JUDGMENT
N.S. Gupta, J.
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20-8-1980 and sentence dated 27-8-1980 passed by Sri S.C.M. Tripathi, the then VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Azamgarh convicting the accused appellants Sheo Poojan, Sheo Kumar, Om Prakash, Ramdeo and Bansh Raj under Setions 147/148/302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for a period of one year under Section 147, I.P.C., three years R.I. under Section 149, I.P.C. and life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. each. All the sentence to rule concurrently.
2. The prosecution story briefly stated was as follows:
A brutal murder of one Vijay Bahadur Singh (deceased) was committed by the accused appellants who had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the said murder and who armed themselves with deadly weapons like fire arms viz. country made pistol, bomb, knife and Gandaga in the broad day light at 10.00 a.m. on 20-8-1979 in the main market known as Gopalganj Bazar lying in village Gendaura within the circle of police station Ahiraula district Azamgarh.
3. The complainant Santraj Singh (PW 1) is the real brother of deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh. They were Thakur by caste and were resident of village Tahar Kishundeopur P.S. Ahiraula district Azamgarh. The accused-appellants were Yadav by caste. They were resident of that very village. Accused appellants Sheo Poojan and Sheo Kumar are the real brothers. Accused appellant Om Prakash is the son of accused-appellant Sheo Poojan. Accused appellants Ramdeo and Bansraj were their close associates. Gopalganj market is a small township which lies at a distance of about five furlongs from village Tahar Kishundeopur. There was a pucca road running through this township connecting the village and police station Ahiraula which lay at a distance of 6 miles towards the east of the scene of occurrence. From towards north of the road within the township, towards east there was a passage which ran further towards north upto a canal, which passage further led to a canal culvert. There was a shop of one Bansi Sonar towards north of the road, and East of this passage, Adjoining to the pas sage there was a medicine shop of one Shabbir Khan which was popularly known as medical hall. Towards the west of this medical hall and north of the road various shops and houses were situated. This location of the road, passage and the shops within the township is as shown in the site plan Ext. Ka-8 and the statement of Santraj (PW 1), the brother of the deceased of the deceased was not disputed before the trial Court nor before this Court of Appeal.
4. Two lives one of Vijay Bahadur Singh who was a middle aged about 48 years of the side of the prosecution and one that of Jai Prakash who was a young lad of 17 years age and was son of accused-appellant Sheo Poojan from the side of the defence were lost in the occurrence of this case. The deceased Vijay Bahadur Singh and his family members on one hand and the accused-Appellant Sheo Poojan and his family members associate on the other hand bore enmity and ill will against each other. About 8-9 months before the occurrence of this case there took place some quarrel and criminal assault in between them. Their hostility went on increasing and ultimately culminated into this unfortunate incident.
5. Deceaed Vijai Bahadur was an elderly member of his family. Accused Sheo Poojan and his kiths and kin as also his associates were in search of an occasion to kill him. The deceased avoided confrontation and contacts with the accused appellants. He used to move about with due care and caution. On the date of this unfortunate incident which happened on 20-8-1979 at about 10.00 a.m. Vijay Bhadur Singh (deceased) was sitting at the shop of Banshi Sonar in the market of Gopalganj. PW. 4, Deshraj PW 5, Ramakant, Vishnu Prasad Singh and Ram Bali Singh were all present at the said shop and were talking together. All the accused having formed an unlawful assembly with a designed plan, murdered Vijay Bahadur Singh (deceased). They along with a boy who was later on found to be , Jai Prakash son of Sheo Poojan (accused appellant) who was lying on a Charpai, which was covered with a cloth and was concealed with deadly weapons like country made pistol, knife, bomb and gandasa, which were subsequently used by the accused-appellants in the occurrence of this case came near the shop of Banshi Sonar holding the Charpai in a manner as if they were carrying some patient. They took the victim Vijay Bahadur Singh by surprise. All the accused-appellants took out their respective weapons namely Sheo Kumar and Ramdeo country made pistol, Om Prakash bomb, Banshraj gandasa and Sheo Poojan knife which they had concealed under the cover on the Charpai. Accused Sheo Kumar challenged the deceased Vijay Bahadur Singh who got up from the shop and ran away towards the west by the side of the road. Accused Sheo Kumar and Ramdeo who were armed with country made pistol opened fire by means of the same. Accused Om Prakash who was armed with bomb threw away the bomb towards the deceased. Accused Banshraj and Sheo Poojan who were armed with gandasa and knife respectively chased the deceased. They assaulted him and caused a number of injuries to the deceased. The boy Jai Prakash son of accused-appellant Sheo Poojan also chased the deceased along with the acccused appellants.
6. It appears that as a result of shots fired by the accused appellants, Sheo Kumar and Ramdeo by their respective weapons viz country made pistol some shot had hit the boy Jai Prakash who sustained fire arm injuries and died lateron. All the accused-appellants took up the Charpai as also the said boy Jai Prakash and went away. The person present on the shop of Banshi Sonar and several other people who had collected around the shop of Bansi Sonar winessed this occurrence. The accused appellants escaped from the scence of occurrence.
7. Soon after the occurrence Santraj Singh (PW 1) the real brother of the deceased arrived at the spot. He got the F.R. Ext. Ka-1 written and lodged the same at the police station Ahiraula at about 11.45 a.m. which lies at a distance of about 6 miles towards the east of the place of occurrence. On the basis of the said F.T.R. case No. 193/79 under Sections 147/148/302, read with Section 149, I.P.C. was registered.
8. S.I. Srikant Pandey (PW 6) who was then working as S.O. at P.S. Ahiraula took up the investigation in his hand. He immediately rushed to the scene of the occurrence and prepared an inquest report, Ext. Ka-4 in respect of the, dead body of the deceased Vijay Bahadur Singh and sent the same for post mortem examination through constable Raj Narain Singh (PW 3). He recorded the statements of the witnesses namely Santraj Singh (PW 1) Vishnu Prasad, Ramakant (PW 5), Ram Bali, Deshraj (PW 4) and others. He inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared the site plan, Ext. Ka-8. He also recovered blood stained and simple earth from the scene of occurrence and prepared recovery memo about the He took the Dhoti, Bandi, Kurta, Chashma and Tobiz belonging to the deceased in his possession. He also recovered a blood stained knife from the scene of occurrence and preapred a re-, covery memo Ext. Ka-14 about the same. He also recovered a pair of shoes, one towel and an empty cartridge from the scene of occurrence and prepared separate recovery memo Ext, Ka-16 and Ka-17. He also recovered pieces of bomb which was said to have been exploded and prepared a recovery memo Ext. Ka-18 about the same. He searched out the accused-appellants but they were not available to him. After his transfer from this police station subsequent investigation was conducted by Prahlad Yadav and after Prahlad Yadav S.I. Bramha Singh who submitted the charge sheet against the accused-appellants.
9. After the committal of the accused-appellants, Sri S.C.M. Tripathi, the then VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Azamgarh framed charges under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. against the accused-appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. AH the accused-appellants denied their participation in the occurrence in question and pleaded they have been implicated in this case due to enmity. Accused appellant Sheo Poojan pleaded that on the date of occurence at about 10.00 a.m. he had gone to Gopalganj along with his son for opening his shop there. He stated that Nagina Singh and deceased Vijay Bahadur Singh duly armed with Gupti and gun respectively chased him and his son Jai Prakash and killed him. He stated that the deceased Vijay Bahadur Singh was assaulted by the various people of the market who had assembled there. Vijai Bahadur Singh took out the gun and caused injuries to his son Jai Prakash. He look his son Jai Prakash in an injured shape to hospital Azamgarh but he succumbed to the inujuries on the way to the hospital. He stated to have lodged a report about that fact with Kotwali police Azamgarh at about 1.00 p.m. on 20-8-1979 against Vijay Bahadur Singh and Nagina Singh. The accused-appellant Om Prakash stated that he had nothing to do with the occurrence in question. He was a stu- dent of class XII at the time of occurrence and was aged about 18 years. Accused appellant Ramdeo pleaded that he was falsely implicated in this case by the police of police station Ahiraula.
11. No evidence in defence was adduced by the accused-appellants, except the F.I.R. Ext. Ka 1 relating to the murder of Jai Prakash by deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh and Nagina Singh.
12. The prosecution in support of its case had examined 7 witneses out of whom, Deshraj (PW 4) and Ramakant (PW 5) were eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW 1, Santraj Singh was the brother of the deceased. He was a maker of F.I.R. PW 2 constable Chandra Bhushan Upadhyay and PW 3 constable Raj Narain Singh were formal witnesses in as much as that the constable Chandra Bushan Upadhyay (PW 2) proved chick report and G.D. reports. Constable Raj Narain Singh took away the dead body of Vijay Bahadur Singh for post mortem examination. PW 7, Dr. S.D. P. Gupta was the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 6, S.I. Srikant Pandey was the Investigating Officer of the case.
13. The learned trial Judge placing reliance upon the ocular evidence of Desh Raj (PW 4) and Rama Kant (PW 5) convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as aforesaid, hence this appeal.
14. We have heard Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Amar Saran, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri S.P. Tewari, D.G.A. for State, considered their contention and have gone through the records of the case.
15. It was vehemently aruged by the learned counsel for accused-appellants that Jai Prakash the young son of accused-appellants Sheo Poojan was murdered by the deceased Vijay Bahadur Singh and Nagina Singh about which the accused-appellants had lodged a report at police station Kotwali, Azamgarh at about 1.00 p.m. right on the date of the occurrence. It was argued that there was no whisper in the F.I.R. which is said to have been promptly lodged by Santraj Singh (PW 1) regarding the injuries of Jai Prakash and as such it should be believed that the prosecution had not come up with clean hand before the court below and the learned trial Judge grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants. It was further contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that Deshraj (P.W. 4) and Ramakant (P.W. 5), two eye-witnesses were partisan witnesses. They were chance witnesses and the court below grossly erred in placing reliance upon their statements. We are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellants.
16. True it is that Jai Prakash the young son of the accused-appellant Sheo Poojan appears to have been killed in the occurrence of this case, yet the point which arises for our consideration is to ascertain as to whether the accused-appellants had formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly they committed culpable homicide amounting to murder of deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh or whether Vijai Bahadur Singh and Nagina Singh were responsible for committing the murder of Jai Prakash son of accused-appellant Sheo Poojan.
17. Ext. Ka 1 is the F.I.R. which was promptly lodged by Santraj (PW 1) at about 11.45 a.m. i.e. just within 1% hours of the occurrence at Ahiraula Police Station in whose jurisdiction the place of occurrence of this case namely Gopalganj Bazar was situate.
18. It was averred by Santraj (PW 1) the maker of the F.I.R. in his statement on oath before the court below that the deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh was his real brother. He was Pradhan of Village Khora. About 8-9 months before the occurrence of this case, he had a quarrel and Marpit with the accused-appellants about which a police report was lodged. The accused- appellants bore enmity with the deceased on this core and were out to kill him. He stated that the deceased used to take also sorts of precautions in his movements. Hearing the incident on the faithful date of occurrence, when he was working in his field which was situated about 4-5 furlongs from Gopalganj Bazar, he came running to the scene of occurrence and saw his brother deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh lying dead with pool of blood. He slated that he met Vishnu Prasad, Desh Raj (PW 4), Ramakant (PW 5) and Ram Bali on the spot. They narrated the incident to him. He got a report about this occurrence written by Vishnu Prasad and lodged the same at police station Ahiraula. He stated during the course of cross-examination that in fact Ramdeo and Banshraj were Pattidar of accused-appellant Sheo Poojan was not mentioned by him in the F.I.R. nor the same was stated by him before the Investigation Officer. He stated that Vijai Bahadur Singh (deceased) was Gram Pradhan for the last 8 to 10 years but it was wrong to suggest than he was under the influence of the police. He stated that a number of cases were instituted against him but he was never convicted. He mainained that he was involved in a murder case along with his brother Vijai Bahadur Singh (deceased) but was acquitted from the High Court. He maintained that Vijai Bahadur Singh was having a gun but had denied the suggestion of the accused-appellants hat he and his brother Vijai Bahadur Singh were history sheeter of the police. He stated that the fact that at the time occurrence he was working in the field which was at a distance of 3 furlongs, was not mentioned in the F.I.R. He stated to have got the F.I.R. Ext. Ka 1 scribed alter 5 minutes of reaching at the spot by Vishnu Prasad in the presence of all the four witnesses of fact. The report was written with the consultation of the witnesses and was singed by him. He stated that he took half an hour to get the F.I.R. written. This report was read out to him and was locked at the police station. He denied the suggestion of the defects on the point that he lodged report about the occurrence after due consultation and seeking legal opinion at Azamgarh.
19. PW 4, Desh Raj and PW 5, Ramakant Singh who were the two eye-witnesses of the occurrence stated in their statements on oath before the Court below that at the time of the occurrence they were sitting on the shop of Banshi Sonar where the deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh came. They stated that the accused appellant No. (1) Sheo Poojan (2) Sheo Kumar (3) Ramdeo (4) Om Prakash and (5) Hansraj came there along with a Charpai and boy posing to have been sleeping over the Charpai. They put down the Charpai in front of the shop of Banshi Sonar in the main market of Gopalganj. Sheo Kumar took out a country made pistol from the Charpai and challenged the deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh. Accused appellant Ramdeo also took out the country made pistol. Vijai Bahadur Singh got up from the shop and ran away. A boy who was on Charipai got up and chased Vijai Bahadur Singh (deceased). Ramdeo and Sheo Kumar opened fire by means of country made pistol upon Vijai Bahadur Singh. Om Prakash threw away the bomb. Vijai Bahadur Singh sustained injuries and fell down on the crossing of the road. Then Sheo Poojan assaulted him by means of knife. The deceased Vijay Bahadur Singh again got up and ran away towards the Shabbir medical hall which was then closed. From there he went towards the west, while the deceased was running accused appellant Om Prakash exploded the bomb towards the deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh. He fell down near the house of Rampal. Then Banshraj and Sheo Poojan again assaulted the deceased by means of gandasa and knife respectively. After a short while Santraj, the brother of the deceased came to whom the incident was narrated by them and who went to the police station to lodged a report about the same. The real test of the ocular evidence is the medical evidence. Judging the occular evidence of these two witnesses in the light of the medical evidence of Dr. S.D.P. Gupta, Medical Officer (PW 7) who conducted the autospsy on the dead body, of the deceased, on the next date of the occurrence i.e. on 21-8-1979 at about 4.00 p.m. at district hospital, Azamgarh we find that the position of the deceased was as under:-
20 The deceased was aged about 48 years. Rigor mortis was present on the dead body.
21. Ante mortem injuries :
1. Incised wound vertical 16 cm x .75 cm x skin deep top of right side head 8 cm above right eye brow.
2 Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on right side forehead oblique just above right eye brow.
3 Abraded contusion 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on right cheek.
4 Abraded contusion 5 cm x 4.5 cm on chin and below it.
5 Stab wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm cavity deep on front of upper part of chest 7 cm below root of back going through sternum.
6 Contusion in area of 10 cm x 7 em on right side chest upper part extending upto root of neck right side.
7 Incised wound transverse 14 cm x 12 cm cavity deep, loop of intestine coming out of “wound.
8. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm on right side of abdomen 25 cm below right axilia surrounded by blackening all over the area extending 6 cm below the wound up to 5 cm below axilla on the upper sternum. Blackening material present, causing superficial burn.
9. Abraded contusion 28 cm x 8 cm on front of right thigh upper half right knee. 10.Multiple abraded contusion in area 8 cm x 7 cm on front of right knee. 11.Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on inner side of left shoulder. 12.Incised wound 2 cm x .75 cm muscle deep on left side back upper part 9 cm below injury No. 11.
13 Contused swelling in area 15 cm x 11 cm on left side fact.
14 Contused swelling in area of 17 cm x 8 cm on back of lefthand and left wrist and lower part of left fore-arm.
15 Contused swelling 11 cm x 8. 25 cm on back of right hand.
22. On internal examination of the deadbody the Doctor found that the left lobe of the lungs was found incised, heart was piercing, clotted blood was present in the left cavity and the stomach was empty. Dr. Gupta opined that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage because of these ante mortem injuries. The injuries were sufficient to cause death. The incised wound found on the person of the deceased could have been caused by means of knife and gandasa and the lacerated wounds which was mentioned as injury No. 8 measuring 3 cm x 2 cm on the right side of abdomen could have been caused by the explosion of the bomb and the rest of the injuries were caused by means of Lathi.
23. When the clear and consistent case of the prosecution was that at the time of occurrence all the 5 accused-appellants came near the shop of Banshi Sonar in the main market of Gopalganj concealing their weapons under the Charpai and keeping a boy who was subsequently known as Jai Prakash the son of the accused-appellant Sheo Poojan lying on that Charpai, giving a look as if the boy on the Charpai was keeping ill and when Deshraj (P.W. 4) and Ramakant (P.W. 5) have very clearly consistently stated that the accused- appellants kept Charpai infront of the shop of Banshi where the deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh was sitting and seeking the accused-appellants, the deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh tried to run in a bid to save himself from the clutches of the accused appellants but was chased by the boy Jai Prakash and the accused-appellants facing trial before this Court, It appears that the bullet which was fired by accused-appellant Sheo Kumar and Ramdeo by means of their respective country made pistol hit the boy Jai Prakash in consequence of which Jai Prakash was injured but was taken away by the accused-appellants on the said Charpai in their bid to escape and Sheo Poojan and Banshraj killed the deceased by means of their respective weapons namely, knife and gandasa by causing a number of incised wound on the person of the deceased. It was argued on behalf of the accused-appellants that a number of contusions found on the person of the deceased could have been caused only by means of a blunt object. The case of the prosecution is not that any of the accused-appellants was armed with Lathi and had caused Lathi blow to the deceased and, therefore the medical evidence of Dr. S.D.P. Gupta (P.W. 7) is inconsistent with the occular evidence of Deshraj (P.W. 4). and Ramakant (P.W. 5). Although according to the eye-witness account no blunt weapon was used by any of the accused-appellants in causing injuries to the deceased, yet the fact remains that in his bid to escape from the clutches of the accused-appellants and to escape from the fatal assault by the appellants upon him, the deceased had run hither and thither. The possibility that while running away the deceased was struck down by some blunt object and thereby sustained contused wounds and further the possibility that the gandasa on the side of it is attached with wood and if used from that side could cause contused wounds and swelling which were found upon the person of the deceased cannot be ruled out. Thus the arguments built up by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants for the non explanation of the contused wounds cannot be appreciated. The minor omission pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the fact that a boy got up from Charpai and the deceased was chased by him was not written in the FIR was too minor a contradiction to be taken into account by the trial court for obvious rea-son that the parties were on inimical terms since before the occurrence. The dramatic manner in which the accused-appellants came on the scene of occurrence with a charpai and a boy lying over there and the weapons were concealed upon the cover of the Charpai fully go to prove that the accused-appellants came on the spot with a premedidated design and plan to do away with the deceased. It was a destiny of accused-appellant Sheo Poojan that his own son sustained fa-tal injury by means of country made pistol at the hands of his own associates who had aimed fire at the deceased. Although the accused-appellant Sheo Poojan had lodged a police report making the allegations of murdering his son by the deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh and Nagina Singh at Kotwali, Azamgarh at about 1.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence of this case, yet the circumstances that instead of approaching the police station Ahiraula within whose jurisdiction Gopalganj Bazar lay the accused-appellant Sheo Poojan approached the police station Kotwali, Azamgarh and lodged report there at 1.00 p.m. levelling allegations of murdering his son by the deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh and Nagina Singh fully go to show that since the accused-appellant Sheo Poojan and his associates were themselves the culprits of committing murder of Vijai Bahadur Singh, the appellants had chosen police station Kotwali instead of police station Ahiraula to lodge a report regarding murder of his son. If it was a fact that Jai Prakash the son of the accused appellant Sheo Poojan was killed at the hands of deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh and Nagina Singh, instead of going on to police station Kotwali, Azamgarh the accused appellants should have gone to police station Ahiraula. In that case the accused-appellants would not have escaped from the scene of occurrence along with the injured son of Sheo Poojan accused-appellants. The circumstances that soon after the occurrence of this case the accused-appellant escaped along with the injured son of accused appellant Sheo Poojan who sustained Bullet injury along with the Charpai on which Jai Prakash was brought by the accused-appellants themselves upto the scene of occurrence Strenthen the belief that the accused-appellants were the real assailants. The promptness with which the F.I.R. was lodged by Santraj Singh (P.W. 1) and the meticulous details mentioned therein leading to the occurrence of this case lends assurance in the credibility of the occular evidence of Deshraj (P.W. 4) and Ramakant (P.W. 5) and we see no reason to disrd the same.
24. This mere fact that all these witnesses namely Santraj (P.W. 1), Deshraj (P. W. 4) and Ramakant (P. W. 5) belonged to one and the same community is no ground to brush aside their solemn testimony.
25. It was rightly argued on behalf of the complainant and the State that when as many as five accused-appellants and Jai Prakash the son of the accused appellant Sheo Poojan were chasing the deceased in a bid to kill him by means of deadly weapons like country made pistol, knife, gandasa and bomb, the witnesses namely Deshraj (P.W. 4) and Ramakant (P.W. 5) and all others present there should have focussed their attention towards the deceased and not towards Jai Prakash who was taken away from the spot soon after sustaining the injuries at the hands of one of the assailants. Thus the prosecution was not bound to explain the injuries of Jai Prakash.
26. Coming to the defence version set up by the accused-appellants, we come to the conclusion that it has got no leg to stand for the simple reason that if it was a fact that a young son of accused-appellant Sheo Poojan who was aged about 17 years was done to death right in his presence of his father by the deceased Vajai Bahadur Singh and his associate Nagina Singh, he would not have sit silent over the matter simply by filing a F.I.R. and that too at the police station which was not having any jurisdiction over the place of occurrence. The apart from the fire arm injury as per post mortem report Ext. Kha-3 which were found on the dead body of Jai Prakash, which are enumerated below it is clear that Jai Prakash son of accused-appellant Sheo Poojan should have sustained these injuries while running away after the deceased :
1. Fire arm wound in an area 8 cm x 6 cm on right buttock containing 6 fire arm wound each of size 1 cm x 1.25 cm. No blackening, tatooing. No singing of hair. These are wound of entries. Penetrating across the hip joint resulting in wound of exit.
2. Fire arm wound in an area 12 cm x 8 cm, 6 in numbers on right inginnel region and upper part of the thigh size varying 2 cm x 1 cm to 2 x 1.25 cm. No signing, blackening around the wound present. No tatooing present. These are wound of exit.
The Doctor found after opening these wounds that there were laceration of muscles, blood vessels and fracture of bone under lying.
27. The fact that accused-appellant Sheo Poojan felt satisfied only by filing F.I.R. and never chased the matter further fully go to prove guilty mind of the accused-appellant Sheo Poojan and leads us to the conclusion that Jai Prakash son of Sheo Poojan was not killed with the hands of deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh but was actually killed by one of associates of the appellants while chasing the deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh.
28. Thus after carefully scrutinising all the facts and circumstances of the case, we uphold the finding of fact recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding the guilt of the accused-appellants punishable Under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.
29. It is pertinent to note here that the offence punishable Under Section 148 I.P.C. is a graver offence than the offence punishable Under Section 147 I.P.C. when it is fully proved on record that all the accused-appellants were armed with deadly weapons, and when the court below convicted and sentenced them Under Section 148 I.P.C, the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants Under Section 147 I.P.C. was redundant and was an uncalled for.
30. Coming on the point of sentence we find that the accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years Under Section 148 I.P.C. and life term Under Section 302 read with Setion 149 I.P.C. Since the sentences were to run concurrently we find no justification to interfere with the sentence inflicted upon the accused-appellants.
31. Thus in the result, we find no force in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. The accused-appellants are on bail. Their bail is hereby cancelled.
32. Let a copy of this judgment along with the record of the case be sent to the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh forthwith which should get the accused-appellants arrested and commit them to imprisonment to serve out their sentence of life imprisonment and the compliance report be submitted within a period of six months.