Shrivastava, J.

1. The judgment of acquittal dated 13.10.1995 passed in ST. No. 141/1988 by learned trial Court acquitting the respondents Suresh Singh, Jagdish Singh and Vijay Singh under sections 148,302 and 307 of IPC and further acquitting the accused persons Darshan Singh and Naresh Singh under sections 148, 302, 307 read with section 149 of IPC and also acquitting respondent Munni Singh under sections 148, 302, 307 read with section 149 of IPC and under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, this appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh after obtaining leave to file appeal.

2. The unfolded facts of the case are that Ranveer Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) as well as witness Shyam Singh and Ramvaran, who are the brothers of the deceased, are the residents of the same village Samal-ka-Pura. Respondents Suresh, Naresh and deceased accused Munnisingh are the brothers, respondent Vijay Singh is the son of respondent Darshan Singh, Jagdish Singh is son of deceased Kishan Singh and respondent Darshan Singh and deceased Kishan Singh are the real brothers.

3. It would be relevant to mention here that accused Kishan Singh died during the trial and trial was dropped against him and during the pendency of this appeal respondents Kishan Singh and Munni Singh had also died and their names were deleted from the cause title of the memo of appeal.

4. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 16.12.1987, which is a day earlier to the date of incident, complainant Shy am Singh and his brother Kalyan Singh after cultivating the field of one Master came back to the village and as soon as they reached in front of the house of Darshan Singh, respondents Suresh Singh and Vijay Singh by stopping the tractor told them not to drive the tractor in front of their house. On this, complainant Shyam Singh replied that in future they will not drive the tractor from this way. On the date of incident viz. 17.12.1987 in the morning complainant Shyam Singh and his father Nathusingh as well as brother Ramvaran Singh, Ranveer Singh, Dilip Singh and Kalyan Singh were sitting at the outer side of their house, at that juncture, all the respondents armed with bhala, axe and katta, arrived there and after hurling the abuses, taunted that let now they drive the tractor in front of their house. On this, complainant told that they did not want to quarrel and thereafter the respondents after giving threat went away and respondent Munni Singh went towards the place where the tube-well was installed.

5. After the departure of the accused persons, complainant Shyam Singh alongwith deceased, Kalyan Singh, Ramvaran and Dilip Singh were going to lodge the report in Police Chowki Rajodha and when they were crossing village Mandhata nearby the Government School, the respondents Kishan Singh and Naresh Singh having axe, Suresh Singh, Vijay Singh and Jagdish Singh having bhala and respondent Munni Singh having katta arrived at that place and all of them after encircling these persons, assaulted them by the respective weapons which they were carrying. All the accused persons caused injuries to the deceased. It is said that respondent Munni Singh caused katta fire on the deceased, as a result of which, he smeared in the blood and fell down. Thereafter, respondent Suresh Singh dealt bhala blow on his chest region, as a result of which, blood started oozing, respondents Jagdish and Vijay Singh also dealt bhala blows on the chest region of witness Ramvaran. The other witnesses Kalyan Singh and Dilip Singh on seeing the incident became frightened and hide themselves behind the school building. After causing marpeet, all the respondents fled from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, Shyam Singh found that the deceased had died. The respondents on account of old enmity have killed the deceased. The complainant alongwith his brother Ramvaran Singh, in injured condition, arrived at the Police Chowki Rajodha and lodged the report from where the said report was sent for registration of the FIR in the Police Station Nagra.

6. After registration of the FIR, the criminal law was triggered and set in motion. The injured persons were sent to the hospital for their treatment as well as for obtaining their MLC report and the deceased was sent for his post-mortem examination. The investigating agency recorded the statement of the witnesses; prepared the spot map; arrested the accused persons and seized the weapons.

7. After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the committal Court, which committed the case to the Court of Sessions where the respondents were tried.

8. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet, framed charges punishable under sections 148,302 and 307 of IPC against respondents Suresh Singh and Vijay Singh. Respondents Darshan Singh, Kishan Singh and Naresh Singh were charged under sections 148,302,307 read with section 149 of IPC and respondent Munni Singh was charged under sections 148, 302, 307 read with section 149 of IPC and was further charged under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. However, all the respondents denied the charges and requested for the trial.

9. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and placed Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-34 the documents on record. The defence of respondents is that the complainant party was aggressor as they arrived at the house of the accused persons and caused marpeet to them and a report was also lodged in this regard by Suresh Singh against the deceased and complainant Shyam Singh that they caused injury by dhariya on his head and a cross case was also registered against the complainant side and, therefore, they have been falsely implicated in this case. In support of the defence respondents Suresh Singh, Naresh Singh, Munni Singh and Jagdish Singh examined themselves.

10. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record, have acquitted the respondents.

11. In this manner, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State of M.P. assailing the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court.

12. The contention of Shri C.S. Dixit, learned Public Prosecutor for appellant-State, is that the prosecution has examined three persons as eyewitness they are Shyam Singh (PW1), Ramvaran (PW2) and Kalyan Singh (PW4) and out of these three witnesses, Shyam Singh and Ramvaran are the injured witnesses also and if the testimony of these eye-witnesses is taken into consideration in proper perspective, it is gathered that except certain minor contradictions and omissions, which do not go to the root of the matter, their evidence is worth reliable, which has also been corroborated by the post-mortem report (Ex.P-2) proved by Dr. R.K. Saxena (PW3).

13. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that looking to the unimpeachable testimony of the injured witnesses Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2) it is also proved that they have been assaulted by the accused persons and their evidence is also corroborated by their respective MLC reports (Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-5) which have been proved by Dr. R.K. Saxena (PW3). Hence, it has been contended by learned Public Prosecutor that looking to the testimony of the witnesses it has been successfully proved by the prosecution that all the respondents were having common object to kill the deceased and they were armed with deadly weapons and they also assaulted the injured persons. Respondent Munni Singh also committed the offence under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and, therefore, by setting aside the impugned judgment the respondents be convicted for the charges which were framed against them.

14. On the other hand, Shri L.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents, argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that there is no explantion of the prosecution that how appellant Suresh sustained injury on his head and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court Lakshmi Singh and others etc. v. State of Bihar [: AIR 1976 SC 2263 ], and State of UP. v. Shri Krishan [2005 (1) Crimes 200 (SC)], the impugned judgment of acquittal cannot be set aside. By inviting our attention to the findings given by learned trial Court in para 26 it has been contended that the witnesses are highly interested as they are related to each other as well as with the deceased and there is enmity between the parties and, therefore, the respondents have been falsely roped. Further it has been propounded by learned counsel that if the testimony of alleged eye-witness Kalyan Singh (PW4) is considered vis-a-vis to the evidence of Investigating Officer, it can be inferred that the respondents have been falsely roped. The further contention of learned counsel is that it is borne out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that there were four independent witnesses, but they have not been examined by the prosecution and, therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits by inviting our attention to para 48 of the impugned judgment that the conduct of the witnesses is highly suspicious and, therefore, the respondents have rightly been acquitted. Lastly it has been submitted by learned counsel that there is total noncompliance of section 157 of CrPC which has also been taken note of by learned trial Court and, therefore, learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents. According to learned counsel, this appeal is having no merit and, hence, the same be dismissed.

15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.

16. On bare perusal of the evidence of complainant Shyam Singh (PW1), we find that earlier to the date of incident when this witness was coming back from the field on the tractor, in front of the house of respondent Darshan Singh, accused persons Vijay Singh, Suresh, Munni Singh and Darshan Singh stopped the tractor and told that they should not drive the tractor from this way. He was accompanying by Kalyan Singh also. In the evening, this witness told the said conversation which took place between him and aforesaid accused persons to the deceased. On the next day in the morning when this witness was in his house alongwith the other witnesses Kalyan Singh, Ramvaran, Dilip Singh, Nathu Singh and the deceased, at that juncture, all the seven accused persons arrived there. Accused Vijay Singh, Darshan Singh, Jagdish Singh and Suresh were having bhala while Kishan Singh and Naresh were having farsa and Munni Singh was having 12 bore katta and were taunting on them by saying that now they may drive the tractor in front of their house. On this, this witness pacified and said that they do not want to quarrel. Thereafter, all the accused persons by giving threat to kill went towards the well situated in the field of accused Munni Singh. This witness further says that since a threat to kill was given by the accused persons, they thought it proper to lodge a report and this witness alongwith Dilip Singh, Ramvaran, Kalyan Singh and deceased were going to lodge the report in police station and when they reached nearby the Government School of village Mandhata-ka-Pura, at that juncture, all the seven accused persons arrived there, they were armed with the same weapons which they were carrying when they arrived at the home of this witness and all the accused persons started causing injuries by their respective weapons, which they were carying, on the person of the deceased. Specifically this witness says that accused Munni Singh also caused katta fire, but he was unable to see that katta fire struck which part of the body of the deceased. The deceased fell down and the blood started oozing from the wounds.

17. Further this witness says that on being intervened by him, Suresh caused bhala injury on his left side of the chest and the blood came out and when his brother Ramvaran came to intervene, accused Vijay Singh and Jagdish Singh dealt bhala blows on his chest region and blood also came out from his chest. The other witnesses Kalyan Singh and Dilip Singh hide themselves behind the school building on account of fear. The deceased died at the spot and thereafter all the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence.

18. This witness further says that he alongwith his brother Ramvaran went to police chowki to lodge the report by leaving aside the dead body at the spot. This witness has also proved his first information report (Ex.P-1). A very long cross-examination which runs to 21 typed pages was made for two days, but except minor contradictions and omissions on the material point this witness remained firm.

19. The statement of this witness has been corroborated by the evidence of his brother Ramvaran Singh (PW2) and a very long cross-examination was made to this witness for two days, but on the material point he remained embedded despite there being a roving cross-examination over him.

20. The third eye-witness Kalyan Singh (PW4) has also corroborated the evidence of complainant Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2) in respect of the incident which took place a day earlier to the present incident as well as in the morning when all the accused persons armed with weapons arrived at the house of Shyam Singh (PW1) and after giving threat, they went away. But, at the material place where the incident actually occurred, this witness was declared hostile. However, from the earlier part of his testimony this much is proved that a day earlier to the incident Shyam Singh (PW1) was going back to his home in the tractor alongwith this witness and when he was crossing away in front of the house of accused persons it was directed by them not to drive the tractor in front of their house and further it is proved that in the morning all the accused persons armed with their respective weapons, which they were carrying and which has been so stated by Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2), came to the house of Shyam Singh (PW1) and by taunting on the complainant as well as giving threat to kill they went away towards the field.

21. The conclusion arrived at by learned trial Court that the factum of arrival of the accused persons armed with weapons in the morning on the date of incident at the home of Shyam Singh (PW1) has not been stated in the report (Ex.P-1) as well as in the case diary statement (Ex.D-1) of this witness, although he has stated in the Court that he gave such type of statement to the police and why the same has not been mentioned, he cannot say while the scribe of the report (Ex.P-1), namely, Rajnarayan Tripathi (PW5) has stated that Shyam Singh (PW1) did not narrate all these facts in the report and in the case diary statement (Ex.D-1) and, therefore, giving threat to kill is the exaggeration of this witness. But, according to us, this finding in para 29 of the impugned judgment is perverse because in the report (Ex.P-1) as well as in the case diary statement (Ex.D-1) all these facts find place and if Rajnarayan Tripathi (PW5) has so stated that Shyam Singh (PW1) did not narrated these facts in the report and in the case diary statement, it would carry no meaning and the finding is ex facie perverse.

22. The learned trial Court disbelieved the statement of the material eye-witnesses Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2) on minor contradictions and omissions which arrived in their testimony, such as that when this witness reached nearby the school of village Mandhata-ka-Pura, all the accused persons armed with/area, bhala and katta arrived their and started causing injuries to the deceased by farsa and bhala and further that accused Munni Singh caused katta fire, but the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. R.K. Saxena (PW3) did not find any firearm injury on the person of the deceased and the katta was also not seized from accused Munni Singh which proves that he did not fire the katta. Be that as it may. Since accused Munni Singh has died during the pendency of this appeal, we are not considering this aspect of the matter whether he fired the katta or not since the appeal has been abated against him.

23. The learned trial Court found that complainant Shyam Singh (PW1) has stated that when he was intervening, he did not scream and also says that because all of a sudden attack was made, he did not shout which is not at all possible and is against the human conduct. Although other eyewitness Ramvaran (PW2) has stated that he was shouting for help and further says that no person of village Mandhata-ka-Pura came to rescue them. On the other hand Investigating Officer R.D. Dubey (PW8) has stated that Raghuraj Singh, Lakhan Singh, Shivajeet and Jashwant Singh of village Mandhata-ka-Pura arrived at the spot and have seen the incident, but these persons have not been examined by the prosecution. According to us, merely on the basis of these reasons and minor contradictions and the conduct of witness Shyam Singh (PW1) that he was not shouting, would not dilute the case of prosecution because on seeing the incident how a witness would react it would depend upon his state of mind and there cannot be any barometer or yardstick so as to hold that if the said witness has not shrieked, his statement would be not reliable. Further merely because the witnesses of Mandhata-ka-Pura were not examined by the prosecution, according to us, no adverse inference could be drawn against it because it is not necessary to examine each and every witness and particularly when the offence is proved from the statement of the injured eye-witnesses Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2). Now-a-days no body would come to put his life in danger by giving evidence against the accused persons.

24. The another reason to disbelieve the evidence of Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2) which has been assigned by the learned trial Court is that there is contradictions between the statement of the witnesses that which of the witness was behind the whom and there is contradiction in this regard in the evidence of the eye-witnesses. According to us, this cannot be a ground to hold that accused persons are innocent because it is difficult to say that which witness was behind whom.

25. The other reason which learned trial Court has assigned is that eye-witness Kalyan Singh (PW4) has disowned his presence at the place of occurrence where the incident took place while the Investigating Officer Rajnarayan Tripathi (PW5) has stated that when he arrived at the spot, first of all he met to Kalyan Singh (PW4). It be noted that Kalyan Singh although has corroborated the evidence of other two eye-witnesses Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2) on the earlier part of the incident which has been mentioned hereinabove, but when the actual incident took place, he was declared hostile and, therefore, if he is disowning his presence at the spot and his presence was confirmed by the Investigating Officer at the time of commission of crime, according to us, this infirmity will not somersault the case of prosecution when there is specific testimony of Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2) that all the accused persons armed with deadly weapons came together and stated causing injuries to the deceased, as a result of which, he had died.

26. The another reason to disbelieve the statement of eye-witnesses Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2) assigned by learned trial Court is that complainant Shyam Singh (PW1) is saying that he went to the Police Chowki Rajodha for lodging the report by using medh (mound) of the field as approach way to the police station while Ramvaran (PW2) says that they went to lodge the report in running condition from the field. According to us, again this cannot be a ground to disbelieve the statement of eye-witnesses because if Shyam Singh (PW1) has used medh of the field and other witness has stated that they were going in running condition to lodge the report from the field, it will not at all dilute the case of prosecution and this is only a minor contradiction come in the statement of two witnesses.

27. The next reason which learned trial Court has assigned to disbelieve the eye-witnesses and the case of prosecution is that who wrote the report (Ex.P-1) in the Police Chowki Rajodha there is contradiction. According to ASI Rajnarayan Tripathi (PW5), complainant Shyam Singh lodged the report (Ex.P-1) which was written by him while eye-witness Shyam Singh (PW1) is not giving any firm statement that who wrote his report. According to us, again this is a minor contradiction because a villager is not expectred to state that what was the designation of the police officer who was writing the report. According to Shyam Singh (PW1) Deewanji wrote the report and when it was being written, two Darogas arrived there. Later on he says that Darogas did not come when the report was being lodged by him and Darogaji went to the place of occurrence. According to us, again this is a minor contradiction which does not go to the root of the matter.

28. In para 48 of the impugned judgment learned trial Court has assigned another reason to disbelieve the statement of the eye-witnesses that because it has come in the evidence of Investigating Officer R.D. Dubey (PW8) that these two witnesses are history-sheeter and complainant Shyam Singh was the accused in several criminal cases and, therefore, without corroboration of their testimony their evidence cannot be relied upon. According to us, merely because complainant was tried in some criminal cases, would in itself is no ground to hold that his evidence or the evidence of another eye-witness Ramvaran (PW2) is not reliable. At the most their evidence is required to be scrutinized with great care and caution, which we have already scrutinized and we find their evidence to be clear, cogent and trustworthy.

29. According to us, the circumstances for acquittal which learned trial Court has assigned are minor and do not go to the root of the matter. There is unimpeachable testimony of complainant Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2) that all the accused persons armed with weapons, the description whereof has been mentioned in the report, case diary statement as well in the Court statement, came together at the field and attacked the deceased and when these two witnesses came to intervene, they were also beaten and injuries were caused to them also. It be noted that these witnesses are injured witnesses and, therefore, their evidence is having great value. The learned trial Court on unjustified reasonings on the face value of the evidence which is extremely credible and on account of perversity has acquitted the respondents and, therefore, the said judgment of acquittal cannot be allowed to remain stand.

30. We have closely scrutinized the testimony of eye-witnesses Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2) and we find that their evidence is sufficient so as to prove the guilt of the respondents that all of them came together armed with deadly weapons and attacked the deceased and, therefore, the interference of this Court is called for in this State appeal. We may profitably place reliance on the latest pronouncement of Supreme Court Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh and others v. State of Maharashtra [: (2009)6 SCC 712] , and also State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan and another [: AIR 2009 SC 152 ].

31. We would also like to consider the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. R.K. Saxena (PW3) and the post-mortem report of the deceased (Ex.P-2). According to the doctor, the deceased sustained the following injuries:

1. Incised wound on left side of chin 4 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm deep upto lower mandible, fracture on mandibular bone present.

2. Incised wound on upper lip 2 cm x 2 cm x deep upto bone from lateral to medial side, fracture of bone present.

3. Stab on punctured wound on left side of left eye 2 cm x 2 cm x deep upto bone, fracture of bone present.

4. Stab wound on left cheek 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.

5. Incised wound across cheek left side from nose to molar prominence 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm from lateral to medial side.

6. Incised wound just below left eye from nose to middle of left eye 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.

7. Stab on punctured wound on left side of bridge of nose 1 cm x 1 cm x deep upto bone, fracture of bone present.

8. Stab wound on left buttock 1 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm.

9. Stab wound 1 cm x 1 cm x deep upto pleura and lungs at the level of 7th rib on back left side.

No pallet found inside the body.

According to the Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death is excessive bleeding leading to shock and death.

32. We do not find any merit in the contention of Shri Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents-accused, that in the same incident respondent Suresh sustained injury on his head and no explanation has been given by the prosecution in this regard and, therefore, it is to be held that the complainant party was aggressor. On bare perusal of the report lodged by respondent Suresh Singh, we find that complainant of this case, namely, Shyam Singh (PW1) alongwith deceased and Ramvaran Singh (PW2) came to his house having dhariya in their hands and all these persons caused dhariya blows on him and ran away. In the report (Ex.D-4C) it has also been mentioned that deceased and complainant Shyam Singh dealt dhariya blow on the head. However, on bare perusal of the report (Ex.D-4C), we find that although the date of incident 17.12.1987 which is also the date of incident of the present case has been mentioned, but the time and place of occurrence are altogether different, since the time of incident 8:00 a.m. has been mentioned in the report (Ex.D-4C) of respondent Suresh and the place of occurrence is Mauja Samal-ka-Pura while the present incident had taken place at 9:00 a.m. of 17.12.1987 and the place of occurrence is Mandhata-ka-Pura and, therefore, it cannot be said that in the same incident respondent Suresh Singh sustained injuries on his head. FIR (Ex.D-4C) was registered under section 325/34 of IPC and, therefore, the decision of Supreme Court Lakshmi Singh and others etc. (supra) and Shri Krishan (supra), are not applicable in the present case.

33. Since it is borne out from the testimony of Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2) as well as from the evidence of hostile witness Kalyan Singh (PW4) that a day earlier to the date of incident altercation took place between complainant Shyam Singh (PW1) and the respondents on the point of driving tractor in front of the house of the respondents and in the morning of the fateful day all the respondents armed with deadly weapons (the description whereof we have mentioned hereinabove) arrived at the house of complainant party and gave threat on the point of incident of carrying the tractor in front of their house and immediately thereafter after few hours they attacked the deceased and caused brutal injuries to him, according to us, the intention of the respondents was to kill the deceased.

34. So far as the non-compliance of section 157 of CrPC is concerned, suffice it to say that even if for the sake of argument we hold, that there was non-compliance of this provision, but merely on this ground the respondents cannot be acquitted because after all the compliance of section 157 of CrPC is made to prove the authenticity of the FIR. Since FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only for corroboration and contradiction, even if there was non-compliance of section 157 of CrPC, the case of prosecution would not be weaken.

35. Hence, for the reasons stated hereinabove we hereby hold that respondents have committed the offence punishable under sections 148 and 302/149 of IPC. The judgment of acquittal acquitting the respondents under sections 148 and 302 of IPC is accordingly set aside.

36. We shall now advert ourselves that what offence the respondents have committed while causing injuries to complainant Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2). According to complainant Shyam Singh (PW1) when the accused persons were causing injuries to the deceased, he intervened and, at that juncture, accused Suresh caused bhala injury to him which landed on his chest region and blood started oozing and when his brother Ramvaran (PW2) came to intervene, injuries were caused to him by accused Vijay Singh and Jagdish Singh by bhala which landed on his chest region and this has also been so stated by Ramvaran (PW2). The statement of both these witnesses is corroborating the evidence of each other. The MLC report of complainant Shyam Singh (PW1) is Ex.P-7 while the MLC report of Ramvaran (PW2) is Ex.P-5 and they were examined by Dr. R.K. Saxena who is also the Autopsy Surgeon. On bare perusal of their MLC reports and the evidence of Dr. R.K. Saxena, we find that Shyam Singh (PW1) sustained following injuries on his person :

1. Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on left side of chest, 1-1/2 below the left nipple. Not piercing thoracic cavity.

(i) Caused by sharpe and cutting weapon.

(ii) Duration within 12 to 24 hours.

(iii) Nature simple.

The injuries which were found by the doctor on the person of Ramvaran (PW2) are as under :

1. Stab wound (penetrating wound) on right side of chest 1" lower to right nipple 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. Crepitation of air bubble present surrounding wound shows that weapon just penetrated the pleura of right lung.

2. Stab wound 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1 cm at the level of 7th rib on right side of chest. Crepitation of air present surrounding the wound shows that weapon penetrated pleura.

3. Linear contusion produced by impression of finger pressure is present on right side of neck just right to trachea.

(i) Caused by sharp, penetrating weapons.

(ii) Duration within 24 hours.

(iii) Nature of injury grievious.

37. Looking tot he evidence of the doctor and the nature of injuries we find that respondent Suresh Singh has also committed the offence under section 324 of IPC by causing injury by bhala on the chest region of the injured Shyam Singh while respondents Vijay Singh and Jagdish have also committed the offence under section 324 of IPC for causing injuries on the person of injured Ramvaran Singh and they are hereby sentenced to suffer one years rigorous imprisonment. However, looking to the evidence of injured witnesses Shyam Singh (PW1) and Ramvaran (PW2) we find that the other accused persons had no common object to cause any injury to the injured persons and, therefore, their acquittal under section 307/149 of IPC accorded by learned trial Court is hereby affirmed. They cannot also be convicted under section 324/149 of IPC. Similarly since no firearm weapon was seized from the possession of accused Munni Singh, he is acquitted from the offence under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

38. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court is hereby set aside and all the respondents are convicted for the offences punishable under sections 148 and 302/149 of IPC and are sentenced to suffer one years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 148 of IPC and to suffer life imprisonment for the offence committed by them under section 302 of IPC.

39. Accused Suresh Singh, Vijay Singh and Jagdish Singh, apart from their conviction and sentence for the offence committed by them under sections 148 and 302/149 of IPC, are further directed to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment for commission of the offence under section 324 of IPC. It is directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

40. All the respondents are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after they surrender before learned trial Court on or before 13.12.2010, failing which the learned trial Court shall issue arrest warrant against them and shall also issue notices to their sureties and may pass necessary orders against them. However, if the respondents surrender before learned trial Court on or before 13.12.2010, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Registry is hereby directed to send the original bail bond papers of these respondents to learned trial Court and a photocopy thereof be retained in this file. The record of the trial Court be sent posthaste so as to reach before that Court on or before 6.12.2010.