Holding

The High Court was correct in reversing the acquittal; the accused were members of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to cause grievous hurt, and the convictions under Sections 148, 149 read with 326 IPC (and 324 IPC where applicable) stand.

Summary

In June 1981 a mob of 40‑50 Bharwad community members armed with sticks and dharias attacked three Patel individuals, killing one and injuring two. The trial court acquitted all fifteen accused, treating each assault as unrelated and discounting eye‑witness testimony. On appeal, the Gujarat High Court held that the assaults were part of a single transaction, identified an unlawful assembly, and concluded that the common object was to cause grievous hurt, convicting seven of the accused under Sections 148, 149 read with 326 IPC (and 324 IPC where appropriate). The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s findings, stating that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was manifestly erroneous and that Section 149 IPC applies to offences likely to be committed, even if murder was not the common object. Consequently, the convictions were upheld and the sentences, though lenient, were not enhanced, and both appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The trial court's approach to evidence and its acquittal of the accused
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting under Section 149 IPC
Determination of the common object of the unlawful assembly – murder versus grievous hurt
Applicability of Section 149 IPC to offences likely to be committed
Whether the sentences imposed should be enhanced in view of the nature of the offence and the lapse of time

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 324, s. 326, s. 34

Subjects

unlawful assemblycommon objectSection 149 IPCgrievous hurtmurderappreciation of evidenceeye‑witness testimonyconviction reversalsentencing

Judgment

BHARWAD JAKSHIBHAI NAGJIBHAI AND ORS. ETC. A
v.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT ETC.

AUGUST 24, 1995

[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND G.T. NANAVATI, .JJ.) B

Oiminal Law.

Indian Penal Code, 1860.-5.324 and S.326 read with S.149; S. 302
read with S.149-Unlawful assembly-Group livaby-Clash-one killed and C
two assaulted-JS accused and brought to t1iat--Trial Cowt acquitted
all-High Cowt reversed findi11g in respect of 7-Reversal of acquittal by High
Cowt-Not nonnal when two views of evide11ce possible-Pennissible whe11
approach of Tlial Co wt is ma11ifestly in en-or i11 appreciation of evidence.

S. 149 I.P.C., 186(}-Applies not only to offe11ces actually committed D
in pursua11ce of common object but also to offences which the unlawful
assembly knew were likely to be committed.

!11dicia to asce1tain Commo11 object-Nature, munber and location of
injwies indicia to asce1tain-Use of the weapon-Use of blunt and not sha1p E
edge shows object 11ot murder but to cause grevious /nut.

The relationship between the Bhanvad and Patel communities be-
came strained after the Bavla Nagar Panchayat elections. On 2nd June,
81, at about 6 P.M., 40-50 members of Bhanvad community armed \\ith
sticks, dharias and farsis attacked 3 members of the Patel community F
killing one and injuring 2. One of the injured lodged a complaint mth the
police and a case was registered. 15 were brought to trial. Before the Trial
Court evidence of the injured, eye mtnesses, doctors etc. were examined.
The Trial Court appraised the evidence by treating the assault on the three
members as distinct and unconnected, relied on minor discrepencies and G
discounting evidence of eye witnesses acquitted all the 15.

The High Court admitted the Appeal against only 7 of the accused
and discharged the rest. The High court accepted the prosecution case that
successive assaults on the 3 persons were part of the same transaction and
outcome of a common object and not isolated incidents as held by Trial H
23
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Court. On reappreciation of evidence the High Court came to the finding
that there was unlawful assembly; that the 7 accused formed part of that
assembly; their common object was not murder but causing grevious
injury, taking into consideration the nature of the injury and evidence of
witnesses; that the Trial Court departed from the basic principles of
appreciation of evidence of eye witnesses. The Court therefore set out the
B principles for appreciation of evidence of particularly injured eye-wit-
nesses as enunciated by this court in various judgments, considered the
evidence on that basis. TM High Court then convicted all the 7, under
S.148 and S.326 I.P.C. read with S.149 I.P.C. and some under s.324 and
s.326 I.P.C. Simpliciter and rest under S.149 I.P.C.
c
Against the order of the High Court 2 Appeals were filed before this
Court-one by the 7 convicted persons and the other by the injured who had
lodged the police complaint. On behalf of the accused Appellants it was
argued that merely because the High Court took a different view; it cannot
set aside the aquittal; the conviction under S.326 I.P.C. Simpliciter or with
D S.149 was not justified because evidence shows that common object was
only to cause simple hurt and the accused carried only Iatis; that since
already 14 years had lapsed and 10 months imprisonment had been served,
sentence be altered. On behalf of the other appellant it was submitted that
conviction should have been under S.302 read with S.149 I.P.C., that facts
E showed that the object of the unlawful assembly was murder; the sentence
was inadequate and should be enhanced.

Dismissing the Appeals, this Court

HELD : 1. The finding of the High court that the 7 accused Appel-
F Ian ts were members of an unlawful assembly which caused injuries to three
members of the Patel community is unassailable. This court has carefully
gone through the entire evidence on record. (30-F-G]

Appablzai v. State of Gujarat AIR (1988) SC 696; Bhoginblzai Hiljibhai
G v. State of Gujarat AIR (1983) SC 753; Sohrab v. State of M.P., AIR (1972)
SC 2020 and State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR (1988) SC 1998, referred to.

2. The nature, number and location of injuries are some of the
indicia to ascertain the common object and for that matter the offences
committed. According to both the doctors, the injuries found on the person
H of the deceased were possible by hard and blunt substance. Considering
B.J. NAGJIBHAI v. STATE 25
;.

... the nature of the injuries inflicted on the three persons and the discrepency
about the utterrences of the mob, this Court agrees with the reasoning of
A

the High Court that it could not be conclusively inferrred that the common
object of the assembly was to commit the murder. If really a mob of 50-60
persons wanted to commit murder, nothing prevented them from inflicting
severe injuries on the person of and the 2 victims, more so, when some of
B
them were armed with sharp cutting and dangerous weapons. The fact that
accused Appellants 1-7 used blunt edges of the weapons and not their
sharp edger goes a long way to show that they did not share a common
intention to kill when they assaulted him. (33-A-C]

3. Law is well settled that normally Appellate Court does not disturb c
the order of acquittal in a case where two views of the evidence are
reasonably possible. But the above principle is not applicable where the
approach of the Trial Court in dealing with evidence is manifestly er-
roneous and conclusions unreasonable and perverse. The High Court was
fully justified in reversing the order of acquittal as the Trial judges
approach in appreciation of evidence was patently wrong and perverse. D
Some of the reasons given by the Trial Judge are of such flimsy character
that they did not merit consideration in the Appellate Court. The Trial
judge was not justified in relying on minor discrepencies regarding details
to discard the evidence of eye-witnesses which the High Court noticed and
rightly ignored. (29-B-D; 30-D-E] E
·:r
4. S.149 IPC, applies to offences not only actually committed in
pursuance of common object, but also offences that members of the
unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed. It would be impossible
in the facts of this case to hold that the members of the unlawful assembly
did not know that grevious hurt was likely to be committed. (33-F] F

5. The order of conviction passed by the High Court is upheld. Though
the sentence is lenient, the fact that since the offences were committed, more
than 14 yrs. have elapsed and during this long period the Appellants have
gone through the ordeal of a protracted criminal trial and of the two appeals, G
this cn11rt is not inclined to enhance the sentence. (34-A-B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No .
.,.
381 of 1989 Etc.

From th~ Judgment and Order dated 8/13/14.2.89 and 10.3.89 of the H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Gujarat High Court in Cr!. A. No. 584 of 1982.
G. Ramaswamy, U.R. Lalit, E.C. Agrawala, Ms. Poornima Bhat Kak,
..
Mahesh Agrawal, Ms. Pooja Anand, Arrant Palli, Mrs. Neelam Kalsi, Yimal
Dave, K. Kumar, Lekh Raj Rohalia, Yashank Adhyaru and Anip Sachthey
for the appearing parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Fifteen persons were put up for trial before
the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Naro! for rioting '-
with deadly weapons, committing the murder of Govindbhai Girdharbhai
c and attempting to commit the murders of Arvind Kumar Kanjibhai and
Vinodchandra Keshavlal. The trial Judge acquitted them of all the charges
and aggrieved thereby the State of Gujarat preferred an appeal. The High
Court admitted the appeal against seven out of the fifteen acquitted and
dismissed it summarily as regards others. The appeal was ultimately al-
D lowed and all the seven accused were convicted under sections 148 and 326
read with section 149 IPC for causing grievous hurt to Govindbhai. For the
injuries caused to Arvind and Vinod some of them were convicted under
sections 324 and 326 IPC (simpliciter) respectively and the rest with the
aid of section 149 IPC. For the above convictions rigorous imprisonment
ranging from 1 to 3 and fines were imposed with a direction that the
E
substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Assailing their convictions "\<

and sentences the seven accused have filed one of these two appeals
(Criminal Appeal No. 381of1989 .. The other 'appeal (Criminal Appeal No.
382 of 1989) has been filed by Arvind for setting aside the acquittal of the
seven accused in respect of the charges under section 302/149 and 307/149
F (two counts) and convicting them thereunder; alternatively, for enhance-
ment of their sentences for the convictions recorded against them by the
High court. Both the appeals have been heard together and this judgment
will dispose of them.

Bereft of details the prosecution case is as under :
G
In December, 1980 there was an election of Bavla Nagar Panchayat "
which was mainly contested by two groups, one consisting of the members
of the Bharwad community and the other of Patels. In that election success -<

of the Patels was more pronounced than that of the Bharwads. Since then
H the relations between the two communities, who reside in two separate
B.J. NAGJIBHAI v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 27

... localities, in the town of Bavla were strained. On June 2, 1981 at or about A
6 P.M. about 40 to 50 members of the Bharwad community, including the
accused persons, came out of their locality armed with deadly weapons like
sticks, dharias and f arsis and proceeded towards the market shouting that
they would beat and kill the members of the Patel community. With that
object in view they attacked three persons of Patel community in succes-
B
sion. The first attack was on Govindbhai who, owing to the injuries inflicted
upon him, expired on the following day, that is, on June 3, 1981. The second
attack was on Arvind who saved his life' by entering into the shop of one
Bipinbhai. Lastly the mob went to the shop of Vinod, dragged him out and
assaulted him.
c
Immediately after he was assaulted, Arvind went to Police Station
and lodged an information about the same. On that information Sub-In-
spector Chauhan (PW 12) of Bavla Police Station registered a case and
took up investigation. Arvind and the other two injured were taken to V.S.
Hospital, Ahmedbad and admitted therein. As it was subsequently revealed
that the assaults on Govindbhai and Vinod were parts of the same trans- D
action, S.I. Chauhan carried out a joint investigation in respect of all the
three assaults and on completion thereof submitted chargesheet.

The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charged levelled

- against them and asserted that they had been falsely implicated.

To bring home the charges levelled against the accused- appellants,
E

- the prosecution examined the two injured Arvind (PW 4) and Vinod (PW
9), Bipinbhai (PW 5), Anil Kumar (PW 6) and Natwarbhai (PW 7) as eye
witnesses to prove one or the other episode of the entire incident. Besides,
other witnesses including doctors, were examined to corroborate their F
evidence. No. witness was, however, examined on behalf of the defence.

The learned trial Judge discussed the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and concluded that none of the eye-witnesses could be relied
upon. The High Court in its turn reappraised the evidence and held that
G
findings of thP ~;·'.:..:.!Judge were perverse.

Mr. Ramaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-

... 'r
appellants criticised the judgment of the High Court on the ground that it
ought not have set aside the judgment of the trial Judge merely because a
differenl view of the evidence could be taken, more so, when the latter was H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A based on a detailed and proper discussion and appreciation of the
evidence. The other contention of Mr. Ramaswamy was that even if it was
.,
assumed that the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal it
was not at all justified to convict the accused-appellants under Sections 326
IPC simpliciter or with the aid of Section 149 IPC as from the evidence of
the eye-witnesses and the doctors the only conclusion that could be drawn
B
was that the accused persons shared the common object of committing the
offence of simple hurt punishable either under Section 323 IPC or, at best,
under Section 324 IPC. In that view of the matter, Mr. Ramaswamy
submitted, the convictions of the accused-appellants were liable to be
accordingly altered; and having regard to the fact that since the offences
c were allegedly committed more than fourteen years had elapsed and each
of the accused-appellants had already served about 10 months of imprison-
ment the substantive sentence imposed upon them might be reduced to the
period already undergone.

D Mr. Lalit, the learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal
preferred by Arvind, on the other hand contended that having reversed the
order of acquittal for justifiable reasons, the High Court ought to have
convicted the accused-appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149
IPC for causing the death of Govindbhai. According to Mr. Lalit the facts
and circumstances leading to the death of Govindbhai unmistakably proved
E that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit his murder
and consequently, as members of the unlawful assembly, each of the
accused persons was liable to be convicted under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC. To bring home his contention Mr. Lalit submitted that
the evidence on record clearly established that to wreak their vengeance
F the accused-appellants along with other members of their community and
armed with deadly weapons covered a distance of about 4 kms. and
recklessly and brutally assaulted three members of the Patel community,
one of whom was dragged out of his shop. Mr. Lalit urged that when those
facts and circumstances were considered in the light of the injuries sus-
tained by Govindbhai the only conclusion that could be drawn was that the
G common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder. Mr. Lalit
next urged that even if it was held that the common object of the unlawful
assembly was to cause grievous hurt to Govindbhai, at least, the accused-
appellant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibhai and Bhar-
wad Bhikhabhai Nathabhai must be held to be guilty of the offences under
H Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as the injuries caused by them with
B.J. NAGJIBHAI v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 29

an iron ringed stick and dh01iya respectively resulted in his death. Mr. Lalit A
_lastly submitted that in case the findings of the High Court regarding the
nature of offences committed by the accused-appellants were to be held
unexceptionable, the sentence of imprisonment for 3 years imposed for the
conviction under Section 326 IPC for assault on Govindbhai was wholly
inadequate. Needles to say, the learned counsel appearing for the State
B
snpported the entire judgment of the High Court.

Law is now well settled that through the Code of Criminal Procedure
does not make any distinction between the powers of the Appellate Court
while dealing with an order of conviction or of acquittal, normally the
Appellate Court does not disturb an order of aquittal in a case where two C
views of the evidence are reasonably possible. But the above principle of
is not applicable where the approach of the trial judge in dealing with the
evidence is manifestly erroneous and the conclusions drawn are wholly
unreasonable and perverse. In the instant case we find that the High Court
was fully conscious, and did not transgress the bounds. of its appellate D
powers while dealing and reversing the order of acquittal.

As already noticed the prosecution case was that the successive
assaults on Govindbhai, Arvind and Vinod were parts of the Same trans-
action and outcome of one and the same common object and not isolated
incidents. Surprisingly however, the trial Judge appraised the evidence of E
the eye witnesses treating the three incidents of assault as distinct and
unconnected with each other. The High Court was, therefore, fully justified
in observing that the basic approach of the trial Judge in appreciating the
prosecution evidence was absolutely erroneous, as it proceeded as if the
three assaults were for different motives or common objects.
F
With the above observation, the High court posed the basic questions
as to whether the prosecution succeeded in proving that 40-50 members of
Bharwad community formed an unlawful assembly and considering the
evidence of the eye witnesses answered it. in the affirmative. The High
Court also observed that even the defence did not seriously challenge the G
above part of the prosecution case and that the learned counsel appearing
for the accused did not dispute that question. Before us als0 Mr. Ramas-
wamy in his usual fairness, did not also join issue with the above finding of
the High Court.

The next question, which the High Court took up for consideration, H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A was whether the seven appellants were members of the unla\vful assembly. .,
In dealing with this question and answering the same in favour of the
prosecution the High Court first set out at length the basic principles the
trial Judge was generally required to follow for appreciating the evidence
of eye witnesses and particularly of injured eye witnesses after culling the
same from the judgments of this Court inAppabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR
B
(1988) SC 696, Blwginbhai Hi1jibhai v. State of Guja;·at, AIR (1983) SC 753,
Solzrab v. State of M.P., AIR (1972) SC 2020 and State of U.P. v.Anil Singh,
AIR (1988) SC 1998. The High Court then discussed the evidence of the
eye witnesses threadbare in the light of other evidence and, after detailing
..
the significant departures the trial Judge made from those principles,
c concluded that he was not at all justified in discarding their evidence.

To appreciate whether the above conclusion of the High Court is
sustainable or not we have carefully gone through the entire evidence on
record. Having done so we find that the High Court was fully justified in
reversing the acquittal as the trial Judge's approach in appreciation of
D
evidence was patently wrong and perverse. While on this point we may also
mention that some of the reasons given by the trial Judge are of such flimsy
character that they did not merit any consideration in the appellate Court.
Besides the trial Judge was not at all justified in relying upon minor
discrepancies regarding details to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses
E which the High Court noticed and rightly ignored. However, to avoid
prolixity we refrain from detailing or discussing the perverse findings of the
trial Judge more particularly when we find the High Court has dealt with
them properly and exhaustively.

F Now that we have found that the finding of the High Court that the
seven accused-appellants were members of an unlawful assembly which
caused injuries to three members of the Patel community is unassailable
we have to next ascertain, keeping in view ,the respective contentio~ of the
learned counsel appearing in support of the appeals, whether the finding
of the High Court that the common object of that assembly was to cause
G grievous hurt - and not to commit murder - is correct or not. In arriving '
at the above finding the High Court observed :
-<
''In our view looking at to the evidence on record as it stands, it ,_
would be difficult to infer that the common object of the unlmvful
H assembly was to kill members of the pate! Community. In any set
"
B.J. NAGJIBHAI v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 31

..... of circumstances benefit of doubt is required to be given to the A
accused because of different versions given by different witnesses
with regard to the words uttered by the members of the unlawful
assembly. Further the fact that the dharia blow is not given by a
sharp edge to the deceased and witness Arvindbhai and also no
Pata! injury is caused by dharia to witness Vinubhai suggests that
B
their common object was not to kill members of Patel community.
PW. 7 Natwarlal Mangaldas has deposed that members of the
unlawful assembly were uttering "beat the Patels on sight". Same
)'
is the version given by witness Dahyabhai. Same is the version given
by injured witness Vinubhai Keshaval Patel. From this it can not
be definitely stated that the common object of this unlawful as- c
sembly was to kill any members of the Patel community, but it can
be safely inferred that their common object was to belabour and
beat members of the Patel community. In this view of the matter
in our view the respondents i.e., the accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10
and 13 who are members of unlawful assembly and identified as
D
such by the witnesses and whose presence at the scene of offence
is proved beyond reasonable doubt would be liable to be punished
for the offence under Section 326 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian
Penal Code in view of injuries to deceased Govindbhai."

Since the nature, number and location of injuries inflicted are some E
of the indicia to ascertain the common object, and for that matter the
offences committed. It will be appropriate at this stage to detail the medical
evidence adduced during the trial. It appears from the evidence of Dr.
Vijay Ratilal Shf'.th (PW 13) who first examined Govindbhai in the hospital
that he had the following injuries on his person:
:- F
(i) bleeding from nose and right ear.

(ii) contused lacerated wound 5'' x 1" 1/2" over right occipital region.

(iii) bruise 8" x 2" over back of right thigh.
G
• (iv) swelling over right maxilla 3" x 3".

r (v) a bruise over right forearm and

(vi) fissure fracture of right parietal bone, and the post-mortem
examination report of Dr. Mukesh Shah (PW 11) shows that besides the H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A above external injuries the deceased had the following internal injuries :

(i) huge naemotoma over the scalo over occipital and right parietal
region.

(ii) fracture of right parietal and right temporal bones with a second
B fracture of anterior cranial fosse on rightside just near the mid-
line and

(iii) diffused subdural and subarachadid haemorrhage, with brain
congested.

C According to both the doctors the injuries found on the person of
the deceased were possible by hand and blunt substance.

So far as the injuries on the other two victims are concerned Dr. Seth
(PW 13) stated that Arvindbhai had the following injuries on his person:

D (i) contused lacerated wound. 4" x 1/2" over right frontal region

(ii) contused lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" over left occipital region

(iii) contused lacerated wound 1" x 1/4 x 1/4" on base of left thumb
and
E
(iv) tenderness over the left forearm and the left knee.

The other injured Vinodchandra was examined by Dr. Kirit Shukla
(PW 14) and his examinat_ion revealed the following injuries on his person:

F (i) contused lacerated wound on forehead 5" I/2"x 1/2".

(ii) contused lacerated wound over occipital region 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2".

(iii) pupils of both eyes were equally reacting to light.

G (iv) rounded bruises over chest.

(v) bruise on front of abdomen 6" x 1" and 6" x 1",

(vi) tenderness over right forearm and wrist with a fracture
~-

H (vii)pointed wound over left leg l·x 1 cm. and
B.J. NAGJIBHAI v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 33

(viii) tenderness over left heel. A

Considering the nature of injuries inflicted on the above three per-
sons and the discrepancy about the utterances of the mob we arc in
complete agreement with the reasoning of the High Court as quoted earlier
and the conclusion drawn therefrom that it could not be conclusively B
inferred that the common object of the assembly was to commit the
murder. If really a mob of 50-60 persons wanted to commit murders
nothing prevented them from inflicting severe injuries on the persons of
Govindbhai and the two victims, more so, when some of them were armed
sharp cutting and dangerous weapons. The fact that the accused-appellants
Nos. 1 and 2 used blunt edges of the weapons and not their sharp edges C
goes a long way to show that they did not also share a common intentioa
to kill Govindbhai '_Vhen they assaulted him. We are, therefore, unable to
accept the contention of Mr. Lalit that the members of the unlawful
assembly shared the common object or accused- appellants Nos. 1 and 2
shared the common intention of committing the murder of Govindbhai. D

Coming now to the contention of Mr. Ramaswamy that the facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that most of the members
of the assembly only carried ordinary sticks, a few of which, according to
the prosecution were recovered from the houses of the accused-appellants
clearly indicated that the common object of the unlawful assembly was only E
to cause simple hurt we can only say that even if we accept his contention,
still the accused-appellants would be liable for the offence of causing
grievous hurt as Section 149 IPC applies not only to offence actually
committed in pursuance of the common object but also the offence that
members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed; and F
it would be impossible in the facts of this case to hold that the members
of the unlawful assembly did not know that grievous hurt was likely to be
committed by an unlawful assembly, as large as the one with which we are
concerned here some of whom were armed with dangerous weapons.
Accordingly, even if the common object be not placed as high as murder
as contended by Mr. Lalit, the conviction of the accused- appellants under G
Section 326 IPC simpliciter on 326 read with 149 IPC, as the case may be,
for the assaults on Govindbhai and Vinod has got to be upheld.

That brings us to the question ·of sentence as raised by Mr. Lalit. It
is undoubtedly true that considering the manner in which the accused-ap- H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A pellants assaulted Govindbhai the sentence of three years imposed by the
High Court for that offence errs on the side of leniency. But then, we
cannot be oblivious of the fact that since the offences were committed more
than 14 years have elapsed and during th~s long period the appellants have
gone through the ordeal of a protected criminal trial and of the two
appeals. Having given our anxious consideration to these competing claims
B we do not feel inclined to enhance the sentence.

In the result both the appeals are dismissed. The accused - appel-
lants, who are on bail, shall now surrender to their bail bonds to serve out
the sentences imposed by the High Court.

I.M.A. Appeals dismissed.

..

.
J