http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: KAPILDEO SINGH AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE  OF  BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/04/1993

BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) SINGH N.P. (J)

CITATION:  1993 SCR  (3)   1        1993 SCC  Supl.  (3) 372  JT 1993 (2)   646        1993 SCALE  (2)500

ACT: Indian Penal Code.  1860: Sections 34, 148, 149, 302, 324 and 326-Murder- and  causing grievous   injury-Common   intention-Proof    of--Conviction altered  to one u/s. 302 r/ws 34-Benefit of  doubt-Acquittal of certain accused.

HEADNOTE: The  appellants  were charged with offences  under  Sections 302/ 149, 148,324 and 326 IPC-for causing the murder of  one IS’  and for causing grievous Injury to one ‘R’.  The  Trial Court  acquitted  them.  On appeal by the  State,  the  High Court  reversed  the order of acquittal.. Aggrieved  by  the High Court’s judgment, the appellants preferred the  present appeal. It  was  contended  on behalf of  the  appellants  that  the version  of the occurrence given by PW II in  his  statement recorded  viz.  Ex.  P12 was materially different  from  the statement of PW 13 recorded as FIR (Ex.7) and gave a lie  to the   prosecution  case  rendering  the   prosecution   case doubtful;  that  the  High  Court  erroneously  ignored  the statement  of PW 11 holding it inadmissible in  evidence  on the   ground   that  it  had  been   recorded   during   the investigation;  and that due to the admitted enmity  between the  parties  and the hostility of the Mukhiya of  the  Gram Panchayat  towards Al and A2, it would not be safe  to  rely upon  the  testimony of the  prosecution  witnesses  without looking for independent corroboration and in the absence  of which the conviction of the appellants was not justified. Partly allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD:     1.  In  view of the admitted  enmity  between  the parties and the close relationship of the witnesses inter-se and  the close relationship of the accused persons with  one another, the possibility that 2 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 accused  before finding them guilty.  Since, the prosecution witnesses  knew each  of the accused, the non-identification by any one   of them of A5, A6 and A7 renders the presence of these  accused

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

and their participation rather doubtful.  It is not possible to say with any amount of certainty that they were  actually involved in the commission 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 the parties,  the close relations of Al, A2, A3 and A4,  namely, accused A5, A6 and A7 may have also been roped in (8-H, 9-A- C). 2. Though PW 10 and PW 12 did not recognize A4 as one of the accused but the participation of A4, who according to PW  13 had  given her the blow with the grass chopping off her  two ringers of the left hand, has been conclusively established. The  presence of A3, since deceased, is admitted by all  the prosecution   witnesses.   The  testimony  of  PW   13,   is consistent  a bout the participation of Al and A2  alongwith A4  in  the crime.  Inspite of  long  thy  cross-examination nothing  has been brought out to discredit her testimony  in so far as either the occurrence 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 manner of assault and the nature of weapons used by  A 1, A2 and A4 for causing injuries has  received  ample corroboration from the medical evidence and the recovery  of the blood stained   clothes  and  earth from  the  place  of occurrence.    The  FIR  lodged  promptly  by  the   injured witnesses  also  lends  enough  assurance  as  regards   the participation of A 1, 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) 3.  Since,  the  presence  of  A5,  A6  and  A7  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  said to have established its case beyond  reasonable doubt Section 148 IPC under the circumstances would have  no application.  Similarly, 3 Section  149 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 prosecution 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 and while A I  had  fired pistol shot at the deceased resulting  in  his death,  A2  had fired from his gun at PW 13  causing  her  a serious  injury  on  her  breast while  A4  had  caused  her grievous injuries with a grass resulting in the chopping off two of her fingerson the left hand.  The crime was committed in  the  presence  of A3.  Therefore, while A2,  A3  and  A4 cannot  he convicted for the offence under  Section  302/149 IPC  all  of  them can be said to  have  shared  the  common intention  with  A  1  for  committing  the  murder  of  the deceased.   The  very  fact that A 1, 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 aid of section 34 IPC. (9-H, 10-A-F) 5.   The evidence on record has established beyond any doubt that A 1  committed the murder of the deceased by firing the pistol shot. He has,     therefore,  rightly been  convicted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

by the High Court for the 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 conviction  and  sentence  on  both  counts  is  maintained. However,  the conviction of A2, A3. and A4, for the  offence under  section  302/149  IPC is 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   of imprisonment  imposed on A 1, A2 and A4 on different  counts shall, however, run concurrently. (10-H, 11-A-C) 4

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 540  of 1985. From  the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.85 & 22.5.85 of  the Patna High Court in Govt.  Appeal No. 28 of 1979. Udai Narain Sinha and M.P. Jha for the Appellants. D. Goburdhan for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ANAND, J. This appeal under Section 2(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, 1985 in Government  Appeal No.  28 of 1979, convicting and sentencing  the  appellants, Shatrugan  Singh (Al), Kapildeo Singh (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 and 326 IPC, by reversing  an  order  of acquittal  recorded  by the Additional  Sessions  Judge  VI, Patna dated 28th April 1979. While  Al and A2 are brothers, A3 is the son of A2, A4 is  a ploughman  of  A 1. A5 is the son-in-law of A2,  A6  is  the brother-in-law of A3 and A7 is the son of A6. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased  Shyamdeo Singh  was on enimical terms with A1 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 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  A5 armed with pistols, A2 armed with a gun, A4  and  A7 armed  with a grasa each and A6 armed with a dagger  present there As soon as she opened the door 5 Kapildeo  Singh  A2  fired from his gun at  her  causing  an injury to her person.  Rampriya Yadav A4 hurled a grasa blow 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,  Shyaindeo Singh, for which purpose they had come there.  Rajmani  Devi PW 1 3 was pushed aside by the accused who entered the room. When her father moved towards her, A1 Shatrugan Singh opened fire  at  him  with  his pistol  aiming  it  at  his  chest.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

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 coming towards the  house  of the deceased on hearing the noise  were  also attacked and in the process a gun shot injury was caused  to Basant   Sao  PW  II.   The  villagers,   thereafter,   made arrangements  for a cot to carry Rajmani Devi PW 1 3 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 was also brought to  Naubatpur Police Station on a cot by his relations and villagers.   On 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. Investigation was immediately taken up by Pameshwar  Parshad Singh  PW  15 and both the injured Rajmani Devi  PW  13  and Basant  Sao  PW  11 were sent  for  treatment  to  Naubatpur Hospital  where their injuries, were examined by Dr.  Ramesh Kumar  Ran  PW14.   Considering the serious  nature  of  the injuries  of  Basant  Sao PW II, he was  referred  to  Patna Medical   College   Hospital’  The   investigating   officer Parmeshwar   Prasad  Singh  PW  15  visited  the  place   of occurrence and prepared the inquest report of the dead  body of   Shyamdeo  Singh  and  sent  the   body   forpost-mortem examination.   During the investigation,  the  investigating officer PW 1.5 seized blood stained earth from the place  of occurrence.   An  empty cartridge was  produced  before  the investigating officer by one Ram Rekha Singh.  After  Basant Sao PW11 reached PMCH for treatment, information was sent by the doctor to the local police of Pirbahore Police  Station. ASI  Ram Lakhan Jha of Pirbahore Police Station went to  the hospital and recorded the statement of Basant Sao PW 11, Ex. 12 on 14.10.1977 at about 8 P.M., after Basant Sao PWI 1 had regained consciousness.  He sent the same to the officer- 6 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 PW 11 in his statement recorded at  PMCH by Ram Lakhan Jha DW1 (Ex. 12) was materially different from the  statement of Rajmani Devi PW 1 3 recorded as FIR Ex.  7 at   Police  Station  Naubatpur  and  gave  a  lie  to   the prosecution  case rendering the prosecution case   doubtful. Learned  counsel submitted that the High  Court  erroneously ignored  the  statement  of  Basant Sao  PW  11  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  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 DW 1. The statement was, therefore,  hit  by Section  162Cr.   P.C. and could not be  read  in  evidence. Even if be assumed for the sake of argument, though  without accepting it, that Ex. 12 was in the nature of an FIR lodged by Basant Sao PWI 1, the same could not have been brought on record  as not only Basant Sao PW11 denied making  any  such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

statement,  he  was  not even confronted  with  the  alleged statement  Ex. 12 nor his signatures got proved on it.   Ex. 12  could not, therefore, be read at all in  evidence.   The trial  court  not  only committed an error  in  bringing  on record  Ex.  12 and reading it in evidence  but  also  going further  and comparing it with FIR Ex. 7 lodged by  Rajamani 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 Panchayat, PW8 towards A1 and A2, it would  not be  safe  to  rely upon the  testimony  of  the  prosecution witnesses without looking for independent corroboration  and since  none was forth coming in the case, the conviction  of the appellants was not justified. In view of the hostile relations between the parties and the fact that all the accused are closely related to each  other and the prosecution 7 witnesses  are also closely related or connected  with  each other,  we 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 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  PW  13,  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.  Her statement in court corroborates  FIR  Ex. 7 and the medical  evidence  and  the testimony of other witnesses lends sufficient  corroboration to  her  testimony.  From the evidence on the record  it  is established that Rajmani Devi PWI 3 was sleeping along  with her child in the same room as her father, deceased  Shyamdeo Singh,  at  the time 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, PW 1 0 and PW 1 2 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. Rajmani Devi PW13 attributed specific acts to Kapildeo Singh A  1 and Rampriya Yadav A4 in so far as the injuries on  her own  person were concerned and to Shatrugan Singh A1  in  so far  as the fatal pistol shot on her father  was  concerned. She,  of  course,  deposed that the  other  accused  persons variously armed were also present at the time of occurrence. Kunti  Devi PW10, the sister of Rajmani Devi PWI  3,  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 " I saw that  the  accused Kapildeo  Singh,  Shatrugan  Singh and  Awadesh  Singh  were coming out from the room of my father.  Besides these  other people were also there but I could not recognize them due to darkness.   A  lantern  was hitting up in  the  room  of  my father.   I  had  recognised  the  aforesaid  three  accused persons in the lantern light".  This witness, 8 therefore,  recognized only Al, A2 and A3. though  she  knew all the accused persons.  Varat Devi PW 1 2, the  sister-in- law of the deceased, Shyamdeo Singh, who was also present in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

the house on the night of the occurrence and was sleeping in another room with Kunti PW 1 0 and the wife of the  deceased deposed that at mid night she heard the shot of a gun and as she  got  up  and opened the door to go out,  she  saw  some persons coming out from Shyamdeo 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".  This witness also  thus recognized  only  three accused Al, A2 and A4,  even  though according  to  the prosecution case, all  the  accused  were 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 hand in the killing of the  deceased but  admitted  in  the  cross-examination  that  before  the police,  he  had  named only two  accused  persons,  namely, Kapildeo Singh A2 and Shatrugan Singh A1 as the assailants. Rajeshwar  Singh PW5, a neighbour of the deceased, who  woke up on hearing the firing of the gun and went to the house of the  deceased stated that he had seen the deceased  Shyamdeo Singh lying an Rajmani Devi PWI3 sitting near the dead  body with  injuries  on her breast and fingers and  that  on  his inquiry from Rajmani Devi PW 1 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 with  a grasa and that Shatrugan Singh had killed her father by  the shot of pistol.  This witness has also, therefore, supported PW13  about the manner of assault and the nomination of  the actual assailants. From  an analysis of the evidence referred to above,  it  is clear that while Rajmani Devi PW 1 3 had named all the seven accused,  she had attributed specific acts only.to  Kapildeo Singh  A2, Rampriya Yadav A4 and Shatrugan Singh A 1.  Kunti Devi PW10 and Varat Devi PW 12, on I their own showing  had" recognized  only Kapildeo Singh A2, Shatrugan Singh  Al  and Awadesh Singh Al.  They did not recognize and other  accused persons  even though they were known to them.  PW5 also  did not state that Rajmani Devi PW13 had given to him the names 9 of  any  other accused, when he had reached her  house  soon after  the  occurrence.   In view of  the  admitted  enmity- between  the  parties  and the  close  relationship  of  the witnesses inter-se and the close relationship of the accused persons with one another, the possibility that alongwith the actual  assailants  some  other have  also  been  implicated cannot be ruled out.  Prudence therefore requires that  this court should look for corroboration of the testimony of PWI3 in  respect  of  each of the  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  A5, A6 and A7 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 commission of crime with the  other accused persons.  Of course, PW 1 3 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 A 1, A2, A3 and A4,  namely, accused A5, A6 and A7 may have also been roped in. Though PW 1 0 and PW 12 did not recognize Rampriya Yadav  A4 as  one  of the accused but the  participation  of  Rampriya Yadav  A4, who according to Rajmani Devi PWI3 had given  her the blow with the grasa chopping off her two fingers of  the left hand, in our opinion has been conclusively established.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

The  presence  of  Awadesh  Singh  A3,  since  deceased,  is admitted by all the prosecution witnesses.  The testimony of Rajmani  Devi PW 1 3, is consistent about the  participation of  Shatrugan  Singh  Al and  Kapildeo  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 occurrence 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 manner of assault and the  nature  of weapons  used  by  A1, A2 and A4 for  causing  injuries  has received  ample corroboration from the medical evidence  and the recovery of the blood stained clothes and earth from the place  of  occurrence.   The  FIR  lodged  by  the   injured witnesses  promptly also lends enough assurance  as  regards the  participation of A 1, A2, A3 and A4 in the  crime.   We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the  prosecution has  established  the  case  against  Shatrugan  Singh   A1, Kapildeo  Singh  A2,  Awadesh  Singh  A3  (since  dead)  and Rampriya Yadav A4, beyond any reasonable doubt. 10 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  A7  and  their participation in the crime,they 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. With  the  acquittal of A5, A6 and A7, it is only  the  four appellants  Al, A2, A3 and A4 against whom  the  prosecution can be said to have established its case beyond a reasonable doubt.   Section 148 IPC under the circumstances would  have no  application.  Similarly, Section 149 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 prosecution  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 Shyamdeo Singh and while Al  Shatrugan Singh  had fired pistol shot at Shyamdeo Singh resulting  in his  death,  Kapildeo  Singh A2 had fired from  his  gun  at Rajmani  Devi  PW 13, 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.  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 Al, A2,  A3 and A4 came together armed with deadly  weapons,  at the  night,  to the 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 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   deceased  by  firing  the  pistol  shot.   He   has, therefore, rightly been                              11

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

convicted  by the High Court for the 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. 1. 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 302/149 lPC to the one under Section 302/34 IPC  and sentence 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 R.I. imposed on him for  the said  offence.  His conviction and sentence for  an  offence under Section 324 IPC as recorded by the High Court is  also maintained.   Rampriya Yadav A4 has also been convicted  for the  offence  under Section 326 IPC and sentenced  to  three years  R.I. We maintain his conviction and sentence for  the said  offence.  The  conviction of A1, A2  and  A4  for  the offence  under  Section  148 is, however,  set  aside.   The sentence  of  imprisonment  imposed  on Al,  A2  and  A4  on different counts shall, however, run concurrently. As  a  result of the above discussion, the  appeal  of  Brij Bihari  Singh A5, Ram Ekbal Singh A6 and Suresh Singh A7  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.  They are on  bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. The  appeal  of Al.  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  A1,  Kapildeo Singh A2 and Rampriya Yadav A4  are  on bail.   Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.  They  shall be  taken into custody to under go the remaining  period  of their sentence. G.N.                        Appeal partly allowed. 12