Holding

The Court held that the prosecution proved the guilt of Shatrugan Singh, Kapildeo Singh, Awadesh Singh (deceased) and Rampriya Yadav beyond reasonable doubt, liable under Section 34 IPC, while Brij Bihari Singh, Ram Ekbal Singh and Suresh Singh were acquitted due to benefit of doubt.

Summary

The case concerned six accused, including Kapildeo Singh, charged with the murder of Shyamdeo Singh and grievous injuries to Rajmani Devi. The trial court acquitted them, the High Court reversed the acquittal, and the Supreme Court examined the appeal. The Court evaluated the admissibility of a post‑FIR statement, the reliability of witness testimony amid enmity, and the requirement for independent corroboration. It held that the primary victim's testimony, supported by medical evidence and other witnesses, proved the participation of Shatrugan Singh, Kapildeo Singh, Awadesh Singh (deceased) and Rampriya Yadav, while the involvement of Brij Bihari Singh, Ram Ekbal Singh and Suresh Singh could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the latter three were acquitted, the former were convicted under Section 34 IPC (not Section 149), and convictions under Sections 324, 326 and the Arms Act were upheld, with sentences to run concurrently.

Issues considered

The admissibility of the statement recorded by PW 11 after the FIR under Section 162 Cr.P.C.
The reliability of prosecution witnesses' testimony given the enmity between parties and the need for independent corroboration.
Whether the participation of Brij Bihari Singh, Ram Ekbal Singh and Suresh Singh can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The applicability of Sections 148 and 149 IPC versus Section 34 IPC for the accused.
The validity of convictions under Sections 324, 326 IPC and the Arms Act.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1955s. 27
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 162
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 324, s. 326, s. 34

Subjects

murdercommon intentionbenefit of doubtcorroborationSection 34 IPCSection 149 IPCArms Actcriminal appealIndian Penal Code

Judgment

) .
\ \ :
...---~-~- -----
KAPILDEO SINGH AND ORS. - A
\ - --......
--- v.

STATEOFBIHAR -

, APRIL 7, 1993
, B
----- ~•o ·-[DR. A.S.ANAND AND N.P.SINGH,JJ.]

;
I' Indian Penal Code.1860:

Sections 34. 148. 149. 302. 324 and 326-Murder and causing
griel"ous injury-Common imention-Proof of~01iviction altered to c
one uls. 302 rlws 34-Benefit of doubt-Acquittal of certain accused.

The appel:ants were charged with offence_s under Sections 3021
149, 148, 324 •nd 326 IPC·for causing the murder of one 'S' and for _
causing grle·1ous Injury to one' R'. The Trial Court acquitted them.
On appeal by the State, the High Court reversed the order of D
acquittal. Aia,'Tle.-ed. by the High Court's judgment, the appellants
preferred the present appeal. ·

_- _Jt was contended on behalf of the appeliants that the version of
the occurrence given by PW 11 in his statement recorded viz. Ex. Pl2 E
was.materially different from the statement of PW 13 recorded as FIR
(Ex.7) and gave a lie to the pro~ecution case rendering the prosecution -
case doubtful; that the High Court erroneously Ignored the statement
of PW 11 /'olding it inadmissible In evidence on the ground that Uhad
been recorded during the Investigation; and that due to the admitted F
enmity be_tween the parties and the hostility of the Mukhiya of the
____ Gram Panchayat towards Al and Al, it would not be safe to rely upon
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses without looking for lnde·
pendent corroboration and in the absence of which the conviction of
the appellants was 'not justified. -

__ Partly allowing the app_eal, _this Court,

HELD: l.IIl viewoftheadmittedenmitybetween the parties and
_the dose relationship of the witnesses inter-se and the dose relation-
ship of the accused persons witli one' another, the possibility that H

1..----=======-co-:::::-::c-=-:o::--==---.1~~-- ---~-~~~=---~- --~=----
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.
·~
~
-
}
A alongwith the actual assailants some others have also been implicated
cannot be ruled out. Prudence therefore requires that this court (.
should look for corroboration of the testimony of PW 13 in respect of
each of the ace.used before finding them guilty. Since, the prosecution
witnesses knew each of the accused, the non-identification by any one
of them of AS, A6 and A 7 renders the presence of these accused and
B their participation rather doubtful. It is not possible to say with an)'
amount of certainty that they were actually involved in the commis-
sion of the crime along with the other accused persons. Of course, PW
13 would not leave her own assailants or the assailants of her father,
but it is not unknown that in view of the pronounced hostility between
c the parties, the close relations of A 1, A2, A3 and A4, namely, accused
AS, A6 and A 7 may have also been roped in (8-H, 9-A-C).

2. Though PW 10 and PW 12 did not recognizeA4 as one of the
accused but the participation of A4, who according to PW 13 had
D given her the blow with the grasa chopping off her two fingers of the
left hand, has been conclusively established. The presence of A3, since
deceased, is admitted b)' all the prose<;ution witnesses. The testimony
of PW 13, is consistent about the participation of Al and A2 alongwith
A4 in the crime. Inspite of lengthy cross-examination nothing has been
brought out to discredit her testimon)· in so far as either the occur-
E rence or the actual assault on her and the deceased is concerned. The
ocular testimony regarding the participation of the accused in the
crime as well as the maimer of assault and the nature of weapons used
by Al, A2 and A4 for causing injuries has received ample corrobora-
tion from the medical evidence and the recovery of the blood stained
F clothes and earth from the place of occurrence. The FIR lodged
promptly by the injured witnesses also lends enough assurance as
regards the particip3:tion of A I, A2, A3 and A4 in the crime. Thus, the
prosecution has established the case against Al, A2, A3 (since dead)
and A4, beyond any reasonable doubt (9-D-G)

G 3. Since, the presence of AS, A6 and A 7 and their participation
in the crime is in doubt they are entitled to the benefit of doubt and
giving them the benefit of doubt, their conviction and sentence are set
aside and they are acquitted. With their acquittal it is only the four
appellants Al, A2, A3 and A4 against whom the prosecution can be
H said to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Section 148
IPC under the circumstances would have no application. Similarly,
KAPILDEO SINGH v. STA1E OF BIHAR 3

Section 149 IPC would also not be attracted and A2,A3 and A4 cannot A
be convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC. From
the prosecution e\·idence, however, it stands amply established that
the three appellants, Al, A2 and A4 alongwith A3 (since dead) had
come together armed with deadly weapons to the house of the
deceased and while Al had fired pistol shot at the deceased resulting
in his death, A2 had fired from his gun at PW 13 causing her a serious B
· injury on her breast while A4 had caused her grievous injuries with
a grasa res11lting in the chopping o ff~wo of her fingers on the left hand.
The crime was committed in the presence of A3. Therefore, while A2,
A3 and A4 cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302/149
IPC all of them can be said to have shared the common intention with c
A 1 for committing the murder of the deceased. The very fact that A I,
A2, A3 and A4 came together armed with deadly weapons, at the
night, to the house of the deceased and caused deadly injuries to the
deceased and seriously wounded PW 13 and thereafter escaped
together would undoubtedly go to show that all of them shared the
common intention. They are, therefore, liable to be convicted with the D
aid of section 34 IPC. (9-H, lQ-A-F)

5. The evidence on record has established beyond any doubt
that A I cominitted the murder of the deceased by firing the pistol shot.
He has, therefore, rightly been convicted by the High Court for the E
offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment
for life. His conviction for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act
and the sentence of two years R.I. is also justified. Hence, his convic-
tion and sentence on both counts is maintained. Howe\·er, the convic-
tion of A2, A3, and A4, for the offence under section 302/14'.:i IPC is F
altered to the one under Section 302/34 IPC. A2 and A4 are sentenced
to suffer imprisonment for life (A3 being already dead). The convic-
tion of Al, A2 and A4 for the offence under Section 148 is, however,
set aside. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under S. 27 of
the Arms Act and under Sections 324 and 326 IPC are maintained.
The sentence ofiinprisonment imposed on Al, A2 and A4 on different G
counts shall, however, run concurrently. (10-H, 11-A-C)

H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 3 S.C.R.

A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. S40of198S.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.8S & 22.S.8S of the
Patna High Court in Govt. Appeal No. 28 of 1979.
B
Udai Narain Sinha and M.P. Jha for the Appellants .

. D. Goburdhan for the Respondent.

The Judgment of.the Court was delivered by
c
DR. ANAND, J. This appeal under Section :i{a) of the Supreme
Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, is
directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna
dated 27th March, 198S in Government App_eal No. 28 of 1979,
D coqvicting and sentencing the appellants, Shatrugan Singh (Al),
Kapildeo Singti (A2), Rampriya Yadav (A4), Brij Bihari Singh (A5),
Ram Ekbal Singh (A6) and Suresh Singh (A7), (Awadesh Singh (A3)
died after the judgment of the High Court) for offences under Sections
302, 302/149, 148, 324 and326 IPC, by reversing an order of acquittal
E recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Patna dated 28th April
1979.
. .
While A 1 and A2 are brothers, A3 is the son of A2, A4 is a •
ploughman of A 1, AS is the son-in-law of A2, A6 is the brother-in-law
of A3 and A 7 is the son of A6.
F
The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Shyamdeo
Singh was on enimical terms with A 1 and A2 and litigation was going
on between the two parties. On the night intervening 12/13 October
1977, at about mid-night at village Malia Gaura, the appellants along
G with Awadesh Singh A3, variously armed went to the house of the
deceased and knocked at the door of the room in which he was sleeping.
Rajmani Devi PW 13, the daughter of the deceased alongwith her
ailing child was also sleeping in. the same room. On hearing the
knocking, she opened the door and found Al, A3 and AS armed with
~ '
'1i
pistols, A2 armed with a gun, A4 and A 7 armed with a grasa each and
H A6 armed with a dagger present there. As soon as she opened the door
KAPILDEO SINGH v. STA TE OF BIHAR [ANAND J.] 5

Kapildeo Singh A2 fired from his gun at her causing an injury to her A
person. Rampriya Yadav A4 hurled a grasa b!Ow as a result of which
two of her fingers of the left hand were chopped off. Ram Ekbal Singh
A6, thereupon, told his companions to spare her and to kill her father,
Shyamdeo Singh, for which purpose they had come there. Rajmani .
Devi PW13 was pushed aside by the accused who entered the room.
When her father moved towards her, Al Shatrugan Singh opened fire . B
at him with his pistol aiming it at his chest. Shyamdeo Singh on receipt
of the pistol shot fell down in the room and died. Ram Ekabal Singh A6
hurled a dagger below on the deceased. After committing the crime,
the accused party opened the entrance door and fled away. While they
were retreating, some villagers who were corning towards the house of c
the deceased on hearing the noise were also attacked and in the process
a gun shot injury was caused to Basant Sao PWl I. The villagers,
thereafter, made arrangements for a cot to carry Rajmani Devi PWI3
to the Police Station and while going to the Police Station, they stopped
at the house of the local Mukhiya, Ram Nandan Singh PW 8, who also
accompanied her to the Police Station Naubatpur. Basant Sao PW 11 D
was also brought to Naubatpur Police Station on a cot by his relations
and viIJagers. On
~ r·
the basis of the statement of Rajmani Devi PW13,
FIR Ex. 7 was drawn up at the Police Station Naubatpur and a case was
registered in the early hours of the morning of 13. 10.1977. Inve:;tiga-
tion was immediately taken up by Parmeshwar Parshad Singh PW 15 · E
and both the injured Rajmani Devi PW 13 and Basant Sao PW 1 i were
sent for treatment to Naubatpur Hosphal where their injuries. were
examined by Dr. Ramesh Kumar Rai PW14. Considering the serious
nature of the injuries of Basant Sao PWl 1, he was referred to Patna
Medical College Hospital. The investigating officer Parmeshwar
Prasad Singh PW15 visited' the place of occurrence and prepared the F
inquest report of the dead body of Shyamdeo Singh and sent the body
for post-mortem examination. During the investigation, the investigat-
ing officer PW15 seized blood stained earth from the place of
occurrence. An empty cartridge was produced before the investigating
offi~er by one Ram Rekha Singh. After Basant Sao PW 11 reached G
PMCH for treatment, infom1ation was sent by the doctor to the focal " ~·
oolice of Pirbahore Police Station. ASI Ram Lakhan Jha of Pirbahore
__... Police Station went to the hospital and ,recorded the statement of
BasantSao PWI 1, Ex. 12on 14.10.1~7Tatabout8 P.M., after Basant
Sao P.W I I had regained consciousrress. He sent the same to the officer- .. H
)'

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A in-charge of Naubatpur Police Station.

Mr. Udai Sinha, learned senior advocate, appearing for the
appellants submitted that the version of the occurrence given by Basant
Sao PWl 1 in his statement recorded at PMCH by Ram Lakhan Jha
DWI (Ex. 12) was materially different from the statement of Rajmani
8
Devi PWI3 recorded as FIR Ex. 7 at Police Station Naubatpur and r
gawc!; a lie to the prosecution case rendering the prosecution case
·~doubtful. Learned counsel submitted that t_he High Court erroneously
ignored the statement of Basant Sao PWI I holding it inadmissible in
evidence on the ground that it had been recorded after the investigation
~ in the instant case had started on the FIR being lodged by Rajmani Devi
PW 13. According to the learned counsel, statement of Basant Sao, Ex.
12 could not be said to have been recorded during the investigation of
the case and should not have been ruled out of consideration. We
cannot agree. In our opinion, the High Court was justified in ignoring
the statement of Basant Sao, Ex. 12, as it admittedly was recorded
D
during the investigation of the case registered on the basis of FIR Ex.
7 and had_ been sent to the investigating officer PW 15 by Ram Lakhan
Jha DWI. The state1nent was, therefore, hit by Section 162Cr. P.C. and
could not be read in evidence. Even if it be assumed for the sake of
argument, though without accepting it, that Ex. 12 was in the nature of
E an FIR lodged by Basant Sao PWI I, the same could not have been
brought on record as not only Basant Sao PWI 1 denied making any
such statement, he was not even confronted with the alJeged statement
Ex. 12 nor his signatures got proved on it. Ex. 12 could not, there fore,
be read at all in evidence. The trial court not only committed an error
F in bringing on record Ex. 12 and reading it in evidence but also going
furtlier and comparing it with FIR Ex. 7 lodged by Rajmani Devi and
finding discrepancies in the two documents.

Learned counsel then submitted that due to the admitted enmity
between the parties and the hostility of the Mukhiya of the Gram
G Panchayat, PW8towardsA1 and A2, it would not be safe to rely upon
the testimony of the prosecution witne~ses without looking for inde-
pendent corroboration and since none was forth coming in the case, the
convicti~n of th~ appellants was not justified.

.H In view of the hostile relations between the parties and the fact
. "--.
that all the accused are closely related to eac~ o~er and the prosecution
KAPILDEO SINGH v. STA TE OF BIHAR [ANAND J.) 7

witnesses are also closely related or connected with each other, we A
have scrutinised the evidence on the record with care.

Our independent and careful appraisal of the evidence on the
record has convinced us that the version given by the first informant,
PW13, about the occurrence in the first FIR Ex. 7, lodged almost
B

-- within three hours of the occurrence, is a truthful version of the manner
in which she had received the injuries as also how her father had been
shot at and as to who the assailants were. Rajmani Devi PW13, is the·
injured person and as such she would be the last person to spare her real
assailants or the assailants of her father and substitute the real
assailants by innocent persons. She was the first victim of the assault. C
Her statement in court corroborates FIR Ex. 7 and the medical
evidence and the testimony of other witnesses lends sufficient cor-
_4
roboration to her testimony. From the evidence on the record it is
established that Rajmani Devi PW 13 was sleeping along • with her child
in the same toom as her father, deceased Shyamdeo Singh, at the time D
of the occurrence. She knew all the appellants and she had enough time
to see them in the light of the burning lantern. It is the consistent case
of prosecution witnesses PW9, PWlO and PW12 that a lantern was
burning in the room and the mere fact that the investigating officer
failed to take the lantern into possession cannot render the testimony
of these witnesses doubtful. E

Rajmani Devi PW 13 attributed specific acts to Kapildeo Singh
Al and Rampriya Yadav A4 in so far as the injuries on her own person
were concerned and to Shatrugan Singh Al in so far as the fatal pistol
shot on her father was concerned. She, of course, deposed that _the other F
accused persons variously armed were also present at the time of.
occurrence.

Kunti Devi PWIO, the sister of Rajmani Devi PW13, stated that
after hearing the sound of gun shot she woke up and went into the room
where her sister was sleeping with the child. She then went on to say G
"I saw that the accused Kapildeo Singh, Shatru&an Singh and Awadesh
Singh were coming out from the room of my father. Besides these other
·-1., people were also there but I could not recognize them due to darkness.
----- '":> A l,antern was litti~g up in the room of my father. I had recognised the
aforesaid three accused persons in t;he lantern light". This witness, H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 3 S.C.R.

A therefore, recognized only Al, A2 and A3, though she knew all the
accused persons. Varat Devi PW 12, the sister-in-.law of the dec;eased,
Shyamdeo Singh, who was also present in the house on the night of the
occurrence and was sleeping in another roQm with Kunti PW 10 and the
wife of the deceased deposed that at mid flight she heard the shot of a
gun and as she got up and opened the door to go out, she saw some
B persons coming out from ShyarQdeo Singh's room. She went.on to say
that "out of them, I recognized Kapildeo Singh, Shatrugan Singh and
Awadesh Singh. All the three accused persons are present in the court".
f This witness also thus .recognized only three accused A 1, A2 and A4,
-
even though accordi.ng tlJ the prosecution case, all the accused were
c known to her.
Ram .Nandan Singh PW8, who according to the prosecution case,
being the Mukhiya of the village went to the police station, stated in his
examination that he had told the police that seven persons had their
D hand in the killing of the deceased but admi.tted in the cross-examina-
tion that before the police, he had named only two accused persons,
namely, Kapildeo Singh A2 and Shatrugan Singh A 1 as the as'sailants.

Rajeshwar Singh PW5, a neighbour of the deceased, who woke
up on hearing the firing of the gun and wentto the house of the deceased
E stated that he had seen the deceased Shyamdeo Singh lying and
Rajmar_ti Devi PW13 sitting near the dead body with injuries on her
breast and fingers and that on his inquiry from Rajmani Devi PWl 3 as
to what had happened was told by her that Kapildeo Singh had caused
her the injury by his gun and that Rampriya Yadav had cut her fingers
F with a grasa and that Shatrugan Singh had killed her father by the shot
--
of pistol. This witness has also, therefore, supported PW 13 about the
manner of assault and the nomination of the actual assailants.

From oo analysis of the evidence referred to above, it is clear that
· while Rajmani Devi PWl 3 had named all the seven accused, she had
G attributed specific acts smly.to Kapildeo Singh A2, Rampriya Yadav.
A4, and Shatrugan Singh A 1. Kun ti Devi PW 10 and Varat Devi PW 12,
on' thei~ own showing had" recognized only Kapildeo Singh A2,
· Shatrugan Singh Al and Awadesh Singh A~. They did not recognize
and other accused persons even though they were known to them. PW5
H also did not state that Rajmani Devi PW 13 had given to him the namei
KAPILDEO SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR [ANAND J.] 9

of any other accused, when he had reached her house· soon after the A
occurrence. In view of the admitted enmity betw,een the parties and the
I
close relationship of the witnesses inter-se and the close relationship
-i of the accused persons with one another, the possibility that alongwith
the actual assailants some other have also been implicated ~annot be
ruled out. Prudence therefore requires that this court should look for
corroboration of the testimony of PW13 in respect of each of the B
accused before finding them guilty. Since, the prosecution witnesses
referred to above knew each of the accused, the non-identification by
any one of them of AS. A6 and A 7 renders the presence of these
accused and their participation rather doubtful. It is not possible to say
with any amount of certainty that they were actually involved in the c
commission of crime with the other accused persons. Of course. PW 13
would not leave her own assailants or the assailants of her father, but
it is not unknown that in view of the pronounced hostility between the
parties, the close relations of Al, A2, A3 andA4, namely, accused AS.
A6 and A7 may have also been roped in.
D

Though PWlO and PW.12 did not recognize Rampriya Yadav A4
as one of the accused butthe pa'rticipation ofRampriya Yadav A4, who
according to Rajmani Devi PW13 had given her the blow with the
grasa chopping off her two fingers of the left hand, in our opinion has
been conclusively established. The presence ofAwadesh Singh A3, E
since deceased, is admitted by all the prosecution witnesses. The
testimony ofRajmani Devi PW13, is consistent about the participation
of Shatrugan Singh A 1 and Kapildep Singh A2 ·alongwith Rampriya
Yadav A4 in the crime. Inspite of lengthy cross-examination nothing
has been brought out to discredit her testimony in so far as either the F
occurrence or the actual assault on her and the deceased is concerned.
The ocular testimony regarding the participation of the accused in the
crirrie as well as the manner of assault and the nature of weapons used
by A 1, A2 and A4 for causing injuries has received ample corrobora-
tion from the medical evidence and the recovery of the blood stained
clothes and earth from the place of occurrence. The FIR lodged by the G
injured witnesses promptly also lends enough assurance as regards the
participation of Al, A2, A3 and A4 in the crime. We have, therefore,
no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has established the case
against Shatrugan Singh Al, Kapildeo Singh A2, Awadesh Singh A3
(since dead) and Rampriya Yadav A4, beyond any reasonable doubt. H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A This now takes us to the question of the nature of the offence
committed by the aforesaid four appellants. Since, we have doubted
the presence of A5, A6 and A 7 and their participation in the crime, they \
j
are entitled to the benefit of doubt and giving them the benefit of doubt,
we allow their appeal and setting aside their conviction and sentence
acquit them.
B
With the acquittal of A5, A6 and A 7, it is only the four appellants
A 1, A2, A3 and A4 against whom the prosecution can be said to nave
established it.<> case beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 148 IPC under
the circumstances would have no application. Similarly, Section 149
C . IPC would also not be attracted and A2, A3 and A4 cannot be convicted
under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC. From the prosecu-
tion evidence, however. it stands amply established that the three
appellants, Al, A2 and A4 alongwith A3 (since dead) had come
together armed with deadly weapons to the house of the deceased
D Shyamdeo Singh and while A I Shatrugan Singh had fired pistol shot
at Shyamdeo Singh resulting in his death, Kapildeo Singh A2 had fired
from his gun at Rajmani Devi PW13, causing her a serious injury on
her breast while Rampriya Yadav A4 had caused her grievous injuries
with a grasa resulting in the chopping off two of her fingers of the left
hand. The crime was committed in the presence of Awadesh Singh A3.
E Therefore, while A2, A3 and A4 cannot be convicted for the offence
under Section 302/149 IPC all of them can be said to have shared the
common intention, with Shatrugan Singh Al, for committing the
murder of Shyamdeo Singh deceased. The very fact of A I, A2, A3 and
A4 came together urmed with deadly weapons, at the night, to the
F house of the deceased and cause deadly injuries to the deceased and
· seriously wounded Rajmani Devi PW 13 and thereafter escaped
together would undoubtedly go to show that all of them shared the
common intention to murder Shyamdeo Singh. They are, therefore,
liable to be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC and learned
counsel was unable to point out any impediment in the way of
G convicting them with the aid of Section 34 IPC instead of Section 149
IPC.

The evidence on the record has established beyond any doubt that
Shatrugan Singh A 1 committed the murder of Shyamdeo Singh
H deceased by firing the pistol shot. He has, therefore, rightly been
KAPILDEO SINGH v, STA1E OF BIHAR [ANAND J.] 11

convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC and A
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. His conviction for the
offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the sentence of two years
R l. is also justified. We, maintain his conviction and sentence on both
counts. We, however, alter the conviction of, Kapildeo Singh A2,
Awadesh Singh A3 and Rampriya Yadav A4, for the offence under
Section 3021149 IPC to the one under Section 302/34 IPC and sentence B
A2 and A4 each to suffer imprisonment for life (A3 being already
dead). We maintain the conviction of Kapildeo Singh A2 for the
offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act as also the sentence of two
years RI. imposed on him for the said offence. His conviction and
sentence for an offence under Section 324 IPCas recorded by the High c
Court is also maintained. Rampriya Yadav A4 has also been convicted
for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to three years RI.
We maintain his conviction and sentence for the said offence. The
conviction of A 1, A2 and A4 for the offence under Section 148 is,
however, set aside. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on A I, A2
D
and A4 on different counts shall, however, run concurrently.

As a result of the above discussion, the appeal ofBrij Bihari Singh
A5, Ram Ekbal Singh A6 and Suresh Singh A 7 is accepted and
.
allowed. Their conviction and sentence, as recorded by the High Court,
~

are set aside. They are given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. E
They are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

The appeal of A 1. A2 and A4 except to the extent of the
modification of the judgment under appeal, as indicated above, is
dismissed. All the three appellants Shatrugan Singh A I, Kapildeo F
Singh A2 and Rampriya Yadav A4 are on bail. Their bail bonds shall
stand cancelled. They shall be taken into custody to undergo the
remaining period of their sentence.

G.N. Appeal partly allowed.