JUDGMENT
B.R. Arora, J.
1. These three appeals arise out of the common judgment dated August 17, 1983, passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants. As all these three appeals arise out of the common judgment, therefore, we propose to decide these three appeals by this judgment.
2. The incident, which led to the prosecution of the present appellants, took place in the night intervening 6th and 7th July, 1986, in village Baaniyasar. The informant Keshri Singh alongwith his family members was in his house, which is situated at the Southern side of the village. At about mid-night, Keshri Singh was informed by his wife that she had heard some noise from the rear side of the Kotha, upon which Keshri Singh went in the Kotha and lit Chimni and found a whole in the rear wall of the Kotha. Thereafter he, alongwith Hanuman Singh, went over the roof and in the light of the torch, which they carried, they saw that there was a whole in the rear wall of the Kotha and they, also, saw in the light of the torch three persons going towards the brick- kiln. They raised an alarm, upon which Megh Singh and Sumer Singh came there. They then followed the accused and lit the torch, also. When they reached near the accused, the accused asked them to stop otherwise they would be killed and thereafter the accused opened two fires, which hit Keshri Singh and Hanuman Singh, account of fear, they returned and asked Jorawar Singh to call the villagers. When Jorawar Singh started towards the village with a torch, one person fired upon him near the corner of the room and after receiving the fire injury, Jorawar Singh fell down and the person, who fired, ran away, Jorawar Singh received gun- fire injuries on his chest and face and he died after sometime. Thereafter some villagers, namely, the Sarpanch Govind Ram, Mastan Singh, Sugna Swami and others came there. In the morning, foot-prints of three persons wearing Chappals, Punjabi Jooti and shoes, were found, which were proceeding towards the field of Bheeka Harijan. Two empties were found near the brick-kiln and one empty was found near the Falsa. There were, also, the marks of tyres of a jeep standing near the field of Bheeka Harijan. The F.I.R. Ex. P.1 of this incident was lodged by Keshari Singh at Police Station Bhanipura (district Churu) on July 7, 1986, at about 8.30 a.m. The accused-appellants were tried by the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced 14 witnesses and exhibited 54 documents. The accused-appellants did not produce any witness in defence and exhibited only one document Ex.D.1. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Ram Kumar for the offences under Sections 460, 461, 307, 302, 382/511, 148, 120B I.P.C. and under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. Accused-appellant Jarnial Singh was convicted under Sections 460, 461, 307/149, 302/149, 382/511,148 and 120B IPC. Accused-appellants Zorawar Singh and Girdhari Singh were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 460/120B, 461/120B, 307/120B, 302/120B, 382/511 read with Section 120B and 148/120B I.P.C. It is against this judgment dated August 17, 1988, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants that the appellants have preferred these three appeals.
3. The prosecution case rests upon the evidence of four eye witnesses, namely, PW 1 Keshri Singh, PW 2 Megh Singh, PW 3 Sumer Singh and PW 4 Hanuman Singh as also the evidence of PW 6 Kishore Singh, which is sought to be corroborated by the foot-prints of the accused found at the place of the occurrence, the recoveries of the empties made from the place of the occurrence, report of the Ballistic Expert, the medical evidence and the recoveries made. The case of the prosecution is further sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW 8 Harbans Singh Tehsildar, in whose presence the moulds of the foot-prints were taken from the place of the occurrence. PW 9 Yasin Khan is the person, who took the moulds. PW 10 is Dr. Ratan Singh, who examined the injured and conducted the post-mortem. The other are the police personals namely, PW 11 Mustak Khan, PW 12 Kashi Ram-S.H.O. Police Station, Bhanipura, who conducted the investigation and PW 5 Gurujant Singh. PW 13 is Shri Purshottam Lal, Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu, who conducted the test-identification parade.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the accused were not known to the witnesses and it was a dark night and, therefore, it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to have identified the accused in that dark night. Their further submission is that the identification held by the prosecution was not in accordance with law, which vitiates the trial and the appellants deserve acquittal. Their further submission is that so far as the evidence regarding the foot- prints and taking the moulds are concerned, that also, are of no help to the prosecution because there is no evidence on record, which could suggest that wherefrom the moulds were taken. Lastly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in the evidence, produced by the prosecution, it has not come on record that any person from the accused party fired on Jorawar Singh, due to which he died. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment, passed by the Court below and has submitted that the case against the appellants stands fully proved and the accused-appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
6. There are four eye witnesses to the occurrence, PW 1 Keshri Singh is the father of deceased Jorawar Singh, He has stated that in the night intervening 6th and 7th July, 1986, he alongwith his children was sleeping in his house. Jorawar Singh was sleeping over the Chabutary abutting the Kothari. Hanuman Singh was sleeping in the Bakal. His wife heard some noise behind the Kotha of his house. She, therefore, informed him and he went inside the Kotha, lit the Chimni and found two holes in the rear wall of the Kotha. He came-but from the Kotha, got Jorawar Singh and Hanuman Singh awaken, took the torch, all of the three went over the roof and found that the back wall of the Kotha was broken. They flashed the- torch light and saw three accused running towards the Western side. They raised alarms upon which Megh Singh [his brother) and Sumer Singh (his nephew] came there. All of them followed the accused, upon which the accused alerted them that if they will proceed further, they will kill them. After saying so, the accused opened two fires towards them, which hit him as well as to Hanuman Singh near the eyes. Thereafter he, alongwith other persons, returned and asked Jorawar Singh to call some persons from the village otherwise the accused will kill them. When Jorawar Singh reached near the corner of the Chowki of the Kothari, one of the accused came in front of Jorawar Singh and opened the fire. Jorawar Singh, after receiving the injury, fell down and the person, who fired on Jorawar Singh, ran away. Thereafter they took care of Jorawar Singh, who had received injuries on the face, neck and chest and was bleeding from the mouth, also. After sometime, Jorawar Singh succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter the Sarpanch Govind Ram, Sugna Ram, Mastan Singh and others came there and the foot-prints of the shoes, one Punjabi Jooti and one Chapoal were found near the place of the occurrence, which were going towards the Dhani of Bheeka Harijan. There were some marks of the tyres of the jeep near the house of Bheeka Harijan. Two empties were found near the brick-kiln and one empty was found near the Kothari. Thereafter he, alongwith Megh Singh and Hanuman Singh, went to the Police Station and lodged the report. They sent Megh Singh and Hanuman Singh for treatment to the hospital. This witness has further stated that he has identified these three accused properly in the light of the torch and accused Jarnail Singh and Ram Kumar are present in the Court, whom they indentified properly. He has further stated that at that time, accused Ram Kumar was armed with Single Barrel gun. This witness has, also, stated what clothes were worn by the accused persons at that time. He has, also, stated that he was called for indentifying the accused persons and he properly indentified them. In the cross-examination, he has denied that the accused were shown to him before the identification parade was conducted.
7. Similar is the statement of PW 4 Hanuman Singh the son of PW 1 Keshri Singh, who, alongwith Keshri Singh, Sumer Singh and Megh Singh followed the accused and received injuries. The statement of this witness is almost identifical to that of Keshri Singh.
8. PW 2 Megh Singh is the brother of Keshri Singh (PW 1), who came to the scene of the occurrence after hearing the alarm raised by PW 1 Keshri Singh, PW 4 Hanuman Singh and the deceased Jorawar Singh, and thereafter, he alongwith Keshri Singh, Hanuman Singh the Jorawar Singh followed the accused. He has stated that on hearing the alarm, raised by Keshari Singh, Hanuman Singh and Jorawar Singh, he alongwith his son Sumer Singh went to the house of Keshri Singh and Keshri Singh informed him that there were thieves. They saw three accused persons near the brick-kiln. He alongwith Keshri Singh, Jorawar Singh, Hanuman Singh and Sumer Singh followed the accused, whereupon the accused alerted them and said that if they would follow them, they would be killed and, also, opened two fires, one of which hit Hanuman Singh on his forehead and head and the other fire-shot hit Keshri Singh on his right hand. He thereafter asked Jorawar Singh to call the villagers otherwise the accused will kill them. When Jorawar Singh started towards the village-side, the accused hit from the front side to Jorawar Singh. Jorawar Singh received five fire-arm injuries on his neck, chest and face and after receiving these injuries, he fell down on the ground. They took-up Jorawar Singh. Thereafter Govind Ram Sarpanch, Sugna Ram, Mastan Singh and other villagers came there. Jorawar Singh died after half an hour. In the morning, he alongwith the villagers found the foot-prints of three persons. These foot-prints of accused were found from the house of Keshri Singh (PW 1) upto the house of Bheeka Harijan. These foot-prints were of one Punjabi Jooti, one Chappal and shoes. They following the foot-prints, went upto the field of Bheeka Harijan, Where there were marks of tyres of a motor, which were proceeding towards village Rodasar. They, also, saw two empties near the brick-kiln and one empty near the stones which were lying near the Kothari. He has further stated that he can identify the accused persons. Thereafter he correctly identified Ram Kumar and Jarnaii Singh accused. He has further stated that Ram Kumar was carring a gun at that time and accused Jarnail Singh was carrying an iron Sabbal. The third accused is not present in the Court he has further stated that he indentified these two accused in the test identification parade conducted by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate in the District Jail, Churu, In cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he was shown the accused before the identification parade was conducted. He has stated in the cross-examination the particulars of the accused persons and the clothes which they were wearing at that time. He has, also, stated that he gave the description of the accused to the Station House Officer. In the cross-examination, he has, also, stated that these were they very accused who fired on Jorawar Singh, after crossing the small boundary wall and bushes.
9. PW 3 Sumer Singh is the son of PW 2 Megh Singh, who went with Megh Singh to the house of Keshri Singh (PW 1) after hearing the alarm of Keshri Singh and others. His statement is almost similar to that of PW 2 Megh Singh.
10. A lengthy cross-examination has been made by the learned Counsel for the accused, but nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination and the evidence of these four witnesses could not be shaken. A careful examination of the statement of these four witnesses clearly proves that these witnesses were present at the scene of the occurrence when the incident took place. The presence of the injuries on the person of PW 1 Keshri, Singh and PW 4 Hanuman Singh further fortifies their presence at the place of the occurrence when the incident took place.
11. The identification of the accused by these witnesses has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the appellants on the following grounds:
(i) that it was a dark night and there was no possibility of identification as the accused were not previously known to the witnesses;
(ii) that the accused were shown to the witnesses before the identification parade was held;
(iii) description in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the clothes which the accused were wearing;
(iv) the description of the accused not given in the First Information Report, and
(v) delay in holding the identification parade.
12. It is not disputed that it was a dark night. The prosecution witnesses have admitted this fact/The prosecution witnesses have nowhere stated that they identified the accused in the moon light. Their specific case is that when they flashed their torch light towards the accused, they saw these accused going towards the side of the brick-kiln and they identified them. All the witnesses have correctly identified the accused before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the identification parade. When the witnesses were carrying the torch and they saw the accused in the light of the torch then whether the night was dark or moon-light, has got no relevance and this argument, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, has got no merit.
13. The identification of the accused were conducted by PW 13 Shri Purshottam Lal-Munsif and Judicial Magistrate-Churu-on July 26, 1 986. An objection was raised by the accused at the time of identification that they were shown to the witnesses before the identification parade was actually held. This suggestion was made during the cross-examination of these four witnesses, namely, PW 1 Keshrk Singh, PW 2 Megh Singh, PW 3 Sumer Singh and PW 4 Hanuman Singh, as well as PW 12 Kashi Ram the Investigating Officer, but all these witnesses have specifically denied this fact that the accused were shown to the aforesaid four eye witnesses before the identification parade was actually held. After a close scrutiny of the evidence of these five witnesses, we are of the view that the accused were not shown to the witnesses before the identification parade was conducted by PW 13 Shri Purshottam Lal, the then Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu.
14. Regarding the discrepancy in the clothes worn by the accused at the time of the incident, there is some minor discrepancy regarding the colours, which can be crept-in on account of passage of time and in our opinion these are not such discrepancies, on the basis of which the evidence regarding the identification can be thrown away.
15. The accused were arrested on July 14, 1986, and the Station House Officer was busy in the investigation and the identification parade was held on July 26,1986. After the arrest and making certain recoveries, accused Girdhari Singh and Ram Kumar were sent to Judicial custody on July 17, 1986. Accused Jarnail Singh was arrested on July 1 8, 1 986, and thereafter some recoveries were made from him on July 20, 1 986, and no question has been put to the Investigating Officer why he could not get the identification parade held earlier; and looking to the facts and. circumstances of the case, we are, therefore, of the opinion that there was no delay in conducting the identification parade,
16. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the identification parade was properly conducted by PW 13 Shri Purshottam Kumar-Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, and the witnesses have rightly identified the accused.
17. Then comes the evidence regarding foot-prints. PW 8 Harbans Singh was the Tehsildar, Sardarsahar on July 16, 1986, in whose presence, the moulds sample Chappals of accused Ram Kumar were taken vide Ex.P. 10 by Yasin Khan, which were sealed in his presence. The sample-moulds of the marks of the tyres of the jeep No. RRC 7581, were, also, taken by Yasin Khan in his presence. PW 9 Yasin Khan has stated that on July 8, 1986, he took the moulds of the foot prints from the place of the occurrence. He, also, took the moulds of the marks of the tyres of the jeep from the place of the occurrence. On July 16,1 986, he took the sample moulds of Chappals of accused Ram Kumar at the Police Station, Sardarsahar, in the presence of PW 8 Harbans Singh Tehsildar. He, also, took the moulds of the marks of the tyres of the jeep in the presence of Harbans Singh Tehsildar on July 16,1986. Shri Purshottam Lal, the then Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, * Churu, has stated that on July 26, 1986, sample moulds of the foot- prints of accused Jaila Singh were taken, which were sealed. These sample moulds as well as the chance-moulds taken from the place of the occurrence, were sent for examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, and Ex. P. 37 is the report of the Assistant Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. According to the report Ex.P.37, the result of the examination is as under:
(1) Sole impression of moulds, exhibits F. 1 and Ka. 1 tallies with that of the Chappal, Exhibit La. 1 in respect of design, dimensions, wear and tear and other physical characteristics.
(2) Sole impression of moulds, exhibits Ex. 1 and Kh. 1 are similar to that of the Chappal, exhibit Kh.2 in respect of design, dimensions and other physical characteristics.
(3) Sole impression of moulds, exhibits D. 1 Kh, 2 and that of the shoe exhibit Va. 1 are broadly similar.
(4) The tyre impression of moulds exhibits G. 1 and J. 1 do not tally.
(5) The tyre impression of moulds, exhibit H. 1 and I.1 do not tally.
The Assistant Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, though gave a specific opinion that the sample moulds tally with the chance moulds of the footprints, but he has not given any reasons, on the basis of which he formed this opinion. It is essential for the Expert, while giving an opinion, to support his opinion with the reasons, from which the result should be directly demonstratable so that the Court, while considering the opinion of the expert, should go into the reasons and may form its own opinion. The Court is not expected to surrender its judgment to that of the Expert and rest its finding purely on the result of the expert which is not based on any reasons. The Court is expected to assess the evidence of the expert like any other evidence. The report of the Expert, given in this case, is inadequate, cryptic and slip-short and does not provide which are similarities or dissimilarities which he found in the specimen moulds with that of the chance-moulds. As the information of similarities or dissimilarities or the reasons, on the basis of which the learned Assistant Director formed its opinion, are not on record and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on this cryptic report, which only contains the conclusion and not the basis, on which the conclusion has been arrived at. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this evidence of foot prints does not help the prosecution.
18. There is another evidence connecting these two accused Ram Kumar and Jaila Singh with the crime and that is of the recoveries of the three empties from the place of the occurrence. Two empties were recovered near the brick-kiln and one empty was recovered near the stones which were lying near the Kothari, where Jorawar Singh was hit by these accused-persons. As per the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur [Ex.P.38), the empty-cartridges Ex. C.1 to Ex.C.3, which were recovered near the brick-kiln, as well as one empty recovered near the stones lying near the Kothari, were fired from the gun, which was recovered from the accused-appellant Ram Kumar. The case of the appellant is that no witness has stated that any of the accused has fired gun towards Jorawar Singh. The witnesses have only stated that one peron from the Northern side had fired at Jorawar Singh. It is true that none of the witnesses, in their examination-in-chief, has stated that any of the accused- appellants fired towards Jorawar Singh, but PW 2 Megh Singh, in the cross-examination, has specifically stated that these were the very accused who entered into the house after crossing the boundary wall and the bushes and fired towards Jorawar Singh. The actual words used by PW 2 Megh Singh are as under:-
eqyfteku HkV~Vs ds ikl ls HkkbZ ds’kjh flag ds edku ds ihNs ?kkVh ckMfu;ka o nks eank dwn fnokjh ds ikl tksjkoj flag dks xksyh ekjh A
From the statement of this witness PW 2 Megh Singh, it is clear that these were the accused, who committed that house trespass in the night and killed Jorawar Singh by a gun fire. This gun, which was being carried by the accused Ram Kumar at that time, was used by him and is connected, as per the report Ex. P. 3 of the State Forensic Science Laboratory. As the empty, which was fired from this gun, was found at this place and as per the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, this empty was fired from the gun of Ram Kumar. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it was the accused Ram Kumar, who inflicted injury by the gun on Jorawar Singh, who succumbed to the injuries and, therefore, he was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge for committing the murder of Jorawar Singh.
19. Now, we would like to the case of the two acused appellants Girdhari Singh and Zorawar Singh, PW 1 Keshari Singh, PW 2 Megh Singh, PW 3 Sumer Singh and PW 4 Hanuman Singh have not seen these two acused at the place of the occurrence. According to the prosecution case, both these accused remained sitting in the jeep, which was standing in the way near the house of Megha Nai and from-where, it was reversed. They never proceeded towards the scene of the occurrence. According to the prosecution case, these two accused were seen sitting in the jeep by PW 6 Kishore Singh, who was examined for the first time on July 14, 1 986. According to this witness, he had gone to some other village for taking the fodder and on the day he came back, he informed about the presence of these two accused to the prosecution witnesses. There is a discrepancy regarding the coming of this witness to the village. According to the coming of the prosecution witnesses, he returned to the village after three days of the occurrence, but still he was examined on July 14, 1986, This witness, therefore, appears to be unreliable. These two accused were seen by this witness in the jeep, which was standing in the way and they have not participated, in any way, in the commission of the crime and, therefore, in our view, their participation in the crime is not established and the prosecution has failed to prove the linkage of these accused with the crime as there is only one evidence of PW 6 Kishore Singh, connecting these accused- appellants, which, according to us, does not inspire confidence and, therefore, in own view, these two accused deserve to be acquitted. These accused have been convicted with the aid of Section 120B I.P.C. There is no evidence produced by the prosection regarding any criminal conspiracy hatched by these accused-persons with that of accused Ram Kumar and Jaila Singh. In the absence of any evidence regarding the criminal conspiracy, in our view, the conviction of the accused-appellants with the aid of Section 120B I.P.C. is not sustainable.
20. Thus, from the evidence of PW 1 Keshri Singh, PW 2 Megh Singh, PW 3 Sumer Singh and PW 4 Hanuman Singh, it is amply proved that the accused Ram Kumar and Jaila Singh came to the house of Keshri Singh (PW 1) in the night intervening between 6th and 7th July, 1986, committed the offence of house breaking, made a hole in the rear wall, but could not enter the house as the inmates of the house were awakening and, therefore, they ran away and while they were followed by PW 1 Keshri Singh, PW 2 Megh Singh, PW 3 Sumer Singh, PW 4 Hanuman Singh and deceased Jorawar Singh, they opened fire on these witnesses, which hit PW 1 Keshri Singh and PW 4 Hanuman Singh. The gun, which was recovered from the accused-appellant Ram Kumar was not a licensed gun and this’ gun was used by the accused Ram Kumar in the commission of the crime as the empties, which were recovered from the scene of the occurrence, were fired from the gun recovered from accused appellant Ram Kumar. In this view of the matter, it has been proved from the evidence on record that it was the accused Ram Kumar, who made two fires on the Eastern side of the house while they were proceeding towards the brick-kiln and were chased by the prosecution witnesses and these two fires hit PW 1 Keshri Singh and PW 4 Hanuman Singh and, therefore, the accused Ram Kumar has rightly been convicted and sentenced but the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. for attempting to murder Keshri Singh and Hanuman Singh, as well as under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. He was, also, rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing the murder of accused Jorawar Singh. The fire was made by the accused-appellant Ram Kumar when they were running from the house of Keshri Singh and were being chased by the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, there is no question of sharing any common intention or object of attempt to kill Keshri Singh and Hanuman Singh by the accused Jaila Singh with that of accused Ram Kumar and, therefore, the accused-appellant Jaila Singh cannot be convicted under Sections 307/149 and 302/149 I.P.C. and deserves to be acquitted on these two counts.
21. As we have found above that there were only three accused including Jaila Singh and Ram Kumar, therefore, there is no question of any unlawful assembly and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 148 and 120B I.P.C. are, also, not attracted and they deserve to be acquitted on these counts, also.
22. So far as the offence under Sections 460 and 461 I.P.C. are concerned, the ingredients of Sections 461 I.P.C. are not proved and both the accused appellants, therefore, deserve to be acquitted for the offence under Section 461 I.P.C.
23. So far as the offence under Section 460 I.P.C. is concerned, it is clear from the record of the case that the accused-appellants Ram Kumar and Jaila Singh came at the scene of the occurrence fully armed and accused Ram Kumar was armed with gun while accused-appellant Jaila Singh was carring an iron Sabbal for breaking the house. The intention of the accused-party is, therefore, clear that they came with an intention to commit theft with a preparation to cause hurt to any person of the inmates of the house whosoever objects to it and, therefore, in our view, the ingredients of Section 460 I.P.C. stand fully proved against these two accused and they have been rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for this offence.
24. So far as the offence under Section 352/511 I.P.C. is concerned, that, also, stands fully proved against the accused- appellants Jaila Singh and Ram Kumar and they have been rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for this offence. But so far as the other two appellants Girdhari Singh and Zorawar Singh are concerned, in our view, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against them beyond reasonable manner of doubt and they, therefore, deserve to be acquitted for all these offences.
25. Now, coming to the question of sentence; so far as the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge against accused Ram Kumar for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 382/511 I.P.C. are concerned, they do not require any interference. But so far as the sentence under Section 460 I.P.C. is concerned, in our view, that appears to be somewhat excessive and, therefore, we reduce the substantive sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge to that of five years rigoruous imprisonment, but, however, maintain the sentence of fine awarded by the learned Sessions Judge.
26. So far as accused Jarnail Singh is concerned, he has been convicted under Sections 460 and 382/511 I.P.C. and we imposed the sentence of five year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 460 I.P.C. We, however, maintain the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 382/511 I.P.C.
27. In the result, the appeals of accused-appellants Zorawar Singh and Girdhari Singh are allowed and they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bounds shall stand discharged.
28. So far as the appeal of accused appellant Jarnail Singh is concerned, it is partly allowed. The accused-appellant Jarnail Singh is acquitted of the offence under Sections 461, 307/149,302/149, 148 and 120B I.P.C, but his convictions under sections 460 and 382/511 I.P.C. are maintained and he is sentenced to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment on each count. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
29. So far as the appeal of accused-appellant Ram Kumar is concerned, it is, also, partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 382/511 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, are maintained. The conviction of the accused- appellant Ram Kumar under Section 460 I.P.C. is, also, maintained, but the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced from ten years’ rigorous imprisonment to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Accused Ram Kumar is, however, acquitted of the offence under Sections 148 and 461 I.P.C.