SELVAMversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                         [2012) 9 S.C.R. 628


A                              SELVAM
                                   v.
     THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF
                           POLICE
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1857 of 2009 etc.
B                        OCTOBER 16, 2012

         [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

         PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
         ss. 304 (Part-I) read with s.34 - Injuries on the head of
    victim by blunt side of 'aruval' and stick - Death of victim in
    hospital after 9 days - Held: The fact that the blunt side of the
    'aruval' and a stick were used in the assault on the deceased
    would go to show that the accused did not have any intention
0
    to cause his death - Nonetheless, the injuries caused by the
    accused were all on the head of the deceased including the
    parietal and temporal regions - Accused, thus, had the
    intention of causing bodily injury as was likely to cause death
E   and were liable to punishment for culpable homicide not
    amounting to murder uls 304 (Part I) - After considering the
    oral and medical evidence and the fact that the deceased died
    after nine days of the assault, the conviction and sentence of
    the appellants u/s 302 is modified and instead they are
    convicted uls 304 (Part-I) read with s. 34 and sentenced to
F   rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

        ss. 33 and 34 - Explained.

         The appellants-accused nos. 1, 6, and 7 (A-1, A-6, A-
G   7) along others were prosecuted for committing the
    murder of one 'Ch' (son of PW 2) and causing injuries to
    others. The prosecution case was that there was a land
    dispute between the families of the complainant-PW1 and
    A-1. On 15.11.2006, when the family of A-1 wanted to take
H                                628
   SELVAM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY              629
           INSPECTOR OF POLICE
a burial procession through the house street of the A
complainant family, the latter resisted it with the help of
the village head and others; that on 16.11.2006, at about
15:00 Hrs., A-1 and his brothers A-2 to A-7 and others
came to the family house of the complainant and attacked
its inmates causing injuries to 'Ch' and others. 'Ch' was B
taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries
on 25.11.2006. The trial court convicted A-1 u/s 302 IPC,
A-6 and A-7 u/s 302 read with s. 34 IPC and A-4 u/s 324
IPC. The High Court declined to interfere.

    In the instant appeals filed by A-1, A-6 and A-7, it was C
contended for the appellants that keeping in view the FIR,
there was improvement in the statements of P Ws 1 and
2 before the court as regards the role attributed to A-7 and
the nature of injuries stated to have been caused by A-1
and A-6; the victim died in the hospital after several days D
of the incident; and there being inconsistency in the
ocular evidence and the medical evidence, it was a case
where ocular evidence could not be believed.

    Allowing the appeal in part, the Court                  E

     HELD: 1. The difference in the version in the FIR and
the version in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is not very
material so as to create a reasonable doubt with regard
to the participation of A-1, A-6 and A-7 in the assault on F
the deceased. In the FIR, it has been alleged that A-1 and
A-6 delivered a cut on the deceased. PW-1, in his
evidence, has stated that A-1 had delivered a cut on the
centre of the head of the deceased and A-6 delivered a
cut on the head of the deceased. Similarly, PW-2 has G
stated that A-1 delivered cut on the centre of the head of
the deceased and A-6 snatched the 'aruval' from A-1 and
delivered a cut on the centre of the head of the deceased.
The FIR and the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 are, thus,
clear that A-1 and A-6 delivered cut injuries on the H
    630      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A deceased. Regarding the participation of the A-7 in the
  assault, in the FIR it is alleged that he assaulted on 'us'
  with a stick. Ttie evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is that A-7
  assaulted on the left side of the head of the deceased with
  a stick. The word 'us' in the FIR cannot mean to exclude
B the deceased inasmuch as the deceased was the brother
  of PW-1 and was the son of PW-2. There is evidence to
  show that besides the deceased, PW-1 and PW-2 were
  also injured and were treated at the hospital. A-7 has,
  thus, used the stick not just against PW-1 and PW-2, but
C also against the deceased. Therefore, there is no material
  difference between the version in FIR and in the evidence
  of PW-1 and PW-2 on the role of A-7 in the assault. [para
  10] [637-G-H; 638-A-E] .

0        2. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 establishes
    beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 used the aruval to
    strike at the head of the deceased. From the evidence of
    PW-1 and PW-2, it is also established beyond reasonable
    doubt that A-6 snatched the aruval from A-1 and struck
E   on the head of the deceased. The evidence of PW-1 and
    PW-2 also establishes that A-7 struck at the head of the
    deceased by a stick. The result of all these acts of
    accused nos.1, 6 and 7 is the death of the deceased.
    Section 34, IPC, states that when a criminal act is done
F   by several persons in furtherance of the common
    intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act
    in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
    Section 33, IPC, states that the word "act" denotes as well
    a series of acts as a single act. Thus, even though A-1,
G   A-6 and A-7 may have committed different acts, they have
    cumulatively committed the criminal act which has
    resulted in the death of the deceased and are liable for
    the criminal act by virtue of s. 34, IPC. Therefore, it cannot
    be said that A-7 was not liable for the same punishment
H   as A-1 and A-6. [para 11] [638-E-H; 639-A-B]
    SELVAM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY              631
            INSPECTOR OF POLICE
     3.1 The medical evidence of the doctor (PW-11) is A
clear that all the injuries of the deceased were most
probably as a result of an assault by a blunt weapon and
the deceased appears to have died due to head injuries.
PW-11 has also admitted in her cross-examination that
she did not see any incised injuries during the post B
mortem examination and had a sickle been used it would
have caused incised wounds. Thus, it appears that A-1
and A-6 had used not the sharp side but the blunt side
of the aruval and A-7 had used the stick in the assault on
the deceased. The fact that the blunt side of the aruval C
and a stick were used in the assault on the deceased
would go to show that A-1, A-6 and A-7 did not have any
intention to cause his death. Nonetheless, the injuries
caused by the accused A-1, A-6 and A-7 were all on the
head of the deceased, including the parietal and temporal D
regions. A-1, A-6 and A-7, thus, had the intention of
causing. bodily injury as was likely to cause death and
were, thus, liable to punishment for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder u/s 304 (Part I), IPC. [para 12) [639-
C-F]                                                       E

   State of Punjab v. Tejinder Singh & Anr. 1995 (2) Suppl.
SCR 856 =1995 (3) Suppl. SCC 515 - relied on

     3.2 In the instant case, the assault on the deceased
                                                              F
was on 16.11.2006 and the deceased died in the hospital
after nine days on 25.11.2006. In Abani K. Debnath's case
this Court, after considering the nature of the injuries as
well as the fact that the deceased succumbed to the
injury after a lapse of seven days, took the view that the
conviction of the accused in that case cannot fall u/s 302,   G
IPC. [para 14) [640-D-E]
    Abani K. Debnath and Another v. State of Tripura (2005)
13 sec 422 - relied on
                                                              H
    632      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A      3.3 After considering the evidence of PW-1 and PW-
  2, the medical evidence of PW-11 and the fact that the
  deceased died after nine days of the assault, this Court
  is of the considered opinion that the trial court and the
  High Court were not right in convicting the appellants u/
B s 302 and they should have been convicted instead u/s
  304 (Part-I) read with s.34. Accordingly, the conviction
  and sentence on the appellants u/s 302 is modified and
  instead they are convicted u/s 304 (Part-I) read with s. 34
  and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
C [para 15) [640-E-G]

          Kalyan and Others v. State of U.P. 2007 (5) SCR 1053
    = 2001 (9) sec 513 = (2001) 9 sec 632 2001 (3) suppl.
               =
  SCR 407 2001 (9) SCC 632; B.N. Kavatakar and Another
D v. State of Kamataka 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 304 - cited
                         Case Law Reference:
          2007 (5) SCR 1053              cited        para 5
          2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 407        cited        para 5
E
          1994 Supp.(1) sec 304          cited        para 6
          (2005) 13 sec 422              relied on    para 6
          1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 856        relied on    para 13
F
        CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1857 of 2009.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 12.12.2008 of the
  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. A. (MD) Nos. 200
G & 201 of 2008.
                                  WITH
    Criminal Appeal Nos. 1667-1668 of 2012.

          S.B. Sanyal, S. Mahendran, K.K. Mani, Abhishek Krishna
H
     SELVAM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY              633
             INSPECTOR OF POLICE
for the Appellant.                                             A

     B. Balaji, M. Anbalagan for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.    B
575-576 of 2010.Page 2

    2. These Criminal Appeals are against the judgment dated
12.12.2008 of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in
Criminal Appeal Nos.200-201 of 2008.
                                                               c
     3. The facts very briefly are that on 16.11.2006 at 21 :00
Hrs. a First. Information Report (for short 'FIR') was lodged in
Ganesh Nagar Police Station pursuant to a statement of
Meyyappan recorded by the Sublnspector of Police. In this FIR,
it is stated thus: Mayyappan lived at the Thethampatti, D
Thiruvarangulam, alongwith his family and that there was a
dispute pending between his family and the family of Arangan
over land. On 15.11.2006 at 11.00 a.m. Mariappan, who
belongs to the family of Arangan, died and the family of Arangan
wanted to take the burial procession through house street of E
Meyyappan and his family members but Meyyappan's younger
brother Chinnadurai and his father Rengaiah appealed to the
important persons of the village saying that there was a
separate public pathway for taking the dead body to the
cremation ground and the village head and other villagers F
accordingly requested the members of the family of Arangan
to carry the dead body of Mariappan through that public
pathway. On 16.11.2006 at about 15:00 Hrs. Arangan and his
brothers, Meyyappan, Murugan, Subbaiah, Chidambaram,
Senthil, Selvam and others, armed with aruvals and sticks came G
to the family house of Meyyappan and asked his family
members to come out and thereafter Arangan and Senthil
delivered a cut on Chinnadurai and Selvam and others
assaulted them with sticks and Chinnadurai was first taken to
the government hospital and thereafter to the Thanjavur Medical H
    634       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 9 S.C.R.


A   College Hospital for treatment.

           4. On the basis of this statement of Meyyappan, Ganesh
      Nagar Police Station Crime No. 795/06 under Sections 147,
      148, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
     short 'the IPC') was registered. Chinnadurai died at the hospital
9
     on 25.11.2006. Investigation was conducted and a charge-
     sheet was filed. Charges were framed against Arangan
     (accused no.1) under Sections 148 and 302 of the IPC, against
     Meyyappan (accused no.2) under Sections 148 and 307 of the
     IPC, against Subbaiah (accused no.3) under Sections 147 and
C    307 of the IPC, against Chidambaram (accused no.4) under
     Sections 148 and 326 of the IPC, against Murugan (accused
     no.5) under Sections 148 and 326 of the IPC, against Senthil
     (accused no.6) under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section
     34 of the IPC, against Selvam (accused no.7) under Secti~n
D    147, 302 read with Section 34 and Section 325 of the IPC,
     against Thilak (accused no.8) under Sections 147 and 325 of
     the IPC and against Marthandam (accused no.9) under
     Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The
     Trial Court convicted accused no.1 under Section 302 of the
E    IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to
     pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to further undergo rigorous
     imprisonment for a period of six months. The Trial Court also
     convicted accused nos. 6 and 7 under Section 302 read with
     Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo life
F   imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to
    further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
    months. The Trial Court convicted the accused no.4 under
    Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
    imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of
G   Rs.1000/- and in default, to further undergo rigorous
    imprisonment for a period of two months. Accused nos. 1, 4
    and 6 filed Criminal Appeal no. 200 of 2008 and accused no. 7
    filed Criminal Appeal no. 201 of 2008 before the High Court
    against their conviction and sentences, but by the impugned
H   judgment the High Court· sustained the conviction and the
    SELVAM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY                   635
     INSPECTOR OF POLICE [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
sentences. Accused no.7 has filed Criminal Appeal no. 1857 A
of 2009 and accused nos. 1 and 6 have filed the other Criminal
Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 575-576 of 2010.

     5. Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for
the accused No.7, submitted that in the FIR it is alleged by the    8
informant that the accused No.7 had assaulted persons other
than Chinnadurai with stick. He submitted that the informant was
examined before the Trial Court as PW-1 and he has given an
entirely different version in his evidence and has said that the
accused no. 7 assaulted on the left side of the head of             C
Chinnadurai. He further submitted that the father of Chinnadurai,
namely, Rengaiah, has also been examined before the Trial
Court as PW-2 and he has deposed that the accused no.7
assaulted on the left side of the head of Chinnadurai with stick.
He submitted that PW-1 and PW-2 have improved upon the
role of the accused No. 7 in the assault on the deceased after      D
coming to know of the opinion of the doctor in the post mortem
report about the injuries on the deceased. He argued that
where there is such variance between the version in the FIR and
the version of PW-1 and PW-2 before the Court with regard to
the exact role of the accused no.7 in the assault on the            E
deceased, the accused No. 7 cannot be convicted under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He cited Anil
Prakash Shukla v. Arvind Shukla [(2007) 9 SCC 513] in which
this Court has taken a view that where the witnesses have
improved their version given in the FIR after coming to know of     F
the medical report, benefit of doubt must be given to the
accused. He also relied on Kalyan and Others v. State of U.P.
[(2001) 9 sec 632] where benefit of doubt has been given to
the accused on account of variance between the FIR and the
deposition made in the court.                                       G

     6. Mr. Sanyal next submitted that PW-11, who conducted
the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased, is clear in
his opinion that the injury on the head of the deceased was a
'contusion' and medical dictionary by P.H. Collin describes         H
    636      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A    'contusion' as a bruise, a dark painful area on the skin, where
     blood has escaped into the tissues, but not through the skin,
    following a blow. He submitted that PW-11 has also stated in
     her crossexamination that she did not see any incised
     injuryduring the examination of the dead body. He submitted
B   that as a matter of fact the deceased died in the hospital after
    several days of the incident. According to Mr. Sanyal, this was
    therefore not a case where accused no. 7 could be said to have
    any intent to cause the death of the deceased and therefore
    he was not guilty of the offence of murder under Section 302
c   of the IPC. In support of this submission, he relied on B.N.
    Kavatakar and Another v. State of Kamataka [1994 Supp.(1)
    SCC 304] in which this Court has held after considering the
    opinion of the medical officer and after considering the fact that
    the deceased died after five days of the occurrence that the
    offence would be punishable under Section 326 read with
0
    Section. 34 of the IPC. He also cited Abani K. Debnath and
    Another v. State of Tripura [(2005) 13 SCC 422] where the
    deceased succumbed to injuries after lapse of seven days of
    the occurrence and this Court has converted the sentence as
E   against accused no.1 from one under Section 302, IPC to one
    under Section 304 Part-II, IPC, and sentenced him to suffer
    rigorous imprisonment for five years.

         7. Mr. Sanyal finally submitted that the High Court has in
    the impugned judgment treated the case of the accused no.7
F   in parity·Wfth accused nos. 1 and 6, but the facts of the case
    clearly establish that the role of the accused no. 7 was different
    from that of accused nos. 1 and 6 in the occurrence and the
    accused no.7 should have been awarded lesser punishment
    than accused Nos. 1 and 6.
G
          8. Mr. K. K. Mani, learned counsel appearing for the
    accused nos. 1 and 6 in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P.
    (Crl.) Nos.575-576 of 2010, adopted the arguments of Mr.
    Sanyal. He further submitted that both PW-1 and PW-2 had
    deposed that accused no.1 and accused no.6 had given cut
H   injuries on the deceased by aruval, but the medical evidence
    SELVAM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY                637
     INSPECTOR OF POLICE [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
of PW-11 is clear that a blunt weapon had been used in           A
assaulting the deceased. He submitted that this is, therefore,
a case where the ocular evidence cannot be believed because
of its inconsistency with the medical evidence.

     9. Mr. B. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the State, 8
in reply, submitted that PW-1 and PW-2 are injured
eyewitnesses anC:I cannot be disbelieved by the Court. He
submitted that the contention of learned counsel for the
appellants that the version given by PW-1 in the FIR and the
version given before the Court are at variance is misconceived. C
He argued that in the FIR, PW-1 has stated that accused no.7
and others assaulted 'us' with stick and by the word 'us', PW-
1 meant not only himself but also the deceased. He submitted
that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly establish that
accused nos.1, 6 and 7 delivered the injuries on the head of
the deceased, on account of which he fell unconscious and D
ultimately died. He submitted that the presence of accused
nos.1, 6 and 7 at the spot and their role in assaulting the
deceased are not in doubt and they are all liable for the offence
under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. He finally
submitted that this is not a fit case in which this Court should E
interfere with the concurrent findings of facts of the Trial Court
and the High Court.

     10. We have considered the submissions of learned.
counsel for the parties and we find that the difference in the F
version in the FIR and the version in the evidence of PW-1 and
PW-2 is not very material so as to create a reasonable doubt
with regard to the participation of accused nos.1, 6 and 7 in
the assault on the deceased. In the FIR, it has been alleged that
the accused nos.1 and 6 delivered a cut on the deceased. In G
his evidence, PW-1 has stated that accused no.1 had delivered
a cut on the centre of the head of the deceased and accused
no.6 delivered a cut on the head of the deceased. Similarly, in
his evidence PW-2 has stated that accused no.1 delivered a
cut on the centre of the head of the deceased and accused no.6 H
    638      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A   snatched the aruval from accuse9 no.1 and delivered a cut on
    the centre of the head of the deceased. The FIR and the
    evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 are, thus, clear that accused no.1
    and accused no.6 delivered a cut injuries on the deceased.
    Regarding the participation of the accused no.7 in the assault,
B   in the FIR it is alleged that accused no.7 assaulted on 'us' with
    a stick. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is that accused no.7
    assaulted on the left side of the head of the deceased with a
    stick. The word 'us' in the FIR cannot mean to exclude the
    deceased inasmuch as the deceased was the brother of PW-
C   1 and was the son of PW-2. There is evidence to show that
    besides the deceased, PW-1 and PW-2 were also injured and
    were treated at the hospital. Hence, accused no. 7 has used the
    stick not just against PW-1 and PW-2, but also against the
    deceased. We, therefore, do not find any material difference
0   between the version in FIR and in the evidence of PW-1 and
    PW-2 on the role of accused No.7 in the assault.

          11. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, in our opinion,
    establishes beyond reasonable doubt that accused no.1 useri
    the aruval to strike at the head of the deceased. From the
E   evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, it is also established beyond
    reasonable doubt that accused no.6 snatched the aruval from
    accused no.1 and struck on the head of the deceased. The
    evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 also establish that accused no.7
    struck the head of the deceased by a stick. The result of all
F   these acts of accused nos.1, 6 and 7 is the death of the
    deceased. Section 34, IPC, states that when a criminal act is
    done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention
    of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same
    manner as if it were done by him alone. Section 33, IPC, states
G   that the word "act" denotes as well a series of acts as a single
    act. Thus, even though accused nos.1, 6 and 7 may have
    committed different acts, they have cumulatively committed the
    criminal act which has resulted in the death of the deceased
    and are liable for the criminal act by virtue of Section 34, IPC.
H   We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission that
    SELVAM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY                    639
     INSPECTOR OF POLICE [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
accused No.7 was not liable for the same punishment as               A
accused Nos. 1 and 6.

      12. The next question which we have to decide is whether
the criminal act committed by accused nos.1, 6 and 7 amounts
to murder under Section 300, IPC, or some other offence. The
                                                                    8
medical evidence of PW-11 is clear that all the injuries of the
deceased were most probably as a result of an assault by a
blunt weapon and in the opinion of PW-11, the deceased
appears to have died due to head injuries. PW-11 has also
admitted in her cross-examination that she did not see any
incised injuries during the post mortem examination and had C
a sickle been used it would have caused incised wounds. Thus,
 it appears that accused no.1 and accused no.6 had used not
the sharp side but the blunt side of the aruval and accused no.7
 had used the stick in the assault on the deceased. The fact that
the blunt side of the aruval and a stick was used in the assault D
 on the deceased would go to show that accused nos.1, 6 and
 7 did not have any intention to cause the death of the deceased.
 Nonetheless, the injuries caused by accused nos.1, 6 and 7
 were all on the head of the deceased, including his parietal and
 temporal regions. Accused nos.1, 6 and 7, thus, had the E
 intention of causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death and
 were liable for punishment for culpable homicide not amounting
 to murder under Section 304 Part I, IPC.

    13. On similar facts, where injuries were caused by a blunt      F
weapon, this Court in State of Punjab v. Tejinder Singh & Anr.
[1995 Supp (3) SCC 515] held in para 8:

     "8. In view of our above findings we have now to ascertain
     whether for their such acts A-1 and A-2 are liable to be
     convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It        G
     appears from the evidence of PW 4 and PW 5 that the
     deceased was assaulted both with the sharp edge and
     blunt edge of the gandasas and the nature of injuries also
     so indicates. If really the appellants had intended to commit
     murder, they would not have certainly used the blunt edge       H
     640       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A          when the task could have been expedited and assured with
           the sharp edge. Then again we find that except one injury
           on the head, all other injuries were on nonvital parts of the
           body. Post-mortem report further shows that even the injury
           on the head was only muscle-deep. Taking these facts into
B          consideration we are of the opinion that the offence
           committed by the appellants is one under Section 304
           (Part I) IPC and not under Section 302 IPC."

        14. In this case, the assault on the deceased was on
C 16.11.2006 and the deceased died in the hospital after nine
  days on 25.11. 2006. In Abani K. Debnath and Another v. State
  of Tripura (s~pra) this Court, after considering the nature of the
  injuries as well as the fact that the deceased succumbed to the
  injury after a lapse of seven days, took the view that the
  conviction of the accused in that case cannot fall under Section
D 302, IPC.

         15. After considering the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the
   medical evidence of PW-1 and the fact that the deceased died
   after nine days of the assault, we are of the considered opinion
E that the Trial Court and the High Court were not right in
  convicting the appellants under Section 302, IPC, and the
  appellants should have been convicted instead under Section
  304 Part-I read with· Section 34, IPC. We accordingly allow
  these appeals in part, modify only the conviction and sentence
F on the appellants under Section 302, IPC, and instead order
  that the appellants (namely, accused nos.1, 6 and 7) are
  convicted under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34, IPC,
  and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The
  fine amount imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High
G Court is affirmed.

    R.P.                                     Appeals partly allowed.