JUDGMENT
Sushma Shrivastava, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the order of their conviction and sentence passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T. No. 129/93 decided on 16.10.95, appellants have preferred this appeal.
2. Appellant No. 5 Lallu Singh S/o Bhavsingh has been convicted under Sections 302, 326 and 148 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 100/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the respective offences. Other seven appellants have been convicted under Sectionss 302/149, 326/149 and 148 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 100/- each and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the respective offences by the impugned judgment. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
3. According to prosecution, on24.06.93 at about 8’O’ clock in the morning at village Kumeriya, Sunita, daughter of deceased Harprasad (hereinafter to be referred as deceased) had gone to take water from the hand-pipe situated at the road side, where appellant Lallu’s sister-in-law (Bhojai) was also filling water. Appellant Lallu also came there and began taking bath. Appellant Lallu and his sister-in-law did not allow Sunita to take water. Sunita came back to her house and narrated the incident to her father Harprasad, which led to an altercation between the deceased and appellant Lallu when he was passing by the side of the house of the deceased in the noon time. Thereafter, appellant Lallu with other seven appellants being armed with weapons and lathi came to the house of the deceased at about 8 ‘O’clock in the night. Appellants Lallu and Halle were armed with ‘katarna’ (sharp edged weapon) and appellant Madhav was armed with spear, whereas other appellants were carrying lathi with them. Appellants dragged the deceased in his courtyard and surrounded him. Appellant Lallu S/o Bhavsingh then assaulted the deceased and gave a ‘katarna’ blow on his scalp. Appellant Mahadev stabbed him with spear, while appellant Halle gave him a blow with ‘katarna’ and appellant Bhavsingh gave him a lathi blow on his chest. Harprasad fell on the ground. When his brother Kharagram tried to intervene and save him, appellant Lallu gave a ‘katarna’ blow on the scapular region of Kharagram and appellant Madhav also assaulted him with spear from its blunt side and appellant Sukhlal also gave him a lathi blow. Kharagram was also seriously injured. All the appellants then fled away.
4. Injured Kharagram and Harprasad were taken to the District Hospital, Damoh, where Harprasad succumbed to his injuries at about 11.10 P.M. same day. The intimation of his death was sent to the Police Kotwali, Damoh by the hospital authorities, on the basis of which merg intimation was recorded by Police and merg inquest was made. The dead body of deceased Harprasad was sent for postmortem examination. Injured Kharagram was also medically examined at District Hospital, Damoh. After merg inquiry, an offence was registered against appellants and was investigated. Blood stained and plain earth were seized from the spot. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were also seized. On the arrest of the appellants, weapons of offence and lathi used in the commission of offence were seized at the instance of appellants. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. After due investigation, appellants were prosecuted under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 450 of IPC and were put to trial.
5. Appellants denied the various charges framed against them under Section 148, 302, 302/149, 326, and 326/149 of IPC and pleaded false implication.
6. According to the written statement filed by appellant No. 5 Lallu, deceased Harprasad and his brother Kharagram had feeling of untouchability against the appellants, who were the members of Scheduled Caste and due to same reason, Sunita, daughter of deceased, had broken the water pot of his sister-in-law near the hand-pipe. As a matter of fact, there was an inter se fight between the deceased and his brother Kharagram in the evening, which resulted in injuries to them and appellants were falsely implicated.
7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found all the appellants guilty under Sections 148 of IPC. Appellant No. 5 Lallu was also found guilty under Sections 302 and 326 of IPC, while the other appellants were found guilty under Sections 302/149, 326/149 and were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.
8. Arguments of both the sides were heard. Record of the lower court perused.
9. The conviction of the appellants is founded mainly on the evidence of four eye witnesses, namely, Kharagram (PW-7), Sunita (P.W-13), Chandra Rani (PW-14) and Kamal Rani (PW-15) coupled with other corroborative evidence.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court gravely erred in relying upon the inconsistent testimony of the interested and related witnesses despite delayed FIR and inconsistent medical evidence. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the trial court failed to consider that actually no FIR was lodged by the victim, as the incident was the result of inter se quarrel between the two brothers and after two days all the appellants were falsely roped after deliberations and consultation.
11. We have carefully and thoroughly examined the evidence on record. PW-7 Kharagram, is an injured eye witness and the other eye witnesses are also the inmates of the house of the deceased, where the incident had occurred. PW-13 Sunita, is the daughter of deceased and PW-15 Kamal Rani is his wife. PW-7 Kharagram is also the brother of the deceased residing in the same part of the house and PW-14 Chandra Rani is his wife. Thus, presence of all these witnesses on the scene of occurrence could hardly be doubted when the incident occurred at the premises of deceased Harprasad.
12. PW-7 Kharagram categorically deposed in his evidence that on account of some altercation earlier in the day between the deceased and appellant No. 5 Lallu, all the appellants, namely, Lallu, Madhav, Halle, Bhavsingh, Chhakodee, Sukhlal, Lallu (Chhatarpur wale), armed with weapons and lathi came to the place of deceased Harprasad at about 8 ‘O’clock in the night. According to PW-7 Kharagram, appellant No. 5 Lallu and Halle were armed with ‘katarna’, while appellant Madhav was holding spear and other remaining appellants were carrying lathi with them. Appellants Bhavsingh and Chhakodee caught hold of deceased by his hands and appellant Sukhlal held him by his ‘baniyaan’ and they dragged him out in the courtyard and all the appellants surrounded him. Appellant No. 5 Lallu then wielded ‘katarna’ blow on the head of deceased and appellant Madhav gave a spear blow on his forehead. Appellant Bhavsingh wielded a lathi blow on the chest of the deceased; when he fell down, other appellants also began assaulting him with lathi. When PW-7 Kharagram tried to intervene and save his brother Harprasad, appellant Lallu gave a ‘katarna’ blow on his scapular region and appellant Madhav also assaulted him with the blunt side of the spear. Appellant Sukhlal also gave him a lathi blow and the other appellants were exhorting them to kill and after intimidating the whole family, they moved away. PW-7 Kharagram also deposed that they were rushed to Damoh hospital, but his brother Harprasad died in the hospital after an hour and he himself had to remain hospitalized for nine days.
13. PW-13 Sunita also stated in her evidence that on the day of occurrence, when she had gone to take water from hand-pipe at about 8 or 9 ‘O’clock in the morning, she had an altercation with appellant Lallu and his sister-in-law over filling of water, which she had narrated to her family members. PW-13 Sunita further deposed that her father Harprasad had protested about the same to appellant Lallu, when he was passing by the side of his house in the noon, which had led to an altercation with the result that appellant Lallu with other appellants, namely, Madhav, Bhavsingh, Chhakodee, Kashiram, Sukhlal, and Lallu (Chhatarpur wale), Halle with weapons and lathi came to the house of her father in the night and attacked and assaulted him. PW-13 Sunita also clearly deposed that appellant Lallu and Halle were carrying ‘katarna’, while appellant Madhav had a spear and other appellants were holding lathi.
14. PW-13 Sunita also categorically deposed that appellant Chhakodee and Bhavsingh caught hold of deceased by his hands and appellant Sukhlal held him by his ‘baniyaan’ and they dragged him out and then appellant Lallu gave a ‘katarna’ blow on the scalp of her father Harprasad and appellant Madhav gave him a spear blow, while appellant Halle assaulted him with ‘katarna’ and appellant Bhavsingh wielded a lathi blow on his chest with the result that her father Harprasad fell down. According to PW-13, Sunita, other appellants also assaulted his father with lathi, and when her uncle Kharagram came to his rescue, appellant Lallu gave a ‘katarna’ blow on Kharagram (PW-7) as well and he was also assaulted by the appellant Madhav and Sukhlal.
15. PW-14 Chandra Rani and PW-15 Kamal Rani also substantially corroborated the aforesaid version and testified that all the appellants armed with ‘katarna’, spear, and lathi had come to the house of Harprasad on account of an earlier altercation between the deceased and appellant No. 5 Lallu on the issue of filling water by his daughter Sunita (PW-13) from the hand-pipe and they had assaulted the deceased and his brother Kharagram resulting into the death of Harprasad and the injuries to Kharagram (PW-7).
16. It is also borne out from the testimony of Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-3), who conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased Harprasad, that deceased Harprasad died as a result of injuries found on his body and met a homicidal death. Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-3) on the postmortem examination of the deceased on 25.6.93 found following ante mortem injuries on his body:
(i) One incised wound 5″ x 1″ x cranial cavity deep brain matter and membrane coming out of the wound. Clotted blood situated on the middle of the scalp extending from mid parietal running backwards to the occipital area of scalp vertically.
(ii) One incised wound 1″ x 1/2″ x 3/4 ” lateral to the left eyebrow on the face at left side.
(iii) Abrasion 2″ x 1/4″ on the antero-lateral angle of left side of mid chest.
(iv) Abrasion horizontal 2″ x 1/4″ on the lateral aspect of middle 1/3rd of left upper arm.
(v) Incised wound 3″ x 1″ x 3″ horizontal on the lateral surface of upper part of left thigh.
(vi) Liners abrasion oblique6″ x hair thick in breadth. Situated on lateral aspect of left thigh about 3″ behind the injury No. 5.
17. On the internal postmortem examination a large haematoma was found present beneath the scalp at frontal and both parietal and occipital regions and there was fracture of skull bones in the line of skin incision on left frontal side and both parietal and occipital bones. There was also a wound measuring 5″ x 1 1/2″ x 1 1/2″ on left parietal lobe and occipital lobe in the midline with clotted blood in large amount.
18. According to Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-3), injuries No. 1, 2, 5 & 6 found on the body of deceased were caused by hard and sharp object and injuries No. 1 was caused by hard, sharp and heavy object and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the opinion of Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-3), the cause of death of deceased Harprasad was coma and shock due to brain injury and excessive bleeding from the injured brain tissues. The postmortem report (Ex.P-10) of deceased Harprasad is also placed on record.
19. It is also evident from the testimony of Dr. Y.B. Patel (PW-1) that on the medical examination of injured Kharagram on 24.6.93 the following injuries were found on his person:
1. Transverse incised wound on the upper part of the right scapula. Size 8 cm x 3 cm x bone deep, dorsal surface of the scapula cut at wound side. Bone cut. Fresh bleeding present. Advised x-ray from chest focus on right scapula.
2. Linear abrasion on left shoulder joint. Size 8 cm, red in colour.
20. In the opinion of Dr. Y.B. Patel (PW-1), injury No. 1 of injured Kharagram was caused by sharp weapon and was grievous in nature. His injury No. 2 was caused by hard and blunt object and was simple in nature and he was admitted in male surgical ward and was advised X-ray. Dr. Y.B. Patel (PW-1) also clarified that injured Kharagram had also sustained the compound fracture and he was admitted in the hospital till 30.6.93 vide his bed head ticket (Ex.P-3).
21. There has been no challenge to the testimony of Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-3) on the point that deceased Harprasad died as a result of injuries and met a homicidal death. Similarly, there is no challenge to the testimony of Dr. Y.B. Patel (PW-1) on the point that injured Kharagram sustained an incised wound in his scapular region with his bones cut and a compound fracture and his injuries were grievous in nature.
22. As regards the ocular evidence, all the four eye witnesses, namely, Kharagram (PW-7), Sunita (PW-13), Chandra Rani (PW-14), Kamal Rani (PW-15) were cross-examined at length, but despite roving cross-examination, there are no reasons to doubt the basic version given by the aforesaid eye witnesses that all the appellants, eight in number, had come to the place of deceased Harprasad being armed with various weapons and lathi at about 8 ‘O’clock in the night after an altercation between the deceased and appellant No. 5 Lallu earlier in the day because of some prior discord between him and the daughter of the deceased, namely, Sunita (PW-13). Though, there has been a suggestion in the cross- examination of PW-7 Kharagram that appellants Lallu, Halle and Madhav were not present on the place of occurrence and were elsewhere, but the plea of alibi of these appellants was not in any way substantiated or established by any defence evidence or otherwise.
Such a plea was not even put forth during the cross-examination of the other eye-witnesses. Needless to say that PW-7 Kharagram also denied the suggestion that appellants Madhav, Lallu & Halle were not present on the scene of occurrence. On the other hand, the evidence of the eye witnesses revealed that these three appellants were actively involved and participated in assaulting the deceased and Kharagram (PW-7). It is also apposite to point out that these three appellants or any other appellants nowhere pleaded any alibi during their examination under Sections 313 of Cr.P.C. Nor it was put forth by way of defence evidence or otherwise that either of the eight appellants were not present on the scene of occurrence.
23. Thus, there are no reasons to doubt the presence of eight appellants on the scene of occurrence, as revealed from the evidence of as many as four eye witnesses examined by the prosecution, namely, Kharagram (PW-7), Sunita (P.W-13), Chandra Rani (PW-14) and Kamal Rani (PW-15). It is also pertinent to mention that the other two prosecution witnesses, namely, Gokul (PW-16) and Kishori Lal (PW-17), who happened to be present at the house of PW-7 Kharagram at the time of occurrence, though did not support the prosecution case in entirety and were declared hostile to prosecution, also deposed that at the time of occurrence as many as seven or eight persons had emerged at the place of the deceased and they were armed with weapons and lathi.
24. Although, the four eye witnesses, namely, Kharagram (PW-7), Sunita (P.W-13), Chandra Rani (PW-14) and Kamal Rani (PW-15) were also confronted and contradicted with their police statements on certain points, but they are not found to be material omissions or contradictions so as to doubt their basic version that all the appellants, eight in number, had come at 8 ‘O’clock in the night to the place of deceased and they were armed with weapons and lathi and that appellant Lallu gave a fatal ‘katarna’ blow on the head of the deceased and also turned at Kharagram (PW-7) and assaulted him with ‘katarna’ when he tried to intervene and save the deceased.
25. It is also pertinent to point out that the suggestions regarding enmity between the deceased and his brother Kharagram (PW-7) and the scuffle or inter se fight between them leading to the incident resulting into the death of Harprasad and injuries to Kharagram (PW-7) were clearly denied by the eye witnesses including the wife and daughter of the deceased, namely, Kamal Rani (PW-15) and Sunita (PW-13). Needless to add that such a defence plea taken on behalf of appellants and raised by appellant No. 5 Lallu specifically in his written statement has not been proved or established by any defence evidence or any other substantial evidence. Appellant Lallu, son of Bhavsingh pleaded that the incident of fighting with weapons between deceased and his brother Kharagram was witnessed by Sarpanch Ramesh and others and the ladies of the house of deceased had also informed of the same to some villagers, but none of such witnesses were examined in defence to substantiate the aforesaid plea.
26. More so, had there been a grain of truth in this plea, at least the daughter and the wife of the deceased, namely, Sunita (PW-13) and Kamal Rani (PW-15) would have come out with the truth instead of saving the real culprit and the assailant’ of the deceased. Had it been true, they would not have falsely implicated as many as eight appellants without any rhyme or reason or strong ill will or animosity towards them. The allegation of untouchability could hardly be a cause for false implication of large number of appellants for an offence like murder.
27. No doubt, injured Kharagram(PW-7) or any other member of the family of the deceased, who were mostly ladies, did not lodge any report of the incident with the Police, but that hardly creates and suspicion. It transpires from the evidence on record that the main male members of the family, namely, Kharagram and Harprasad being injured were first of all rushed to Damoh hospital. It is also reflected from the evidence of Dr. Y.B. Patel (PW-1) that both Kharagram (PW-7) and Harprasad (deceased) were admitted to the hospital at night on 24.6.93 itself and Harprasad was brought in unconscious state and Kharagram was also seriously injured. It is also found from the evidence of Dr. Y.B. Patel (PW-1) that Harprasad had died on the same day at 11.10 in the night. The doctor had also sent the information of their admission in the hospital as well of the death of deceased Harprasad vide Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-8 to the Police.
A.S.I. H.P. Devay (PW-2) also recorded the merg intimation (Ex.P-9) on 24.6.93 on the basis of death intimation (Ex.P-8) sent by the doctor.There are no reasons to disbelieve the statement of Dr. Y.B. Patel (PW-1) that the information (Ex.P-2) regarding the admission of injured Kharagram and Harprasad in the hospital sent on 24.6.93 to the Police was reported to have been refused by the Police.
28. In view of the aforesaid facts, if in the anxiety of the treatment of two injured male members of the family, they were first taken to the hospital instead of Police Station, no fault could be found with it and if the Police refused to entertain the intimation sent by the doctor and failed to record Dehati Nalishi, for such lapse on the part of police the evidence of eye witnesses could not be doubted or disbelieved.
29. It is also borne out from the evidence of Sub-Inspector S.L. Rajpoot (PW-19) that FIR was registered on the basis of merg inquiry, which was conducted on 26.6.93 after recording of merg intimation. Therefore, FIR (Ex.P-39) having been recorded after merg inquiry, on 26.6.93 by the Sub Inspector, delay in lodging the FIR could not be assigned or attributed to the victims.
30. More so, the recording of the FIR (Ex.P-39) after merg inquiry on 26.6.93 does not caste any doubt on the prosecution case. It is also trite law that the prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard merely on account of delay in the FIR. The Apex Court also observed in the case of Sahebrao v. State of Maharashtra , that the delay in filing FIR by itself is no ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it.
31. The citation referred to by learned Counsel for the appellants Peddireddy Subbareddi and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh stands on different set of facts and is of no avail to the appellants.
32. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was an inconsistency in the evidence of Dr. Y.B. Patel (PW-1) and Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-3) as to the number of injuries found on the body of deceased in as much as the doctor, who had initially examined the deceased before his death had found only two incised wounds, while Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-3) found six injuries on the body of deceased after postmortem. However, Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-3) has clarified that when a person is brought in seriously injured condition, then primarily the serious injuries attract the attention of the doctor and sometimes other minor injuries escape notice. As such the discrepancy pointed out hardly creates any doubt on the evidence of Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-3), who conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased after his death.
33. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the ocular evidence was not reliable as some of the so called eye witnesses like PW-7 Kharagram and PW-13 Sunita deposed that all the appellants carrying lathi also wielded lathi blows to the deceased, whereas only two simple injuries caused by hard and blunt object were found by the autopsy surgeon Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-3) on the dead body of the deceased. However, the evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be rejected in its entirety on such a ground of bit exaggeration, particularly when all the four eye witnesses were coherent in their evidence with regard to the presence of eight appellants and carrying of weapons and lathi by them. Moreover, the other injuries found by Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-3) on the dead body of deceased corresponded to the weapons and acts of the appellants specified by the eye witnesses. The Apex Court also observed in the case of Bikau Pandey and Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court page 997 para 13 that the number of injuries even if not co-related to the number of assailants is not material.
34. Learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that all the eye witnesses are interested and related witnesses and their evidence implicating eight appellants cannot be accepted in absence of independent corroboration. But the evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they are closely related or interested witnesses, if their evidence is found to be credible. As also reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2006 AIR SCW page 4143 the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or closely related to the deceased, if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. Needless to repeat that all the four eye witnesses, namely, Kharagram (PW-7), Sunita (P.W-13), Chandra Rani (PW-14) and Kamal Rani (PW-15) are the inmates of the house of the deceased and PW-7 Kharagram is an injured eye witness and the occurrence took place in front of the house of deceased. Therefore, their presence on the scene of occurrence could not be doubted. Their evidence cannot be doubted merely for minor discrepancies or trivial omissions or contradictions with their police statements, which do not affect the substratum of their basic version, which also stands essentially corroborated by the medical evidence.
35. The evidence of the aforesaid four eye witnesses cannot be rejected, as submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants, merely for want of independent corroboration, particularly when no animus or reasons for false implication of appellants is found established by cogent evidence. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Pattu Lal v. State of Punjab evidentiary value of a deposition which is otherwise admissible is not just wiped out in the absence of corroboration and a deposition for its quality may be safely accepted to be correct even in the absence of corroboration, when it is found reliable.
36. In fact, it was duly established from the evidence available on record that all the appellants, eight in number, armed with weapons and lathi came to the place of the deceased at night after an altercation, which took place earlier in the day between the deceased and appellant No. 5 Lallu due to some discord over filling of water by the daughter of the deceased at the public water tap, and used force to the deceased and dragged him out and then appellant Lallu gave ‘katarna’ blow on the head of deceased and few other appellants also wielded blows on him; when his brother Kharagram tried to intervene and save the deceased, he was also given ‘katarna’ blow by appellant No. 5 Lallu. It is also born out from the medical evidence that injury No. 1 caused by appellant No. 5 Lallu to the deceased was sufficient to cause death and proved fatal resulting into his death and PW-7 Kharagram also sustained grievous hurt as a result of blow given by sharp weapon like ‘katarna’ by appellant No. 5 Lallu.
37. It is well settled that when an offence is committed by
an unlawful assembly or any member thereof in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew that it was likely to be committed, each and every member of the unlawful assembly is guilty for the offence. When the appellants, eight in number, armed with formidable weapons and lathi came to the house of deceased after a previous altercation on the same day between the deceased and appellant Lallu and some of them used force to the deceased and dragged him out and one of them dealt a fatal blow on the head of the deceased, it was clearly deducible that all the appellants, eight in number, formed an unlawful assembly and went to the place of deceased with the common object of eliminating him and his death was caused in prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly. The Apex Court has reiterated in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Nathu and Ors. that if the death is caused in prosecution of common object of an unlawful assembly, it is not necessary to record a definite and specific finding as to which particular accused out of the members of the unlawful assembly caused the fatal injury. Once an unlawful assembly has come into existence, each member of the assembly becomes vicariously liable for the criminal act of any other member of the assembly committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. This position of law was again reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Kallu @ Masih and Ors. v. State of M.P. .
38. In view of the aforesaid legal position and facts established on record, the submission advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants, placing reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Kumersingh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 Criminal Law Journal page 1349 that the common object of the assembly was only to cause injuries to the deceased, is bereft of any substance. The facts of Kumersingh’s case were entirely different and the aforesaid decision is distinguishable on facts.
39. Similarly, the citations referred to by learned Counsel for the appellants Munna Chand v. State of Assam and Bir Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh also turned on peculiar and different set of facts of those cases and are of no avail to the appellants in the facts of the instant case.
40. In view of the evidence discussed above, it was also manifest that the grievous injury caused to Kharagram by appellant No. 5 Lallu was also caused in prosecution of common object of the unlawful assembly, formed by eight appellants.
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court rightly convicted appellant No. 5 Lallu under Sections 148, 302 and 326 of IPC and other seven appellants under Sections 148, 302/149 and 326/149 of IPC.
42. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant No. 5 under Sections 148, 302 and 326 of IPC and the conviction of other seven appellants under Sections 148, 302/149 and 326/149 of IPC recorded by the trial court and the various sentences awarded to them for the aforesaid offences do not warrant any interference in this appeal.
43. Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
44. Appellants Madhav, Sukhlal, Kashiram, Chhakodee, Halle, Bhavsingh and Lalu son of Punnoo Chamar are on bail. They shall surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the remaining part of their sentence.