is that appellant No.1 Sant Pal appears to be main accused who caused knife injury to injured Laxman, however, he has already served the entire jail sentence imposed on him. He submits that so far as appellants 2 & 3 namely Babu Singh and Nandlal are concerned, during trial they were on bail and even in the present appeal they were also granted bail by this Court on 20.10.1997. He submits that in the FIR, Phulku’nwar (PW-2) has not stated that appellants 2 & 3 caught hold the injured and therefore the statement of injured Laxman (PW-1) and Diwan Singh (PW-3) becomes:doubtful as to whether at the time of incide‘nt‘a'ppellants 2 & 3 caught hold the injured or not. He submits that there is no evidence to show that appellants 2 & 3 were aware about the fact that appellant No.1 was carrying knife with him and would cause any injury to injured Laxman with the same and thus their conviction with the aid of section 34 IPC is not in accordance with / law. He submits that even the presence of appellants 2 & 3 at the placeofincident is assumed, considering the fact that the incident had taken place about more than 17 years back, they were not armed with any weapon, they have not caused an)? injury to the y‘ injured, at the time of incident they were ,young boys and appellant No.2 has already remained in jail for about 4 months whereasappellantNo.3 for about 20 months, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. In support ’ \of’his itx contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2011 SC (Supp) 48..
