Ahluwalia J. (Oral):— A jilted lover, whose advances were spurned off and proposal of marriage was rejected, unable to come out of frustration, accompanied by his three buddies on 18th of May, 2011 at about 06:00/07:00 P.M in the house of his beloved caused her death, after pouring kerosene oil upon her and setting her on fire.

2. In the present appeal, following questions draw our attention:-

A. Whether precedence is to be given to the dying declaration (Exhibit-P/5) recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhagwat Singh (PW-2) over oral testimony of Leela Kanwar (PW-5) or history of patient noted in the bed-head tickets of deceased (Exhibit-D/3 and Exhibit-D/4)?

B. Whether pouring of kerosene oil on deceased, Sheela Kanwar and setting her on fire is individual act of rejected suitor, Arjun Sharma or his companions too?.”

C. Whether the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer (Exhibit-P/3) and the dying declaration (Exhibit-P/5) recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate can be read in harmony or they are to be construed as contradictory to each other?.

3. To answer the above questions, it shall be necessary for us to divulge the facts of the case.

4. The facts, emerging in the prosecution case, can be broadly divided into three parts:

1. Medical Evidence

2. Evidence of relatives and neighbourers.

3. Evidence regarding dying declaration

5. Before we recapitulate the evidence lead by the prosecution on above three important aspects, we will prefer to note here the contents of impugned First Information Report (Exhibit-P/7), on the basis of which in the present case, criminal proceedings were set into motion.

6. Leela Kanwar (PW-5), the sister of deceased, Sheela Kanwar, had presented a written-report (Exhbiti-P/6) before Assistant Sub-Inspector, Onkar Singh, (PW-18), who at the relevant time was Incharge of Police Station, Madanganj. Sheela Kanwar, deceased at the time of occurrence was unmarried girl.

7. In the written-report (Exhibit-P/6), Leela Kanwar (PW-5) stated that she was married to Sohan Lal, resident of Maliya-ki-dhani. On 17.05.2011, there was a marriage in the neighbourhood. Her younger sister, Sheela Kanwar had gone to the venue of marriage. Arjun Sharma, Lokesh Pradhan, Shiv Saurabh and Raghuraj, all four accused came there and called Sheela Kanwar. When she had not gone out of the marriage venue, they came inside the house, asked and threatened Sheela Kanwar to accompany them, otherwise, they will abduct her. On the next day, on 18.05.2011, all four accused were roaming around the house of the complainant. At about 06:00 P.M, Arjun Sharma stood outside the house and called Sheela on mobile to come out of the house. He also gave abuses to her on the name of mother and father. Five minutes thereafter, he called Lokesh Pradhan, Shiv Saurabh and Raghuraj Singh.

8. To cut long story short, it is stated in the impugned First Information Report (Exhibit-P/7) that the jewelry worn by Sheela was removed by Lokesh Pradhan. Arjun Sharma poured kerosene oil upon Sheela with the intention to kill her. Thereafter, Arjun ignited the fire with the match-stick. Sheela sustained burn injuries. Her clothes were burnt and she was brought to the Government Hospital at Kishangarh from where she was referred to J.L.N Hospital, Ajmer.

9. The above said First Information Report (Exhibit-P/7) was investigated. A report of investigaiton under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was submitted. During the course of investigation, Investigating Agency nominated, Shiv Saurabh Singh s/o Hari Singh, Arjun Sharma s/o Leeladhar Sharma, Raghuraj s/o Bhanwar Singh and Lokesh Sharma s/o Sukhraj, as accused.

10. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer tried them for offences punishable under Sections 397, 302, 448, 302/34 and in alternate for offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C

11. The said Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 28.06.2013, convicted Arjun Sharma for offence punishable under Sections 448 and 302 I.P.C and remaining three accused, namely Shiv Saurabh Singh, Lokesh Sharma and Raghuraj Singh for offences punishable under Section 448 and 302/34 I.P.C

12. Having convicted the appellants for the above said offence, the trial Court, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:-

For offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C the appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one year simple imprisonment.

For offence under Section 448 I.P.C the appellants were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.,1000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.”

13. Similar sentence was awarded upon Arjun Sharma for offence under Sections 302 and 448 I.P.C

14. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the appellant, Shiv Saurabh Singh has filed D.B Criminal Appeal No. 502/2013, Raghuraj Singh has instituted D.B Criminal Appeal No. 503/2013, Arjun Sharma has preferred D.B Criminal Appeal No. 532/2013, whereas Lokesh Sharma has approached this Court by way of filing D.B Criminal Appeal No. 533/2013, under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying interalia that their conviction and sentence, be set aside, and they be acquitted of the charges leveled against them.

15. Since in all these appeals, a common judgment has been assailed and it has been prayed that conviction and sentence of the appellants be set aside, we shall decide all the four appeals together.

16. The prosecution agency, during trial, had examined twenty-four witnesses and also proved on record twenty-two documents, being Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/22 respectively.

17. The statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and pleaded innocence.

18. In defence, accused had not examined any witness.

First we shall notice Medical Evidence.

19. Dr. Shankar Lal Aasnani (PW-11) on 18.05.2011 was posted as Medical Officer at Y.N Hospital, Kishangarh. On the said date, he had medico-legally examined, Sheela Kanwar. As per this witenss, she was brought in a burnt condition. She had suffered 80% burns. Her skin was burnt and had turned black. Smell of kerosene oil was coming, therefore, considering her condition, she was referred to Ajmer Hospital. The witness stated that Exhibit-D/1 bear his signature.

20. In cross-examination, this witness (PW-11) stated that on telephone, he informed Police Station, Madanganj regarding arrival of injured, Sheela Kanwar. The witness further stated that in the bed-head ticket (Exhibit-D/2), he has recorded complain of burn injuries received due to bursting of stove. This witness (PW-11) stated that he recorded the above facts on the basis of information received from patient.

21. It will be pertinent to mention here that in Exhibit-D/1, Injury Report prepared by the Dr. Shankar Lal (PW-11), there is no mention of the history as to how burns were received.

22. However, in Exhibit-D/2, Bed Head Ticket (Indoor-ticket under column complaints, it is recorded that .

23. Dr. Ramkesh (PW-20), who was posted as Resident Doctor, has deposed that in his presence, parchabayan/statement of Sheela Kanwar (deceased) was recorded and he had verified the same vide Exhibit-P/3. The said parchabayan/statement, Exhibit-P/3 made by Sheela Kanwar, has now been termed as dying declaration.

24. In cross-examination, this witness (PW-20) stated that he is not aware whether deceased was tutored by the relatives, who were present there or not. On 24.05.2011, Sheela Kanwar was shifted by her relatives to Ahmadabad. It is to be noted here that in Exhibit-D/4 (Bed-Head Ticket), it is recorded that relations of patient having understood precarious condition of Sheela Kanwar, have decided to take her to Ahmedabad.

25. We may note here that on 23.05.2011, the statement of Sheela Kanwar (Exhibit-P/5) was recorded by Bhagwat Singh (PW-2), Executing Magistrate, Head-Quarter, Ajmer, while she was admitted at Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer.

26. At Ahmedabad on 29.05.2011 at around 08:00 A.M Sheela Kanwar took her last breath and she was declared dead. Her autopsy was conducted by Dr. Jagdish (PW-21). The said Doctor had proved the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/19).

27. As per opinion of the Medical Board, which has been proved on record by Dr. Jagdish (PW-21), cause of death was septicemia due to burns over the whole body.

Evidence of Relatives and Neighbourers:

28. Now we shall revert to the testimony of relatives and the neighbours of the deceased.

29. Naurat Mal (PW-3) stated that on 18.05.2011, Sheela, resident of their vicinity (mohalla) received burn injuries. At that time, he was not present in the house. When he returned from the factory, people were standing outside the house. This witness had taken complainant, Leela Kanwar to the Police Station and witnessed the presentation of written-report (Exhibit-P/6) on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/7) was registered. This witness had also attested site-plan (Exhibit-P/8). He is also witness to the recovery of burnt clothes from the spot and recovery of one plastic can and match-stick vide memo Exhibit-P/10 from the house of the deceased.

30. Gopal (PW-4), along with Naurat Mal (PW-3) had also attested memos prepared at the spot, including site-plan, recovery of clothes, plastic can and match-stick vide Exhibit-P/8, Exhibit-P/9 and Exhibit-P/10 respectively.

31. Leela Kanwar (PW-5), the sister of deceased and eyewitness has reiterated the same as to what was stated by her in the First Information Report.

32. We may note here that this witness (Leela Kanwar) made improvements and she has stated that all these four accused came together and at that time, Arjun Sharma was having a plastic can in his hand containing kerosene oil. Arjun Sharma and Lokesh Sharma had caught hold of the hands of Sheela and poured kerosene oil. Whereas in the impugned First Information Report (Exhibit-P/6), this witness (Leela Kanwar) stated that Lokesh Sharma and Arjun Sharma had given beating and Arjun Sharma set her on fire. This witness was also confronted with her previous statement. The contents of Exhibit-D/1 and Exhibit-D/2 were also put to this witness. She denied having said that Sheela died due to the bursting of the stove.

33. Bheru Singh (PW-6), the father of deceased and Kalibai (PW-7), the mother of deceased have also corroborated the testimony of Leela Kanwar (PW-5), the sister of deceased.

34. Smt. Rinki (PW-8), neighbour of deceased stated that on the day of occurrence at about 04:00 P.M she and mother of Sheela were filling water from the Government tanker and at that time, Arjun was standing outside the house of the deceased. The mother of Sheela came and slapped Arjun. It was further deposed by the witness that Sheela came to save Arjun and she was also given two/three slaps by her mother. The witness further stated at 07:00 P.M after hearing noise, she, along with Gopal had gone to the house of deceased, Sheela Kanwar and saw her in a burnt condition and she was coming out of the room. At that time, nobody was present. She exclude presence of the accused at that time. This witness was declared hostile to the prosecution and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. She was duly confronted with her previous statement.

35. Smt. Laad Kanwar (PW-9), another neighbour has also not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile.

36. Narendra Singh (PW-10), another neighbour stated that on 18.05.2011 at 07:00 P.M, Sheela came out of the room. At that time, while crying she was saying that she has been put to fire.

37. Smt. Rinku Sharma (PW-12) stated that her marriage was solemnized on 17.05.2011 and on that day, Sheela had come to do her make-up. At about 08:00 P.M, someone came to call Sheela. Sheela had refused to go out of the house. Then a boy came inside the room. On enquiry Sheela disclosed name of the boy as Arjun. The boy called Sheela out of room for a minute. Then both Sheela and Arjun had gone out of the room. Sheela returned to the room after one minute.

38. We need not burden the judgment by reproducing evidence of the Police Personnels, who had attested arrest memo, taken sealed samples from the Malkhana to State Forensic Science Laboratory or had prepared site-plan, as nothing substantial hinges upon this part of evidence.

39. Suffice it to say, Assistant Sub Inspector, Babu Lal (PW-1) had proved various facets of investigation.

40. Narendra Singh (PW-24), who was then posted as Incharge at Police Station, Madanganj had prepared charge-sheet and had opined that it was a case of suicide. However, his opinion was not accepted by the supervisory officer and the accused was sent for trial for commission of offence of murder.

Evidence regarding dying declaration:

41. Having taken note of the prosecution evidence, now we shall reproduce here dying declaration of the deceased (Exhibit-P/3 and Exhibit-P/5) recorded, during her stay at Burn Unit, J.L.N Hospital, Ajmer.

42. On 19.05.2011 at 01:40 P.M in the Burn Unit, J.L.N Hospital, Ajmer, A.S.I Babu Lal (PW-1) had recorded dying declaration (Exhibit-P/3) in the presence of Dr. Ramkesh (PW-20).

43. The said dying declaration (Exhibit-P/3), when translated into English reads as under:-

“Statement of Sheela Kanwar D/o Bheru Singh, by caste Rawat, aged twenty-one years, resident of Maliya-ki-Dhani, Police Station, Madanganj, District Ajmer, at present admitted in the Burns Unit, J.L.N Hospital, Ajmer.

“Stated that I am resident of Malia-ki-Dhani, Madanganj. I do work at Neha Beauty Parlour, there I do work of bride make-up. In my neighbourhood, Arjun s/o Girraj is residing. Every time, he tells me to accompany him, but I have refused his offers. On 17.05.2011 behind Jagdamba School I had gone to do make-up of a bride then Arjun, Shiv Saurabh, Lokesh Pradhan and three/four others persons came there. Arjun told me to accompany him, otherwise, he will get me abducted. At that time, inmates of the house of the marriage intervened and saved me. At that time, Arjun left the spot. On 18.05.2011 at about 04:00 P.M Arjun, Shiv Saurabh, lokesh and three/four other boys came and threatened me to abduct. At that time, my parents had sent them back by folding hands. At 07:00 they again came at my residence. At that time, nobody was present in the house, except my sister Leela. At that time, Arjun told me to accompany him. He removed gold chain and ear-rings and started beating me. Thereafter, Arjun lifted kerosene can from my kitchen. Other accused caught hold of me. Arjun poured kerosene oil upon me and set me on fire. Thereafter, they ran away from the spot. While leaving Arjun said that if you will not accompany me, I will not allow you to remain alive. My uncle (phupha), Gopal and others came. Thereafter, my parents also came. They brought me to the hospital, I have been badly burnt.

Verified by Dr. Ramkesh

Dated: 19.05.2011 at 01:40 P.M

Investigating Officer,

Police Station, Madanganj Dated 19.05.2011”

44. On 23.05.2011 vide Exhibit-P/4 Dr. had declared Sheela fit to make statement. Thereafer, Bhagwat Singh (PW-2) on 23.05.2011 being posted as A.D.M Ajmer, recorded dying declaration, Exhibit-P/5 of Sheela at Burns Unit, J.L.N Hospital, Ajmer.

45. The statement recorded by Bhagwat Singh (PW-2), A.D.M Ajmer (Exhibit-P/5), when translated into English reads as under:-

“Statement of Kumari Sheela Kanwar D/o Bheru Singh, aged about twenty-one years, by caste Rawat, resident of Maliyaki-dhani, Chamraghar, Madanganj, at present admitted in Burns Unit, J.L.N Hospital, Ajmer.

“Stated that my name is Sheela. Four persons have burnt me. Their names are Arjun, Lokesh Pradhan, Raghuveer and Shivsaurabh. Out of which, two boys were standing outside the house and two (Arjun and Lokesh), who were inside the house had brought kerosene oil with them. My parents were not at the house. I was alone at house. Arjun wanted to marry me. Due to refusal, he burnt me. He said that in case, you will not be mine, he will not permit her to be of any other person.”

46. Having noted Dying Declaration, Exhibit-P/3 recorded in presence of the Doctor and Dying Declaration, Exhibit-P/5 recorded by Executive Magistrate, we shall notice contention of counsel for the parties and shall deal with same.

47. Mr. Sudhir Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, Arjun Sharma, has submitted that both the dying declarations (Exhibit-P/3 and Exhibit-P/5) are contradictory to one another and their contents cannot be reconciled. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that on each and every day, deceased and the complainant kept on improving their version and, thus, have made themselves unreliable. Counsel appearing for Arjun Sharma has contended that in the Indoor Ticket of Y.N Hospital, Kishangarh, it is recorded that the deceased had suffered burn injuries due to bursting of the stove. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that this fact is duly verified and corroborated by Dr. Shankar Lal (PW-11), who first attended the deceased at Kishangarh and prepared bed-head ticket. Learned counsel, referring to cross-examination of Dr. Shankar Lal (PW-11), has submitted that Doctor had stated in categoric terms that on information given by the deceased, he had recorded in the indoor bed-head ticket (Exhibit-D/2) that she had received injuries from the stove. Learned counsel by further referring to the testimony of various neighbourers has submitted that it has come in the evidence, more particularly in the evidence of Smt. Rinki (Pw-8) that before the occurrence at 04:00 P.M Arjun was standing outside the house. He was slapped by the mother of the deceased and Sheela came to save Arjun, then mother had slapped Sheela. It is argued by the learned counsel that it cannot be ruled out that to save herself from shame and ignominy deceased had committed suicide.

48. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, Shivsaurabh and Raghuraj, has submitted that in the dying declaration (Exhibit-P/3), the name of Raghuraj is not mentioned. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that in the dying declaration (Exhibit-P/3), which is duly vouchsafed by Dr. Ramkesh (PW-20), Arjun had picked up kerosene can from the kitchen and, thus, it was individual act of Arjun. Learned counsel has contended that even as per dying declaration (Exhibit-P/5), Raghuraj and Shiv Saurabh were standing outside the house and they have not entered into the house and, thus, assertion in the dying declaration (Exhibit-P/3) that others boys caught hold of deceased is not corroborated by dying declaration (Exhibit-P/5). It has been further contended by the learned counsel that even in the dying declaration (Exhibit-P/3), the name of persons, who caught hold of deceased have not been specified.

49. Mr. Onkar Singh Lakhawat, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, Lokesh Sharma, while adopting the arguments of Mr. Sudhir Jain, Advocate has contended that in Exhibit-P/3 (dying declaration), it has been specifically stated that Arjun picked up a can of kerosene oil from the house of the deceased and, thus, the story that the appellant, Lokesh caught hold of the deceased is improbable.

50. Mr. N.S Dhakad, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that Sheela had received 80% burns, when she was brought to Kishangarh and, hence, having perceived that her death is near and she is going to approach her Maker, she will be the last person to tell lie.

51. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants.

52. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paniben (Smt) v. State Of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474 for appreciating dying declaration, has summed up the law as under:-

“Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court on its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailants. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under:

(i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. (Munna Raja v. State of M.P, (1976) 3 SCC 104).

(ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. (State of U.P v. Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC 552), Ramawati Devi v. State Of Bihar, (1983) 1 SCC 211).

(iii) This Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, (1976) 3 SCC 618).

(iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P, (1974) 4 SCC 264).

(v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. (Kake Singh Alias Surendra Singh v. State Of Madhya Pradesh , 1981 Supp SCC 25).

(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (Ram Manorath v. State of U.P, (1981) 2 SCC 654).

(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (State Of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu, 1980 Supp SCC 455).

(viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. (Surajdeo Oza v. State of Bihar, 1980 Supp SCC 769).

(ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eye witness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. (Nanahau Ram v. State of M.P, 1988 Supp SCC 152).

(x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. (State of U.P v. Madan Mohan, (1989) 3 SCC 390).”

53. Admittedly, dying declaration (Exhibit-P/3) is duly attested by Dr. Ramkesh (PW-20). The said Doctor, in his testimony, has stated that statement of deceased (Exhibit-P/3) was recorded in his presence. After recording of statement (Exhibit-P/3) on 19.05.2011, which has been construed as a dying declaration, four days later another dying declaration (Exhibit-P/5) was recorded by Bhagwat Singh, Executing Magistrate, Ajmer.

54. To us, there is no inherent contradictions between two dying declarations. In both the dying declarations, Arjun had poured kerosene oil and after igniting a match-stick had set deceased Sheela on fire.

55. So far as role of other three accused is concerned, there is variation between two dying declarations. As per statement of Smt. Rinki (PW-8) who is a neighbour of deceased, before the occurrence at 04:00 P.M only Arjun was standing outside the house. Occurrence had takenplace at 07:00 P.M This fact has come in both both the dying declarations. It has been specifically stated that Arjun was madly in love with Sheela and wanted to possess her.

56. Both the dying declarations specifically state that advances made by Arjun Sharma were discarded by Sheela with the contempt, which it deserved.

57. We cannot rule out that on the fateful day, proposal of marriage was renewed and same was rejected, and when Arjun professed his love for Sheela she scornfully rejected her proposal by making some scathing or acidic remark, therefore, unable to bear his disgraceful rejection, Arjun Sharma, accused acted on his own.

58. Sheela Kanwar, deceased in her statement, Exhibit-P/3, Dying Declaration recorded in presence of the Doctor in categoric terms has stated that Arjun had lifted a can of kerosene oil from the kitchen of her house. Thus, even though Lokesh may have accompanied Arjun inside the house, it will never in his knowledge that Arjun will pour kerosene oil or set Sheela on fire.

59. Thus, while accepting both the dying declarations and reading them in harmony, we are of the view that common intention cannot be attributed to Lokesh that he was privy to any decision that Sheela is to be put on fire. The act of Arjun to pour kerosene oil and ignite match stick seems to have happened at the spur of the moment and it is his individual act.

60. We may note here that had accused entertained any intention to commit murder they would come armed with weapon. Accused when arrived at the house of deceased, they were empty handed and two of the acused, namely Raghuraj and Shiv Saurabh, as per dying declaration (Exhibit-P/5) were standing outside the house.

61. The very fact that kerosene can was lifted from the spot i.e from kitchen of house of deceased, as per statement, Exhibit-P/3 and, therefore, same was poured over Sheela by Arjun and he ignited match-stick make him alone responsible for the murder.

62. Thus, our answer to three questions poised and noted by us is that indoor bead head ticket, Exhibit-D/2 is liable to be ignored. Preference is to be given to dying declarations, Exhibit-P/3 and Exhibit-P/5 and both are to be read in harmony and accused-appellant, Arjun Sharma alone is responsible for murder of Sheela Kanwar and other three accused had not shared common intention with Arjun Sharma, qua offence of murder.

63. In these circumstances, taking into account the attending circumstances, reading both the dying declarations (Exhibit-P/3 and Exhibit-P/5) in harmony and the evidence of the neighbourers, we are of the view that it is not safe to invoke Section 34 I.P.C, qua three accused, namely Shivsaurabh Singh, Raghuraj Singh and Lokesh Sharma.

64. Thus, we shall acquit Shiv Saurabh Singh, Raghuraj Singh and Lokesh Sharma of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused, Raghuraj Singh and Shivsaurabh Singh have not entered into the house of the deceased, as per dying declaration (Exhibit-P/5), hence, offence under Section 448 IPC is also not made out against them and they are acquitted of this charge also. Lokesh Sharma, as per dying declaration (Exhibit-P/5) had accompanied Arjun inside the house. Thus, he is held guilty of offence punishbale under Section 448 IPC and his conviction and sentence for this offence is sustained.

65. Consequently, as a result of above discussions, D.B Criminal Appeal No. 532/2013 preferred by Arjun is dismissed, while affirming his conviction and sentence.

66. D.B Criminal Appeal Nos. 502 and 503/2013 preferred by Shivsaurabh Singh and Raghuraj Singh are accepted. Conviction and sentence of the appellants therein is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges.

67. The appeal of Lokesh bearing D.B Criminal Appeal No. 533/2013 is partly accepted. He is acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. However, his conviction and sentence for offence under Section 448 IPC is maintained.

68. Let a copy of this order be placed in the each connected appeals.