Dashrath Singh Vs. State
of U.P  Insc 457 (13 August 2004)
P. Venkatarama Reddi & B.P.
Singh With Criminal Appeal No. 910 of 2001 P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.
The appellants Dashrath Singh and Raja Ram in these two appeals along with
nine others stood trial in S.T.No.495 of 1978 in the Court of the VIII
Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur. The incident giving rise to the prosecution,
took place on 31.7.1977 at about 9 a.m. in the Village of Daya Ka Purwa within
the limits of Akbarpur police station. One Pratap Singh son of Gajraj Singh (PW
4) was attacked with a Kanta (a fork like pointed weapon with a wooden handle),
inflicting injury on his head. After a surgery and prolonged treatment, he died
on 6.9.1977 at the hospital. Three other persons on the prosecution side also
received simple injuries in the course of the same incident. There were also
injuries to five accused persons including one of the appellants Dashrath.
The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Raja Ram for the offence
under Section 302 on the finding that he caused the fatal head injury resulting
in the death of Pratap Singh. Raja Ram was also convicted under Sections 148,
323 & 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The appellant Dashrath was convicted
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. He was also convicted for the
offences under Sections 148, 323 & 324 read with Section 149. Other accused
(who are not appellants before us) were convicted for various lesser offences.
The two appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment in view of their
conviction under Section 302.
On an appeal filed by all the convicted accused, the High Court at Allahabad,
by the impugned Judgment dated 16.2.2001 partly allowed the appeal. Four
persons, who were not named in the FIR, were acquitted. The conviction of Raja
Ram, one of the appellants herein, under Section 302 IPC as well as under other
Sections was upheld. The conviction of the appellant Dashrath under Section 302
read with Section 34 was set aside. However, the High Court convicted him under
Section 307 and sentenced him to five years R.I. for making an attempt on the
life of Pratap Singh by firing from a pistol. His conviction under other
Sections was upheld.
The members of the prosecution party and the accused are related to each
other, they being the descendants of a common ancestor. The dispute over the
rights on a small parcel of joint land known as Khajiha close to the house of
the deceased and some of the accused, has triggered off the incident on the
crucial day. There was a case and a counter- case. In the counter case filed at
the instance of the accused Raja Ram, nine persons including the father of the
deceased were charged for the offences under Sections 147, 307, 323 & 325
IPC. By the judgment delivered on the same day, the members of the prosecution
party in the present case were acquitted.
PW 4the informant and father of the deceased, PW 2the daughter-in-law of PW
4, PW 1closely related to PW 4 and has an interest in the Khajiha and PW 3 a
neighbour are the eye-witnesses in this case. PWs 1 & 2 received simple
injuries in the course of altercation.
Narender Singh, brother of PW1 who received an incised wound over the chest
was not examined.
According to the prosecution case, on 31.7.1977 at about 9.00 a.m. when
Pratap Singh brought his cattle and tied them up at Khajiha, the appellant Raja
Ram and Gyan Singh (not appellant before us) objected to the same and
threatened Pratap Singh with dire consequences. After a few minutes, the
appellant Raja Ram armed with kanta, the other appellant Dashrath armed with a
country-made pistol, Gyan Singh armed with a barchchi and eight other persons
armed with lathis came to the house of the informant and started inserting some
pegs in front of the house of PW 4 and the deceased. At that time, PW 4 was
sitting near the well. The accused Raja Ram using abusive language against
Pratap Singh shouted that he should come out of the house.
A few minutes later, as Pratap Singh came out of the room, Dashrath aimed a
shot at him with pistol. As it did not hit him, Dashrath once again fired;
again, it missed the target.
At that stage, Pratap jumped over the platform and tried to run away. Raja
Ram stopped him and inflicted an injury on his head with kanta as a result of
which Pratap fell down at the spot between the platform and the well. The
sister-in- law of Pratap who is PW 2 also came out of the house and when she
tried to go close to Pratap, one Ram Narain hit her with a lathi. When Surinder
Singh (PW 1 and nephew of PW 4) and his brother Narender Singh intervened, they
were attacked by the accused with barchchi and lathis. Narender and Surinder
then picked up the bamboos which were lying nearby and in a bid to defend
themselves, inflicted injuries on some of the accused persons. The victim Pratap
was brought to the verandah and he was taken in a bullock cart to the police
station. After getting a report scribed by one Mishra, the report signed by PW
4 was handed over at the police station and the FIR was recorded at 11.30 a.m.
Accompanied by a Police Constable, Pratap Singh was taken to the Primary
Health Centre at Akbarpur. Other injured were also sent to the same hospital
for medical examination.
PW 6 who is the Medical Officer attached to the Primary Health Centre
examined Pratap Singh at 12.15 p.m. and noted the injuries and the condition of
the patient as follows:
Incised wound 15 cm x 5 cm. x brain tissue deep, cutting all structures in
between i.e., layers and scalp bones and dura matter i.e., (brain covering).
Brain tissues were protruding out of the wound. Wound was profusely bleeding
continuously. Injury was kept under observation and X-ray was advised and
patient was referred to U.M.H. Hospital, Kanpur. Condition of patient: low
pulse, was 110/mt. blood pressure was 100/mm., temperature was normal. Pupils
were slightly reacting to light. Patient was in semi coma state.
At the trial, PW 6 deposed that the injury on Pratap could be inflicted by a
sharp edged weapon such as kanta and that the said injury was sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW 6 also examined the other
three injured persons and it is not necessary to set out the details of the
injuries. Suffice it to state that they were simple in nature except injury
No.1an incised wound found on the left side of chest of Narender Singh.
The victim Pratap Singh was referred to U.M.H.
Hospital, Kanpur. He was admitted on 1.8.1977. PW 5, the Radiologist, took
the X-Ray of the skull of Pratap Singh the next day. He found that there was a
fracture on the right side of parietal region and on the same day, pursuant to
the letter addressed by the Medical Officer of U.M.H. Hospital (PW 7), the
Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of Pratap Singh. On 7.8.1977 he was
shifted to Medical College Hospital, Lucknow. PW 8a Neuro-Surgeon, performed an
emergency operation on 13.8.1977 and Pratap remained in that hospital upto the
date of his death i.e., 6.9.1977. No postmortem of the dead body was conducted.
In the evening of 31.7.1977, at about 3.00 p.m., the appellant Raja Ram
lodged a complaint to the police giving a different version of the incident. He
stated that in the morning when he was fixing pegs on the joint site (khajiha)
in front of his house, Pratap Singh and others including PWs 1 & 4 came
armed with lathis, spear and paretha, picked up a quarrel and launched attack
on five of his companions including Dashrath Singh. The FIR was recorded and as
already stated, the charge-sheet was filed against the members of the
prosecution party in the present case. The case ended in acquittal.
The appellants and some other accused, in the course of the examination
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took the plea that they attacked the deceased and his
associates in self- defence, when they started assaulting them at the khajiha.
Thus, the presence of the appellants at the time of the incident cannot be
disputed. On the side of the accused, four persons were injured. Amongst them
was the appellant Dashrath Singh who had an abraded contusion on the dorsum of
left hand. The X-ray taken by PW5 revealed that there was fracture of little
finger. PW6 stated that it was a grievous injury. The accused Ram Narain had a
lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep exposing skull bone over the right
side of the forehead. The accused Hari Lal had three injuries out of which one
was an incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep exposing skull bone on the
occipital region. The accused Ram Roop had a lacerated wound 8 cm x 1 cm x
scalp deep over right side of the head. The accused Ranjit Singh had three injuries
one of which was crushed lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm x scalp deep with swelling
all around the wound. There was also an incised wound 2 cm x 5 cm x cutting
pinna and cartilage. PW 6, the Medical Officer in-charge of P.H.C., Akbarpur
examined the injuries and prepared the reports. He deposed that the incised
injuries could have been caused by sharp-edged weapon and the other injuries by
a blunt weapon like lathi.
The investigation was done by PW 9the Sub- Inspector of Police, Akbarpur.
Much has been commented upon by the trial Court against the manner in which the
investigation was conducted by him.
The learned Sessions Judge believed the eye-witnesses' account and the dying
declaration. The learned Judge disbelieved the defence version that the accused
acted in self-defence. However, the learned trial Judge was of the view that
the common object of the unlawful assembly was not to commit the murder of
Pratap Singh and the common object could only be to cause hurt or use criminal
force against the prosecution party with a view to refrain Pratap Singh from
asserting rights over the disputed site.
Therefore, they cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of Raja Ram
and Dashraththe present appellants.
The High Court rightly focused its attention on the questions as to who were
the aggressors and which was the scene of offence. The High Court immensely
relied on the evidence of PW 3 who is a neighbour and who is undoubtedly an
independent witness. He categorically stated that when he reached the house of
deceased on hearing the commotion, he noticed the accused fixing the pegs on
the open space between the well and 'chabutra' and PW 4 (father of deceased)
was sitting close to the well. When Pratap Singh came out of his room, Dashrath
Singh made unsuccessful attempts to fire at him. He then jumped over the
platform and started running away. At that stage, the appellant Raja Ram hit
Pratap Singh on the head with kanta.
Pratap Singh fell down then and there between the well and the platform. PW
2 ran towards Pratap Singh and one of the accused inflicted lathi blows on her.
Then she fell down and thereafter PW1 and his brother Narender Singh picked up
the bamboos lying over there and started attacking the accused to protect
themselves. PW 1 and Narender Singh also sustained injuries. Thereafter, Pratap
Singh was carried to the verandah.
The High Court observed that the most important evidence to fix the place of
occurrence is that of PW 3 who is an independent witness and whose presence was
natural and probable. He had no axe to grind against the accused.
The High Court also drew support from the evidence of two injured witnesses.
The High Court then dealt with the dying declaration recorded by PW 10, the
Executive Magistrate, at the hospital on 1.8.1977. The High Court observed that
the dying declaration lends ample support to the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. PW 7the Medical Officer working in UHM Hospital, Kanpur testified
that the dying declaration was recorded by PW 10 in his presence after he gave
the opinion that the injured was in a position to give the statement. PW 7
deposed that the patient (deceased) remained in good senses when he gave the
statement to the Magistrate. It may be noticed at this stage that the trial
Court did not accept the argument that Pratap Singh could have been tutored by
his father (PW 4) and other relatives to implicate the accused. The presence of
PW 4 and other relatives at the hospital was not considered to be a factor that
goes against the veracity of the dying declaration.
These findings of the High Court and of the trial Court based on the
analysis and appreciation of evidence furnished by the eye-witnesses' account
as well as the dying declaration cannot be faulted on the ground of perversity
or non- consideration of any material circumstances or any other legal grounds.
The learned senior counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the High
Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellants acted
as aggressors in the absence of explanation for the injuries received by five
of the accused. It is pointed out that there was no disclosure of injuries
inflicted on the accused in the FIR or in the course of investigation. There
was no scope to cause such injuries if a sudden attack was launched by the
accused with arms. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution has
suppressed the real happenings. The alleged heap of bamboos which provided the
means of counter- attack against the accused by PWs 1 & 2 was not noted by
the Investigating Officer in the site plan nor any pegs said to have been
planted, were noted. The blood-stained earth was not sent to the Chemical
Examiner. No lead or empties traceable to pistol shots were recovered nor
attempted to be recovered. It is also stressed that if really the appellants
and their companions trespassed into the house of the deceased in the
background of the dispute over the khajiha, they would not have spared the
father of the deceased Gajraj Singh who was sitting outside, near the well. The
last argument does not deserve serious consideration for the reason that the
immediate provocation was the quarrel that took place minutes earlier between
Pratap Singh and the appellant Raja Ram. There is nothing unnatural in choosing
Pratap Singh as the target of their attack. Equally untenable is the contention
that the lapses or omissions on the part of the Investigating Officer in not
noting certain important points in the site plan and in not obtaining the
report of the Chemical Examiner weakens the prosecution case to such an extent
as to cast a doubt on the version of the direct witnesses. In fact, the I.O.
stated in his deposition that he found certain pegs fixed near the well but he
did not consider it necessary to show them in the site plan. As regards the
bundle of bamboos, he stated that he could not recollect whether PW 1 had shown
them to him. Though the investigation appears to be perfunctory, that should
not, in our view, materially affect the substratum of the prosecution case
which stands established by cogent and reliable evidence.
We have given our anxious consideration to the aspect of non-explanation of
injuries at the earliest opportunity by the prosecution party keeping in view
the fact that some of the accused received fairly severe injuries. This aspect
has also engaged the attention of the High Court. The High Court took note of
the fact that the prosecution witnesses did explain that the injuries came to
be inflicted on the accused with bamboos picked up by PW2 and his brother in
order to repel the further attack by the accused. The High Court observed that
the mere fact that the FIR was silent regarding the injuries received by the
accused is not a ground to discard the explanation given at the trial. There
may be initial reluctance on the part of the informant to disclose that the
prosecution party made a counter attack causing injuries to some of the
accused. The High Court was of the view that in the face of the clear and
consistent evidence of independent and natural witnesses supported by the dying
declaration, all of which revealed that the accused party was the aggressor and
initiated the attack on Pratap Singh in front of his house, the non-explanation
of injuries at the earliest point of time cannot be put against the prosecution.
Broadly speaking, the approach of the High Court seems to be correct and in
conformity with the legal position clarified and explained by this Court in a
series of decisions.
2252], a three Judge Bench of this Court made the following pertinent
"..The prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries on the person
of an accused in all cases and in all circumstances. This is not the law. It
all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the
prosecution case becomes reasonably doubtful for its failure to explain the
injuries on the accused. In the instant case, the Sessions Judge was not
justified in doubting the truth of the version given by the eye-witnesses three
of whom were wholly independent witnesses. Gopi Nath was surely present on the
scene of the occurrence as he himself had received the injuries in the same
transaction. The High Court has rightly believed the testimony of the
eye-witnesses." The law on the subject has been succinctly clarified by
R.C. Lahoti, J. (as he then was) speaking for a three Judge Chamansingh [(2001)
6 SCC 145]. After referring to the three Judge Bench decisions of this Court,
it was observed:
"..the view taken consistently is that it cannot be held as a matter of
law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused sustained an injury in the
same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the
failure of the prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved.
Before non-explanation of the injuries on the persons of the accused persons by
the prosecution witnesses may affect the prosecution case, the Court has to be
satisfied of the existence of two conditions: (i) that the injury on the person
of the accused was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have
been caused at the time of the occurrence in question.
Non-explanation of injuries assumes greater significance when the evidence
consists of interested or partisan witnesses or where the defence gives a
version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Where the
evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the Court can distinguish
the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries on the side of the
accused persons are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole
basis to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently the
whole of the prosecution case.
The High Court was therefore not right in overthrowing the entire
prosecution case for non- explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused
persons." The injuries of serious nature received by the accused in the
course of the same occurrence would indicate that there was a fight between
both the parties. In such a situation, the question as to the genesis of the
fight, that is to say, the events leading to the fight and which party
initiated the first attack assumes great importance in reaching the ultimate
decision. It is here the need to explain the injuries of serious nature
received by the accused in the course of same occurrence arises. When
explanation is given, the correctness of the explanation is liable to be
tested. If there is an omission to explain, it may lead to the inference that
the prosecution has suppressed some of the relevant details concerning the incident.
The Court has then to consider whether such omission casts a reasonable doubt
on the entire prosecution story or it will have any effect on the other
reliable evidence available having bearing on the origin of the incident.
Ultimately, the factum of non- explanation of injuries is one circumstance
which has to be kept in view while appreciating the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. In case the prosecution version is sought to be proved by partisan
or interested witnesses, the non- explanation of serious injuries may prima
facie make a dent on the credibility of their evidence. So also where the
defence version accords with probabilities to such an extent that it is
difficult to predicate which version is true, then, the factum of
non-explanation of the injuries assumes greater importance. Much depends on the
quality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and it is from that angle,
the weight to be attached to the aspect of non-explanation of the injuries
should be considered. The decisions above cited would make it clear that there
cannot be a mechanical or isolated approach in examining the question whether
the prosecution case is vitiated by reason of non-explanation of injuries. In
other words, the non-explanation of injuries of the accused is one of the
factors that could be taken into account in evaluating the prosecution evidence
and the intrinsic worth of the defence version.
By this explanatory note, we are only elucidating what has been laid down in
a catena of decisions on this aspect.
Coming back to the situation in the present case, the High Court found that
independent and reliable evidence including dying declaration of the victim is
available. The defence version does not inspire confidence in the estimation of
the Court and does not compete in probability with that of the prosecution.
That is how the High Court has approached the matter and we cannot find fault
with the same. To add to what the High Court has said, we may point out that
there is every possibility that PW 4the informant, would not have been in a
position to notice that some of the accused received severe injuries. It is
true that one of the appellants Dashrath had a facture of the little finger
which is described as a grievous injury but there could hardly be any occasion
to observe such injury in the melee that followed the aggressive attack of the
accused party. So also, the injuries on the other accused might not have been
noticed by PW4the informant. Still, he could have mentioned broadly that his
associates tried to resist the attack and there was a fight. The omission to
state so in the FIR should not be given undue importance, as held by the High
Coming to the investigation stage, by the time the investigation was taken
up, a clear picture had emerged.
The counter-complaint of Raja Ram given a few hours later was on record. The
investigation into these two FIRs would have proceeded simultaneously. There
could not have been any suppression of the other part of the incident at that
stage. No such questions were put to the I.O. in order to elicit whether there
was such suppression. However, there is one aspect which remained unexplained
even at the trial i.e, the incised woundsone each on Ranjit Singh and Hari Lal
which, according to the medical evidence, could have been caused by a
sharp-edged weapon. As far as Ranjit Singh is concerned, the question of
explaining the injury caused to him does not arise as he was acquitted for the
reason that his presence was doubted. In fact Ranjit Singh himself in the course
of Section 313 examination denied the knowledge of the incident. There remains
the incised injury caused to Hari lal which at first blush seems unexplained.
PW6 noted incised wound of 5 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep on the occipital region,
with the exposure of skull bone. PW1 and his brother were supposed to have
wielded bamboo sticks. If we go strictly by medical evidence, this injury might
have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon but not a lathi. But, we get it from
the text books on Medical Jurisprudence that some of the lacerations caused by
a blunt instrument could look like incised wounds if the blunt force is applied
on the areas such as scalp. The following passages from Medical Jurisprudence
and Toxicology (Seventh Edition) authored by HWV Cox and edited by Dr. P.C.
Dikshit would clarify the position:
"The most common place for serious lacerations to be found, especially
in forensic practice, is the scalp which is often the target for homicidal
attack. As mentioned above, the hard underlying skull forms an unyielding base
upon which the skin and soft tissues can be crushed, so that many blunt
injuries of the scalp are indistinguishable at first sight from a laceration
caused by a knife, sharp axe or any other cutting instrument." Under the
head Split Laceration, it is explained:
"Splitting occurs by crushing the skin between two hard objects. They
are also called incised looking wounds. When there is application of blunt
force on areas where the skin is closely applied to the bone and sub-cutaneous tissue
is scanty, the wounds are produced by linear splitting of the skin. The common
areas are scalp, eyebrows and hibones. They can be differentiated by examining
the margins by magnifying glass and in these cases the roots of hair are
crushed." Again, at the beginning of the Chapter V dealing with wounds of
the head it is explained:
"Blunt injuries to the scalp are classically confused with knife
slashes, due to the splitting of the tissues because of the firm underlying
cranial bones beneath the aponeurosis. This has been described in the last
chapter, but it should be repeated that the distinction between blunt splits
and knife cuts may be difficult, but usually possible by a minute examination
of the wound margins." In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology
(Twenty-Second edition) edited by B V Subrahmanyam, it is explained at page
"Occasionally, on wounds produced by a blunt weapon or by a fall, the
skin splits and may look like incised wounds when inflicted on tense structures
covering the bones, such as the scalp, eyebrow, iliac crest, skin, perineum
etc. " It is further clarified at Page 404 "A scalp wound by a blunt
weapon may resemble an incised wound, hence the edges and ends of the wound
must be carefully seen to make out a torn edge from a cut and also to
distinguish a crushed hair bulb from one cut or torn. " Therefore, the
evidence of the Medical Officer does not necessarily lead to the conclusion
that the injury found on the occipital region/skull could not have been caused
by a lathi or stick. Even if there is some doubt on this aspect, taking an
overall view, we do not consider it a legitimate ground to reject the
prosecution case lock, stock and barrel.
The prosecution case as regards the head injury inflicted by Raja Ram on
Pratap Singh with kanta and the attempt on his life by Dashrath by resorting to
firing having been established beyond reasonable doubt, the next question is as
to the nature of offence committed by Raja Ram.
Firstly, it must be noted that the intention to cause the death of Pratap
Singh cannot be imputed to the accused Raja Ram. Apart from the finding of both
the Courts that the common object of the unlawful assembly was not to kill
Pratap Singh or any other member of his family but only to cause hurt or apply
criminal force in order to desist them from asserting the rights over the
disputed site, one more circumstance that rules out the intention on the part
of any of the accused to kill Pratap Singh is that after the single blow
inflicted on the victim with the kanta, there was no further move to attack
him. PW1 made this clear in his deposition. If Raja Ram intended to kill him,
he would not have stopped at injuring him once only. Still, the question
remains whether the offensive act done by the appellant Raja Ram falls within
clause thirdly of Section 300. That the appellant intended to cause bodily
injury to the victim by striking him on his head with a sharp-edged weapon the
appellant was carrying cannot be denied in view of the sequence of events deposed
to by PWs 1 to 4. From the medical evidence of PWs 6 & 8 coupled with the
magnitude of the injury caused on head with a dangerous weapon, it can be
presumed that the injury which was inflicted and intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW 8 who performed
the surgery on 13.8.1977 noted the pre-operative diagnosis on Exhibit ka-9 as
"Right fronto-parietal infected compound communated fracture of skull
with brain heriniates, underneath: brain abscess and cerebratis with
heriniation." He prescribed post-operative treatment. PW 8 stated that the
death was on account of the head injury which caused brain abscess and such
injury could lead to the occurrence of death in the ordinary course of nature.
The evidence of PW8 leaves no doubt that the skull and brain injury caused to
the victim was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW6
who attended on the victim on the day of occurrence itself noticed the incised
wound of 15 cm x 5 cm x brain tissue deep found on the head of the patient. He
stated that the injury was appearing to be dangerous to life and the injury
must have been inflicted by a sharp-edged object thrust with sufficient force.
The medical evidence however does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that
the ultimate cause of death was the aforesaid injury. From the date of the
surgery, the victim was alive for 23 days and undergoing treatment in the
hospital. He survived for 38 days after the injury was received. Not a word has
been said and no report or case- sheet has been filed to indicate the condition
of the patient after the surgery. No doubt, there was no cross examination of
the Doctor (PW8) on this aspect. Yet, it was the primary duty of the
prosecution to adduce evidence in regard to the post-operative condition of the
patient so that the scope for any intervening ailment unconnected with the
injury is ruled out. This becomes all the more important because of the long
time lag and the omission to hold post-mortem.
Apparently, there was a callous indifference or lack of vigilance on the
part of the Investigating Officer in failing to ensure the post-mortem
examination in a case of this nature. PW8 came forward with the explanation
that the post-mortem is not absolutely necessary to ascertain the cause of
death. But, then, the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
the eventual cause of death was only the injury inflicted by the appellant and
nothing else, but it has failed to do so.
We are therefore of the view that the appellant Raja Ram cannot be held
guilty of an offence under Section 302 or Section 304. He must be held guilty
under Section 326 for voluntarily causing a grievous hurt by means of a
dangerous weapon. Accordingly, his conviction is modified to Section 326 and he
is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay the fine
of Rs.1,000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further
imprisonment for four months. The accused will have the benefit of set off of
the period of imprisonment undergone in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal No. 910 of 2000 filed by Raja Ram is
allowed partly. The Criminal Appeal No. 909 of 2000 filed by Dashrath Singh is