Judgment:
K.C. Bhanu, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 16-3-2001, in Sessions Case No. 48/1998 on the file of the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
2. Fifteen accused persons stood charged firstly under Section 148, I.P.C., secondly under Section 302, I.P.C. for causing the murder of R. Sudarshan Reddi (D1); thirdly A9 stood charged under Section 326, I.P.C. for causing grievous hurt to P.W. 3, fourthly A1 to A8 and A10 to A15 under Section 326 read with Section 149, I.P.C. for causing grievous hurt to P.W. 3, fifthly A1 to A15 under Section 449, I.P.C., and sixthly A1 to A15 stood charged under Section 302, I.P.C. for causing the death of Suryakanta Reddi (D2). Before the commencement of trial, A1 died and, therefore, the case against him abated. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as follows-- A2 to A15 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 148, I.P.C., A2 to A15 to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 302, I.P.C. for causing the murder of D1, A2 to A15 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 449, I.P.C., A2 to A15 to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 302, I.P.C. for causing the murder of D2, A9 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 326, I.P.C., A2 to A8 and A10 to A15 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 326 read with Section 149, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge also directed the accused to suffer simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine under each count. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the appeal may briefly be delineated as follows. The Inspector of Police, Adoni Rural Circle, filed a charge-sheet before the learned Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Adoni, against fifteen accused persons. The case was taken on file and later committed to the Court of Session. The case of the prosecution is that on 9-7-1998 A1 to A15 in furtherance of their common object formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons surrounded D1. D1 ran towards Mahanakalamma Katta in order to escape from their clutches. The accused chased him and caught hold of him at the temple. A1 instigated the other accused to kill D1. All the accused hacked him with axes, hunting sickles and 'Todakatti' as a result of which he died. Then all the accused ran towards the house of D2, went inside his house, dragged him out of the house, hacked him with the weapons indiscriminately, and ran away. P.W. 1, the mother of both the deceased persons, gave a complaint Ex. P1 to the Village Administrative Officer P.W. 6. P.W. 6 sent Ex. P1 along with his own report to P.W. 9 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Isvi Police Station, at about 10 p.m. on 9-7-1997 and registered a case in Crime No. 31/1997. P.W. 8 sent P.W. 3, who was injured in the attack, to hospital for treatment. P.W. 9 informed P.W. 10 the Inspector of Police about the incident. P.W. 10 conducted inquest on 10-7-1997 over the dead bodies of both the deceased. He examined witnesses, seized blood stained clothes, and drew rough sketches of the scenes of occurrence. After the inquest was over, he sent the dead bodies of D1 and D2 to P.Ws. 7 and 8 respectively for post-mortem examination. Both the Doctors opined that the deceased persons died due to the injuries received by them. The accused were arrested on 24-7-1997 and in pursuance of the confessional statements of some of the accused, certain incriminating articles were seized. After completion of investigation, P.W. 10 filed the charge-sheet. Basing on the material available on record the learned Sessions Judge framed six charges as aforesaid. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in support of its case examined P.W3. 1 to 10 and marked Exs. P1 to P21, besides material objects M.Os. 1 to 17. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above, against which the accused filed the present appeal, questioning the legality and correctness thereof.
4. It is a matter of record that before the commencement of trial Al died and during the pendency of this appeal A14 died. Therefore, the case against them stood abated.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-appellants contended that P.Ws. 1 to 3 are not only interested witnesses, but their presence at the scene of occurrence throws any amount of doubt, that it was stated in general that all the accused attacked the deceased, that in view of factions it was expected from the witnesses to give details of the overt acts committed by each of the accused, that P.W. 2 did not know the accused personally and so independent witnesses should have been examined despite the fact that the incident took place in a residential area, that P.W. 3 did not know the names of all the accused and that was the reason why when P.W. 6 went to the scene of occurrence P.Ws. 2 and 3 did not name the accused, that the omissions and contradictions elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 would go to the root of the case, that because of acute factions in the village, truth and falsity have been inextricably mixed up and hence it is not possible to separate the grain from the chaff, that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular testimony with regard to the weapons used by the accused, that there was unexplained delay in sending Ex. P1 to the Court, and that the lower Court has not appreciated the evidence in a right perspective. The learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment should be set aside.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that P.Ws. 1 to 3 are natural witnesses to be present at the time of incident whose presence was spoken to P.Ws. 4 and 5, that independent witnesses would not dare to depose against the accused due to factions in the village, that when 15 persons were simultaneously attacking the deceased persons, there was no possibility of giving the part played by each of the accused with specific overt acts committed by them, that when the witnesses said that the accused committed the offence, they meant that all the accused who were present in the Court, that simply because P.Ws. 1 to 3 belonged to the same faction group it does not mean that their evidence has to be disbelieved on that ground, that there is no discrepancy between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony, and that since the lower Court after appreciating the evidence properly, came to the right conclusion and convicted and sentenced the accused, and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.
7. P.W. 10 conducted inquest over the dead bodies of both the deceased in the presence of P.W. 6, Exs. P4 and P5 are inquest reports, which show that the inquest Panchayatdars opined that the deceased persons died because of the injuries received by them. After the inquest was over, P.W. 10 sent the dead body of D1 to P.W. 7 for postmortem examination. P.W. 7 conducted postmortem examination and found the following injuries.
1. A lacerated injury over the left frontal region of head obliquely placed extending on to the medial side of left upper eyelid. Irregular margins of size 5 x 2' x bone deep. The underlying bone is fractured.
2. A lacerated injury over the right eyebrow transversely placed of size 3 x 1/2' x bone deep.
3. A lacerated injury over the medial end of right clavicle of size 2 x 1' x bone deep. The medial end of clavicle is seen through the wound and is fractured.
4. An incised wound over the left leg on the anterior aspect in its upper 1/3rd size 1 x 1/2' x muscle deep.
5. Diffuse swelling of the middle 1/3rd right forearm. Bony discontinuity present in both the bones of the forearm.
6. A lacerated injury over the left parietal region of size 5' x 2' x bone deep; underlying bone is intact.
7. A lacerated injury over the right parietal region of size 12 x 1/2' x bone deep.
8. An abrasion over the left side of abdomen 3' lateral to the umbilicus, transversely placed, of size 11/2 x 1/4'.
9. A lacerated injury over the left epigastria region 1' away from umbilicus of size 1/4 x 1/4.'
10 A lacerated injury over the right angle of mouth size 1/2 x 1/4 x 11/4' x muscle deep, irregular muscles.
8. P.W. 7 opined that D1 died of shock and haemorrhage due to the head and lung injuries caused by axes, sickles, and big knives. He issued Ex. P7 post-mortem certificate.
9. P.W. 10 sent the dead body of D2 to P.W. 8 for conducting post-mortem examination. P.W. 8 conducted post-mortem examination and found the following injuries.
1. Head is cut from the root of the neck and is attached with a tag of skin. Margins of injury are clean cut. All the structures of neck are absent. Hyoid bone is cut into two pieces and is attached with a tag of tissue.
2. Incised injury 8 x 2 x 2 is present across the middle of nose and middle of left cheek. Fracture of nasal bone and left maxilla is present.
3. Incised injury 4 x 1 x 1/2' is present on the left side of face in front of left ear.
4. Incised injury 11/4' x 1/2' x 1/4' is present on the lower part of left ear.
5. Incised injury 21/2' x 1/2' x 3/4' is present on the front of chin. Fracture of mandible is present.
6. Incised injury 11/2' x 1/2 x 1/2' is present on the lateral part of left eyebrow.
7. Incised injury 11/2' x 3/4 x 1/2' is present on the left side of the forehead.
8. Incised injury of 4 x 3/4 x 3/4' is present on the posterior part of left parietal region of head.
9. Incised injury 3 x 1/2 x 1/2' is present on the posterior part of left parietal region of head 2' above injury No. 8.
10. Incised injury 1 x 1/4 x 1/2' continuous with another incised injury 4 x 1/8 x 1/8' is present on the lateral aspect of upper part of left arm.
11. Incised injury 1 x 1/4' x 1/4' is present on the front of right shoulder.
12. Incised injury 4 x 1/2 x 1/2' is present across the middle of dorsum of right hand.'
10. P.W. 8 opined that D2 died of shock and haemorrhage due to the head and back injuries, which could be caused by sharp edged weapons like hunting sickles, axes and knives. He issued Ex. P9 post-mortem certificate.
11. The evidence of P.Ws. 10, 6, 7 and 8 and the recitals in Exs. P4. P5, P7 and P9 remain uncontroverted. Therefore, we hold that the death of the deceased persons was homicidal.
12. It is an admitted fact that both the deceased belonged to Telugu Desam Party while the accused belonged to Congress Party. It is also not in dispute that in the Gram Panchayat elections, P.W. 1 and the wife of A2 contested for the post of Sarpanch and P.W. 1 was defeated. Thereafter the ill-feelings between the two groups became bitter.
13. Both the deceased persons are brothers and P.W. 1 is their mother. P.W. 2 is the wife of D1. P.W. 3 is the injured witness. A9 hacked him on his left ankle. They claim to be eye-witnesses to the incident. The case mainly rests upon their evidence.
14. P.W. 1 stated that she along with P. W. 2 wife of D1 went to the water tap situated near 'Eranna Gudi' to fetch water at 5 p.m. on the date of incident. At that time, her son D1 was standing near their tractor which was stationed near the water tap. All the accused armed with hunting sickles, axes and 'Thoda Kattulu' surrounded D1. He escaped from their clutches and ran towards Masjid. A1 instigated other accused to catch D1. Then all the accused caught hold of D1 in front of Masjid near Mahankalamma Katta. P.Ws. 1 and 2 tried to save D1. The accused pushed them aside. P.W. 3 also tried to rescue Dl. A9 hacked him on his ankle. Then all the accused hacked Dl. D1 died on the spot. This evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 2. P.W. 1 further stated that after attacking D1, the accused went towards the house of D2. P.W. 1 followed them. All the accused went inside the house of D2, dragged him to 'Padasala,' made him lay on the floor, and hacked D2 on his throat and cut his throat.
15. P.W. 7 was working as Village Administrative Officer at the relevant time. He stated that on 9-7-1997 at about 6 p.m., the 'Thalari' of G. Hosalli village came to his house at Ganekal village and informed him about the incident. He reached the scene of occurrence at G. Hosalli village by 7 p.m. P.W. 1 gave a complaint orally which was reduced by him into writing in Ex. P1. He sent Ex. P1 along with his special report Ex. P2 to police station. P.W. 9 received Exs. P1 and P2 at 10 p.m. and registered the case. It was suggested to P.W. 6 that Ex. P1 was prepared after the arrival of police, but not according to the statement given by P.W. 1. This suggestion was denied. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness so as to discredit his testimony. He did not belong to any of the groups. He would be very cautious and careful in preparing Ex. P1, because if he supported one group by preparing false or incorrect report the other group would take vengeance against him. Therefore, this witness would not take that risk. So, there was no possibility that Ex. P1 was brought into existence after due consultations. P.W. 6 can be said to be a witness disinterested in favour of either group. He spoke to the aspects within his purview and knowledge. There appears absolutely no reason for him to scribe Ex. P1 at the behest of police or P.W. 1. His evidence inspires confidence, as nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination so as to discredit his testimony. Therefore, the earliest version given in Ex. P1 can be used to corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1. 16. But, since admittedly the ill-feelings between the two groups got bitter after P.W. 1 was defeated in the Gram Panchayat elections and since due to the factions in the village the possibility to implicate as many persons of the opposite faction group as possible cannot be ruled out, before accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, we would closely scrutinise their evidence from the following angles.
(1) whether the presence of these witnesses at the time of incident is natural.
(2) whether the accused were known to the witnesses from before the incident.
(3) whether there was possibility of mistaken identity of the accused.
17. It is clearly stated in Ex. P1 that P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the water tap, which was situated near Eranna Temple, on 9-7-1997 at 5 p.m. D1 was standing near the tractor at the temple. Then all the accused surrounded D1 and when he escaped, A1 instigated the other accused to catch hold of him. All the accused chased him and caught hold of him at Mosque. When P.W. 3 interfered, A9 hacked him on his left leg. All the accused attacked D1. Then they ran towards the house of D2. P.W. 1 thought that the accused would kill D2. She therefore followed the accused. The accused entered into the house of D2 and hacked him. When P.W. 1 interfered the accused pushed her aside.
18. On 10-7-1997, P.W. 7 the Inspector of Police observed the scene of occurrence, seized bloodstained earth, controlled earth, and prepared rough sketches of the scenes of occurrence Exs P15 and P16 in respect of D1 and D2 respectively. The recitals in these documents as to the scenes of occurrence, the places where the dead bodies were found lying etc., perfectly tally with the statements made by the eye-witnesses with regard to scene of occurrence. Ex. P1 contains the names of all the accused. The incident took place at 5 p.m. in daylight. Therefore, there was no possibility of mistaken identity of the accused. That was the reason why P.W. 1 could name all the accused in her report Ex. P1.
19. It is not unusual for villagers to fetch water from public taps daily in the evening. So was not unusual for P.Ws. 1 and 2 to go to the water tap at 5 p.m. to fetch water. This fact has also been stated in the earliest version of the incident in Ex. P1. The evidence of P.W. 1 is in corroboration with that of P.W. 2 who is the daughter-in-law of the former. The presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the scene of occurrence has also been spoken to by P.Ws. 3, 4 and even by P.W. 5, in his cross-examination, who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution on the attack made by the accused. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to show that they were not present at the scene of offence. Therefore, the evidence on record clearly establishes that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were present at the scene of occurrence and their presence is but natural,
20. All the accused belonged to the same village of P.W. 1. Therefore, there was no difficulty for P.W. 1 to identify all the accused. P.W. 2 admitted in cross-examination that she knew the names of six accused persons only and did not know the names of other accused persons though she knew them. She admitted that she never went to the side of the houses of the accused in the village. She further admitted that she knew some of the accused by names as they used to come to their house. This may not be correct because admittedly there had been rivalry between the two groups for quite some time before the incident. But, she stated that her marriage with D1 was performed five years before the incident. Since then she has been staying with her husband in the village. So, though she did not go to the side of the house of the accused, they must be moving in the village for five years. The village is very small. Therefore, there was every possibility for this witness to know all the accused who are admittedly rivals of deceased and some of them by names also.
21. P.W. 3 is a resident of the same village. He stated that he was present at the Mosque on the date of incident. He sustained injuries in the incident when he attempted to rescue D1. P.W. 7 was the Doctor who examined him on 9-7-1999. He found an incised injury over the left ankle joint of 8' x 2' x bone deep size; the tip of fibula fractured; and the entire ankle joint exposed through the wound and the foot hanging through the skin. He issued Ex. P8 wound certificate. According to him, the injury was grievous. It was not even suggested to P.W. 3 that he sustained the injury at some other place in some other manner. It was only suggested to him that the occurrence did not take place in the manner spoken to by him. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 3 who was grievously injured in the incident. 22. P.W. 4 deposed that he was going towards the Mosque on the date of incident. He found the dead body of D1 lying in front of the Mosque. P.W. 2 was weeping beside the dead body. P.W. 3 was lying on the ground near the dead body of D1 with his ankle severed. He also saw the accused running towards hillock side armed with axes, sickles and knives stating that they would kill D2. P.W. 5 was running a tea stall near the Mosque. Though he turned hostile, he stated in his chief examination that he saw the accused chasing D1 towards Mahankalamma Katta. The evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 supports, the case of the prosecution to the extent that accused chased D1, the dead body of D1 was lying near the Mosque, P.W. 2 was weeping near the dead body of D1 and P.W. 3 was lying with his severed ankle. Thus the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence just before and immediately after the incident has been firmly established and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 proves the attack made by the accused on the deceased persons.
23. Learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that since none of the witnesses speaks about the specific overt acts committed by each of the accused or about names of the accused, it is highly unsafe to base conviction on the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3. He relied upon a decision in Sherey v. State of U.P. : 1991CriLJ3289 . The relevant portion in paragraph 4 of that judgment reads as follows :
'We have carefully gone through the evidence. We have no doubt that all the eyewitnesses were present. Nothing significant has been elicited in their cross-examination. However, the eye-witnesses simply named these appellants and identified them. So the question is whether it is safe to convict all the appellants. In a case of this nature, the evidence of the witnesses has to be subjected to a close scrutiny in the light of their former statements.'
24. There is no dispute with regard to the above law laid down by the Apex Court. P.Ws. 1 to 3 did not specify the overt acts committed by each of the accused. But they stated that all the accused attacked the deceased persons with hunting sickles, axes etc. In a case of this nature, when a witness testifies in Court that 'the accused' made the attack, it must be inferred that he meant 'all the accused present in the Court.' When an attack is made in the manner and in the situation in which the accused made the attack in the present case, it is highly difficult for the eye-witnesses to specify overt act of each accused in detail. P.W. 1 is an old lady of more than 65 years whose two young sons were done to death before her eyes by the accused. P.W. 2 is the wife of D1 who could not save the life of her husband and had to remain a mute spectator helplessly when her husband was being violently attacked by fifteen persons with lethal weapons like axes, hunting sickles etc. In these circumstances how was it expected of them to count the number of injuries, observe the weapon with which each injury was caused, and notice specifically as to each accused person who caused such injuries. Had P.W. 1 mentioned these details in Ex. P1, it would be a document to be viewed with distrust. Therefore, non-mention of the specific overt acts by each of the accused cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, especially when the names of all the accused have been specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. and the evidence of the witnesses has been consistent from the beginning till they were examined in the Court. If really anybody other than the accused had caused the death of the deceased persons. P.Ws. 1 and 2 would not implicate fifteen persons just to satiate their desire, if any, to wreak vengeance against the accused purely because of rivalry, leaving the real assailants to go scot-free. No person would take advantage out of the death of his/her own sons or wife/husband and stoop to such disgraceful level. Therefore, their evidence cannot be brushed aside merely because they did not specify the overt acts committed by each of the accused.
25. There cannot be any dispute that when an offence is committed in pursuance of a common object, then specifying overt acts by the witnesses or proving such acts by the prosecution is not essential. For the imposition of sentence under Section 149, I.P.C. there must be an assembly of five or more. That assembly should have a common object and that object should be to commit an offence or an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. The offence committed must have nexus with the common object and the act should be in direct prosecution of the common object. The members of the assembly must share the common object though they actually not participated in it. It does not require prior concert or meeting of minds. It may develop on the spur of movement. But they must know that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
26. In this case, all the accused were armed with deadly weapons like hunting sickles, axes etc. In the first instance they chased D1 and attacked him with those weapons. Thereafter, they went to the house of D2 and caused his death. After the attack on D2, they ran towards hillock side by shouting that they killed D2, From this evidence it can be said that all the accused persons shared common object, as they were armed with sickles, big knives etc. From these circumstances the common object of the accused to kill both the deceased persons can be inferred. We therefore hold that all the accused persons had common object to do away with the lives of the deceased persons.
27. Learned senior counsel for the accused argued that both the deceased would have sustained same type of injuries when they were attacked with the same weapons within a span of 5 or 10 minutes, but the deceased persons sustained different types of injuries, and so the medical evidence is inconsistent with the parole evidence of the witnesses.
28. As seen from the evidence of P.W. 7, almost all the injuries, except one, sustained by D-1 were either lacerated or abrasions on the bony areas, i.e., head, eyebrow, right clavicle, left parietal etc. When an injury is caused on a bony area, it is difficult to distinguish whether the injury is lacerated or incised. Perhaps that is the reason why P.W. 7 stated that all the injuries could be caused by axes, sickles and big knives. It was not suggested to this witness that the injuries were not possible by these weapons. The medical evidence completely did not rule out the possibility of such injuries being caused by such weapons. It may be that P.W. 7 deposed injuries 5 and 8 could be possible by a blunt object and a fall respectively. But, that does not mean that these injuries could be caused by such manner alone.
29. Learned senior counsel further contended that the head of D-2 was cut from the root of the neck and was attached with a tag of skin which would not be possible with the kinds of weapons allegedly used in the commission of the offence. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention. The evidence on record established that the accused attacked D-2 with hunting sickles, axes and knives. There is unchallenged testimony of P.W. 8 that the injuries sustained by D-2 could be caused by these weapons. Therefore, the medical evidence is in complete corroboration with the ocular testimony.
30. It is next contended by the learned senior counsel for the accused that when P.W. 6-V.A.O. asked P.Ws. 2 and 3 about the details of the incident, they did not say anything to him and thus, these witnesses are planted. We have already stated in paragraph No. 24 supra how P.W. 2 might not have been in a position to give details of the incident. The injury sustained by P.W. 3 was such that his left foot was cut off and the foot was hanging through the skin. One can easily Imagine the pain he was suffering at that time. He might not have given details of the incident instantaneously due to such pain. Therefore, the contention has no merit.
31. The learned senior counsel further contended that the conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. without the aid of Section 149, I.P.C. in the absence of specific overt acts committed by each of the accused is bad and there was no charge under Section 149, I.P.C. and hence the conviction should be set aside. On this aspect, learned Public Prosecutor relied upon a decision in W. Slaney v. State of M. P., : 1956CriLJ291 of the judgment, it is held by the Apex Court as under.
'Sections 34, 114 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code provide for criminal liability viewed from different angles as regards actual participants, accessories and men actuated by a common object or a common intention; 'and the charge is a rolled-up one involving the direct liability and the constructive liability' without specifying who are directly liable and who are sought to be made constructively liable.
In such a situation, the absence of a charge under one or other of the various heads of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said to be fatal by itself, and before a conviction for the substantive offence, without a charge, can be set aside, prejudice will have to be made out. In most of the cases of this kind, evidence is normally given from the outset as to who was primarily responsible for the act which brought about the offence and such evidence is of course relevant.'
32. In view of the above decision, this Court can invoke Section 149, I.P.C. even at this stage, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused by such invocation. Front the very beginning, the prosecution case was that all the accused surrounded both the deceased and attacked them. The very first charge against the accused was under Section 148, I.P.C. It was specifically put to them that they were members of the unlawful assembly and in pursuance of their common object, they committed the murders. Therefore, there is neither surprise for the appellants nor are they prejudiced even if they are convicted with the support of Section 149, I.P.C.
33. As regards the seizure of M.Os. 14 to 17 from the possession of A-3, A-9 and A-10 on their arrest, these accused were arrested on 24-7-1997. The incident took place on 9-7-1997. Therefore, it is hard to believe that these accused persons were carrying with them the weapons for 15 days. Furthermore, the blood of group of D-1 and D-2 was 'O' and 'A' respectively as per Ex. P-21. Though human was detected on M.Os. 14 to 17, group of the blood could not be detected. Hence, the seizure cannot be an incriminating circumstance against the accused.
34. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed the murders of the deceased. We, therefore, convict the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. for causing the deaths of D-1 and D-2. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is accordingly confirmed with the above modification. The appeal is dismissed.