY] was armed with a spade, [ENTITY] was armed with a knife and [ENTITY] was having an iron rod. They were also attacked. [ENTITY] was lying unconscious. PW17 Smt. [ENTITY] is the wife of [ENTITY]. She has also deposed that when she was sitting in the compound with her son [ENTITY], her husband was washing his hands. In the meantime, [ENTITY] armed with a spade, [ENTITY] armed with a knife and [ENTITY] armed with an iron rod, reached their house. They attacked her husband. She and her son [ENTITY] tried to save her husband. Her husband received serious injuries. [ENTITY] hit him with knife.
36. The weapon of offence i.e. [ENTITY] and spade were also recovered at the instance of the respondent [ENTITY]. Statements of PW5 [ENTITY], PW6 [ENTITY], PW10 [ENTITY], PW12 [ENTITY] and PW17 Smt. [ENTITY] are duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The deceased had died due to ante-mortem head injury.
37. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently argued that as per the prosecution case, [ENTITY] has hit the deceased on his front by the spade and thus, there was no possibility of injury being received by the deceased on the backside of his head.
38. [ENTITY] is an agricultural instrument. It is used to dig the land. From the nature of the instrument i.e. [ENTITY], the injury on the backside is possible and moreover, the possibility of avoiding the injury by ducking cannot be ruled out. Cause of death of deceased was injury no.2 which has proved fatal. Respondents [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have beaten up PW5 [ENTITY], PW6 [ENTITY], PW10 [ENTITY], PW12 [ENTITY] and PW17 Smt. [ENTITY]. According to PW20 Dr. [ENTITY], who has conducted the X-ray examination of [ENTITY], he has noticed the fracture of II Metacarpal bone and the phalangeal bone of his thumb was also dislocated. In the supplementary report of [ENTITY] (Ex.A-10), injury no.2 has been found to be grievous in nature. Smt. [ENTITY] (PW17) has also received injury on her leg. All the injured persons were medically examined by PW11 Dr. [ENTITY]. He has noticed various injuries on them. All the injuries were fresh in nature.
39. The Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution. There are no major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The statements of the relative witnesses can be relied upon if they inspire the confidence. The statements of the eyewitnesses have been duly corroborated, as noticed hereinabove, by the medical evidence. The weapon of offence was also recovered at the instance of respondent [ENTITY] from the sugarcane field of [ENTITY]. PW1 [ENTITY], though declared hostile, has categorically deposed that few persons armed with [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Knife and Iron Rod entered his house. The respondents [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], in furtherance of their common intention, attacked [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] with deadly weapons.
40. Thus, the prosecution has duly proved its case against the respondents [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] for the offence of [SECTION] [ACT] r/[SECTION] [ACT]. Prosecution has also proved that the respondents [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], with the common intention, have also caused grievous injuries to PW5 [ENTITY] and PW12 [ENTITY]. They have also caused injuries to PW6 [ENTITY], PW10 [ENTITY] and PW17 Smt. [ENTITY].
41. In [PRECEDENT], their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of '[ENTITY] & another v. State of U.P.' have held that the conviction u/[SECTION] [ACT] can be altered to that u/[SECTION] [ACT] even in absence of such charge if facts of the case are such that accused could be charged alternatively thereunder. Their Lordships have held as under: -
"As a result of acquittal of [ENTITY] we alter the conviction of the remaining accused from [SECTION]ead with [SECTION] to [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It is true that there was no charge under [SECTION] of the [ACT] but the facts of the case are such that the accused could have been charged alternatively either under [SECTION]ead with [SECTION] or under [SECTION]. In this case according to the prosecution story all the accused came out of the house of [ENTITY] and attacked [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were armed with spears whereas [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were armed with lathis. In the circumstances of the case no prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused whose appeal is being dismissed. This Court in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] has held that the conviction under [SECTION] can be substituted by [SECTION] keeping in view the facts of the case."
42. In [PRECEDENT], their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of '[PRECEDENT]' have held that where the accused has been charged u/[SECTION] and [SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT], the conviction u/[SECTION]/[SECTION] is not illegal. Their Lordships have held as under:-
"7. The High Court found that there was no unlawful assembly as the strength of the assembly was insufficient to constitute it into "unlawful assembly". But if the Court enters upon a finding that any of the remaining persons who participated in the crime had shared common intention with the main perpetrators of the crime, the Court is not helpless in seeking the aid of [SECTION] to enter a conviction against such persons arraigned as the accused. This is despite the difference between the scope of [SECTION] and [SECTION]. Yet they have some resemblance between each other and are to some extent overlapping.
9. It is, therefore, open to the court to take recourse to [SECTION] of [ACT] even if the said section was not specifically mentioned in the charge and instead [SECTION] [ACT] has been included. Of course a finding that the assailant concerned had a common intention with the other accused is necessary for resorting to such a course. This view was followed by this Court in later decisions also. ([PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT].) The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit."
43. In [PRECEDENT], their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of '[PRECEDENT]' have held that alternative convictions with the aid of [SECTION] as well as [SECTION] [ACT] can be awarded. Their Lordships have held as under: -
"5. Being seized with judgment of affirmance, we are really called upon to decide whether the conviction is against the weight of the materials on record or suffers from any legal infirmity. As to the latter, submission advanced is that the courts below erred in law in awarding alternative convictions with the aid of [SECTION] as well as [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The submission must be taken to have been squarely answered against the appellants because of what has been stated by a Constitution Bench in [PRECEDENT] In that case, this Court spelt out the scope of these two sections and, what is important for our purpose, the fact of absence of charge under these sections. There the charge was under [SECTION], but the only co-accused having been acquitted, the conviction of the left out accused, who was the appellant, was challenged on the ground that the element of common intention having got dropped out, the conviction of the appellant was not sustainable. In the two concurring judgments it was pointed out that the omission to frame a charge or the departure from the charge cannot invalidate conviction unless prejudice has been caused. We would say the same about the alternative conviction in the present case. We, therefore, find no legal infirmity in the conviction as awarded."
44. In [CASE NUMBER], their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of '[PRECEDENT]' have held that conviction of accused u/[SECTION]/[SECTION] was proper even in absence of charge u/[SECTION] [ACT]. Their Lordships have held as under: -
"9. In the result, we do not find any error or illegality in the conviction of the appellants under [SECTION]. Even otherwise also there was no specific charge against them for the offence under [SECTION]. The appeal is accordingly dismissed."
45. In [PRECEDENT], their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of '[PRECEDENT]' have held that the conviction can be held with the aid of [SECTION] when charge is u/[SECTION] [ACT]. Their Lordships have held as under: -
"23. The High Court rightly concurred with the view of the trial court in coming to the conclusion that it is not a case which would attract the provisions of [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT]. On the other hand, the evidence available on record suggests that it is only the appellants who committed assault on [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] with jambiya and axes and caused the fatal injuries to the two deceased persons [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. The participation of other appellants along with Appellant 1 and common intention on their part is clearly evident from the evidence available on record. The High Court rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under [SECTION] with the aid of [SECTION] [ACT]. The High Court is absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that the appellants participated in the assault on the two deceased persons and inflicted fatal injuries on the vital parts of the bodies of both the deceased. The assault had been conjointly committed by all the appellants. The sequence of events and total circumstances if taken together into consideration it is clearly evident that the appellants shared common intention to commit the offence for which they are liable to be convicted.
24. The High Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellants alone for the offence punishable under [SECTION] with the aid of [SECTION] [ACT]. The High Court is perfectly justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial court which totally misread the evidence of eyewitnesses and disbelieved them on fanciful grounds. The trial court was carried away with the minor inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for rejecting the prosecution case. The trial court committed serious error in rejecting the evidence of PW 8 and PW 9 only on the basis that they are related to the deceased. Their relationship with the deceased per se would not be a ground to reject their evidence. It is true that the evidence of interested witnesses has to be properly assessed and carefully scrutinised which the High Court did in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction."
46. In [PRECEDENT], their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of '[PRECEDENT]' have held that non-applicability of [SECTION] [ACT] is no bar for the purpose of convicting the accused Under [SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT], if the evidence discloses the commission of an offence, in furtherance of the common intention of such accused. This is because, both, [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] deal with a group of persons who become liable to be punished as sharers in the commission of an offence. Further held that in a case where the prosecution fails to prove that the number of members of an unlawful assembly are 5 or more, the court can simply convict the guilty persons with the aid of [SECTION] [ACT], provided that there is adequate evidence on record to show that such accused shared a common intention to commit the crime in question. Their Lordships have held as under: -
"16. Another question worth consideration is whether the appellants can be convicted under [SECTION]ead with [SECTION] [ACT] in the event that the High Court has acquitted three persons among the accused and the number of convicts has thus, remained at a number that is less than 5, which is in fact, necessary to form an unlawful assembly as described under [SECTION] [ACT].
17. This Court in [PRECEDENT] held as under: (SCC p. 682, para 9) "9. As the appellants were only four in number, there was no question of their forming an unlawful assembly within the meaning of [SECTION] [ACT]. It is not the prosecution case that apart from the said seven accused persons, there were other persons who were involved in the crime. Therefore, on the acquittal of three accused persons, the remaining four accused, that is, the appellants, cannot be convicted under [SECTION] or [SECTION] [ACT] for any offence, for, the first condition to be fulfilled in designating an assembly an 'unlawful assembly' is that such assembly must be of five or more persons, as required under [SECTION] [ACT]. In our opinion, the convictions of the appellants under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] cannot be sustained."
(emphasis added)
18. Similarly, in [PRECEDENT] this Court observed: (SCC p. 537, para 8) "8. However, the learned Judges overlooked that since the accused who are convicted were only four in number and the prosecution has not proved the involvement of other persons and the courts below have acquitted all the other accused of all the offences, [SECTION] cannot be invoked for convicting the four appellants herein. It is not the prosecution case that apart from the said 15 persons there were other persons who were involved in the crime. When the eleven other accused were acquitted it means that their involvement in the offence had not been proved. It would not also be permissible to assume or conclude that others named or unnamed acted conjointly with the charged accused in the case unless the charge itself specifically said so and there was evidence to conclude that some others also were involved in the commission of the offence conjointly with the charged accused in furtherance of a common object."
(emphasis added)
19. Similarly, this Court in [PRECEDENT] held as under: (SCC p. 107, para 35) "35. [SECTION] [ACT] creates liability on persons armed with deadly weapons and is a distinct offence and there is no requirement in law that members of unlawful assembly have also to be charged under [SECTION] [ACT] for legally recording their conviction under [SECTION]ead with [SECTION] [ACT]. However, where an accused is charged under [SECTION] [ACT] and acquitted, conviction of such accused under [SECTION]ead with [SECTION] [ACT] could not be legally recorded. We find support from a four- Judge Bench decision of this Court in [PRECEDENT] "
20. Undoubtedly, this Court has categorically held that in such a situation, a conviction cannot be made with the aid of [SECTION] [ACT], particularly when, upon the acquittal of some of the accused, the total number of accused stands reduced to less than 5, and it is not the case of the prosecution that there are in fact, some other accused who have not yet been put to trial. However, it is also a settled legal proposition that in such a fact situation, the High Court could most certainly have convicted the appellants, under [SECTION] [ACT].
21. In [PRECEDENT] this Court while considering a similar case, held that the non-applicability of [SECTION] [ACT] is no bar for the purpose of convicting the accused under [SECTION] [ACT], if the evidence discloses the commission of an offence, in furtherance of the common intention of such accused. This is because both [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] deal with a group of persons who become liable to be punished as sharers in the commission of an offence. Thus, in a case where the prosecution fails to prove that the number of members of an unlawful assembly are 5 or more, the court can simply convict the guilty persons with the aid of [SECTION] [ACT], provided that there is adequate evidence on record to show that such accused shared a common intention to commit the crime in question.
22. A similar view has been reiterated in [PRECEDENT] [See also: [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].]
23. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the aforementioned submissions of the appellants and the same are not worth acceptance."
47. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the respondents [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] for the offence of [SECTION] [ACT]. The respondents [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are further convicted for the offence of [SECTION] [ACT] for causing grievous hurt to PW5 [ENTITY] and PW12 [ENTITY]. They are further convicted u/[SECTION] [ACT] for voluntarily causing hurt to PW6 [ENTITY], PW10 [ENTITY] and PW17 Smt. [ENTITY]. However, these respondents [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are acquitted for the remaining offences under which they were charged.
48. The prosecution has, however, failed to prove its case against the respondents [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] for the offences under which they were charged.
49. The government appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed. The respondents [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are held guilty and convicted for the offences under [SECTION] [ACT], [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT].
50. Let these accused be produced before the Court for hearing on the quantum of sentence on 20th November, 2017. Production warrant be accordingly prepared by the Registry of the Court ensuring the presence of the respondents/accused [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] for hearing on the quantum of sentence on the next date fixed.
51. Put up on 20th November, 2017 for further orders.
([ENTITY], J.) ([ENTITY], J.) Rdang