JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These three appeals relate to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dealing with Criminal Appeal No. 366-SB of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 557-DB A of 1999 and Criminal Revision No. 788 of 1999. The first Criminal appeal was filed by the present appellants. The second criminal appeal was filed by the State of Haryana and the third i.e. Criminal Revision Petition was filed by the complainant Gulam Bashir.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4. Originally there were 11 accused persons and they were the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 366-SB of 1999. They were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 Part II read with Sections 149, 325 read with Sections 149, 324 read with Section 149 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). They were convicted in the following manner:

Name Convic Sentence Amount Sentence of tion awarded of awarded Convict recorded Fine Under imposed in Section default of payment of fine 1. Dalip 304 Five Rs.700/ Four Singh Part II years RI months IPC Each - RI 2. Mir read Singh with 149 IPC 3. Pars 325 Three Rs.300/ Two hadi IPC years RI - each months read each RI with 149 Two IPC years RI each 324 IPC Six read months with RI each 149 IPC Two years RI 323 each IPC read with 149 IPC 148 IPC 1. Siri 304 Seven Rs.100 Six Krishan Part II years RI 0/- months IPC each RI 2. Samey read Singh with 149 IPC 3. Dharam 325 Three Rs.300/ Two Singh IPC years RI - each months read each RI with 149 IPC 4. Hari 324 Three Singh IPC years RI read each with 149 IPC 5. Indraj 323 Six alias IPC months Inder read RI each pal with 149 IPC 6. Kan 148 Two war IPC years RI Singh each 7. Sohrab 8. Mamman

5. State of Haryana also filed the appeal dissatisfied with the acquittal of all the accused for the main charge of Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Complainant also filed the separate Revision Petition with similar prayer and for grant of compensation.

6. Background facts, as projected by the prosecution during trial, are essentially as follows:

The instant case was registered on the basis of statement Ex.P.A. of Gulam Rasool complainant. His real brother Habib is described hereinafter as deceased in this case, who according to the allegations on 1.8.1988 had gone to the school building in the village for filing nomination papers for election of Sarpanch. Complainant Gulam Rasool was accompanying him. Habib was to contest the election of Sarpanch. At about 11 A.M. when they came out of the said school building, accused Samey Singh and Dharam Singh armed with Pharsa each and remaining accused present there had lathies in their hands. When complainant and Habib came out of the school, Samey Singh accused gave a lalkara saying that they should be killed (in village parlance, it is stated, `Inhe Maar Lo'). Thereafter, Samey Singh accused gave Pharsa blow on the head of Gulam Rasool and Siri Kishan gave a lathi blow on the head of Habib. Accused Sohrab also gave a lathi blow on the back of Gulam Rasool touching his neck. Accused Mamman also gave a lathi blow on his back. It, is then alleged that when Jan Mohammad son of Sultan, Suleman and another Jan Mohammad son of Shakurmal reached there on hearing the noise and tried to intervene in order to rescue the complainant party, accused Indraj and Kanwar Singh gave lathi blows to Habib who was already lying down. The blow inflicted by Kanwar Singh hit the waist of Habib whereas lathi blow given by accused Indraj hit him on his back. Dharam Singh, Dalip Singh, Indraj and Kanwar Singh accused had hit Jan Mohamniad son of Shakurmal on right side of head, right forearm, right hand, right shoulder and the right arm. Jan Mohammad son of Sultan, Gulam Rasool, his brother Habib, Jan Mohammad son of Shakurmal and Shakurmal had sustained inuries in this occurrence and they were removed to hospital. A ruqa was sent to Police Station Tauru, from where Om Parka