Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. Sant Ram, an old man in his late eighties, his two sons - Dev Singh and Gumam Singh, aged 28 and 48 years respectively as also Major Singh, have been found guilty of the murder of Gurjant Singh. The first three viz. Sant Ram and his two sons have filed Criminal Appeal No. 107-DB of 1995. Major Singh has filed a separate appeal Viz. Criminal Appeal No. 336-DB of 1995.
2. All the four appellants were armed with sharp-edged weapons. They hit Gurjant Singh on the head. He died on the next morning. A hard blow by any one with the sharp side of the weapon could have been fatal. Even with the blunt side, each one of them could have smashed the skull or at least caused a crack in the cranium. However, none used the sharp side. There was no fracture of the skull. Not a drop of blood was shed. In this situation, the question that arises is - Did the appellants have the intention to cause death or even to inflict injuries which may be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
3. The prosecution story may be briefly noticed.
4. Kuljit Kaur is the sister of Gurjant Singh, the deceased. It is alleged that about three months prior to the fateful day of December 25, 1988, she was going to the fields at about 10.00 a.m. The two appellants - Dev Singh and Major Singh had tried to molest her. She had run away towards the fields. She had narrated the incident to her brother, Gurjant Singh. He had come back with her. By that time, Dev Singh and Major Singh had left. The matter was reported to the Village Panch, Ram Kalan Singh (PW 9). He had got the matter compromised.
5. On December 25, 1988, at about 7.30 p.m., Gurjant Singh, the deceased and his two brothers Darshan Singh, (PW 6) and Ajaib Singh (PW 7) were present in the open yard in front of their house. They were in the process of bringing the cattle inside the house. Ajaib Singh (PW 7) was serving fodder to the cattle. Gurjant Singh was untethering a buffalo. The four appellants came from the main street in front of the open yard shouting that they were going to teach a lesson to Gurjant Singh for making a complaint against them before the Panchayat. Sant Ram was armed with a Takwa. The other three were armed with Gandasas. Gurjant Singh tried to run away. However, he was given a blow by Major Singh with the blunt side on his head. Gurjant Singh fell down. While he was lying down, the three other appellants gave him blows from the blunt side of their respective weapons. His brothers - Darshan Singh and Ajaib Singh (PW 6 and PW 7) tried to save him. They also received injuries. Having caused these injuries, the four assailants went away. Darshan Singh and his brother Ajaib Singh arranged for a matador from Walaiti Ram and took their injured brother-Gurjant Singh to the Civil Hospital, Moonak. In view of the serious condition of the patient, he was immediately referred to the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. He was given treatment at the Rajindra Hospital. However, at 7.50 a.m. on December 26, 1988, Gurjant Singh had succumbed to his injuries.
6. The police had arrived at the Rajindra Hospital at about 3.30 p.m. The statement of Darshan Singh (PW 6) was recorded by Sub-Inspector Kamal Ram (PW 10). The statement is Ex. PS. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex. PS/2 was recorded. The inquest report was prepared. It is Ex. PP. It was received by the doctor at about 5.20 p.m. on December 26, 1988. Dr. Kanwar Jit Singh conducted the postmortem examination at about 5.45 p.m. He opined that the death had occurred due to cerebral haemorrhage which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
7. The prosecution rests its case on the testimony of Dr. Kanwar Jit Singh (PW 1), Dr. R. P. Gulati (PW 2), Dr. Rachan Lal Singla (PW 4), Dr. Romesh Kumar (PW 5A). The oral testimony consists of the statements of Smt. Gurcharan Kaur (PW 3) who produced the bed head ticket of the deceased, Tejinder Kumar, Draftsman who prepared the site plan Ex. PQ, the two eye-witnesses - Darshan Singh and Ajaib Singh (PW 6 and PW 7), Smt. Kuljit Kaur, the sister of the deceased, Ram Kalan Singh, the village Panch (PW 9), the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Kamal Ram (PW 10) and ASI Pyare Lal (PW 11) who had deposed regarding the receipt of the message from the hospital and its communication to the SHO, Moonak. Certain other witnesses have also appeared. However, their statements are of a formal nature.
8. The medical evidence consists of the statements of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5A. The deceased-Gurjant Singh had been initially taken to the Hospital at Moonak. He was seen by Dr. Rachan Lal Singla (PW 4). He stated that on December 25, 1988, he was posted as Medical Officer at the Primary Health Centre. Moonak. Gurjant Singh was a case of head injury. He was unconscious. His condition was very serious. As such, he had referred the patient to Rajinder Hospital, Patiala 'for immediate surgery. MLR was not done because the condition of the patient was very serious. Ex. PO is the outdoor ticket and reference chit issued by' him. He stated that it was signed by him. During cross-examination, he stated that he had not sent the information to the Police nor made any entry regarding the case in the Information Register. He denied the suggestion that Gurjant Singh had never been brought to the Hospital or that the Outdoor Ticket Ex. PO was later on prepared at the instance of the police.
9. The deceased Gurjant Singh was actually taken to the Rajindra Hospital at Patiala. He was attended to by Dr. Romesh Kumar, Registrar, Surgery Unit 6 (PW 5A). He stated that Gurjant Singh was admitted in the hospital at 'about 10.45 p.m. as an emergency case with head injury'. The bed head ticket of the patient is Ex. PR. He had expired on December 26, 1988. He also identified the writing and signatures of Dr. Tejinder Singh, House Surgeon. During cross-examination, he stated that the patient had not passed urine. He was catheterized. He denied the suggestion that any infection was caused by catheterization so as to result in death. He also denied the suggestion of negligence in taking care of Gurjant Singh.
10. After the death of Gurjant Singh, the postmortem examination was performed by Dr. Kanwar Jit Singh (PW 1). According to the witness, the body of the deceased was brought to him by Head Constable Sewa Singh and Constable Jagdish Lal. It was identified by Darshan Singh and Ajaib Singh, the brothers of the deceased. The post-mortem was performed at 5.45 p.m. on December 26, 1988. The deceased was 5'-5' tall. He had the following injuries :-
1. Swelling 4 cm x 2 cm in the middle of the head. 3 cm distal to the anterior hair line. On dissection Haematoma was present underneath. No fracture of skull. Sub-Dural and extra dural haemorrhage was present.
2. Two swelling 3 cm x 2 cm and 2.5 cm x 4 cm, 2.5 cm above apart, on back of the head. On exploring no fracture seen. Sub-dural haemorrhage was present.
3. A swelling 5 cm x 4 cm on left parietal region 3 cm lateral to mid line. On exploring Haematoma Sub-Dural haemorrhage and Extra dural haemorrhage was present.
4. A swelling 4.5 cm x 3.75 on right parietal region. On exploring broad Haematoma was present. Extra dural and Sub-Dural haemorrhage was present.
11. The above injuries had caused cerebral haemorrhage which was the cause of death. He also stated that at about 6.58 p.m., he had examined Darshan Singh, aged 25 years and had found the following four injuries on his person :-
1. Generalised swelling on dorsum of left hand extending from wrist to fingers. There is contusion on lateral three knuckles. Bluish in colour. X-ray was advised.
2. A contusion on lateral part of hip bore 6 cm behind anterior iliac spine. Bluish in colour.
3. Contusion on the back of left lower arm 2 cm x 1 cm, 4 cm below elbow joint. Bluish in colour.
4. Generalised swelling on left fore-arm behind wrist joint on dorsal aspect. X-ray was advised.
12. Injury Nos. 1 and 4 were kept under observation 'to be reported after X-ray report'. Injury Nos. 2 and 3 were stated to be simple in nature. He further stated that on the same day, he had also examined Ajaib Singh at 7.05 p.m. The following two injuries were found on his person :-
A contusion with generalised swelling on left side of shoulder 4 cm x 2 cm, bluish in colour.
2. Swelling on left forearm on dorsal aspect, above wrist joint.
13. Besides the oral testimony certain documents including Ex. PO and Ex. PR are also on record.
14. Darshan Singh and Ajaib Singh (PW 6 and PW 7) are the two eye-witnesses. Darshan Singh merely repeated the statement made by him before the Police Officer in pursuance to which the FIR was recorded. He was cross-examined at length. He admitted that he was not present when his sister was 'teased'. He also admitted that he had not made any, complaint regarding teasing of his sister directly bus had 'made a complaint through Ram Lalan, Member Panchayat orally. He also admitted that he had not made any report to the police in this behalf. He denied the suggestion that the story regarding teasing had been wrongly trotted out to provide a motive for the occurrence.
15. During his further cross-examination, the witness admitted that Moonak is at a distance of 12 to 13 kms. from his village. The police station is about one or one and a half km. from the Hospital at Moonak. He admitted that he did not ask either his brother or any one else to lodge a report with the police. According to him, the occurrence had lasted only for a minute. No blood was oozing from any part of the body of Gurjant Singh. The vehicle was arranged within 10 minutes. Gurjant Singh was taken to the Hospital at Moonak within about 10 minutes after he had received the injuries. After the incident, five or seven persons had gathered at the place of occurrence and were present when the injured had been removed to Moonak. It had taken about 20-25 minutes to reach Moonak. Only five minutes were spent at the Hospital. He denied the suggestion that Gurjant Singh had fallen on a pucca drain or that the injuries had been caused to the deceased by somebody else or that the accused had been falsely implicated . The statement of PW 7 Ajaib Singh is in a similar strain.
16. Kuljit Kaur has appeared as PW 8. She has narrated the incident which had taken place about three months prior to the date of occurrence. She has stated that she was going to the fields for supplying food to her brother. Major Singh and Dev Singh had waylaid her. On reaching the fields, she had narrated the incident to her brother Gurjant Singh. He had come with her towards the place where the two accused persons had tried to molest her. The accused were not found there. She had then come back home and her brother had returned to the fields. She was told by her brother that he had reported the matter to Ram Kalan Singh, the Village Panch. He had got the matter compromised. She was married after the incident. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had not made any written complaint to the Panchayat. She had not been called by the Panchayat. She admitted that she was present in the house when Gurjant Singh was murdered. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
17. Ram Kalan Singh, the Village Panch appeared as PW 9. He corroborated the prosecution version regarding the incident of teasing and the subsequent compromise. He denied the suggestion that the incident had not taken place.
18. The investigation of the case was conducted by PW 10 S.I. Kamal Ram. He stated that on December 26, 1988, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Moonak. On receipt of a message from Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala Ex. PT, he had gone to the Rajindra Hospital and recorded the statement of Darshan Singh complainant. He had made an endorsement Ex. PS/1 and sent it to Police Station through Constable Sant Singh. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex. PS/2 was recorded by Swaran Singh Head Constable. He had prepared inquest report Ex. PB in the presence of Darshan Singh and Ajaib Singh who had thumb-marked it. The body of the deceased was handed over to Head Constable Sewa Singh and Constable Jagdish Lal for postmortem examination at Civil Hospital, Patiala along with the inquest report. Darshan Singh and Ajaib Singh were also got medically examined for their injuries. The medico-legal examination reports Exhibits PD & PJ were prepared in respect of Darshan Singh and Ajaib Singh. He had also taken into possession the postmortem report of the deceased and the clothes Vide memo Ex. PU. He had visited the site of occurrence on December 27, 1988 and prepared the rough site plan Ex. PV. The accused were not traceable. However, they were produced by Karnail Singh on January 4, 1989. They were arrested and were produced before the Judicial Magistrate on the next day. The accused had made disclosure statements Ex. PY, Ex. PZ, Ex. PAA and Ex. PBB. The weapons were recovered. Site plans regarding the place of recovery were also made. None of the weapons had any blood stains. He had submitted an application Ex. PG/1 to the Medical Officer, Rajindra Hospital to enquire about the X-ray result of Darshan Singh. Injury No. 1 was declared grievous vide report Ex. PG. In cross-examination, he stated that Police Station Moonak falls under the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Sunam which is at a distance of 42 kms. Since the road is not in a good condition, it takes about 3 hours to reach Sunam from Moonak. Patiala is at a distance of about 100 kms. from Moonak. The FIR had reached the Judicial Magistrate at 11 PM on the night of December 27, 1988. He denied the suggestion that the statement of Darshan Singh had been fabricated or that the FIR had not been recorded as stated by him. He also asserted that the report was made in the Daily Diary Register. He gave the details in this behalf. He produced the copies of the Daily Diary reports as Exhibits PW 10/A and PW 10/B. He denied the suggestion that he had made a tainted investigation or fabricated any evidence.
19. ASI Pyare Lal (PW 11) stated that on December 26, 1988, he was posted as Moharrir Head Constable in Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala. On receipt of a message from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala regarding the expiry of Gurjant Singh Ex. PW 11/A, he had passed on the message to Harjit Singh, Wireless Operator for onward transmission to SHO Police Station, Moonak. In cross-examination, he stated that a message had been received at 11.25 a.m. which had been entered at No. 10 on December 26, 1988. This message related to the death of Gurjant Singh in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. He denied the suggestion regarding the fabrication of this entry.
20. Pritam Singh, ASI has appeared as PW 12. He acknowledged the receipt of the wireless message regarding the death of Gurjant Singh on December 26, 1988. Constable Harcharan Singh appeared as PW 13. He asserted that he had handed over the FIR to the Illaqa Magistrate at 11 PM on December 26, 1988. His affidavit is Ex. PDD. He denied the suggestion that the FIR had reached the Magistrate on December 27, 1988.
21. The accused were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the allegations against them.
22. This is the entire evidence.
23. Counsel for the appellants contended that there was an inordinately long delay in the lodging of the FIR. The available time had been utilised to work out a story so as to falsely implicate the appellants. It was further contended that the motive is not clearly established. The neighbours or the driver of the Matador Vehicle were not produced. The presence of the two eye-witnesses viz. Darshan Singh and Ajaib Singh was extremely doubtful. According to the learned counsel, the whole story was totally improbable and, thus, no conviction could be based on the evidence adduced at the trial. The claim made on behalf of the appellants was controverted by Mr. SS Dhaliwal, learned DAG, Punjab.
24. The questions that arise for consideration are :-
(i) Is there such an inordinately long and unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR that it should prove fatal to the prosecution case
(ii) Did the appellants have no motive to cause the death of Gurjant Singh
(iii) Is the prosecution story totally improbable and unworthy of credence
(iv) Are the appellants guilty of murder or of a lesser offence
Reg : (i)
25. Normally, promptness in lodging the FIR ensures truthfulness. Delay raises doubts. It puts the Court on guard. But each case has to be examined on its facts. What is the position herein
26. The sequence of events as noticed above shows that the occurrence had taken place on December 25, 1988 at 7.30 p.m. The FIR was registered at Police Station, Moonak on December 26, 1988 at 7.50 p.m. Apparently, there was a lapse of 24 hours and 20 minutes. Is it unexplained Should it prove fatal
27. Admittedly, Gurjant Singh had received head injuries. He was unconscious. The natural instinct of the family would be to rush him to the Hospital to give medical aid at the earliest. It is established on the record that he was actually rushed to Moonak. The Outdoor Ticket issued by the doctor at Moonak is Ex. PO. It has been recorded that the patient was received at 8.40 p.m. He was unconscious. The doctor noticed that the 'condition of the patient is very serious'. Patient is being referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala for immediate surgery. Because of serious condition, MLR not done.' Thus, immediately, the patient was taken to the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala which is at a distance of 100 kms. He was admitted. The bed head ticket is Ex. PR. The first note appears to have been accorded at 11 PM. Thus, the patient had reached the Hospital sometime before that. All this had happened without any avoidable delay. Ultimately, on the morning of December 26, 1988, the blood pressure and pulse of the patient had become unrecordable at 7.40 a.m. He was declared dead at 7.50 a.m.
28. On a perusal of the record and the, evidence on the file, we are satisfied that the family members of the injured were entitled to take care of the patient. No fault can be found with them for not reporting the matter to the police till then.
29. Are they guilty of any delay after 7.50 a.m It is reasonable to assume that having lost a young brother, Darshan Singh and Ajaib Singh would be sad and upset. Still further, an explanation has appeared in the statement of Ajaib Singh. He has stated that they 'did not go to the Police Station after the death of Gurjant Singh as the doctor had asked us to keep on sitting by the side of the dead body and the police would come there.' This assertion is corroborated by the statement of ASI Pyare Lal (PW 11) who has acknowledged the receipt of a message from the Hospital regarding the expiry of Gurjant Singh. He had in turn passed on this message Ex. PW 11/A to 'Harjit Singh, Wireless Operator, Patiala for passing on the same to SHO, Police Station, Moonak ...............' Still further, PW 12 has acknowledged the receipt of this message and claims to have passed it on to the Moharrir of the Police Station for further action.
30. Despite the development of technology, our working is not totally efficient. In this situation, some time was bound to be spent in transmitting the message and in further action thereon. However, it is clear from the record that the police had reached the hospital at about 3/3.15 p.m. The statement of Darshan Singh (PW 6) was recorded immediately thereafter by S.I. Kamal Ram. On the basis thereof, the FIR Ex. PS/2 was recorded at Station, Moonak at 7.50 p.m. Simultaneously, the inquest report was prepared and sent along with the dead body to the Civil Hospital, Patiala for the post-mortem examination of the deceased. Dr. Kanwar Jit Singh (PW 1) states that he had conducted the postmortem at 5.45 p.m.
31. In view of the above, it is clear that S.I. Kamal Ram had started recording the statement of complainant Darshan Singh some time after 3 o'clock. It was completed at about 4.30 p.m. The inquest report had been forwarded to the doctor so as to reach him before 5.45 p.m.
32. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, it cannot be said that there is an unexplained delay which may prove fatal to the case of the prosecution.
33. Counsel for the appellants contended that the special report had reached the Illaqa Magistrate on the next day viz. December 27, 1988 at 11 PM. Is it so
34. From the statement of PW 13 Constable Harcharan Singh, it appears that it had been delivered at 11 PM on December 26, 1988. In this situation, the possibility of a genuine mistake in the recording of the date on the special report by the Magistrate cannot be totally ruled out. In any event, the inquest report having reached the Civil Hospital at Patiala by about 5 PM on December 26, 1988, it cannot be said that the statement of the complainant had not been recorded as suggested by the prosecution.
35. In view of the above, we are satisfied that there is no unexplained delay which may warrant any adverse inference against the prosecution. The first question is answered against the appellants.
Reg : (ii)
36. Counsel for the appellants contended that the motive is not clearly established. Is it so
37. Kuljit Kaur has appeared as PW 8. She has categorically stated that she was teased. The fact has been further corroborated by Darshan Singh and Ajaib Singh who appeared as PW 6 and PW 7. Still further, Ram Kalan Singh, the Village Panch is a totally independent witness. There is nothing to suggest that he had any motive to make any false accusation against any of the appellants. He has totally corroborated the version of the prosecution and supported the case in its material particulars. The suggestion that he was not happily disposed towards appellant Major Singh was clearly denied. Nothing was brought on record to falsify the denial. In view of the evidence, we have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the trial Court with regard to the motive of the appellants in causing harm to Gurjant Singh.
38. It was suggested on behalf of the appellants that the incident was too trivial so as to make the appellants to go to the extent of taking a life.
39. The contention cannot be accepted. It is clear from the record that Gurjant Singh had approached the Village Panch who in turn had called the two accused persons viz. Dev Singh and Major Singh. They were made to apologise. It is quite likely that they had felt insulted and had decided to take the revenge. It may be that a more reasonable person may not have gone to the extreme extent of causing death. However, that is an individual's perception. In the circumstances of the present case, it is clear that not only the two accused but even two other members of the family of Dev Singh had joined them. Thus, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish a motive for the alleged offence.
Reg : (iii)
40. Counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution story is not probable. Gurjant Singh was alleged to have seen the accused persons. They were shouting that they would teach him a lesson. Yet, he did not run away. Still further, it was also pointed out that neither the driver nor the owner of Matador which had been allegedly used for carrying the injured to the Hospital, was produced. It was also suggested that the injuries as found on the person of the deceased and the two witnesses viz. Darshan Singh and Ajaib Singh (PW 6 and PW 7) could not have been caused with the weapons which were recovered from the appellants.
41. A perusal of the statement made by Darshan Singh before S.I. Kamal Ram shows that the appellants had come through the main street. On seeing Gurjant Singh, they had said 'today we will teach you a lesson for making complaint to the Panchayat against us.' The statement further records that 'Gurjant Singh tried to run away out of fear.' Thus, it cannot be said that Gurjant Singh had stood firm to fight. Apparently, he was aware of the handicap. He was not armed. Thus, he had tried to run. However, he was hit on the head by one of the appellants Major Singh. He had fallen down. Others had given him injuries. The conduct of Gurjant Singh was natural. He had made an attempt to escape. Having failed, he had suffered. Thus, we find no infirmity or improbability in the prosecution story in so far as it relates to the conduct of the deceased.
42. It was then contended that neither the driver nor the owner of Matador was produced.
43. It is the admitted position that the vehicle belonged to Walaiti Ram. It was driven by his son Rameshwar. They had made the vehicle available for use. The injured was carried in this vehicle. However, it is not unlikely that the two may have avoided appearing as witnesses so as not to strain their relations with others in the village. It is not unknown that many respectable persons would be weary of appearing before the police or in Court. The prosecution case cannot fall only on the ground that neither of the two persons was produced in Court.
44. Counsel for the appellants contended that the injuries found on the person of the deceased and the two witnesses could not have been caused with deadly weapons like Gandasa and Takwa.
45. We are unable to accept even this contention. Firstly, the weapons were used from the blunt side. According to PW 1 Dr. Kanwar Jit Singh, the injuries were 'possible by the reverse side of the weapons exhibits P4 to P7'. Even when pressed in cross-examination, he clarified that the injuries could be 'the result of heavy blunt weapon if used lightly.' Thus, there is nothing improbable about the injuries having been caused with the weapons which were recovered from the four appellants. We may notice that not even a whisper was raised against the recovery of the weapons.
46. Thus, it cannot be said that the prosecution story is improbable or that the appellants are not guilty of having caused injuries as alleged against them.
Reg : (iv)
47. Are the appellants guilty of murder or of a lesser offence
48. On an examination of the evidence, it is clear that the assailants had chosen the most vital part of the human anatomy. They have inflicted all the injuries on the head. Thus, they would know that death could occur. However, on a closer scrutiny, we find that the facts as borne out from the record of the case militate against an intention to cause death. It is clear that all the appellants were armed with sharp-edged weapons. Each one of them could have beheaded the deceased by using the sharp side. They did not even use it from that side. In fact, not a drop of blood was shed. Not even an abrasion was caused. It is the prosecution's own case that each one of them had used the weapon from the blunt side. Still further, the weapons were not wielded with full force. We have seen the weapons. One blow with full force could have smashed the skull or at least caused a crack in the cranium. The statement of Dr. Kanwar Jit Singh (PW 1) shows that the injuries to the deceased could be the result of these weapons 'if used lightly.' He has further clarified that 'chances are very rare that such injuries being caused by forceful blow with the heavy blunt weapon.' In fact, it is note-worthy that no fracture of the skill was caused. The use of the weapons from the blunt side and that too without applying full force indicates that the appellants did not have the intention to cause death or to inflict injuries which may be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. It was to teach him a lesson for having complained to the Panchayat.
49. Thus, the answer to this question has to be in favour of the appellants. We find that the appellants, having chosen the head, they knew that it could be dangerous. Even fatal. But, the fact that they used the blunt side indicates that they were not intent upon killing. Still further, the medical evidence shows that they had not wielded the weapon (even the blunt side) with full force. The doctor's statement indicates that they had used their weapons 'lightly'. In view of these facts, we feel that the case shall fall within Section 304, Part II.
50. A faint attempt was also made to contend that no offence under Section 325 was made out.
51. We are unable to accept this contention. A perusal of the statement of PW 10 S.I. Kamal Ram shows that he had submitted an application Ex. PG/1 to the Medical Officer to enquire about the X-ray result of Darshan Singh PW 6. Injury No. 1 as noticed above was declared grievous. The report has been duly proved by Dr. Kanwar Jit Singh who appeared as PW 1. Thus, it is clear that a grievous injury - a fracture was caused. The offence under Section 325 is, thus, clearly made out.
52. No other point was raised.
53. This brings us to the question of sentence. It was appointed out that Sant Ram was about 80 years at the time of the occurrence. He should be in late eighties at this stage. It was further pointed out that he is totally bedridden. In this situation, we think appropriate to hold that the ends of justice would be met if his sentence under the various provisions is reduced to that a already undergone by him. In respect of the other appellants, the sentence of imprisonment shall be seven year R.I. under section 304, IPC, Part II. Their conviction and sentence under the other provisions are maintained. However, substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The conviction under section 302 is set aside in respect of all the appellants.
54. Order accordingly.