Kalyan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
penal code - section 302, 302/149, 147, 324, 323 & 452/149--murder in darknight--seeing accused in light of lantern not reliable--held, conviction cannot be maintained.;(b) penal code - section 149--unlawful assembly--10 out 20 accused acquitted--no evidence in respect of common object of accused--held, accused cannot be convicted under section 149.;appeal allowed - - according to the learned counsel for the accused appellants, the statements of the eye-witnesses indicate that they had witnessed the incident, but a comparative study of their statements show that they are unreliable witnesses. according to the learned counsel in order to convict the accused persons of an offence, substantive charge should be framed, and that, in this case, no substantive charge under section 452, ipc, has been framed against the accused persons but a charge under section 452/149 ipc has been framed against some of the accused persons only so the learned counsel argued that the conviction of all the accused persons under section 452 ipc is bad. he went on arguing that there could not be any common intention of the accused persons of committing murder of ramjiwan and had they any such common intention, they would have caused more injuries on the person of ramjiwan (deceased). thus, the learned counsel argued, the conviction of the accused persons under section 302/149 ipc, is bad. it was also argued by him that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any unlawful assembly formed by the accused persons in this case. so he argued that the conviction of the accused persons under section 147 ipc, is also bad. similarly he added that the conviction of the accused-appellants of the offence under section 324/149 ipc is also bad. p 6. from a reading of the fir as well as the statement of this witness, it seems that he has improved his statement in the court. he has also denied that he had any sort of interest in the complainant but, from the cross-examination of this witness, it appears that he is an unreliable witness. in his cross-examination, this witness has tried to pose himself as an independent witness, but from a reading of his statement, it becomes clear that he is a most unreliable person and has tried to bide the correct fact with the intention to implicate the accused persons in this case. p 7. he should have mentioned that there was a lantern hung in the chhappar, in the light of which the witnesses bad seen the actual incident of beating. the entire statement of the sho shows that he is a liar and unreliable investigating officer. also, when he reached the spot in the night immediately after lodging the report, and when he found that there was no light, he could haved asked for a light or even he could have cleaned the globe of the lantern and lighted it and well could have seen the place of incident. so instead of repeating the statement, of each and every witness, suffice it to say that all the prosecution witnesses are made out and unreliable witnesses. the fact that only two blows were inflicted on the head of ramjiwan, shows that the incident bad taken place not with 20 persons as alleged by the prosecution, but there might be some dispute or quarrel in between ramjiwan and 2-3 persons, and that too at some other place. it cannot be said that the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly in our considered view, the learned sessions judge has failed to understand this principle of law, who, in a very casual manner has held the accused appellants guilty of offence under section 147, ipc. there is nothing on the record to come to the conclusion that such and such appellant is guilty of offence under section 452 ipc therefore, the conviction of the accused-appellants under this section, is also bad. 17. accused gopi has been found guilty of offence under section 324 ipc, while the others have been found guilty under section 324 ipc with the aid of section 149 ipc, the conviction of the other accused persons for this offence with the aid 149 ipc is again bad and cannot be maintained. as already held above that the prosecution witnesses are unreliable ones, the case of gopi for this offence, becomes doubtful. unless a case is perfectly established against an accused person, he cannot be convicted, and in case of any doubt, its benefit should go to him. they could not have been satisfied inflicting a single blow each, on the head of ramjiwan. therefore, the conviction of ramkaran and ramdeva under section 302 ipc, is also not correct conclusion the prosecution has failed to prove the exact place of incident they have failed to prove that the incident had taken place at the gwadi of ramjiwan.gopal krishna sharma, j.1. this appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 1st oct. 1984 passed by the sessions judge, tonk, whereby he convicted all the accused-appellants under section 147 ipc, and sentenced each of them to 2 year's rigorous imprisonment. he also convicted accused ramkaran and ramdeva under section 302, ipc, and all other accused-appellants under 302/149, ipc and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of rs. 500/-. in default of payment of fine, each accused was ordered to further undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. appellant gopi was further found guilty of offence under section 324 ipc and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment; while ail other accused-appellants were found guilty under section 324/149, ipc & each of them was sentenced to 2 year's rigorous imprisonment. all the accused appellants were also convicted under section 452, ipc and each of them was sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. all the accused-appellants were also found guilty under section 323 ipc, but no separate sentence was awarded under this court. all the substantive sentences were, however ordered to run concurrently.2. on a report of one bhanwarlal, a case was registered against 20 persons, and a challan under sub-section 302, 302/149, 147, 324, 323 & 452/ 149 ipc, was submitted, and they were tried by the sessions judge, tonk. after completing the trial, the learned sessions judge, acquitted 10 persons of the charges levelled against them and found the accused-appellants guilty as mentioned above.3. according to the prosecution story, bhanwarlal s/o goruram, lodged a report at p.s. tonk, on 18-9-1982, at about 13.50 p.m. in the said report it was alleged that all the 20 persons mentioned in the fir, armed with lathis and axes had come to the gwadi of ramjiwan. some of them climbed the 'kavelu' of the house of ramjiwan, while some of them remained in the chowk. ramkaran and ramdeva then inflicted lathi blows on the head of ramjiwan and the other persons hurled stones at kavelu. gopi and bhagwan accused inflicted lathi and knife blows to devlal and injured him. gopi inflicted the knife blow in the stomach of devlal while bhagwan inflicted lathi blow on the back of devlal. the other accused persons threw stones at mst. devbai, mst. bachchi and mst. nandu, who also received injuries. after the beating of ramjiwan, he could not be traced out, and it was not known as to where the accused persons had taken him away. it was also mentioned in the report that the incident took place on account of old enmity between the two parties relating to some woman. on this report, the police registered a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 337 and 452 ipc and started investigation.4. after recording the fir, gordhan singh, sho, pw 10 reached the spot on 19th oct. 1982; and at instance of bhanwarlal, he prepared site-plan, ex. p 7. a panchnama of the dead body of ramjiwan was also prepared which is ex. p 15; and the dead body was then sent for postmortem examination. the safa' of ramjiwan was taken into custody vide memo ex. p 12. from the spot a blood-stained 'kelu' was also taken into custody vide memo ex. p 13.5. the sho arrested accused badri vide memo, ex. p. 17 on 24 oct., 1982. on different dates, the sho thereafter arrested the other accused persons and prepared their arrest memo. on 24 oct., 1982 ramkaran accused gave information for recovery of a lathi, which is ex. p. 37. similarly accused ramdeva also gave information for recovery of one lathi, which is ex. p. 38. bhagwan accused also gave information for recovery of a lathi, which is, ex. p. 39. and, accused gopi gave information for recovery of one knife, which is ex. p. 40. in furtherance of the information, the sho recovered the lathis and the knife, at the instance of the accused persons. after completing usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against 20 persons.6. the learned sessions judge framed charges against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.7. in support its case, the prosecution examined in all twelve witnesses. the accused persons also examined two witnesses in their defence.8. after completing the trial, the learned sessions judge found the accused persons guilty as mentioned above and acquitted some of the accused persons of the charges levelled against them.9. dr. b.d. sharma, pw 11 conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of ramjiwan on 19th oct. 1982. on the said examination, he found four external injuries and two internal injuries on the person of ramjiwan (deceased). according to the doctor, there was a fracture of right temporal bone; a fracture of left temporal bone; and a fracture of left temporal and parietal bones. a piece of parietal bone was penetrating through meanings in the brain matter, causing laceration of the brain, in left heinsphase. in the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and synocope due to the injuries to brain caused by the head injury dr. sharma pw 11 has proved the post mortem report, which is ex. p 41. so, according to the doctor's statement, ramjiwan died on account of the head-injuries received by him. thus, the death was homicidal in nature.10 in this case, bhanwarlal pw 3. the informant; devlal pw 4 son of the deceased ramjiwan; kesra pw 5; mst. nandu, widow of ramjiwan pw 6; and prahalad pw 7 are the eye witnesses. apart from these eye witnesses. gordhan singh pw 10, the investigating officer, is also an important witness in this case the entire case depends on the evidence of these witnesses. the main argument and much stress was laid on the point that all the eye witnesses are made out witnesses. it was argued that they were not eye-witnesses to the actual incident, but were made to give statements as if they had so witnessed the incident. it was also argued that the incident had taken place in the night on 18th oct, 1982 while there was darkness and there was no light to see the alleged incident. according to the learned counsel for the accused appellants, the statements of the eye-witnesses indicate that they had witnessed the incident, but a comparative study of their statements show that they are unreliable witnesses. it was also argued that the learned sessions judge has committed error in convicting the accused-appellants under section 452 ipc when there was no substantive charge framed against them under this section. according to the learned counsel in order to convict the accused persons of an offence, substantive charge should be framed, and that, in this case, no substantive charge under section 452, ipc, has been framed against the accused persons but a charge under section 452/149 ipc has been framed against some of the accused persons only so the learned counsel argued that the conviction of all the accused persons under section 452 ipc is bad. it was then argued by him that ramjiwan deceased had only two head injuries his death was due to fracture of temporal and partial bones on account of the two head-injuries. he further added that according to the prosecution 20 persons had collected and gave beating to ramjiwan (deceased) so, had it been a fact that 20 persons attacked ramjiwan and inflicted blows by various weapons, he (ramjiwan) would have received more injuries. according to the learned counsel it is not believable that 20 persons would give beating to one person and he would receive only 2 injuries so, the accused persons have been wrongly found guilty of offence under section 302/149 ipc. he went on arguing that there could not be any common intention of the accused persons of committing murder of ramjiwan and had they any such common intention, they would have caused more injuries on the person of ramjiwan (deceased). thus, the learned counsel argued, the conviction of the accused persons under section 302/149 ipc, is bad. it was also argued by him that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any unlawful assembly formed by the accused persons in this case. so he argued that the conviction of the accused persons under section 147 ipc, is also bad. similarly he added that the conviction of the accused-appellants of the offence under section 324/149 ipc is also bad. the learned counsel further argued that according to the prosecution, the dispute took place in the chowk of the gwadi of ramjiwan, but, there was no sign of any struggle in the chowk, there was no blood found in the chowk, so according to him, the place of incident, as alleged by the prosecution is not that place which has been narrated by the prosecution witnesses in their statements. the case of the prosecution, he argued, is that the accused persons had thrown stones towards the women, and it is in the evidence that the women also received injuries, but, this fact, is falsified as no injury-report has been submitted pertaining to those women so, had it been a fact that the women also had received injuries, they must have been examined by the doctor and there must be their injury-reports. the only injury report on record is that of devlal, son of ramjiwan deceased. his injuries were examined by dr. s.k. kala pw 12, according to whom, devlal had one incised wound and one abrasion the incised wound was 1/2'xl/4'xl/2' in the right hypochondrium. x-ray was advised, but, on receiving the x-ray report, no fracture was found on his person. the incised wound on the person of devlal was simple in nature caused by some sharp weapon. looking to the dimension of the injury received by devlal, it becomes clear that the injury was a very simple injury. this doctor also examined mst. bachchi on the same date, but, he did not find any injury on her person. the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the actual incident had taken place at some other place. according to him, the genesis of the place of incident as alleged by the prosecution is doubtful. it was also argued by him that from the statements of the witnesses, it is found that only 3 persons had entered into the house of ramjiwan, and other persons have been falsely implicated in this.11. we have gone through the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses and find that they have not given the true version of the incident.12. bhanwarlal pw 3, the informant lodged the report, ex. p 6 on 18th oct. 1982 at about 10-50 p.m. i.e. after about 50 minutes of the alleged incident. he has stated that after hearing hue and cry from the house of ramjiwan, he came to the gwadi and there he saw that 8 accused persons jumped into the gwadi crossing the wall then, gopi inflicted a knife-blow in the stomach of devlal while bhagwana gave a lathi-blow to devlal. when ramjiwan tried to run away, ramkaran inflicted a lathi-blow on his head. ramdeva accused also followed ramjiwan. this witness in his court statement has not stated that accused ramdeva also inflicted lathi-blows to ramjiwan. from the cross-examination of this witness, it is reflected that the night was dark, but he could see the incident of beating in the light of a lantern which was hung in the chhappar. in his cross-examination, he has said that ramkaran and ramdeva accused had inflicted blows to ramjiwan on the kevelus. this fact, this witness did not mention in the fir ex. p 6. from a reading of the fir as well as the statement of this witness, it seems that he has improved his statement in the court. he has further stated that after lodging the report at the police station, he had slept at the shop of one rajaram and on the next day he returned to his village. this witness had denied that he had any enmity with the accused persons. he has also denied that he had any sort of interest in the complainant but, from the cross-examination of this witness, it appears that he is an unreliable witness. it cannot be believed that a person who would lodge a report at the police station, would not come back to village spot with the sho the same night. also, it cannot be believed that after reporting the matter at the police station, he (bhanwarlal) would sleep at the shop of rajaram and would not return to his village. in his cross-examination, this witness has tried to pose himself as an independent witness, but from a reading of his statement, it becomes clear that he is a most unreliable person and has tried to bide the correct fact with the intention to implicate the accused persons in this case. a person who reports a matter at the police station, would certainly come back with the police to the spot that very night and would show him the place of incident in the night itself.13. according to the eye-witnesses in this case, the, incident was seen by them in the light of a lantern. had it been a fact that in the dark night, there was light of a lantern, then, certainly, the lantern was a very important piece of evidence, which should have been taken note of by the sho when he prepared the site-plan, ex. p 7. he should have mentioned that there was a lantern hung in the chhappar, in the light of which the witnesses bad seen the actual incident of beating. he should have also mentioned as to whether the place where the dead body of ramjiwan was found the next day, i.e., the kavelus, was visible to the witnesses in the night in the light of lantern. in this light, the statement of gordhan singh, sho, pw 10 was perused. in this cross-examination, this witness has said that when he reached the spot, he had no torch with him. this is also a very strange statement by the sho. it cannot be believed that a police officer of the rank of sho would come to the spot in the night without having a torch in his hand. it is an admitted fact that in the night in villages, it is darkness every where. it cannot be expected that a village would have electricity. so, it was very essential for the sho to have taken a torch with him when he proceeded to the spot in a dark night. in this connection, the statement of the sho is that he went to the spot just after recording the fir, ex. p. and as it was a dark night, he did not visit the place of incident in the night itself and nor did he prepare any memo. when the sho knew that the night was dark and it was not possible for him to prepare any document or to see the place of incident, where was the necessity for the sho to visit the spot that very night? this shows that the sho too has not stated the true facts in his court statement. he has tried to hide something and has tried to impress upon the court that whatever he was stating before the court, was correct. in this cross examination, this witness has said that he had no torch with him when he visited the spot and that on account of darkness he did not investigate the matter that very night. he has further said in his cross-examination that there was a lantern at the spot which was completely dark and black and nothing could be visible on account of that lantern in the night and that he had no time to clean the globe of the lantern and see the spot. this shows that the story that there was a lantern in the chappar, is a concocted story. actually, there was no light in the chhappar and the night was completely dark, and in the moth of october at about 10 p.m., the night is so dark that it was not possible to see what was happening in the gwadi of ramjiwan. the witnesses who had witnessed the incident, had witnessed it only in the light of a lantern. the existence of a lantern has not been established. as a matter of fact, the witnesses could not have seen the incident as has been stated by them. even for the sake of argument if it is believed that there was a lantern in the chhappar, then, the statement of the sho that the globe of the lantern was completely black, shows that the light was not passing through the globe of the lantern. hence, it becomes doubtful that the witnesses had witnessed the incident in the light of the lantern. except the alleged lantern, in the chhappar, there was no other light in the gwadi of ramjiwan, nor is there any such evidence. the sho gordhan singh in his cross-examination, has said that he prepared the site-plan and the panchnama the next day, at about 12 o'clock. at that time, he recorded the statement of the witnesses also in the site-plan, he has shown the place where the lantern was hung in the chhappar. when he was shown the map, he stated that by mistake, he could not show the place there in where the lantern was hung thus, it is clear that the sho has given a false statement, and to justify his case, he was prepared to given a false statement. so, his intention was simply to establish the prosecution case by hook or by cook. the entire statement of the sho shows that he is a liar and unreliable investigating officer. an officer of the police department who reaches the spot at night, would not examine any witness that very might, cannot' be believed. injured devlal and the women were very much in the house. the sho could have verified the incident from those persons, who also could have found out the dead body of ramjiwan lying on the kavelus that very night. also, when he reached the spot in the night immediately after lodging the report, and when he found that there was no light, he could haved asked for a light or even he could have cleaned the globe of the lantern and lighted it and well could have seen the place of incident. had he done so, easily, he could have found the dead body of ramjiwan lying on the kavelus. but, he discovered the dead body the next morning. all the witnesses have stated that ramjiwan was (sic) by ramdeva and ramkaran on to the kavelu where the latter inflicted blows to the former. in the night itself, the sho could have interrogated these witnesses and could have seen the dead body of ramjiwan on the kavelu. but, he did not examine any witness the same night, and only after leaving an asi at the spot, he came back to police station without making any investigation in the matter. when the report was of a serious matter, he should have investigated it in the night itself by calling a lantern, and he should not have gone back without doing anything he left at the spot prithvi singh, asi, who has not been examined by the prosecution. what the asi did throughout the night, is not known to the court. gordhan singh sho, in his cross-examination, has said that when he reached the spot, he did not find the dead body of ramjiwan, because, it was a dark night and nothing was visible there, and that the witnesses told him in the next morning that ramjiwan had climbed the kavelu being chased by ramdeva and ramkaran. probably; by mistake, he said in his cross-examination that in the night some body had informed him that he had seen ramjiwan running towards the kavelu. whether this fact had been mentioned in the fir, he did not remember. he stated that he prepared the case diary, but, he did not mention there in that on account of complete darkness in the night, he could not prepare any memo or the case-diary. this type of statement shows that he is a cunning police officer who did not give the correct statement in the court. his intention was only to get the accused persons convicted by any means.14. the prosecution witness were examined under section 161 cr. p.c. by the investigating officer. in their court statements, these witnesses denied some portions of their police statements. this shows how the investigation was conducted in this case and how the statements of the witnesses were recorded during the investigation, and also how much improvement has been made in their statements while they were been examined in the court. so instead of repeating the statement, of each and every witness, suffice it to say that all the prosecution witnesses are made out and unreliable witnesses. as the night was dark, and there was no light at the place of incident, the prosecution witnesses could not have seen the actual incident at all. they have not truly stated the incident and the fact how it at all took place. if there was a struggle in the chowk, there must be some sign of blood lying in the chowk. but, absence of any such sign of blood shows that the dispute had taken place at some other place. this is also correct that had 20 persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common intention of committing murder of ramjiwan, they would have inflicted more blows and caused more injuries on his person. the fact that only two blows were inflicted on the head of ramjiwan, shows that the incident bad taken place not with 20 persons as alleged by the prosecution, but there might be some dispute or quarrel in between ramjiwan and 2-3 persons, and that too at some other place. it is also in the evidence that one modu was also present at the place of occurrence. but the prosecution has not examined modu.15. the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court of offence under section 147 ipc who have been sentenced for this offence the prosecution should have proved that the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly, and that the accused persons had a common object to commit an offence. out of 20 persons, 10 have been acquitted by the learned sessions judge disbelieving the prosecution story against these persons. regarding the present appellant, there is no evidence to say that they had any common object. the evidence on record says that only 2-3 persons had entered into the gwadi of ramjiwan while others remained outside. no overt act has been assigned to any common object of these persons. and, that common object must be proved to have been committing murder of ramjiwan. old enmity as alleged by the prosecution was with regard to some woman. what was that enmity, has not been brought on the record. mere giving statement by some witnesses that on account of some old enmity regarding some woman ramjiwan was murdered by the accused persons, is not sufficient so, no genesis has been proved, nor has any common object been proved. it cannot be said that the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly in our considered view, the learned sessions judge has failed to understand this principle of law, who, in a very casual manner has held the accused appellants guilty of offence under section 147, ipc. therefore, in our opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the learned sessions judge, on this point, is an incorrect conclusion.16. no charge in this case has been framed against the accused persons under section 452, ipc, but, all of them are found guilty of offence under section 452/149 ipc. charge was framed under section 452/149 ipc against some of the accused persons only. unless a substantive charge under section 452 ipc. is framed, conviction under section 462/149 ipc, is against the principle of criminal jurisprudence. apart from this, there was no unlawful assembly formed by the accused persons. so, no accused appellant can be found guilty with the aid of section 149 ipc. there is nothing on the record to come to the conclusion that such and such appellant is guilty of offence under section 452 ipc therefore, the conviction of the accused-appellants under this section, is also bad.17. accused gopi has been found guilty of offence under section 324 ipc, while the others have been found guilty under section 324 ipc with the aid of section 149 ipc, the conviction of the other accused persons for this offence with the aid 149 ipc is again bad and cannot be maintained. as already held above that the prosecution witnesses are unreliable ones, the case of gopi for this offence, becomes doubtful. unless a case is perfectly established against an accused person, he cannot be convicted, and in case of any doubt, its benefit should go to him. in the circumstances of the present case, there is doubt about the fact of inflicting blows to devilal by gopi. so, benefit of this doubt is given to appellant gopi. he is also not found guilty of offence under section 324, ipc.18. ramkaran and ramdeva accused have been found guilty under section 302, ipc by the trial court according to the prosecution, they both had inflicted blows on the head of ramjiwan one blow each was inflicted by these two accused, which resulted in fracture of temporal bones. infliction of a single blow-by each indicates that neither of the two person had any intention of committing murder of ramjiwan. had ramkaran and ramdeva any intention of committing murder of ramjiwan they would have inflicted more injuries on his head. they could not have been satisfied inflicting a single blow each, on the head of ramjiwan. it cannot be taken for granted that ramkaran and ramdeva was so sure that a single blow each would cause death of ramjiwan. they simply inflicted one blow each, on the head of ramjiwan, which unfortunately resulted in the death of ramjiwan. but, by that act, it cannot be said that ramkaran and ramdeva had an intention of committing murder of ramjiwan. their intention could only be to inflict some blows to ramjiwan. so if the case of the prosecution is believed that ramkaran and ramdeva had inflicted one blow each on the head of ramjiwan, it cannot be inferred that they had the intention of committing his murder. so their intention was only to give some lathi blows to ramjiwan. it is unfortunate that those two blows caused fracture in the temporal parietal bones which resulted in the death of ramjiwan. therefore, the conviction of ramkaran and ramdeva under section 302 ipc, is also not correct conclusion the prosecution has failed to prove the exact place of incident they have failed to prove that the incident had taken place at the gwadi of ramjiwan. it is admitted fact that ramjiwan (deceased) died on account of head-injuries received by him, but only because of this fact, it cannot be presumed that the said injuries were inflicted by ramkaran & ramdeva. it was for the prosecution to have established this facts beyond reasonable doubt.19. as discussed above, we feel that the prosecution has not come with clean hands and has not brought on record the genesis of the dispute and the place of the dispute. had the dispute taken place at the gwadi of ramjiwan and had he been inflicted blows on the kavelu, that place should have been shown to the sho gordhan singh that very night when he visited the spot. the witnesses should have immediately told the sho that the dispute had taken place at such and such place and that the dead body had been lying on the kavelu. the next morning the dead body was found lying on the kavelu, and at about 12 o'clock, the sho prepared the panchnama and the site-plan. this all creates doubt in the correctness and truthfulness of the prosecution case.20. it is unfortunate that ramjiwan lost his life. but, it does not mean that somebody should be caught and punished, though a case is not established against him. before convicting a person of the offence of murder, the prosecution should prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. and, if any doubt remains in the prosecution story or in proving the case, then its benefit should always go to him. i.e. the accused person. here, in this case, as observed above, the prosecution has not come with clean hands the prosecution witnesses are concocted and made out witnesses, and there is doubt in the prosecution story and also about the place of incident. so, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons. we do not find accused ramkaran and ramdeva guilty of offence under section 302 ipc, and the other accused appellants, under section 302/149 ipc. as observed, no unlawful assembly was formed by the accused persons. as such, the other accused-appellants cannot be convicted for offence under section 302 ipc with the aid of section 141 ipc. when accused ramkaran and ramdeva are not found guilty under 302 ipc, the other accused persons are also not found guilty under section 302/149 ipc. similarly, their conviction under section 323 ipc is also not maintainable.21. in the result while giving the benefit of doubt to the accused appellants, the appeal filed by them, is accepted. none of the accused appellants is found guilty of any offence as held by the learned sessions judge, and all of them are hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against them. appellants ramkaran and ramdeva are in jail. they should be released forthwith. all other accused appellants are on bail. they need not surrender. their bail bonds are hereby discharged.