JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. Both these criminal appeals are connected with each other having arisen against judgement and order dated 25.9.1981 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 590 of 1979. We propose to decide them together.
2. Factual matrix may be related first. Daya Shanker, Kripal Singh, Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal, Damodar Pal and Zahid Ali were tried before the trial judge. Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal are real brothers. The incident took place on 2.10.1979 at about 1.30 P.M. in Mohalla Warkjai of Jalalabad town and the F.I.R. was lodged the same day at 2.30 P.M. by Iqtedarullah Khan PW 1. The deceased was Mohd. Nabi Khan and two other persons, namely, Iqtedarullah Khan (complainant) and Noor Jahan sustained injuries in the incident.
3. The complainant Iqtedarullah Khan PW 1 resided in Mohalla Workjai of town Jalalabad. He was originally resident of District Budaun. Me was carrying on the profession of practising medicines in the building owned by accused Daya Shanker and his brother Mool Shanker, This building was previously joint and rent was paid by the complainant to both of them. Afterwards, partition took place between Daya Shanker and his brother Mool Shanker with the result that eastern portion of the building was allotted to Daya Shanker and western portion to Mool Shanker. The accused Damodar Pal and Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal are sons of Mool Shanker. The portion comprising the shop in which the complainant Iqtedarullah Khan used to run his clinic came to the share of Mool Shanker. Daya Shanker used to run a shop of medicines in his portion while portion situated in front of Mool Shanker was in occupation of the complainant Iqtedarullah Khan as a tenant which consisted of a hall with three doors facing north and inter-connected adjoining room situate towards east. This room had three doors, one towards north, the other towards east and the third towards west connected with the main hall in which the complaint Iqtedarullah Khan used to run the clinic. There was a Chabutara in front of the shop and thereafter a road. At a distance of fifty paces was situated residential house of Iqtedarullah Khan towards south of the road. On the north of the road were the shops of Srikrishna, Abrar Husain and Kirpal. Thereafter towards west was the flour mill of the accused Zahid Ali. Daya Shanker accused also used to run his clinic in his shop where he was selling medicines. His medical practice was not successful because of competition surfacing from neighbouring clinic of the complainant Iqtedarullah Khan. As such he desired that Iqtedarullah Khan should vacate the aforesaid shop. On account of such professional rivalry, Daya Shanker and his brother also sent a notice to him asking him to vacate the shop in question. The complainant sent his reply to the same that he would vacate the aforesaid shop only when he could get another shop. Daya Shanker and his family members had given a threat to Iqtedarullah Khan that in case of his not vacating the shop, it would be got vacated by use of force. The report regarding this threat was also lodged by Iqtedarullah Khan and thereafter proceedings under Sections 107/117 of Cr.P.C. were launched by the Police. This was the background.
4. Iqtedarullah Khan used to open his clinic at 7.00 A.M. in the morning in summer season and at about 8.00-9.00 A.M. in winter season. The clinic used to remain open till the fall of the evening. He used to sit in the hall in the centre on a chair facing north. A table was kept in front of this chair and two benches were kept towards both sides i.e. towards east and west for accommodating the patients. He used to examine the patients on these benches, prescribing medicines to them. On the southern wall, glasses were fixed in which medicines were kept. On the eventful day ( 2.10.1979) at about 1.30 P.M. he was sitting in his clinic on the chair facing north and on the benches lying towards east, the deceased Mohd. Nabi was sitting, who had come to the clinic as a patient. Rustam, Millan and Laddan were sitting on the western bench. They, too, were patients. At that time, accused Daya Shanker armed with a rifle, his nephews Damodar Pal and Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal armed with lathis, the accused Kirpal armed with gun and one unknown person who was relative of accused Daya Shanker came from the flour mill of accused Zahid Husain and ascended the Chabutara of the clinic of the complainant. They started abusing the complainant-Iqtedarullah Khan and declared that the shop would be got vacated from him and that he would not be spared. Hearing these abuses, Mohd. Nabi who was sitting on the eastern bench stood up and came in front of the main door of the clinic. He requested the accused not to create trouble and that the complainant would vacate the shop in usual course. This counsel of Mohd. Nabi was not relished by the accused Daya Shanker and he exhorted the other accused that he ( Mohd. Nabi) was a sympathiser of the complainant and he should be disposed of first. Instantaneously, Daya Shanker fired two shots from his rifle which hit Mohd. Nabi and he fell down dead inside the clinic of the complainant. Seeing this firing, the complainant got up from his chair and fled from his clinic through western door. As soon as he came out, the accused Damodar Pal, Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and their unknown relative armed with lathis assaulted him. They also shouted aloud that the real culprit, namely, Iqtedarullah Khan was fleeing and that he should not be allowed to escape. In the meantime, the complainant jumped from the Chabutara, fleeing towards his house. Seeing him fleeing, Daya Shanker again fired from his rifle at him and Zahid Ali opened fire from his gun. Rifle fire opened by Daya Shanker hit him and the other fire hit Noor Jahan wife of Gamman who was waiting on the southern side of the road for some conveyance to board. She also fled towards south and fell down on the ground. Accused Daya Shanker fired several rounds while complainant was fleeing towards his house but these did not hit him and he successfully entered his house.
5. K.P. Singh (who was then posted as S.I. of Police Station Jalalabad was on patrol duty in the town) came to know about the firing and rushed towards the spot. He saw the accused persons in front of the shop of the complainant. He arrested the accused Daya Shanker along with his 22 bore rifle and Damodar Pal and Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal with lathis . The accused Zahid, Kirpal Singh and unknown relative of accused Daya Shanker succeeded in fleeing. He opened the rifle of the accused Daya Shanker and six cartridges were taken out. These cartridges were sealed along with the rifle through Fard Ext. Ka 11. Seeing the arrival of the police and the arrest of the accused, the complainant mustered courage to come out of his house. Then he along with S.I. K.P. Singh and other police personnel went inside his clinic and found that Mohd. Nabi was lying dead inside. He then wrote the F.I.R. of the incident and gave it to the police constable Madan Lal who lodged the same at the Police Station at 2.30 P.M. On its basis, a case was registered by Head Constable Ramesh Chandra PW 6. The investigation was taken up by Ved Pal Singh PW 10 who was then S.H.O. of Police Station Jalalabad. He reached the spot and busied himself in the activities related to the investigation of the case including preparation of the inquest report of the dead body of deceased Mohd. Nabi. The dead body after being sealed was sent for post mortem. He took blood-stained Kurta from his person. He took blood-stained and simple earth from there in his possession. Six fired cartridge shells of rifle were found on the Chabutara and beneath. The same were also taken in custody. The site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and the statements of witnesses were recorded. The injured Noor Jahan was escorted from the scene of occurrence to Primary Health Centre, Jalalabad for medical examination. She was examined by Dr. R.C. Agrawal on 2.10.1979 at 2.25 P.M. A gunshot wound of entry in front of right side of chest, 13 cm above from right iliac crest on the laternal side near post-axillary line was found on her person. The injury was fresh caused by firearm.
6. The complainant-Iqtedarullah Khan was also sent for medical examination and his injuries were examined by the same Dr R.C. Agrawal PW 5 on 110.1979 at 3.40 P.M. The following injuries were found on his person:
1) An incised wound of 5.5 cm x 0,5 cm x skin deep present on postero-laternal side of left chest. It was present in oblique direction. The midpoint of wound was 8 cm below from post axillary fold of left side.
2) A swelling of 2 cm x 3 cm present on post side of lower 1/3 of right forearm. It was 4.5 cm above from right wrist joint. X-ray was advised.
3) An abrasion mark of 0,2 x 0.2 cm present on post side of Ist inter-phalangeal joint of right middle finger.
4) A contusion present on tip of right little finger.
7. According to the opinion of the doctor, the injury No. 1 could either be suffered by a sharp weapon or by a gunshot. The rest of the injuries had been caused by blunt weapon. They were fresh. Injuries No. 1, 2 and 4 were simple whereas X-ray was advised for injury No. 2.
8. Post mortem over the dead body of the deceased Mohd. Nabi Khan was conducted on 3.10.1979 at 4.30 P.M. by Dr. M.L. Tandon PW 4. The deceased was aged about 50 years and about one day had passed since he died. The following ante mortem injuries were found on his person:
1) Gunshot wound of entry 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x chest cavity deep oval in shape on right side chest 7 cm below to left and right nipple, 3 cm left to midline. Blackening around margins of wound present.
2) Gunshot wound of entry 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep oval in shape, left side chest 0.5 cm below inner end of left clavicle. Blackening around margins of wound present.
3) Gunshot wound of exit 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on left side back, 3 cm below and to left to inferior angle left scapula. Margins everted. Wound's direction upward and inward, communicating to injury No. 2 in the seat of which a small piece of pellet found. Margins upward.
4) Gunshot wound of exit 1 cm x 0.5 cm x chest cavity deep on right side back 7 cm below and to right of inferior angle right scapula. Margins everted.
9. Internal examination showed that right side of pleura was lacerated. As per the opinion of the doctor, the death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem gunshot injuries.
10. So, above was the profile of the prosecution case.
11. The defence was of denial.
12. The prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses. Out of them Iqtedarullah Khan PW 1 ( injured), Laddan PW 2, Mallan PW 3 and Rustam PW 7 were examined as eyewitnesses.
13. Bodul Rai, PW 9, Ballistic Expert found that the rifle of Daya Shanker recovered from the spot contained particles of lead nitrate and nitrate in its fouling matter. He also fired three fresh cartridges from the said rifle after cleaning it of fouling matter and compared firing pin marks of these three empties with the six empties that had been recovered from the scene of occurrence. He gave his opinion that the six empties in question had been fired from the rifle in question.
14. The rest of the evidence was more or less of formal nature. On scrutiny of evidence, the trial court found the case to be not been proved against Kirpal and Zahid Ali. Daya Shanker was held guilty of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing murder of Mohd. Nabi Khan and he was further held guilty under Section 307 I.P.C. for attempt to murder the complainant Iqtedarullah Khan. He was also held guilty for causing hurt to Smt. Noor Jahan punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal were held guilty only under Section 307/34 I.P.C. for attempt to commit murder of Iqtedarullah Khan and under Section 324/34 I.P.C. for causing hurt to Smt. Noor Jahan. Daya Shanker was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C., four years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. and two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C. Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar were sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 I.P.C. They were also sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/34 I.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
15. We have heard Sri P.N. Misra, learned Counsel for the accused-appellants and Sri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. from the side of the State.
16. It has been submitted from the side of the accused-appellants that the evidence of so-called eye-witnesses could not be believed to convict the three accused-appellants. According to him, there was no common bond amongst them which could have united them to participate in the alleged crime. It has alternatively been argued that in any case, the culpability of Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal (brothers) could not go beyond causing simple hurt to Iqtedar Ullah Khan as they were allegedly armed with lathis and according to the case of the prosecution they allegedly caused simple hurt to the said Iqtedar Ullah Khan therewith.
17. On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. supported the conviction of the three accused-appellants, urging that the ocular testimony was perfectly believable which was also in line with medical evidence and the testimony delivered by Ballistic Expert.
18. We have carefully examined the ocular testimony, medical evidence, evidence of Ballistic Expert and other attending circumstances surfacing in the case. We find it impossible to accept the submissions made on behalf of accused-appellants. The discussion that we intend to make hereinafter shall render the things clear, supporting our view.
19. We first propose to give the gist of the ocular testimony. The complainant Iqtedar Ullah Khan PW 1 gave evidence on the question of motive as also about actual incident in which he and Noor Jahan received injuries and Mohd. Nabi came to be murdered. According to him, it was at about 1.30 P.M. on 2.10.1979 when he was sitting in the clinic on a chair facing north. The deceased Mohd. Nabi had come to his clinic to take medicine and he was sitting on the bench which lay in the eastern side of his chair. Other patients i.e. Laddan P.W.2, Mallan PW 3 and Rustam PW 7 were sitting on another bench laying in the western side of his table. The accused-appellant Daya Shanker armed with rifle and accused-appellant Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal as also Damodar Pal along with their one unknown relative armed with lathis suddenly appeared on the Chabutara of his clinic. The accused-appellant Daya Shanker started hurling abuses on him, saying that he would get the shop vacated that day, lest he would be murdered. Hearing this, the deceased Mohd. Nabi Khan got up from the bench and stood in front of the main door to pacify the accused-Daya Shanker and his companions named above. It was not relished by Daya Shanker who commanded him to get away as otherwise he would be shot dead, rebuking him to be his (Iqtedarullah Khan's) sympathiser. Mohd. Nabi did not obey his command. Instantly, Daya Shanker fired two rounds from his rifle which hit him and he fell down dead inside the clinic. He (Iqtedar Ullah Khan) immediately fled through western door of his clinic towards his house. While he was on the Chabutara in the process of so running, he was assaulted by the accused Kiran Pal, Damodar Pal and their unknown relative by lathis. Someone said aloud that the real culprit (Iqtedar Ullah Khan) was escaping and this drew the attention of Daya Shanker. The accused Daya Shanker then fired two or three rounds from his rifle. One fire hit him and another fire hit Noor Jahan who was waiting for some conveyance. In the meantime, police of concerned police station arrived and arrested accused Daya Shanker and his two nephews. When he (Iqtedar Ullah Khan) knew that police had come at the spot, he returned to his clinic and found that Mohd. Nabi Khan was lying dead inside. He then wrote the F.I.R. Ext. Kha-4 and sent it for being lodged at the police station Jalalabad.
20. Laddan PW 2, Mallan PW 3 and Rustam PW 7 were present in the clinic of Iqtedar Ullah Khan-complainant PW 1 in connection with taking medicines at the time of the incident and they corroborated his testimony in material particulars as to the happening related above. All of them were named as eye-witnesses in the F.I.R. lodged promptly. Had they not been present at the time of the occurrence, Iqtedarullah Khan PW 1 could not be in a position to name them in the promptly lodged F.I.R. All these witnesses were subjected to searching and gruelling cross-examination but nothing came out to dislodge the main core of their testimony as to the manner of the happening and about the fact that the three accused-appellants Daya Shanker, Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal did participate in the incident as detailed above. All these three witnesses, namely, Laddan PW 2, Mallan PW 3 and Rustam PW 7 had a reasonable purpose for being present in the clinic of the Iqtedar Ullah Khan PW 1 when the incident occurred. It would be recalled that they had gone to take medicines as patients. Moreover, the Investigating Officer Ved Pal PW 10 had arrived at the scene of occurrence at about 4.15 P.M. He examined all the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on the same day in the evening. This factor also cemented that all these witnesses were present in the clinic of Iqtedar Ullah Khan PW 1 when the occurrence took place.
21. There was another strong circumstance to establish their participation in the incident. S.I. K.P. Singh, PW 9 was then posted as Second Officer at Police Station Jalalabad. On 2.10.1979 at about 12.30 P.M. he had set out with police force consisting of constable Ram Deo and few others on patrol duty. While he was near the clinic of the complainant Iqtedar Ullah Khan PW 1, he heard sound of shots and rushed to the scene of occurrence. He found the accused Daya Shanker armed with rifle and accused Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal, Damodar Pal and unknown person armed with lathis. According to him, he also found Kirpal Singh armed with gun. His testimony was that Zahid Ali was standing on the Chabutara of his flour mill. He rushed to arrest all these accused but could apprehend only Daya Shanker and his two nephews. The remaining accused, namely, Kripal Singh, Zahid Ali and unknown person fled away. Arresting the accused Daya Shanker, he took his rifle in custody along with its magazine. He found six live cartridges in the magazine. He saw six fired rifle cartridges scattered on the Chabutara but he did not touch them as he was not the Investigating Officer of the case. The accused Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal were arrested with lathis. Their lathis were taken in possession.
22. So, to come to the point, the convicted three accused-appellants, Daya Shanker, Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal were arrested at the spot immediately after incident, the first one with his rifle and magazine containing six live cartridges and the second and third with lathis.
23. The testimony of Ballistic Expert Bodal Rai PW 9 further lent support to the prosecution case as against the accused Daya Shanker that he had used his rifle in opening shots, murdering Mohd. Nabi and injuring Iqtedar Ullah Khan and Noor Jahan. The Ballistic Expert examined the rifle ( Ext. 10) recovered from the possession of the accused Daya Shanker. He found that particles of led nitrate and nitrate existed in its fouling matter. He also fired three fresh cartridges after cleaning the rifle and compared pin marks of these empties with those six empties that had been recovered by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence and had been sent to him in sealed bundle. After comparison, he found that these empties sent to him in sealed cover were fired from the said rifle.
24. In the face of such overwhelming evidence against the convicted accused-appellants Daya Shanker, Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal, their participation in the crime could not at all be doubted. It was, as a matter of fact, fully established. At times, motive, though not evidence in a case, satisfies the judicial mind about the authorship of a particular crime. In the present case, Daya Shanker, Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal did have strong motive against Iqtedar Ullah Khan. It was an admitted fact that Iqtedar Ullah Khan was tenant in the shop which was earlier jointly owned by accused Daya Shanker and his brother Mool Shanker. Later on, it had come to the share of Mool Shanker (father of accused Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal) in consequence of partition. It was also an admitted fact that Daya Shanker himself also carried on the profession of practising medicines in that part of the building which had fallen to his share in partition. Iqtedar Ullah Khan PW 1 admitted in his cross-examination that partition had taken place between accused Daya Shanker and Mool Shanker and the shop in his tenancy had fallen in the share of Mool Shanker which, prior to partition, was owned by both of them. He also stated that partition took place 5-6 years before the incident and after that partition he had been paying rent to Mool Shanker. According to Iqtedar Ullah Khan PW 1, there was professional rivalry between him and the accused Daya Shanker who also used to run a clinic in the other part of said building that had fallen to his share.
25. Obviously, there was unity of purpose amongst Daya Shanker, Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal, though for different reasons. The purpose was of getting the shop vacated by Iqtedar Ullah Khan, PW 1. The reason to achieve this purpose which actuated Daya Shanker was the professional rivalry with him. The purpose of Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal was that they wanted to get the shop vacated. They were young persons aged about 22-24 years and wanted the shop to start some business there. Notice (Ext. Ka-1) had also earlier been given to Iqtedar Ullah Khan by Daya Shanker and Mool Shanker to vacate the shop. Ext. Ka-3 was the report made by Iqtedar Ullah Khan to Senior Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur on 30.8.1979 that for last two weeks Mool Shanker and his brother Daya Shanker (practising medicines in the adjoining shop) and his own sons with hired gundas were harassing him to get the shop vacated forcibly, saying that they (two young sons of Mool Shanker) would start business of their own. He apprehended danger from them.
26. The present incident occurred on 2.10.1979. The demised shop, coming in the grip of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, could not be easily got vacated through the court. To proceed under the said Act was a ticklish and tedious process. Therefore, the three accused devised the short cut to get the shop vacated forcibly through violence and muscle power. Thus; all the three accused appellants Daya Shanker, Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal had strong motive to indulge in this crime though, as we said, for different reasons. But there was unity of purpose amongst them. All the three had gone to execute their purpose and one of them had a loaded rifle.
27. The medical evidence supported the ocular testimony this way that as per the ocular version, the accused Daya Shanker had fired two rounds from his rifle which hit Mohd. Nabi. Ext.Ka-5 post mortem report indicated that he received four ante mortem injuries on his person. Out of them two were of entry and two of exit. Thus, the deceased received two shots,
28. Dr. R.C. Agrawal PW 5, who examined the injuries of Iqtedar Ullah Khan, stated that his injury No. 1 was caused either by firearm or sharp edged weapon. The ocular testimony was there that he received this injury as a result of shot fired by Daya Shanker from his rifle while he was on the Chabutara in the process of fleeing to his house to save his life. The other three injuries sustained by him were of blunt weapons (lathis) having been struck on him by the accused Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal . The injury sustained by Noor Jahan was also firearm injury as a result of shot fired by Daya Shanker. Medical examination on Noor Jahan was conductted within an hour of the incident. As such, there was no time gap for this injury to be fictitious.
29. It should be stated at the risk of repetition that arrest of accused Daya Shanker alongwith his rifle and six live cartridges at the spot soon after the occurrence by S.I. K.P. Singh and other police force lent assurance to the prosecution version regarding his participation in the crime as slated by the eye-witnesses. Further, the Ballistic Expert found that firing pin marks on the six empty cartridges recovered from the spot tallied with the firing pin marks on three fresh cartridges fired by him (Ballistic Expert) from the rifle in question. It was admitted to the accused Daya Shanker that the said rifle belonged to him. The rifle was sealed at the spot. The Ballistic Expert examined fouling matter and chemically tested the same. It was discovered that the particles of nitrate existed in it. It meant that the rifle after its last use was not cleaned. Empty cartridges lying at the spot soon after the incident were fired from this rifle.
30. So, in view of the above discussion, the participation of the accused Daya Shanker and of his two nephews Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal in question was fully established.
31. Now, the important question is as to what offence did they commit. Broadly speaking, it is difficult, if not impossible, to procure direct evidence to prove the intention of a person. In most of the cases, the court has to infer the intention from the act or material conduct of a particular person or from other relevant circumstances of the case. Common intention is to be inferred from surrounding circumstances i.e. nature of weapon used, the injury inflicted as well as meeting of minds amongst the accused. In the present case, it is clearly proved that the accused Daya Shanker and his two nephews Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal participated in this incident. There was commensality of purpose or motive amongst them of getting the shop in possession of Iqtedar Ullah Khan vacated forcibly. While so acting, the three could contemplate the murder of Iqtedar Ullah Khan but the murder of Mohd. Nabi could not be in contemplation of all the three. It was the individual act of Daya Shanker that he committed the murder of Mohd. Nabi by f; shooting as he stood up and intervened in an attempt to pacify him ( Daya Shanker), imploring him not to use violence saying that the shop would be vacated in due course. Intervention of Mohd. Nabi infuriated Daya Shanker and it was his individual act that he fired two rounds on Mohd. Nabi and committed his murder. But for the injuries caused to Iqtedar Ullah Khan, the accused Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal did commit the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. because his attempted murder was in furtherance of common intention of all of them i.e. Daya Shanker, Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal. All the three had gone with common intention to get the shop vacated from Iqtedar Ullah Khan by force and to kill him in case he was to offer resistance. Their culpability in this regard would not be reduced on the premise that they simply used lathis causing simple injuries to Iqtedar Ullah Khan. Therefore, their conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. for the injuries caused to Iqtedar Ullah Khan is perfectly justified, not calling for any interference by this Court of appeal. In an attempt to murder him, Daya Shanker opened shots on him and these two struck lathi blows on him.
32. So far as the injury of Noor Jahan was concerned, she was a stranger and she was not at all the target. But everybody is supposed to know the natural and probable consequence of his act. While opening shots on Iqtedar Ullah Khan in furtherance of common intention of all the three, it would be deemed to be in the contemplation of the shooter (Daya Shanker) that anyone could be hit by the shot. Therefore, while he ( Daya Shanker) committed the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. in injuring Noor Jahan, the other two, namely, Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal committed the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. with regard to the injury caused to her (Noor Jahan).
33. However, it is to be noted that Daya Shanker has to suffer life imprisonment for the murder of Mohd. Nabi and the fact is that injuries sustained by Iqtedar Ullah Khan and Noor Jahan did not turn out to be grievous. The ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of Daya Shanker under Section 307 I.P.C. to three years' rigorous imprisonment and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C. Similarly, the sentences of Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. would be reduced from four years' rigorous imprisonment to three years' rigorous imprisonment and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 readwith Section 34 I.P.C.
34. Our final order is to the following effect:
The appeal is dismissed insofar as the conviction of the accused Daya Shanker under Sections 302, 307 and 324 I.P.C. is concerned and that of accused Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal under Sections 307 I.P.C. and 324 I.P.C. is concerned. The accused-appellant Daya Shanker shall undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. for his individual act of murdering Mohd. Nabi, three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. for attempting the murder of Iqtedarullah Khan and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C. for causing injury to Noor Jahan. All his sentences shall run concurrently.
35. The accused Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal shall suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment for attempting the murder of Iqtedar Ullah Khan as punishable under Section 307 readwith Section 34 I.P.C. and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. for causing injury to Noor Jahan. Their sentences shall run concurrently. Daya Shanker, Kiran Pal alias Kishan Pal and Damodar Pal are on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahahpur shall cause them to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentences passed against them.
36. The judgement be certified to lower court immediately for reporting compliance within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.