ORDER :

1. The appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused appellants may kindly be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.”

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1986 and the present criminal appeal has been pending since the year 1992.

3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.08.1992 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Court, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 16/1992 whereby the accused appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 I.P.C., Section 148 I.P.C. and Section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and were each awarded a sentence of 6 years R.I., 2 years R.I. and 6 months S.I. respectively, with the direction that the sentences were to run concurrently.

4. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the record are that on 15.01.1986, Shri Rupla filed a report at Police Station Parsola stating therein that on 14.01.1986, at about 2/2:30 p.m. while Bheema, the deceased victim, his wife Pemli, and their son Devji were working in their fields, the accused appellants, armed with lathis, entered their fields and assaulted them, as a result of which Bheema died, and his wife and son sustained injuries. And that, the accused appellants removed and took Pemli’s jewellery, and lifted them (deceased Bheema as well as Pemli and Devji) and placed them on the cot in the verandah. And that, they subsequently entered their home and stole ornaments, a radio, a gun, among other things which were kept inside a chest in the victims’ home. And that, on the basis of such a report, an F.I.R. was registered by the S.H.O. for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 454, 394 and 323/149 I.P.C. against the accused appellants. The police authorities investigated the alleged crime scene, created a Panchnama report and post-mortem of the body was conducted. And that, the accused appellants denied the charges so framed against them, and sought trial, during the course of which, 15 prosecution witnesses were produced and examined.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the sentence awarded to the appellants (Babaria, Alia and Panchia) was suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 20.11.1992 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 362/1992. As per learned counsel and as mentioned in the present appeal, although appellants, namely, Bheria and Tejia have not sought suspension of sentence, but after serving out the sentence, as awarded to them by the learned court below, they were released.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there were 7 culprits in total, one of which was not identifiable, one of which (accused Ratna) was a juvenile at the relevant time, and the remaining 5 are the present appellants. And that, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and Section 148 I.P.C. is bad in the eye of law, as it was not ascertained beyond all reasonable doubts as to which of the 7 aforementioned persons had inflicted which injury on the deceased victim, nor has the fatal blow been attributed to either of them. And that, the same is evident from the testimony of P.W. 1 – Pemli, the wife of the deceased.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned Court below has also disbelieved the version of the prosecution that the incident occurred with the intention of stealing ornaments, and that the motive behind the occurrence of the incidents was not determinable either, as the chest from which the deceased’s wife claimed stealing of jewellery, was fastened with a lock, and the same was unbroken, as is corroborated from the statement of the investigating officer.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the evidence of the witnesses against the appellants is also weak and cannot be relied upon, as their te