PARSHURAMversusSTATE OF M.P.

                 [2023] 14 S.C.R. 186 : 2023 INSC 973



                            CASE DETAILS

                              PARSHURAM
                                     v.
                             STATE OF M.P.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2021)
                                   With
                   (Criminal Appeal No. 3416 of 2023)
                          NOVEMBER 03, 2023
              [B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA AND
                PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]

                             HEADNOTES

     Issue for consideration: Whether the courts below were justified in
convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable u/s.
302/149, s.326/149, s.324/149, s.323/149, s.147 and s.148 IPC.
     Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part II, 302/149, 326/149, 324/149,
323/149, 147 and 148 – Murder – Unlawful assembly – Accused persons
formed an unlawful assembly when the buffalo of the complainant party
spoiled the taparia built by the accused, and thereafter grieviously
assaulted the complainant and his members with deadly weapons, killing
one of them – Conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offences
punishable u/s. 302/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149, 147 and 148 by the
courts below – Tenability of:
     Held: Inconsistencies in the evidence of two prosecuting witness
being rustic villagers not fatal – Their evidence that the appellants were
members of the unlawful assembly, though no specific role attributed to
them of assaulting the deceased – It is not necessary that such a person, for
being convicted, must have actually assaulted the deceased – Trial court’s
observation that no fatal weapons were used by the complainant party in
assaulting the accused persons, whereas accused used fatal weapons, not
correct since injuries sustained by one of the accused was by a sharp weapon
– Furthermore, witnesses are interested witnesses – Non-explanation of
                                    186
                 PARSHURAM v. STATE OF M.P.                               187


injuries on the persons of the accused creates a doubt, on the prosecution
case – Moreso, cross case was registered against the complainant party
– Defence by accused that the complainant party started assaulting them
resulting into a free fight in which the persons from both the sides received
injuries and one person of complainant’s side died – Entire incident arose
on account of the happening on the previous day-buffalo spoiling the
taparia built by accused – No clarity as to whether the common object of
the unlawful assembly was to cause the death of the deceased – Prosecution
failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the unlawful assembly had
an intention to cause the death of deceased – Appellants entitled to benefit
of doubt – Thus, the conviction u/s. 302 not sustainable and altered to one
under s. 304 Part-II – Appellants sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7
years. [Paras 15, 19, 20, 23-27]
      Penal Code, 1860 – s. 149 – Unlawful assembly – Scope and ambit
of s. 149 :
      Held: Every person constituting an unlawful assembly need not play
an active role for convicting him with the aid of s. 149 – Prosecution has to
establish that a person has to be one of the persons constituting the assembly
and that he had entertained the common object along with the other members
of the assembly, as defined u/s. 141 – Whoever being aware of facts which
render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly,
or continues in it, is said to be a member of unlawful assembly. [Para 14]

      LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

      Nand Lal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCC OnLine SC
262; Masalti v. State of U.P. [1964] 8 SCR 133; Lakshmi Singh and Others v.
State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394; State of Rajasthan v. Madho and Another
1991 Supp (2) SCC 396; State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others (2003)
9 SCC 426; Nagarathinam and Others v. State Represented by Inspector of
Police (2006) 9 SCC 57 – referred to.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.524
of 2021.
188          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 14 S.C.R.


    From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2018 of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in CRLA No.243 of 2005.
      With
      Criminal Appeal No.3416 of 2023.
      Appearances:
      A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv., Rishi Malhotra, Ms. N. Annapoorani, Advs.
for the Appellant.
    Dhirendra Singh Parmar, AAG, Abhimanyu Singh, Yashraj Singh
Bundela, Susheel Tomar, Pawan, Ms. Jyoti Verma, Bhagwanjee Thakur,
Advs. for the respondent.
       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
                              JUDGMENT

      B. R. GAVAI, J.
     1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1718 of
2022.
      2. These appeals challenge the common judgment and order dated 14th
March 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Gwalior, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 243 and 260 of 2005, whereby,
the High Court upheld the judgment and order dated 30th March 2005,
passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh)
(hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in Sessions Trial No. 09/2002,
convicting the appellants and sentencing them to imprisonment for life
for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under
Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section
149 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the
offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC, and to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable
under Section 148 of IPC.
                 PARSHURAM v. STATE OF M.P.                                189
                      [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

     3. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeals are as under:
      3.1 It is the prosecution case that the appellant Jalim Singh had
constructed a shed (taparia) on the passage of the village which is used by
the cattle. Since the said shed (taparia) was damaged by a buffalo belonging
to the complainant party, appellant Jalim Singh had beaten that buffalo with
lathi and drove that buffalo away. Thereafter, appellant Jalim Singh, Ram
Sewak @ Sewak, Ram Lakhan @ Lakhan, Ramrup @ Roopa, Ram Sahai,
Parshuram (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2021) and Mangal
Singh came to the house of Chironji (PW-6). On seeing this, Chironji (PW-
6) ran away from the house out of fear. Thereafter, accused persons broke
the doors and entered his house. It is the prosecution case that the accused
persons caught and beat Madan, Leelabai and Kailash. Thereafter, all the
accused persons fled from there. When Chironji (PW-6) came back to his
house, he was informed about the incident.
     3.2 It is further the prosecution case that on 6th October 2001 at 09.15
am, when Chironji (PW-6), Madan (deceased), Raghuveer, Patiram (PW-13),
Leelabai (died natural death during pendency of trial), Ramhet (PW-12),
Gyani (PW-14) and Kailash (PW-15), from the complainant party were
going on a tractor to the Police Station to lodge the complaint, the accused
persons, armed with lethal weapons like barchi, sword, spear, lathi and
country-made bomb (hathgola), waylaid them to cause injuries to them.
      3.3 After intercepting the victims, Ram Lakhan who was carrying
a barchi, stabbed Madan on the left side of his chest, as a result of which
Madan fell down unconscious; thereafter, Ram Sewak @ Sewak, who was
carrying a gupti, caused injuries to the complainant on the right side of his
torso (Bakha), and gave another blow on his head; and thereafter, Ramrup
@ Roopa who was carrying a sword, caused injury to the complainant on
his shoulder. Other accused persons, including the appellants herein, who
were also armed with lethal weapons, caused grievous injuries.
      3.4 The original First Information Report (for short, “FIR”) was
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 452, 147,
148 and 149 of IPC. However, on the death of Madan, the same came to be
converted to the one under Section 302 IPC.
190          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      3.5 The accused persons were arrested, and after completion of
investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Kolaras. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions
Court, the case was committed to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Shivpuri, on 10th January 2002.
     3.6 Before the trial court, the accused persons (in total nine), denied
the charges levelled against them, stating that they have been falsely
implicated because of a land dispute. Defence examined two witnesses
and the prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses. Out of the twenty-
one prosecution witnesses, Chironji (PW-6), Ramhet (PW-12), Partiram
(PW-13), Gyani (PW-14) and Kailash (PW-15) were injured eyewitnesses.
      3.7 The trial court, thereafter, framed five issues for its consideration
in connection with the charges framed against the accused persons. Vide
judgment dated 30th March 2005, the trial court held, that the evidence
adduced by the prosecution proved that the accused persons Parshuram,
Ram Sahai, Mangal Singh, Ram Lakhan, Ramrup @ Roopa, Ram Sewak
@ Sewak and Jalim Singh, formed an unlawful assembly on the date of
the incident and thereafter they grievously assaulted the complainant and
his family members, thereby killing one of them in furtherance of the
common intention of their unlawful assembly, using deadly weapons. The
abovenamed seven accused were held guilty of the charges under Section
302 read with Section 149, Section 326 read with Section 149, Section 324
read with Section 149, Section 323 read with Section 149, Section 147 and
Section 148 of IPC, and the remaining two accused, namely Diwan Singh
and Siyaram were acquitted of the charges.
     3.8 Consequently, the trial court, after considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, convicted and sentenced the accused persons as
aforesaid. All the sentences awarded to the accused were to run concurrently.
     3.9 Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the accused persons
(Parshuram & Others), preferred Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2005, and
accused Jalim Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2005 before the
High Court. The High Court vide common impugned judgment and order
dated 14th March 2018, dismissed both the criminal appeals and affirmed the
judgment and order of conviction as recorded by the trial court. Aggrieved
thereby, the present appeals are filed by accused Parshuram and Jalim Singh.
                  PARSHURAM v. STATE OF M.P.                                191
                       [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

      4. We have heard Shri Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-Parshuram in Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2021, Shri A.
Sirajudeen, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Jalim Singh
in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1718 of 2022 and Shri Abhimanyu
Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of
Madhya Pradesh.
      5. Shri Malhotra submitted that both the High Court and the trial
court have grossly erred in convicting the appellants. He submitted that the
prosecution has failed to attribute any specific role to the appellants herein.
In the absence of the same, he submitted that the conviction recorded under
Section 302 of IPC would not be tenable. The learned counsel submitted that
the role attributed to the present appellant Parshuram was only holding the
lathi and as such, no injuries which had caused the death of the deceased,
can be attributed to the appellant Parshuram. The learned counsel further
submitted that two of the accused persons, who were attributed the role of
holding hand-bombs, were acquitted by the trial court. As such, conviction
of the present appellants was not sustainable.
      6. Shri Malhotra submitted that many accused persons had sustained
injuries. These injuries were not at all explained by the prosecution. He
submitted that the FIR which was lodged by the accused persons against
the complainant party arising out of the same incident was prior in point of
time. The learned counsel, relying on a recent judgment of this Court in the
case of Nand Lal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh1, submitted that non-
explanation of injuries is fatal to the prosecution case and the appellants are
entitled to be acquitted on the ground of non-explanation of such injuries.
     7. Shri Sirajudeen, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Jalim
Singh in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1718 of 2022, also advanced
arguments on the same lines.
      8. Shri Singh, on the contrary, submitted that both the trial court and the
High Court have concurrently found that the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that since the appellants were a part
of the unlawful assembly, it was not necessary for the prosecution to attribute


1    2023 SCC OnLine SC 262
192          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


a specific role to each of them. It is submitted that the object of the unlawful
assembly was to kill the members of the complainant party and as such, no
interference would be warranted in the finding of conviction recorded by
the trial court as affirmed by the High Court. He further submitted that the
injuries sustained by the deceased was on vital parts caused with deadly
weapons.
     9. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have
perused the material placed on record.
      10. Chironji (PW-6) is the first informant. He has narrated about the
incident which had taken place on a day prior to the day of occurrence of
the present incident. He has stated that, after the accused persons assaulted
Madan, Lila (sic Leelabai) and Kamlesh (sic Kailash), when they were
going on a tractor to the Police Station for lodging the complaint, they were
waylaid by Mangal, Roopa, Sewak, Ram Sahai, Parshuram, Lakhan, Jalim,
Diwan and Siya and 4-5 other persons. All of them stopped their tractor and
thereafter hurled hand bombs. He further stated that Sewak beat with Gupti
on his chest and also hit Gupti on his head. He stated that Roopa stabbed
him with sword on his shoulder. He stated that Madan was stabbed in the
chest by Lakhan with barchi, on which, he became unconscious. He stated
that thereafter, they went to the Police Station. Madan died at 10.00 am.
His evidence is corroborated by Ramhet (PW-12).
      11. Dr. S.K. Majeji (PW-4) has performed autopsy on the deceased.
Injuries sustained by the deceased are thus:
      “Injury no. 1: Deep punctured wound l’’ X 1/2” X Lung Deep in the
      chest on the left side. The skin and muscles below this injury and left
      lung of the deceased had ripped apart because of this injury. The size
      of ripped lung was 1” X 2” X 2”;
      Injury no.2: Peeled wound 4” X l” in the center of the back; and
      Injury no.3: Peeled wound ½’’ X l/2” on left arm.”
      12. It is sought to be urged on behalf of the appellants that the
testimonies of Chironji (PW-6) and Ramhet (PW-12) are not reliable
inasmuch as there are material contradictions in their evidence. No doubt
that there are certain inconsistencies in the evidence of Chironji (PW-6) and
                  PARSHURAM v. STATE OF M.P.                              193
                       [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

Ramhet (PW-12). However, it is to be noted that the witnesses are rustic
villagers and they cannot be expected to give minute details identical with
each other.
      13. The law with regard to conviction under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of IPC has been succinctly discussed by a Constitution Bench
of this Court in the locus classicus of Masalti v. State of U.P.2, wherein this
Court observed thus:
     “17. …….What has to be proved against a person who is alleged to be
     a member of an unlawful assembly is that he was one of the persons
     constituting the assembly and he entertained along with the other
     members of the assembly the common object as defined by Section
     141 IPC. Section 142 provides that whoever, being aware of facts
     which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins
     that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful
     assembly. In other words, an assembly of five or more persons actuated
     by, and entertaining one or more of the common objects specified by
     the five clauses of Section 141, is an unlawful assembly. The crucial
     question to determine in such a case is whether the assembly consisted
     of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one
     or more of the common objects as specified by Section 141. While
     determining this question, it becomes relevant to consider whether
     the assembly consisted of some persons who were merely passive
     witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity
     without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly.
     It is in that context that the observations made by this Court in the
     case of Baladin [AIR 1956 SC 181] assume significance; otherwise,
     in law, it would not be correct to say that before a person is held to
     be a member of an unlawful assembly, it must be shown that he had
     committed some illegal overt act or had been guilty of some illegal
     omission in pursuance of the common object of the assembly. In fact,
     Section 149 makes it clear that if an offence is committed by any
     member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object
     of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to


2   [1964] 8 SCR 133
194          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person
      who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the
      same assembly, is guilty of that offence; and that emphatically brings
      out the principle that the punishment prescribed by Section 149 is in
      a sense vicarious and does not always proceed on the basis that the
      offence has been actually committed by every member of the unlawful
      assembly……..”
       14. It could thus clearly be seen that the Constitution Bench has held
that it is not necessary that every person constituting an unlawful assembly
must play an active role for convicting him with the aid of Section 149 of
IPC. What has to be established by the prosecution is that a person has to
be a member of an unlawful assembly, i.e. he has to be one of the persons
constituting the assembly and that he had entertained the common object
along with the other members of the assembly, as defined under Section 141
of IPC. As provided under Section 142 of IPC, whoever, being aware of facts
which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that
assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
      15. Undisputedly, from the evidence of Chironji (PW-6) and Ramhet
(PW-12), it is clear that the present appellants were members of the unlawful
assembly. No doubt that there is no specific role attributed to the present
appellants of assaulting the deceased Madan. However, since the appellants
were members of the unlawful assembly, in view of the law laid down by this
Court in the case of Masalti (supra), it is not necessary that such a person,
for being convicted, must have actually assaulted the deceased.
    16. Having held that, the question which we are left to answer is, as to,
whether, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC would be tenable or not.
      17. The defence taken by the appellants and the other accused persons
was that in fact the accused persons had first lodged the complaint with
regard to the attack made by the complainant party. It is their defence that
after lodging the complaint, when they were coming back from the Police
Station, the complainant party had come on a tractor and assaulted the
accused persons. It is their contention that the accused persons tried to save
themselves. As a result whereof, there was a free fight resulting in injuries
to the members of both the parties and unfortunately deceased Madan
succumbing to the injuries.
                 PARSHURAM v. STATE OF M.P.                               195
                      [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

      18. It is to be noted that the defence side has also examined two
witnesses. Ram Krishan Pandey (DW-1) is the police Constable who had
registered the FIR lodged by one of the accused persons. Dr. Nisar Ahmed
(DW-2), the Medical Officer, Shivpuri, who has deposed about the injuries
sustained by accused Ram Sewak @ Sewak, Ram Lakhan and Ramrup @
Roopa. The injuries suffered by accused Ram Sewak @ Sewak are thus:
     (i)   Incised wound 7 cm X 1 cm on the deep bone on the front of the
           forehead;
     (ii) Torn wound 3 cm X 1 cm was skin deep at the back and right
          side of the head.
     (iii) Incised wound 4 cm X 2 cm was on the left shoulder posterior
           to the muscle depth;
     (iv) Incised wound 1 X 1 cm/2 X 1 cm/ 2 cm on the outer and upper
          part of the left forearm;
     (v)   Incised wound 1 X 1 cm/ 2 X 1 cm was located on the left thumb;
     (vi) Diffuse swelling in the upper left forearm;
     (vii) Swelling of the right middle malleus and pain on pressure;
     (viii) Diffuse swelling in the right thigh;
     The injuries suffered by accused Ram Lakhan are thus:
     (i)   Diffuse swelling on the tendon in the back of the left leg.
     The injuries suffered by accused Ramrup @ Roopa are thus:
     (i)   Cracked wound 6 X 1 cm blind skin deep in right parietal area
           of head;
     (ii) The swelling and deformity in the lower part of the right forearm;
     (iii) Swelling and pain on pressure in upper part of left scapula;
     (iv) Diffuse swelling above the right knee.
      19. Though the trial court has referred to the fact of the case being
registered against the complainant party for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 341, 294, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC, the trial court observed
that no fatal weapons were used by the complainant party in assaulting the
196           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


accused persons. However, on the contrary, the accused persons had used
the fatal weapons.
      20. We do not find the said observation of the trial court correct. The
injuries sustained by Ramrup @ Roopa is by a sharp weapon. It will be trite
to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Lakshmi
Singh and Others v. State of Bihar 3:
      “12. ……. It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of
      the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence
      or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from
      which the court can draw the following inferences:
            “(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin
            of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;
            (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries
            on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point
            and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
            (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the
            injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so
            as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.”
      The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on
      the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where
      the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where
      the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that
      of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it
      must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries
      which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be
      difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6,
      more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating
      that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus
      neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given
      due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing
      in the prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as held by this



3     (1976) 4 SCC 394
                 PARSHURAM v. STATE OF M.P.                               197
                      [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

     Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima [(1975) 2 SCC 7 : 1975
     SCC (Cri) 384] there may be cases where the non-explanation of
     the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case.
     This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries
     sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the
     evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested,
     so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the
     effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the
     injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the
     High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious
     infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises.”
      21. A similar view with regard to non-explanation of injuries has
been taken by this Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Madho and
Another4, State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others5, Nagarathinam
and Others v. State Represented by Inspector of Police6 and recently in
the case of Nand Lal (supra).
     22. Undisputedly, in the present case also, the witnesses are interested
witnesses. The injuries sustained by three accused persons are not at all
explained. The trial court and the High Court have not considered this
aspect of the matter.
      23. Non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused would
create a doubt, as to, whether, the prosecution has brought on record the
real genesis of the incident or not. Undisputedly, as observed hereinabove, a
cross case was also registered against the complainant party for the injuries
sustained by the accused persons.
      24. The defence taken by the accused persons is that when they were
coming back from the Police Station, it was the complainant party which
started assaulting them resulting into a free fight. Their further case is that
in the said free fight, the persons from both the sides received injuries. As
a result of the injury caused in the said free fight, Madan died.



4   1991 Supp (2) SCC 396
5   (2003) 9 SCC 426
6   (2006) 9 SCC 57
198            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      25. From the material placed on record, it is also not clear as to whether
the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause the death of the
deceased or not. The entire incident arose on account of the happening on
a day prior to the day of occurrence of the present incident, i.e. the buffalo
of the complainant party spoiling the taparia built by accused Jalim Singh.
It is quite possible that the accused persons did not have an intention to
cause death of anybody from the complainant party. It is possible that the
accused persons only assembled to teach a lesson to the complainant party
on account of the buffalo from their party damaging the taparia of the
accused Jalim Singh.
      26. We are therefore of the considered view that the appellants are
entitled to benefit of doubt. The conviction under Section 302 IPC would
not be sustainable. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the unlawful assembly had an intention to cause the death of the
deceased. As such, we find that the case would fall under Part-II of Section
304 of IPC.
      27. In the result, the appeals are disposed of with the following
directions:
      (i)   The conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Part-II of
            Section 304 of IPC;
      (ii) The appellants are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
           7 years.
     28. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the above
terms.


Headnotes prepared by:                                        Appeals disposed of.
Nidhi Jain