Subodh Abhyankar, J.

1. Heard finally.

2. This judgement shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 1611 of 2013 filed by appellant Vikram S/o. Ramchandra, Criminal Appeal No. 1613 of 2013 filed by appellant Sanju S/o. Mithulal and Criminal Appeal No. 1615 of 2013 filed by appellants Pappu S/o. Mithulal, Vishnu S/o. Mithulal and Mansingh S/o. Govind Bagri (since dead during the pendency of appeal and as per order dated 15.12.2015, appeal against him has already abated). All these three appeals have arisen out of the judgement dated 19.11.2013, passed in S.T. No. 292/2010 by IVth A.S.J., Ujjain whereby finding the appellants guilty, the learned Judge of the trial Court has convicted them as under:-

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that complainant Laxminarayan (PW-4), his brother Madan (Pw-8), Ganesh and the deceased Ashok are the brothers and the deceased Ashok used to reside with his wife and children in village Juna Somwariya and their father's land situated at Village - Gonsa was also orally partitioned amongst the brothers. Near this land, there is a land of one Govind Gayari and adjacent to these lands, there is a government land in which the cattle(s) of the complainant and the appellant party grazed. The case of the prosecution is that 3-4 months prior to the date of incident i.e. 11.05.2010, appellants Mansingh and Vikram had tried to plow the government land and at that time the complainant Laxminarayan and his brothers had objected to it, hence, a dispute was brewing between the parties. It is alleged that on 11.05.2010, at around 22:00 hours when the complainant Laxminarayan was coming from distributing the milk in the village, he heard some voices and saw that in front of the house of appellant Vikram Gayari, appellant Mansingh having armed with a stick, appellant Sanju armed with a knife, appellants Pappu and Vishnu were having sticks, and appellant Vikram armed with a knife were assaulting his brother Ashok, the deceased and his nephew PW-5 Lala and when he tried to intervene, appellant Vishnu gave him a stick blow on his head and when he sat down another blow was also given to him on his right arm. His brother Ashok got injured in the incident and had a bone deep head injury inflicted by a stick. His nephew Lala was also assaulted by Sanju and Vikram by knives on 3 - 4 places and he was also lying on the ground in an injured state. At that time, the other persons and the women of the house came and complainant's son Jitendra (PW-6), his nephew Motilal (PW-9), Rajesh and Ramesh (PW-7) also came, Ramesh had also suffered a knife injury. The injured persons were taken to the Government Hospital and from there, Ashok and Lala were taken to C.H.L. Apollo Hospital, Ujjain where the Doctor informed him that Ashok has died, whereas Lala was admitted. The complainant could not get himself examined because he was busy in looking after the other injured persons. Thus, Dehati Nalshi-Ex. P/10 in this regard as was lodged at C.H.L. Hospital through Police Station Bherugarh at around 1:30 AM in the night of 12.05.2010, and subsequently, the FIR Ex. P/29 at crime No. 136/2010 was lodged at Police Station Bherugarh. Injured Ashok, Lala and Ramesh were also examined by the doctor and their M.L.C.s report as Ex. P/1, P/2 and P/4, whereas Laxminarayan, the complainant got himself examined on 12.05.2010 at around 2:30 PM which is proved as Ex. P/3.

4. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued before this Court that the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside only on the ground that the injuries suffered by the appellants' side have not been explained by the police. It is further submitted that as per the deposition of PW-1 Dr. Ajay Khare the persons from the appellants' side, namely, Kishore, Kanchan Bai, appellant Vishnu and appellant Sanju @ Sanjay had also suffered various injuries on their bodies and A-Vishnu had a fracture on his parietal bone, which is also proved vide Ex. D/11 by DW-4-Dr. R.K. Tiwari, who was posted as Radiologist in District Hospital, Ujjain. The factum of lodging the cross FIR has also been admitted by the Investigating Officer PW-13 R.K. Rai and charge-sheet was also filed against the complainant party. Counsel has submitted that the incident has taken place in self defence only and thus on this ground only the appellants are liable to be acquitted.

5. In the alternative, Shri Sharma has also submitted that appellants Vikram and Sanju have already undergone 10 years of incarceration, whereas appellants Pappu and Vishnu have also undergone more than one and half years of incarceration, therefore, their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

6. Shri Sharma has also relied upon a decision rendered in the case of Sukumaran Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police reported as (2019) 15 SCC 117 [LQ/SC/2019/448 ;] ">(2019) 15 SCC 117 [LQ/SC/2019/448 ;] [LQ/SC/2019/448 ;] ; Lakshmi Singh and others etc., Vs. State of Bihar reported as AIR 1976 SC 2263 [LQ/SC/1976/328] ; Bijendra Bhagat Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported as (2016) 1 SCC (Cri.) 171; Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported as (2017) 1 SCC (Cri.) 45; Khuman Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported as 2019 (3) MPLJ (Cri.) (S.C.) 386]; State of Rajasthan Vs. Manoj Kumar reported as (2014) 2 SCC (Cri.)702.

7. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out.

8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. From the record, it is apparent that in the incident which took place in the night of 11.05.2010, the deceased Ashok was assaulted by the accused persons. He was initially examined in the District Hospital, Ujjain by PW-1 Dr. Ajay Khare vide Ex. P/2 who found the following injuries on his body:-

"(1) An incised wound 2 x 1 cm on the left side of his abdomen.

(2) An incised wound 2x1cm on the left hip, both these injuries were bleeding"

10. However, after the death of the deceased Ashok, his postmortem was conducted by PW-2 Dr. Rameshwar Vyas. He has proved the postmortem report vide Ex. P/6. It is found in the postmortem report that the deceased had suffered following injuries:-

"(1) A stitch wound 2 x 1/2 cm on the right abdomen and from the internal examination it was found that this injury has resulted in renal artery cut and excessive bleeding. Kidney was also cut around 3cm.

(2) A stitch wound 6 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm on the left temporal region.

(3) A stitch wound 1 cm x 1/2 x 1/2 cm on the left side of his neck.

(4) A stitch wound 5/2 cm muscle deep Rt. thigh.

(5) A stitch wound 2.5cm on the left thigh."

11. The cause of death is said to be hemorrhage due to excessive bleeding and on account of injuries to the liver and kidney within 6 to 24 hours of the postmortem. In his cross-examination, PW-2 Dr. Vyas has admitted that he has not mentioned that whether the injuries were was homicidal in nature. PW-2 Dr. Vyas has also admitted that many a times while performing the operation, the size of the injuries increases. However, looking to the nature of injuries and the arms used to inflict the same, this Court has no doubt that the death of the deceased Ashok was homicidal in nature.

12. So far as the injuries suffered by the other persons of the complainant side are concerned, admittedly, PW-5 Lala Choudhary had an incised wound on the left side of his chest and was bleeding. PW-4 Laxminarayan had incised wound on his left parietal region. PW-7 Ramesh had incised wound on the back. PW-1 has also given his query report about the two knives seized from the appellants that the injuries suffered by the complainant party can be caused by these two knives which were sent to him. PW-3 Dr. Sulalanekar was posted as RSO in the District Hospital, Ujjain and has also examined Lala Choudhary PW-5 and had found him to be in serious condition and has also deposed that he could not even check the pulse of the injured and blood pressure was also very low. He was referred to the M.Y. Hospital, Indore.

13. In their defence, the appellants have taken a plea of private defence. The nuances of a plea of private defence have been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Sukumaran v. State, reported as (2019) 15 SCC 117 [LQ/SC/2019/448 ;] ">(2019) 15 SCC 117 [LQ/SC/2019/448 ;] [LQ/SC/2019/448 ;] and the relevant paras of the same read as under:-

"28. The appellant, in substance, took a defence that he fired a gunshot on the deceased party in his right of private defence.

29. Before we examine this question, it is apposite to take note of the law relating to a right of private defence.

30. Sections 96 to 106 IPC deal with right of private defence of a person involved in commission of offences under IPC. Section 96 IPC says that nothing is an offence, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

31. Section 97 IPC provides that a right of private defence extends not only to the defence of one's own body against any offence affecting the human body but also to defend the body of any other person. The right also embraces the protection of property, whether one's own or another person's, against certain specified offences, namely, theft, robbery, mischief and criminal trespass. The limitations on this right and its scope are set out in the sections which follow. For one thing, the right does not arise if there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities, and for another, it does not extend to the infliction of more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence. Another limitation is that when death is caused, the person exercising the right must be under reasonable apprehension of death, or grievous hurt, to himself or to those whom he is protecting; and in the case of property, the danger to it must be of the kinds specified in Section 103. The scope of the right is further explained in Sections 102 and 105 IPC. (See observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Amjad Khan v. State.)

32. This Court also examined this question in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and laid down the following 10 principles after analysing Sections 96 to 106 IPC which read as under: (SCC p. 351, para 58)

"(i) Self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognised by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilised countries. All free, democratic and civilised countries recognise the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits.

(ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation.

(iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence into operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised.

(iv) The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is coterminous with the duration of such apprehension.

(v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude. (vi) In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property.

(vii) It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record.

(viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt.

(ix) The Penal Code confers the right of private defence only when that unlawful or wrongful act is an offence.

(x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self-defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened."

14. Thus, this court is required to weigh the evidence on record, in the light of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court to see if the plea of private defence is available to the appellants. So far as the involvement of the present appellants is concerned, PW-4 Laxminarayan has admitted that the appellants are also his relatives, whereas the deceased Ashok was his brother. He has reiterated that the appellants were armed with various weapons, had assaulted Ashok and in the scuffle other persons had also suffered injuries. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there has already been oral partition, which is in the name of their father, however, they were having a dispute with Govind Gayari regarding the land and because of which the appellants had assaulted them and committed murder of his brother Ashok. He has admitted that in cross case, deceased Ashok was also an accused and in which he, Lala, Laxminarayan, Jitendra and Moti were also accused. He has admitted that the scuffle took place for around 5 to 10 minutes. He has denied that in the scuffle A-Vishnu had suffered severe head injury resulting in fracture, whereas Kanchan Bai, Kishore and Sanju had also suffered injuries. He has also denied that in cross case a stick has also been seized from his possession. He has denied that the complainant party had gone to assault the appellants' side armed with various weapons, which has also resulted in fracture of Vishnu's head.

15. Similarly, PW-5 Lala has also supported the case of the prosecution and has named all the appellants to be the assailants. It is alleged that Vikram and Sanju had knives, whereas Mansingh, Pappu and Vishnu had sticks, and Vikram had initially assaulted Ashok with knife hitting him on the abdomen and Sanju also assaulted Ashok with knife on his parietal region and on his neck. Sanju also assaulted this witness Lala with knife on his chest, whereas the other persons used sticks to assault. In para 10 of his cross-examination, Pw-5 Lala has admitted that in the incident all the persons were involved in assaulting, and has admitted that appellants Vikram and Mansingh had lodged Adam Check i.e., Non Cognizable Office (N.C.) report No. 207 of 2010 but has denied that the complainant party had gone to assault the appellants' side. He has also denied that he and the other persons of the complainant side had made serious assault on the appellants' side. Similarly, PW-6, 7, 8, and 9 have also supported the case of the prosecution and have deposed against the appellants that they were present on the spot. PW-10 is the seizure witness and had supported the case of the prosecution.

16. PW-11 Manoj Tiwari is the Patwari, who had prepared the spot map Ex. P/26 and trace map Ex. P/27 and has admitted that in the Ex. P/26 at serial No. 3 house of appellant Vikram is situated, whereas at serial No. 2 house of appellant Mansingh is situated. PW-13 R.K. Rai, the Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination has admitted that Dehati Nalshi was registered after around three and half hours of the incident and has also admitted that the place of incident is opposite to the house of appellant Vikram Gayari. He has admitted that in the query report Ex. P/5 he had only sent the knives but the sticks were not sent by him. He has admitted that when the appellants Sanju and Vishnu were arrested, they were having bandage on their head on account of injuries. He has also admitted that a cross FIR has also been registered in the case and the charge-sheet has also been filed against the complainant party. He has denied that appellants Sanju and Vishnu had caused the injuries in their defence only and has denied that all the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case only because they belong to one and the same family. PW-16 Dr. Deepto Ray had operated the injured Lala, who had suffered a knife injury on his chest and has stated that Lala had suffered grievous and life threatening injuries.

17. DW-1 Mahendra Shrivastava, the Constable has been examined as a defence witness. He has admitted that on 19.06.2010, a letter was written by Govind S/o. Bhera regarding serious injury to appellant Vishnu and regarding denial of X-ray of appellant Vishnu. DW-2 Gajendra Singh Rathore has proved the Adam Check No. 447 of 2009 registered by appellant Sanju and proved as Ex. D/9C. Similarly another Adam Check No. 207/2010 which was lodged by appellant Vikram on 11.05.2010, i.e., the date of incident, is proved as Ex. D/10C. DW-4 Dr. R.K. Tiwari had examined the injured/appellant Vishnu and had found that there was a fracture on his parietal region, which is proved as Ex. D/11.

18. On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence adduced by the prosecution and also by the defence, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no doubt that the appellants had committed murder of deceased Ashok, however, the only question which remains to be answered is whether it can be said that it was in their right of private defence or if it was a murder.

19. In the case of Lakshmi Singh and others etc. Vs. State of Bihar, (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"11. P.W. 8 Dr. S.P. Jaiswal who had examined Brahmdeo deceased and had conducted the postmortem of the deceased had also examined the accused Dasrath Singh, whom he identified in the Court, on April 22, 1966 and found the following injuries on his person:

1. Bruise 3" x 1/2" on the dorsal part of the right forearm about in the middle and there was compound fracture of the fibula bone about in the middle.

2. Incised wound 1" x 2 m. m. x skin subcutaneous deep on the late ral part of the left upper arm, near the shoulder joint.

3. Punctured wound 1/2" x 2 m. m., x 4 m. m. on the lateral side of the left thigh about 5 inches below the hip joint.

According to the Doctor injury No. 1 was grievous in nature as it resulted in compound fracture of the fibula bone. The other two injuries were also serious injuries which had been inflicted by a sharp-cutting weapon. Having regard to the circumstances of the case there can be no doubt that Dasrath Singh must have received these injuries in the course of the assault, because it has not been suggested or contended that the injuries could be self-inflicted nor it is believable. In these circumstances, therefore, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to give a reasonable explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused Dasrath Singh in the course of the occurrence. Not only the prosecution has given no explanation, but some of the witnesses have made a clear statement that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Indeed if the eyewitnesses could have given such graphic details regarding the assault on the two deceased and Dasain Singh and yet they deliberately suppressed the injuries on the person of the accused, this is a most important circumstance to discredit the entire prosecution case. It is well settled that fouler the crime, higher the proof, and hence in a murder case where one of the accused is proved to have sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence, the non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution is a manifest defect in the prosecution case and shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence. This matter was argued before the High Court and we are constrained to observe that the learned Judges without appreciating the ratio of this Court in Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar tried to brush it aside on most untenable grounds. The question whether the Investigating Officer was informed about the injuries is wholly irrelevant to the issue, particularly when the very Doctor who examined one of the deceased and the prosecution witnesses is the person who examined the appellant Dasrath Singh also. In the case referred to above, this Court clearly observed as follows:

The trial Court as well as the High Court wholly ignored the significance of the injuries found on the appellants. Mohar Rai had sustained as many as 13 injuries and Bharath Rai 14. We get it from the evidence of P.W. 15 that he noticed injuries on the person of Mohar Rai when he was produced before him immediately after the occurrence. Therefore the version of the appellants that they sustained injuries at the time of the occurrence is highly probabilised. Under these circumstances the prosecution had a duty to explain those injuries.... In our judgment the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Further those injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants.

This Court clearly pointed out that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue: and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. The High Court in the pre-sent case has not correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid down. In Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 1971 decided on April 25, 1975 : which was also a murder case, this Court, while following an earlier case, observed as follows:

In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1971 decided on March 19, 1975) one of us (Untwalia, J., speaking for the Court, observed as follows:

In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow:

(1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence.

(2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all.

The facts of the present case clearly fall within the four corners of either of the first two principles laid down by this judgment. In the instant case, either the accused were fully justified in causing the death of the deceased and were protected by the right of private defence or that if the prosecution does not explain the injuries on the person of the deceased the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in deep mystery, which is sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case. It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences:

(1) That the prosecution has sup- pressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version:

(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;

(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.

The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the Court to rely on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and 6 more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1971 decided on March 19, 1975 : Reported in there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises."

20. In the case of Khuman Singh Vs. State of M.P. (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"10. As discussed earlier, the entire incident was in a sudden fight in which the appellant-accused caused head injuries on the deceased with an axe. There was no prior deliberation or determination to fight. The sudden quarrel arose between the parties due to trivial issue of grazing the buffaloes of the appellant for which, the deceased raised objection. In a sudden fight, the appellant had inflicted blows on the head of the deceased with an axe which caused six head injuries. Though the weapon used by the appellant was axe and the injuries were inflicted on the vital part of the body viz. head, knowledge is attributable to the appellant-accused that the injuries are likely to cause death. Considering the fact that the occurrence was in a sudden fight, in our view, the occurrence would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is therefore to be modified as conviction under Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code."

21. On a close scrutiny of the evidence in the case in hand, on the anvil of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it reveals that it is true that the prosecution has not explained the injuries suffered by the appellant Vishnu who has suffered a fracture on his parietal bone which is proved by Dw/4 Dr. R.K. Tiwari. The injuries suffered on appellants' side, by Kishore s/o. Govind, Kanchan Bai w/o. Govind, Vishnu, Sanjay S/o. Mitthulal have also been proved vide Ex. D/1 to D/4 by Pw/1 Dr. Ajay Khare and except Vishnu who had suffered a fracture on his head, other persons suffered only minor injuries. It is apparent that none of the persons of the complainant side was having any sharp-cutting arm which may have given rise to apprehension to the appellants to use excessive force by causing injuries by the knives. It is also noted that the incident took place at around 10 p.m. in the night, and at that time possession of knives by the A-Vikram and A-Sanju clearly establishes their motive to commit murder of the deceased Ashok and cause life threatening injuries to Pw/5 Lala who appears to have survived by his sheer luck only. Similarly, so far as the injuries suffered by injured Pw/5 Lala, deceased Ashok, injured Laxminarayan and Ramesh are concerned, except Laxminarayan who had a simple injury caused by hard and blunt object, all the other persons suffered incised wounds only of different nature. There is no query report on record that if any of the injuries can be caused by a stick also. The query report Ex. P/5 is in respect two knives only, meaning thereby that none had suffered any injury by any hard and blunt object which also rules out any possible involvement of appellants Pappu, Vishnu and Mansingh (now deceased).

22. It is also found that so far as the appellants Vikram and Sanju are concerned, they have not suffered any injuries in the incident. On the contrary, Ex. D/14, which is the court statement of appellant Vikram in the counter case S.T. No. 308/2010, he has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution as in his court statement of appellant Vikram, he has not even taken a stand that complainant side (accused in S.T. No. 308/2010) had assaulted them and has in fact turned hostile. In such circumstances, when the accused himself has not taken a plea in the counter case that he was assaulted by the complainant side, to put the burden on the prosecution to explain the injury on the appellants' side, in the considered opinion of this court, amounts to misplaced and misdirected application of the theory of private defense. It is also found that testimony of Pw/5 Lala, who barely survived the attack has clearly named the appellants Vikram and Sanju as the main assailants who were having knives in their hands and launched deadly assault on him and the deceased Ashok, is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. In such circumstances, the benefit of theory of right of private defence is not at all available to the A-Vikram and A-Sanju who had inflicted deliberate injuries to the deceased Ashok and injured Lala. Thus, the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the appellants are of no avail to them.

23. Resultantly, this Court is not inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellants Vikram in Cr.A.1611/2013 and Sanju, Cr.A.1613/2013, and their conviction and jail sentences are maintained and Cr.A. Nos. 1611/2013 and 1613/2013 are dismissed, whereas, Cr.A. No. 1615/2013 is allowed and the appellants Pappu and Vishnu are hereby acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by giving them benefit of doubt and the impugned judgement, so far as it relates to the appellants Pappu and Vishnu is concerned, the same stands set aside in respect of Cr.A.1615/2013 only. Appellants Pappu and Vishnu are already on bail, their bail bonds are discharged, whereas Appellants Vikram and Sanju who are already in jail, be made to suffer their remaining jail sentence as awarded by the trial court.

24. Accordingly, the appeals stand disposed of.