•S3-HC—78 3^1'•^TPTI?^, ^Tll'y'lci, f^CTiy^ W^S TBTO C'pf^^tT) aT^r^ii'^iN? Wi an^T *i4i«b TOiiwgftdsn^r Cdminal Abpeal No.2950 of 1999 APPELLANTS: RESPONDENT: chi^d4il ^l^c'lf '^^St' '^T^l? ^sTRnan^r 1. 2. Bharatlal, Son of Dhajaram Sahu, aged 22 years, .Accused No.6 Balram @ Balaram Sahu, aged 42 years, Son of Pilaram Sahu ..Accysed No.9 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Tukeshwar @ Baratlal Sahu, aged 19years, ..AccusedNo.10 Kaleshwar @ Bhuneshwar, son t?f Bharatlal Sahu, aged 19 years .Accused No.ll Sethi @ Sitambar, son of Hemlal Sahu,aged18years .AccusedNo.12 Pitambar, son of Hemlal Sahu, aged 19years, ..AccusedNo.13 Amgaheen @ Janki Bai, Wife of Hemlal Sahu, aged 37 years AccusedNo.15 Note: All residents of village Taldeori, P.S. Jaijaipur, District Bilaspur (MP) (Now Chhattisgarh) - Versus - State of Mqdhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), Through: P.S. Jaijaipur, Distt. Bilaspur (MP) (Now Chhattisgarti). i ^ lltltl!.!! , ,.t a-HC—78 3^er -^ww^, tf^viQ, [st^m'.y. an^r inrat (ijsif-i.aii^i) 311^1 W ^ich ^^TT •3TT^T ^qN" lUSiil'l' WSSi 'RclRR ^Tf?tl SII^I Criminal Appfeal No.3173 of 1999 APPELLANTS: (In Jail) APPELLANTS: (on bail) -Verste- RESPONDENT: APPELLANT: =b!-4ld^'1 'RF^f 'if\'fSTSt' <i^l<^l< ^?3ifOT3II^[ Sukhsagar Sahu, S/o Tilakram Sahu, aged about 45 years. Tekram, S/o Premsagar, aged about 20 years. Raj Kumar, S/o Premsagar, Hem Charan, S/o Tilakram Sahu, aged about 26 years. Premsagar, S/o Tilakram, aged about 45 years. (Aceused No.22) Savitri Bai, D/o Premsagar, aged about 25 years. (Accused No.14) Devrahin Bai @ Rachna, W/o Sukh Sagar, Sahu, aged about 45 yeare All residents of village Taldeori, P.S. Jaijaipur, District Bitaspur (MP) (Now Chhattsgarh) The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), AND Criminal Appteal No.1450 of 2000 Sunderlal, son of Dhajaram Sahu, aged about 22 years, resident of village Taldeori, P.S. Jaijaipur, District Bilaspur (MP) (Now Chhattisgarh) fersus- XI-HC—78 'Sv^ •^wifft'ti, v>iS[w'}6, \^v^wy. ^Wff *t11* •^ 200 aii^yr vsv cipf^g^s) SV^t ?iT ft-li«ti ^ff 3?nq^T sh*i|cti Wiiwal??! sii^r ctil^t^'l ^M^f ^I^St <f^ $R ^7 stfilH .SfD^I RESPONDENT: • | The ^tete oTT4adhiraTPradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), through P.S. Jaijaipur, District Bilaspur, (MP) (now Chhattisgarh) (Appeal under Section 374 (2} oflthe Code ofCriminal Procedure. 1973) Division Bench: - Hon'bleShri ,.C. Bhadoo & Hon'bte Shri Dhirendra Mishra. JJ. (sounsel for the appellants in Cr.A. |5to7inCr.A.No.2950/99. for the appellants No.1, 3 and 4 in 3-5-2007:- Smt. Hamida Siddique, No.3173/99 and for appellant Nos.| Miss Sharmila Singhai, coi<nsel Cr.A. No.2950/99. Shri Govindram Miri, courjsel for the appellant No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.2950/99. Shri Abhay Tiwari, counsel Shri U.N.S. Deo and Prosecutors for the State/respond^ :or the appellant in Cr.A. No.14a)/2000. ihri D.K. Gwalre, Additional Public •nt. Oral judgment dictated on Ifais. L.C. Bhadoo. J. The aforesaid appeals filed) Tukeshwar @ Baratlal Sahu,. Sitambar, P'rtambar, Amgaheen Raj Kumar, Hem Charan, Prenrf by Bharatlal, Balram @ Balaram Sahu, <aleshwar @ Bhuneshwar, Sethi @ Janki Bai; SukHsagar Sahu, Tekram, Sagar, Savitri Bai, Devrahin Bai @ Rachna; and Sunderial, respecfvely,are being disposed of by ttiis "^ "^- ?„ •'• i ;fc s»' .t--£l: XI-HC—78 -S^ '^Wl'ft^, Vl^\W16, Rlciiyy Kl*1^1 **<!<*> an^?T IRPR Cpt^a^) SI^T ?il R'!!'* ?^ITW;al??M^! common judQniffni) d& in^s judgment. pdppfi31& 3TS<ai!»ll1i3 OUl 01tti^ SSFOG ebl^id^'i'l t?ffl^f ^fe^ ^Toi^R ^? <4Rw <tii^i By these appeals un<)er appellants have questioned conviction and order of senteric Sessions Judge, SakU, in 9- Sessions Judge after holdin|g Tekram, Raj Kumar, Sunderfal, commission of offence under Bharatlal & Kaleshwar underf accused Sethi @ Sitambar & the I.P.C. and accused Bataram for commission of sentenced each ofthe accuse^ fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of one year under Section 302/1. to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in R.l. for 3 months under Sectidn for one year under Section 14^ <)er Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. the accused/ l^gality and correctness of the judgment of <ce dated 13-10-99 passed bythe Additional |.T. No.81/95 whereby learned Additionat accused/appetlants namely, Sukhsagar, I, Prem Sagar & Hem Charan guilty for pections 302/149, 326/149 & 148; accused Sections 302/149 ahd 148 of the I.P.C.; Pitambar under Sections 302/149 & 148 of i^hwar, Devrahin Bai, Amgaheen, Savitri & liffence under Sections 148 of the I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for life & to pay a payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for (9 of ttie I.P.C., to undergo R.l. for 3 years & fefault of payment of fine to further undergo 326/149 ofttie I.P.C. and to undersjo R.l. lofthel.P.C.. Tukefehwar Admitted facts ofthe pr( and Tara Bai were residents were having animosity again; party because daughter of aci| being sent to her matrimonial was convened, in that meet|ng (•secution case are that deceased Dular Sai |of viltage Taldeori. The accused persons p the deceased persons and complainant pused Prem Sagar namely, Savitri was not fiouse, ttierefore, a meeting of Sahu Samaj I, Prem Sagar was asked to send his "^ 'FS^ "•41-MI?'><<, 9Tfl'M'|tS, Is|<'il+)^< ^PRW %NI* an^r 'fsv ('ipf^g^w) 3II^I?ir1^IH7 wiTsn^i *w* wrar^toaii^r °niit?i<i1i TITCff if feizt <fa^|< ^siRnsn^f daughter to the matrimonial housj decision of Samaj, he was ostraci|zed party did not help accused Prem S^gar that accused Roop Singh lodged commission of offence under Secti< the t.P.C., for which a criminat case| fe. When he did not accede to the |zed by the Samaj. The complainant r. Further ground of animosity was report against Johan and others for |ns 452,147,148,294, 325 and 506 of |No.642/97 was pending. Further case of the prosecu<ion, in brief, is that at about 6.30 a.m. in the morning of 25-7-94 Dular Sa along with his son Johan went to take bath in a pond (Bade Talab) of vil|age Taldeori. After taking bath, Dular Sai was going to tempte of Mat^ Choura, at that time, the accused persons appeared on the scene o| axe and sickle in their hands and sl' which he succumbed to the injuries) also attacked Tara Bai, as a resuf While she was being taken to th^ occurrence carrying lathi, batUe axe, Itarted beating Dular Sai, as a result of spontaneously. The accused persons of which she also sustained injuries. hospital, on the way, Tara Bai died. When Gangaram, Radha Bai, and pahadur came on the scene, they were also attacked by the accused pers(>ns. Johan was alsoattacked. He ran away and lodged report Ex.-P/4 ir^ the police station Jaijaipur which was registered at S. No.78/94 for confnission of offence under Sections 302 1 and 307 of the I.P.C. Chamar D^s Kotwar (PW-9) gave merg intimation Ex.-P/S in connection with death oflDular Sai and Tara Bai. .1 . .. .. I. After registering the crime, ^ie InvestigaUng'Officer left for scene of occurrence, after giving notice Ex| Ex.-P/S on the body of Dular Sai. P/5 to the Panchas, prepared inquest [The 1.0. after giving notice Ex.-P/52 to the Panchas, prepared inquest E1(.-P/53 on the body of Tara Bai. The ^_ i'007—50.0;^. ,!OHC—78 tH 3^T -'iWW^, giTn'y'KS, (s|<41^|^< TTOvfr *NI* WI, 200 l;qii¥<iW: ';W3'R?I'a:?iiR7 sn^?T 13TO ('qqf^g^l) 'TOIRK ^lf^T SII^I hr»rlu rfLni ilar JSai u/a<%_ q»raT<n<<liiffRcff ^l^^ <P>n$i< ^sifOTsii^r S^fSUftIL nfts+mnrtem eYamination to th© a^ed b^dy Health Centre, Jaijaipur.ur|der conducted postmortem, pr^pared of death of Dular Sai, haemorrhage, as a result of homicidal in nature. The B.D.M. Hospital, Champa, 18) conducted postmortenj, cause of death was shockl injuries to the bones of botfi Gangaram, PW-20 Radha the injuries sustained by examined by Dr. N.P. and Ex.-P/86 were prepar|ad Bahadur. The doctor advit After X-Ray it was found th^it ttlem Gurita Based on the memo Ex.-P/54 where Dr. N.P. Mishra (PW-19) report Ex.-P/82. He opined that cause 60 yeare, was shock due to excessive jnjuries on the body of Dular Sai. Death was of Tara Bai was sent for postmortem to the ^nder Ex.-P/59 where Dr. V.K. Agrawal, (PW- |, prepared report Ex.-P/81. He opinedthat |due to excessive haemorrhage as a result of lcwer legs. Injured witnesses namely, PW-8 Bai and Bahadur were sent forexamination of in the same incident. Their injuries were (PW-22). Injury reports Ex.-P/84, Ex-P/85 in respect of Gangaram, Radha Bai and ^ed for^X-ray of the above 3 injured pereons. |it Gangaram had sustained boney injury. andum Ex.-P/1 of Prem Sagar one Kalari was recovered at his instance uhder Ex.-P/2. Based on memorandum Ex.-P/9 of Sukhsagar lathi was sei^ed at his instance under Ex.-P/29. Based on memorandum Ex.-P/10 gifen by Raj Kumar sword was seized at his .1 _ instance under Ex.-P/30. | Based on memorandum Ex.-P/11 given by Tekram one Bhujali was se|zed at his instance under Ex.-P/31 . Based on memorandum Ex.-P/12 giterkby Hem Charan lathi was seized at his instance under Ex.-P/34. Hemlal lathi was seized memorandum Ex.-P/14 g 'Based on memorancfum Ex.-P/13 gh/en by |at his instance under Ex-P/35. Based on |ven by Tuneshwar axe was seized at his !—•- :;a-He—78 SrcT ^WW^, QiS\V'W, RlrtWy ^TO?ir **<|cb WI. 200 ?FZ;I<ffl^TWN; SII^T WIW (1jcl(^??I) isnwdfNsn^i cti1<<Itrt<lll 'RFRlf Tf1^^ ;rf^R$R ^ aifiiii 3Ti^t instance under Ex.-P/SQ. Bs^ed on memorandum Ex.-P/15 gwen by Roop Singh lathi was seized at| his instance under Ex.-P/33. Based on memorandum Ex:-P/16 givejn by Sunderial battle axe was seized at his instance under Ex.-P/32. ,|Based on memorandum Ex.-P/17 given by Devraheen sickle was seizejd at her instance under Ex.-P/39. Based on memorandum Ex.-P/18 giveh by Savitri sicklewas seized at her instance under Ex.-P/37. Based on| memorandum Ex.-P/18 given by Sethi lathi Was seized at his instance tjinder Ex.-P/40. Based on memorandum Ex.- P/19 given by Amgaheen ^ickle was seized at her instance under Ex.- P/38. Based on memorand4m Ex.-P/21 given by Bala @ Balram lathi was seized under Ex.-P/41. ^ased on memorandum Ex.-P/22 given by Bharatlal lathi was seized |at his instance under Ex.-P/42. Based on memorandum Ex.-P/23 giveti by Pitambar lathi was seized at his Instance under Ex.-P/43. Based on| meiporandum Ex.-P/24 given by Kaleshwar lathi was seized at his instatice under Ex.-P/44. Under Ex.-P/25 one pair of ptastic shoe, one brass fumbler, one underwear, one sando baniyan were seized from the place ^S occurrence. One Lungi, one Chaddar, plain soilandblood stained soil ^ere seized under Ex.-P/26 from the place of occurrence. Blood stained ^oil and plain soil was also seized under Ex.- P/27 from the place of occjurrence. Site plan Ex.-P/50 of the place of occurrence was prepared byjthe 1.0. After completion of in accused persons in the in tum committed the case leamed Additional intfestigation, charge sheet wasfited against the Coijrt of Judicial Magisfrate, 1 Class, Sakti, who |to the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur from where SessionsfJudge received the case on transferfor trial. ]a-HG—78 3^^ -^l<<lrt<l, ^Tn<1'l6, (sK'il^y HWv\[ *M|ch WI, 200 •3'^ST^TteRT "'ia7 Siirtn rii^iti an^?T'qsra; (lyt'i«i<w) wnwdfeTsn^i In order to establistl prosecution examined 31 accused persons were recoij they denied material appeaipng They stated that they are i^inoce account of animosity. Ac< appearing against him in He took a plea of alibi that postman at Sakti since last) house in which he was re^iding examined 12 witnesses in charges against the accused persons the Iwitnesses at the trial. Statements of ttie ijded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which against them in the prosecution evidence. i^inocent and have been falsely implicated on siised Bataram apart ftom denying material prosecution evidence, pteaded innocence. |at fte time of the incident he was working as 20 years. As death was taken place in the I, therefore, body was lying there. They defence: tlke hfe rest?ective aforebaid. Learned Additional learned counsel for the accused persons as Teejmati Bai, Birraheen Kahrodheen Bai @ Bisahe^n Annapurna. Accused Sukh) After the judgment in tti) apprehended and he facec| absconding. Learned counsel for| homicidal death of Dular namely, R/V-1 Rohan, PW-? W^W^I 'RFRTf ^I^St <r<q-t$t< ^? 3lfil*I 3II^II $essions Judge after hearing arguments of parties, convicted and sentenced ttie However, acquitted Badgadheen @ Dhaneshwari Bai, Parsadiheen @ Rat Bai, Bai, Kashdigadhheen @ Pandari Bai and |ram and Balram @ Guddu were absconding. |s case, accused Balram @ Guddu was trial separately. Accused Sukhiram is stilt We have heard learn^d counsel for the parties. the accused/appellants have not disputed ^ai and Tara Bai. Moreover, eyew'rtnesses Johan, PW-3 Loknath, PW-4 Suresh Kumar, Xi.HS—7i 't^' 3^T •^HI^, tilT{l+)'l(a, R)01+iy 9 tllMrtl *t11<b W, 200 •:1a'?~?5I? •!'q <l?R^?OTi^ 3IlS?T IRW (Ijcjt-l'ltllST) ^giwafro sii^i wifti^sses PW-5 Lakheshwari Bai, Sukhiram, PW-27 Budhdhur Kallu as also injured Radha Bai have stated thatl Bai died on account of injurft Mishra (PW-19) and Dr| postmortem on the bodies 4f death of Dutar Sai and Tarb view of the above ocular an<l of Dular Sai and Tara Bai wfc PkfV-6 Ghasiya, PW-12 Mehattar Lal, PW-16 •am, PW-29 Bahartaram & RW-24 Tularam @ namely, PW-8 Gangaram and R/V-20 deceased persons namely Dular Sai and Tara ies inflicted by the accused persons. Dr. N.P. V.K. Agrawal (PW-18), who conducted the deceased persons, have stated that the Bai was homicidat innature. Therefore, in medical evidence, it is established thatdeath >s homicidat in nature. Sukhsaaar, Tekram, Rai Kumar. Sunderial, Hem Charan. Bharat Lal. arid As far as involvement in question is concerned, independent eyewitness occurrence, has steted that he wassitting in front of his taking bath in a pond his shoes, he was climbing tumbler. After reaching tem()le time, Sukhsagar and Tekratn lathi. He made two assault^ from theassault. Dular Sa| time, accused Prem Sagarj Pitambar, Sethi, Sunderlal *i<i!<'i<il'i *ii*(<"i7^fest <f«i«;i< ^sifOTSII^I Kaleshwar. Sethi OISitambar, Pitambarand Prem Saaar of the a)x>ve accused/appetlants in the crime n|iain w'rtness PW-3 LoknathPatel,who is an whose house is in front of the place of >n the fateful day in between 6.30to 7.15 a.m. liouse, at that time, he saw that Dular Sai after temple of 'Durga Maa'. After rer steps of the temple carrying water in'brass i, he was offering water on the Deity, at that came together. Sukhsagar attacked with Dular Sai protected himself with his hands started retreating came on the land, at that Hem Charan, Hemlal, Raj Kumar, Balram, ^nd Roop Singh started attacking Dular Sai, went t<twards ffie :a-iEIC—78 S'EST •^im'/i^, ^v'16, {sicii'yy 10 :sTr$?r 'si l^'ii* "sssnsw^R; Wl aii^yr iraw (4«lf-i«i<i») '?TE<IIW(lf?g 3II^T among them Sukh Sagar wjas having lathi, Tekram was having Bhujali, Raj Kumar was having kha^la, Prem Sagar was having Kalari, Sunderlal was having Tabbal and rem^ining persons were having lattiis. Thereafter, he entered his house. Affeli body of Dular Sai was lyin^ standing in injured condition| r 10-15 minutes, he came out and saw that There were injuries. Gangaram was also In the mean time, wife of Dular Sai came. She was weeping. Tara B^i was lying in unconscious cond'rtion. There were injuries on her leg. Bto|od was oozing out of the injuries. Therewere injuries on the body of husjband of Tara Bai. Villagers werestanding ttiere, among them were Su there. Panchnama Ex.-P/S this witness is corroborated was made. In para-3 of his and Sunderial attacked, as 4 PW-5 Lokeshwari Bai, PW-8 Ram @ Kallu, among them 'tiWtclll-t iiinf'if.fe'st <h«s[t ^ stRm sn^r t^esh, Sukhiram, Lakheshwari and others also |was prepared in his presence. Evidence of (ly the evidence of RW-2 Johan, son of Dular Sai. He has stated that he w|as also with his father at the time when attack evidence, he has stated that on the teg and hand of Tara Bai accused S(ikh Sagar, Hem Charan, Raj Kumar, Tekram result of which she fell down. They twisted her leg. Evidence of th^se witnesses is corroborated in material particulars by the evidence cf PW-4 Syresh, PW-16 Sukhiram, PW-21 Raj Kumar, PW-27 Budhdhurar<i, RW-29 Bahartaram Sahu, R/V-1 Rohan, Ghasiya, R/V-12 Mehattar Lal, RW-24 Tula PW-8 Ganga and FW-20 Radha are injured witnesseswho sustained injifies in the same inciderrt. Learned counsel for t^e accused/appellants could not point out any ! ~% infirmity in the evidence of these witnesses so as to discredit their evidence regarding involven^ent of the above accused/appellants in the crime in question. As has l^een mentioned that out of these witnesses, H-HC—78 3=OTT ^ww^y Si-^WW, [sl^Wif. 11 ^Wdl **<1* 'TNqiT'f?^ ^•B]^TWlN? ai^r Traw (1pf^^r) 200 '?^]rar <ifer sii^i wh4se there PW-6 Ganga and PW-20 R^ an independent witness occurrence. Therefore, thei> established by the fact that was accompanying his fathei) the place of occurrence, different conclusion than th< regarding involvement of Moreover, from perusal of established that in the firstl carrying weapon came on persons joined them. Ther^ accused persons assembletl deadly weapons and started common object/to attack common object can be commission of crime also, thi the aid of Section 149 ofthe tie Learned counsel for inflicted on the bodies of Du «*1'4l<rl*(lTf'WT^f 'ff,fec^ ^,R?^[< ^ 3tRPT 3TI^?T |idha are injured witnesses. PW-3 Loknath is house is existing in front of the place of presence at the place of occurrence is are two injured witnesses. PW-2 Johan apd Loknath's house is existing just opposite therefore, we find no reason to come to a (e conclusion arrh/ed at by the trial Court (hese pereons in the crime in question. evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is instance accused Sukhsagar and Tekram |he scene, in the meantime, other accused ^fore, the manner in which all the above at the scene of occurrence armed with |)eating Dular Sai & Tara Bai establishes their Sai and Tara Bai. It is setUed law ttiat at the spur of moment at the time of ^refore, they have been rightly held guilty with I.P.C. Dijlar forrtied (he accused/appellants argued that injuries |ar Sai and Tara Bai were on non-vital parts i.e. no injury was on the heacf of both the deceased persons and no other grievous injury was on the vital organ of the deceased persons i.e. chest, stomach and neck. Leam^d counsel for the accused/appellants while drawing attention ofthe Court towards postmortem reports and evidence of Dr. N.P. Mishra (PW-19) ^nd Dr. V.K. Agrawal (PW-18) argued that all the injurieswere on hands ^id legs, therefore, it cannot be said that the 53-HO—78 '5^31 ^iW^, •a-^\WI<a, RlCiiyy 12 S-itsH'^'fS^ "w a'^l sh^i* l^ffi^lE MiHdi wiraT Wl aiii!?r''i'ra? (it<<t-j,»!<w) ^ww.Eifefaa^T tbe accused persons attacked death. They further arguep under Section 302 read legal evidence. The offen^ travel beyond Section 304 wHh P&rt On the other hand,| supported judgment of the tifal of PW-1 Rohan the accuse<( be left alive. doctors reveal that as far as her leg and thigh. As far as| persons, they were carryin^ cKPll^Fft-f TtP^ftf^St •rf^ft^R i?3lfOT 311^1 deceased persons with intention to cause that in the circumstances their conviction Section 149 of the I.P.C. is not based on e against the accused/appellants does not rt-llofthel.P.C. leamed counsel for the State/respondent Court and argued that as per the evidence persons were shouting thaf they should not In order to appreciatej arguments advanced by l^imed counsel for the parties, we have perusecf postmortem reports, evidence of the doctors as well as eyewitnesses. P^rusal of the injury report and evidence of the P'ara Bai is concemed, all the injuries were on Dular Sai is concerned, all the injurieswere on legs and hands. There wjere one or two bruises on the chest. Had the accused persons were havfng intention to cause death of these two deadly weapons with which they assaulted two victims, nothing preven^ed them to attack on head and other vital organ ofthe deceased persofis. Moreover, Dr. V.K. Agrawal (PW-18) has not stated in his evidence t|at injuries inflicted on the body of Tara Bai were sufficient in the ordinaijy-course of nature to cause death. Dr. N.P. Mishra (PW-19) has not stafed that injuries inflict^d on the body of Dular Sai were sufficient in the ^rdinary course of nature to cause death. Looking to the injuries an^l parts of the bodies Where injuries were inflicted, we are of the con^idered opinion that looking to the place of v^. :ia-HC—78 g'eq' ^|A| !<>'><<, 8)i{|+f'i6, (s)i7>i^y 13 MIHdl **<!* ;:!ltff?5t pqr 3Tiq?I an^yr'qsiw C^?f3g^) ^nwdfeian^i accitsed ha|id? bodies chosen by the drawn that they were havirjg two persons. The mannei) persons attacked these tw6"| injuries on the legs and persons had knowledge ttiaf Sai and Tara Bai, they ar^ against ttie accused personjs the I.P.C. instead of Sectioni view by the judgment of th^ Mukna and others reportetl Court held that:- where injuries relevant factort '<Wtlt<?rat't 'RTRcTf^fe^ ^T^R i;3(fin3II^T persons to attack, no inference can be requisite intention to cause death of these in which, weapons with which the accused Ipersons and caused boney injuries and other >, it can safely be inferred that the accused the manner in which they are attacking Dular likely to cause death. Therefore, offence was made out under Section 304 Part-11 of 302/149 ofthe I.P.C.. We arefortified in our ^ Apex Court in the matter of Adti Ram V. in 2004 AIR SCW 5773 wherein the Apex "Number of inj4ries on deceased person - Not always determinative ^f offence - Weapon used, part of body ^ere inflicted and nature of injuries are - Lathis and axes used by appellants to beat deceas^d - Assault made in course of quarrel - Doctor wh^ conducted post-mortem found 34 injuries includitlg several fractures injuries -trial Court convicted app^tlante under Ss.302 r/w Ss.148, 149 and 341 - Higl} Court noting fact that fracfaire injuries were all seen jon hand and other non-vital parts of body; there v^as rio grievous injury pn head; all injuries on h^ad were simpte in nafaire, altered conviction to S1304, Part 1 - No infirmity - On facts, i-HC—78 -yss; ^11.41^, dxf1tijl<i, is|(/'l<-l^< 14 •qra?rr *ii<*i ;TC?I ^T Ri-fi'* an^yr'q3% Cq?^?^^ ^ITW^rfOT^CT^I ^iraferah tipraf •if,fe^txfSn?R ^3ifilT 311^1 however, case |ield to be one covered under S.304, Part II -Custod|al sentence ofsixyears imposed." On the same principjle, if we took into nature of the injuries, postmortem reports and doct^rs' evidence not a single injury was inflicted by the accused persons on |any vital part of the body of the deceased persons. Therefore, basec^ on the above principle, we are of the considered opinion that off^nce against the accused persons under Section 304 Part II of the l.ff.C. is made out, therefore, their conviction under Section 302 read w|th Sech'on 149 of ttie I.P.C. cannot be sustained. Accused persofjis namely, Sukhsagar, Prem Sagar, Raj Kumar, Tekram, Hem Charar) and Sunderlal have rightly been convicted under Section 326 read with ^ection 149 ofthe I.P.C. for causing grievous injuriesto injured Gangaram vitith deadlyweapons. /. Devrahin Bai @ Rachna. Amaaheen @ Janki Baj andSavitrL Bai These appellants have| been convicted under Section 148 of the I.P.C. because as per the protecution case at the time of commission of offence they were armed with ipeadly weapon i.e. sickle. Smt. Hamida Siddique, |eamed counsel for the accused/appellants, argued that similarly situaljed other co-accused persons namely, Badgadheen @ Teejmati Bai, ?iri^heen @ Dhaneshwari Bai, Parsadiheen @ Rat Bai, Kahrodheen Bai @Bisaheen Bai, Kashdigadhheen @ Pandari Bai and Arinapurna have beep acquitted whereas, these 3 ladies have been convicted. She further sjrgued that eyewitness namely, Johan.son of deceased Dular, has not tnentioned in FIR Ex.-P/4 that they were 3I.HC—78 3:5ET ^m\^^, ^wie, ^wy. 15 '^T'f?;TW •s's;'i MtNc^l (hNI* WI. 200 an^r iisicR (^pfyRff) wiTWHfta sii^r armed with sickle. Similarlyl Cr.P.C. it has not been merftioned only distinction made by thjc ladies no recovery of weaj entitled for the benefit ofdoubt. Shri On the other hand, supported finding of the trial) armed with sickle, therefore), offence with the aid of Sectioh Prosecutor is not legally tei persons haye already been with Section 149 of the I.P appeal has been preferred passed by the triat Court. Section 149 of the I.P.C. Irt made that all the accused CBra?d-in'j 'wraf^l^t' <R>t^,i< ^affim sii^i in his statement Ex.-D/2 under Section 161 that they were armed with sickle. The e trial Court is that from other co-accused >on has been effected, therefore, they are iri U.N.S. Deo, Additional Public Prosecutor, Court. He also argued that since they were , they may also be convicted for the main 149ofthel.P.C. We are afraid that su|3mission made by learned Additional Public kable for the reason that ladies co-accused lacquitted, these 3 ladies accused have also been acquitted under Sectiohs 302'read with Section 149 and 326 read C., that judgment has attained finality. No by the State against the order of acquittal Therefore, suo nwtu this Court cannot appreciate evidence and conj/ictthe accused under Section 302 read with FIR ttie only omnibus statement has been persons started attacking in which similar ^ statement was made again^t other co-accused lady persons who have been