JUDGMENT H. C. P. Tripathi, J. - These 23 appellants have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned Temporary Sessions Judge of Mathura. Appellant Shyam Lal has been convicted under Sections 148 I.P.C., 323/149 I.P.C. and 325/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to 2 years R. I., one years R. I. and 5 years R. I. respectively. The other 22 appellants have all been convicted under Sections 147 I.P.C. 323/149 I.P.C. and 325/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to 1 years R, I., 1 years R. I. and 4 years R. I. respectively in each of the three counts. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows: On January 19, 1961, election for the office of Pradhan was to be held in village Gidoh, police station Kosi, between the two rival candidates, Sanwalia Ram, a Brahmin by caste, and the appellant Shyam Lal, a Jat. Sri Nathu Ram Mandawat, M.A., L.T., had been appointed the Presiding Officer and he had reached the village in the evening of January 18, 1961 along with the other members of the polling staff. The polling was to be held in the Primary School building of the village situated at a distance of about 200 paces from the main abadi. Jagbir, the informant, who claims to have been a neutral, summoned a Panchayat at his Chaupal in the evening of January 18, 1961, which was attended by about 70 or 80 persons of both the parties with a view to find out a way to avoid the contest at the election. Shyam Lal along with his principal supporter Bhagwan Singh and his rival Sanwalia Ram also attended the meeting. As Sanwalia Ram appeared to enjoy the confidence of the majority of voters, the verdict of the Panchayat was that Shyam Lal should withdraw and allow Sanwalia Ram to be elected Pradhan without any contest. Shyam Lal did not agree with the decision of the Panchayat and angrily retorted that he would fight the election and would not allow Sanwalia Ram to become a Pradhan. He thereafter left the Panchayat along with his supporters. Shyam Lal did not agree with the decision of the Panchayat and angrily retorted that he would fight the election and would not allow Sanwalia Ram to become a Pradhan. He thereafter left the Panchayat along with his supporters. Jagbir states that he again summoned Shyam Lal in the evening at his I house and told him that nothing untoward should happen at the election and Shyam Lal was alleged to have assured him about the peaceful conduct of the Poll: 3. At about 3.30 a.m. (on the night between January 18 and 19, 1961) some thieves entered the school building and also succeeded in pilfering some movable property. Sri Mandawat, the Polling Officer, has stated that Bhagwan Singh along with a few more persons had approached him on the next morning and requested him to postpone the election as a theft had been committed at the polling station. However, Sri Mandawat expressed his inability to postpone the election. The prosecution suggestion is that as Shyam Lal had discovered that he was not likely to enjoy a majority at the poll, he wanted to have the election postponed on one pretext or the other. 4. On the 19th instant polling commenced at 10 a.m., and both the contestants were almost fairing equally with a slight balance in favour of Shyam Lall till 12 noon, when a large number of villagers reached the polling booths for casting their votes. Most of them are alleged to have been supporters of Sanwalia Ram. This upset Shyam Lal who apprehended his defeat as certain and, therefore, became anxious to prevent the smooth functioning of the election. Shyam Lal ran to Sri Mandawat and told him that irregularities were being committed by Sanwalia Ram and his supporters who had been canvassing at the polling station. Sri Mandawat made an enquiry into these allegations, and finding them baseless, told Shvam Lal that his accusations were false. Shyam Lal then incited his supporters not to permit the election to proceed any further. He went away towards the temple exclaiming that he would not allow the election to proceed in that irregular manner. This temple is situated at about 65 paces towards north-east of the school building. According to the prosecution the seat of Shyam Lal and his supporters was located on that side. He went away towards the temple exclaiming that he would not allow the election to proceed in that irregular manner. This temple is situated at about 65 paces towards north-east of the school building. According to the prosecution the seat of Shyam Lal and his supporters was located on that side. Soonafter, the supporters of Shyam Lal including the 23 appellants began showering brick-bats on the voters who had lined up at the three booths aside the polling station. The showering of brickbats was so intense that it caused a stampede amongst the voters who ran away in confusion in all directions. 5. Later on, the appellants along with others are alleged to have surrounded 14 of the members of the party of Sanwalia Ram near his seat and to have belaboured them with lathis. Shyam Lal at that time was armed with a gun and he had fired three or four shots but none was injured, while the others had taken out their lathis from below the seat of Shyam Lal and from the nearby barley fields. Kisan Singh and Beni actually fell down on the ground after receiving lathi blows. Then, it was alleged that three persons from the party of Sanwalia Ram snatched lathis from the hands of the assailants and wielded them to protect Beni and Kisan Singh and thereby caused injuries to some of the accused persons. At this stage, the villagers seemed to have mustered strong in support of Sanwalia Ram and then Shyam Lal asked his brother Poo-ran to set fire to two burjis (recepticles prepared from Arhar stalks for storing chaff) belonging to himself and Bhagwan Singh, one of which was empty and the other contained a very small quantity of chaff. The polling staff was frightened by this ugly situation and hid themselves in the school building. The two constables Than Singh and Tej Pal Singh, who were there to maintain law and order, found themselves powerless to control the stituation. 6. A written report of the incident was lodged by Jagbir (P.W. 1) at the police station Kosi at 5.30 P.M. In this report there is no mention to the setting of fire by Pooran to the two burijis and also about the prosecution party having caused some injuries to the appellants or their supporters in exercise of their right of private defence. All the 23 appellants have been named in the report as aggressors responsible for causing injuries to 13 persons on the side of the complainant. 7. On the same day, Pooran, brother of Shyam Lal, had also made a report at the police station giving his own version of the incident. 8. All the injured persons on the side of the complainant including Kishen Singh, who died subsequently, were sent to Kosi dispensary for medical examination and treatment. Dr. B.N. Sinha, Medical Officer Incharge, was not there. Hence the injured persons were admitted in the hospital as in-door patients by Sri K. C. Das, Compounder, who also recorded their names in the register. Kishen Singh died at the hospital at about 6 P.M. and the information of his death was immediately sent to the police station. 9. The Post Mortem Examination on the dead body of Kishen Singh was done by Dr. Kartar Singh, Civil Surgeon, Mathura, on January 20, 1961 at 4 P.M. The deceased was about 27 years of age and had died about a day earlier. The following anti-mortem injuries were found on his person :- 1. Lacerated would 1 " x ?" x bone deep (vertical) on left side head. 2. Abraided contusion "x ?" on the head 5" above nose bridge. 3. Contusion 2" x 1" on the right side temple. 4. Contusion 1" x 1", 2" above left ear on the scalp. 5. Abrasion "x " on the posterior side of the left index finger. 10. On internal examination, fissured and curved fissured fractures were found on the right temporal side and left temporal bone and death was due to coma as a result of fracture of the skull bones and compression of brain. The injuries appeared to have been caused by some blunt weapon. 11. The injuries of the other 13 persons, viz., Sher Singh, Amar Chand, Jagbir, Beni, Tek Chand, Jagpal, Girraj, Girdhar, Raghuni, Muli, Khyali, Pyare and Dharam Lal were examined by Dr. B.N. Sinha on January 30, 1961 between 6 A.M. and 12.15 noon. The total number of injuries on their person was 54 and they were mostly contused wounds and swellings caused by blunt weapon and brick bats. All the injuries were simple and their duration synchronised with the time of the incident. 12. On the same date, Dr. B.N. Sinha on January 30, 1961 between 6 A.M. and 12.15 noon. The total number of injuries on their person was 54 and they were mostly contused wounds and swellings caused by blunt weapon and brick bats. All the injuries were simple and their duration synchronised with the time of the incident. 12. On the same date, Dr. B.N. Sinha had also examined the injuries of Dewan, Roop Singh, Jai Ram, Buddhi son of Dhanna and Buddhi son of Ram Gopal, appellants, and had found about 30 simple injuries on their person having been caused by blunt weapons or brickbats. The duration of their injures also as given by the doctor synchronised with the time of the incident. At the trial, all the appellants pleaded not guilty. Dewan Singh, Udai Singh, Bhajan Lal, Buddhi son of Dhanna, iBuddhi son of Ram Gopal, Roop Chand, iKhilari, Pooran and Jai Ram admitted their presence at the scene of occurrence, but according to them, the incident took place as was narrated by Shyam Lal in his statement, and urged that they had been implicated in the case as they were supporters of Shyam Lal. The other appellants denied their presence at the time of the occurrence and attributed their implication in the Lease on account of partibandi and also because they happened to be supporters of Shyam Lal. 13. At this stage it is expedient to give version of the incident as put forward by Shyam Lal. According to him a Panchayat was convened by Jagbir at his Chaupal but it was predominently attended by members of his thoke. They asked him to withdraw from the contest but he told them that he would not abide by their decision as he commanded a majority in the village. According to Shyam Lal the Panchayat was attended only by the partisans of Sanwalia Ram. He stated that he never requested the Presiding Officer to postpone the election because of the theft at the polling station. He, however, admitted to have made a complaint to the Presiding Officer but he added that his complaint was genuine. The allegations made by him were verified by Sri Mandawat, who had found Jagbirs mother Smt. Khazani asking ladies to vote for Sanwalia Ram at the polling booth and Sri Mandawat had expelled her from the polling station. He, however, admitted to have made a complaint to the Presiding Officer but he added that his complaint was genuine. The allegations made by him were verified by Sri Mandawat, who had found Jagbirs mother Smt. Khazani asking ladies to vote for Sanwalia Ram at the polling booth and Sri Mandawat had expelled her from the polling station. He also stated that he was leading at the poll and Sri Sanwalia Ram and his workers had realised that their defeat was certain. It was in these circumstances, he alleged, that Sanwalia Ram and others immediately incited their men to destroy his property and to kill him and his supporters. Jagbir, Dharambir, Chhoramani, Sanwalia Ram and Ram Phool set fire to the burjis and when his party men ran to extinguish the fire they were obstructed in the way. The prosecution party consisted of about 80 persons who were accused in the cross case and they brick-batted his party, and attacked them with lathis. His men retaliated by brickbats. When he found that the occurrence was likely to assume serious proportions he went to his house, brought his gun and fired it in the air to scare away the contenders. At his firing, lathi fight stopped and the participants left the scene. According to him, only five or seven persons on both the sides were using lathis and most of the injuries were caused by brick bats. He denied to have had any seat near the temple and also repudiated to have proceeded towards the temple exclaiming that he would not allow the election to go on in that fashion. In defence Bhajan, one of the appellants, examined himself under Section 342(a) Cr.P.C. and gave the defence version of the occurrence. 14. Thus it is common ground between the prosecution and the defence, that an incident had taken place on January 19, 1961 at about noon at the premises of the Primary School building in the village, in connection with holding of the election for the office of Pradhan, in which 13 persons on the side of the complainant and five persons on the side of the accused had received injuries, caused by lathis and brick-bats. 15. The questions which arise for consideration, therefore, are :- (1) Whether the party of the appellants had committed aggression against Sanwalia Ram and his men ? 15. The questions which arise for consideration, therefore, are :- (1) Whether the party of the appellants had committed aggression against Sanwalia Ram and his men ? If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, then (2) Whether the presence of all or any of the appellants in the riotous assembly which had committed aggression has been established beyond doubt? 16. The prosecution story rests on the testimony of complainant Jagbir Singh, Dulli, Chooraman, Tek Chand, Jagpal, Sanwalia Ram, N.R. Mandawat and constable Tej Pal Singh. The last two persons are public servants who were at the scene, on duty, in connection with the election. It is obvious, that, except Nathu Ram Mandawat (P.W. 2) and Constable Tej Pal Singh (P.W. 3) all the other eye-witnesses are partisans and their testimony has to be examined with caution. It is also manifest, that in order to arrive at a true conclusion it is necessary to consider in detail, the statements of Sri Nathu Ram Mandawat and Constable Tej Pal Singh for getting a correct picture of the incident as it had taken place on that fateful day, at the polling station. 17. Sri Mandawat has stated that he had arrived at the primary school building along with other members of the polling staff in the evening of January 18, 1961. At about 3.30 A.M., some burglars had entered the school building and removed some moveables, which did not include any article connected with the polling. At about 8.30 A.M., appellant Bhagwan Singh accompanied by two or three more persons, had approached him with a request that the election should be put off, as a theft had been committed in the building. Sri Mandawat expressed his inability to postpone the election and told him that no article of polling had been lost and there was no cause for adjourning the election. At about 12 in the noon, Shyam Lal complained to him that members of Sanwalia Rams party were committing irregularity, whereupon Sri Mandawat informed him that the election was progressing in a proper manner and no body was committing any irregularity. In order to satisfy Shyam Lal, he also s held some enquiry but did not discover any irregularity in the conduct of the election. Sri Mandawat also stated that he had not found any irregularity himself nor had heard of the same from any other person. In order to satisfy Shyam Lal, he also s held some enquiry but did not discover any irregularity in the conduct of the election. Sri Mandawat also stated that he had not found any irregularity himself nor had heard of the same from any other person. Shyam Lal then went away exclaiming that he would not allow such irregularities to go on. Shyam Lal had left towards the temple side, and only a few minutes after, vollies of brick-bats started pouring from that side. He further stated that the brick bats began pouring on those voters who had collected in the polling booths resulting in a panic and stampede amongst the voters who ran way in confusion. He further stated that he and other members of the polling staff, then rushed inside the school building, and from the window he could see that lathis were being used and later on he also saw the burning of hurjis. He saw one person putting fire to a burji. He also stated that a few hours after when the Sub-Inspector Data Dayal came to the scene he handed him over his report (Ex. Kal). In cross-examination, he stated that Shyam Lal had complained to him against a lady, and though he could not find any truth in his complaint, he got her removed from the line, but this did not produce any excitement at that time. 18. The statement of Sri Mandawat finds corroboration from his report (Ex. Kal) which is the earliest version of the incident. It mentions that at about 8 A.M. Bhagwan Singh asked him for the postponement of the election and at about 12 noon Shyam Lal too approached him, and made allegations of irregularities and even when Sri Mandawat had satisfied himself that no irregularity was being committed, yet Shyam Lal argued with him for some time and then went away saying that he would not allow the election to go on in that way, and soon thereafter, brick-batting started from the side to which Shyam Lal had gone and then there was an ex-chang of lathis and finally putting fire to burjis. 19. The sequence in which the incident had developed to its full magnitude, as described in Ex. Kal and stated by Sri Mandawat, is of great significance. 19. The sequence in which the incident had developed to its full magnitude, as described in Ex. Kal and stated by Sri Mandawat, is of great significance. It indicates that:-(a) repeated attempts were made by Shyam Lal and his men since morning to get the election postponed, (b) on the refusal of Sri Mandawat Shyam Lal felt disgruntled and went towards temple side, (c) Within a few minutes of his departure, brickbats began pouring in from that side, on the voters who were standing in queue at the polling booths, creating a stampede, and (d) then there was a lathi fight and afterwards some burjis were set on fire. 20. This sequence of happenings, as given by Sri Mandawat fits in with the prosecution version of the incident and is inconsistent with the defence case. It indicates an anxiety on the part of Shyam Lal and his men to get the election postponed. It further shows that the brick-bats started pouring from the side to which Shyam Lal had gone, and where, according to other prosecution witnesses, his seat was located. It also shows that the brick-batting and lathi fight did not follow the putting up of burjis on fire, but preceded it and the incident ended after the arson. Sri Nathu Ram Mandawat is a wholly reliable witness and I have no hesitation in placing an implicit reliance on his testimony. 21. Constable Tej Pal Singh has corroborated the statement of Sri Mandawat regarding the genesis of the trouble. He has stated that when Mandawat told Shyam Lal that the election was proceeding on regular lines, Shyam Lal went towards his seat near the temple exclaiming that he will not allow the election to go on in that manner, and immediately thereafter, brick-bats began pouring in from the side of the temple on the voters who were standing in line at the polling booths. He further stated that some persons from that side came armed with lathis, and began showering blows on Sanwalia Rams men who were sitting near the village path. He also stated that Shyam Lal had fired his gun twice or thrice. He had also stated that Kishen had fallen after receiving the injuries, and burjis which were at a distance of 40 paces from the place of occurrence were set on fire by two persons subsequently. He also stated that Shyam Lal had fired his gun twice or thrice. He had also stated that Kishen had fallen after receiving the injuries, and burjis which were at a distance of 40 paces from the place of occurrence were set on fire by two persons subsequently. He also stated that it were the men of Shyam Lal who;had attacked the men of Sanwalia Ram first with lathis and it was after Kishen Lal had fallen down that some members of Sanwalia Rams party had snatched lathis of Shyam Lals men and wielded them in retaliation. He stated that he had seen Shyam Lal, Bijay Pal, Bhajan Pal son of Sheo Pal Udai Singh, Ram Het and Kanhey Ram amongst the assailants out of whom he had known Shyam Lal and Bhagwan Singh from before and had identified the others in jail. In cross examination, he admitted that he had not seen any lathi with Bhagwan Singh. Tejpal is a disinterested witness and nothing has been suggested as to why he has come forward to support the prosecution version of the incident. I have no doubt that what he has stated as to how the trouble started is substantially correct. He was admittedly at the scene of occurrence and must have seen from what side the brick-batting first started and also from which side the party of the assailants came and attacked the voters. He has clearly stated that the seat of Shyam Lal was near the temple. No doubt, Sri Mandawat has said that he did not know as to where the seat of Shyam Lal was, but I am convinced that the statement of Tej Pal Singh that Shyam Lals seat was near the temple is true. It is a matter of common knowledge that on the date of election, candidates do keep a camp near about the polling station for guiding their voters. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Tej Pal is an unreliable witness, and being a constable has come forward to support the prosecution story. I do not find any substance in this argument. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong in his statement to render his testimony unreliable. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Tej Pal is an unreliable witness, and being a constable has come forward to support the prosecution story. I do not find any substance in this argument. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong in his statement to render his testimony unreliable. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a member of the police force as of other persons, and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor. 23. Apart from the statements of these two wholly disinterested witnesses, there are a few circumstances which lend assurance to the version given by the prosecution witnesses. 24. Sri Ram Gopal, Sub-Inspector (P. W. 15), had visited the scene of occurrence on January 21, 1961 and had prepared the site plan (Ex. Ka 26) from which it appears that he had found a large number of brick bats lying strewn near the voters line at the three polling booths. He had also found the remenants of a brick kiln near the temple. Bhajan Lal (D.W. 1) had admitted the presence of a brick kiln in close proximity of the temple. These circumstances indicate that it was easy for the party of Shyam Lal whose seat was near the temple to have availed themselves of the brick bats lying nearby. The presence of the brick-bats near the booths on the morrow of the incident, shows that the brick-bats were thrown at the voters who were standing at the polling booths. 25. The other eye-witnesses of the occurrence, had stated that when Shyam Lal returned to his seat near the temple, brick-bats began raining from that side on the voters, later on his men armed with lathis attacked Sanwalia Rams party and when Kishen Singh had fallen down seriously injured, then some of the men of Sanwalia Ram snatched lathis from the attackers and began wielding them in retaliation. They had further asserted that when Shyam Lal found that the condition of Kishen Singh was very serious, he asked his brother Pooran to put fire to his burji which Pooran did. They had further asserted that when Shyam Lal found that the condition of Kishen Singh was very serious, he asked his brother Pooran to put fire to his burji which Pooran did. They repudiated the suggestion that it was when they had put fire to the burji that Shyam Lal had brought his gun from the village and had fired to scare them away and then some of his men had attacked complainants party by way of self-defence. All these prosecution witnesses had also stated about the presence of all the appellants as members of that riotous party. Jagbir, the complainant, had given the story of the Panchayat which was held on the eve of the election and also as to how the attack was made by Shyam Lals party in front of the school building on the voters near the seat of Sanwalia Ram. It is not necessary to discuss their evidence in great detail as they are of the same pattern. Out of these witnesses Tek Chand, Jagpal and Jagbir had received injuries and Tek Chand is the brother of Kishen Singh, deceased. 26. D.W. 1 Bhajan Lal was examined in support of the defence version. According to him, men of Sanwalia Ram set fire to the burjees and when Shyam Lal and his men tried to extinguish the fire, they started throwing brick-bats. Even then, none of the party of Shyam Lal either threw brick bats on them or attacked them with lathis, and all the injuries on both the sides were caused by brick-bats and not by lathis. In cross examination he stated that none of the supporters of Sanwalia Ram had lathis with them. It is obvious that the statement of this witness is inconsistent with the medical evidence in the case, and is unreliable. 27. As the version of the prosecution, as unfolded by the aforesaid eyewitnesses of the occurrence, finds it corroboration from the statement of Mandawat and Tej Pal Singh, I hold that it was the party of Shyam Lal which first threw brick-bats on the standing voters at the polling booths and subsequently made a concerted attack with lathis on the men of Sanwalia Ram which resulted in causing injuries to several persons including Kishen Singh, and when they found that Kishen Singh had fallen unconscious some one of them set fire to the burijis to manufacture a defence for themselves. I am also convinced that Shyam Lal fired his gun to complete the process of confusion which his party had started for preventing the holding of the election, and the defence story has no substratum of truth. 28. The next question which has to be considered is as to which of the appellants have been proved to have participated in the incident. As has been stated earlier ten of them, viz., Shyam Lal, Pooran, Khilari, Roop Singh, Buddhi son of Ram Gopal, Buddhi son of Dhanna, Bhajan Lal son of Sheo Lal, Udai Singh, Dewan Singh and Jai Ram Singh admitted their presence in the n riotous assembly and of these, Khilari, Roop Singh, Buddhi son of Ram Gopal Buddhi son of Dhanna, Dewan Singh and Jairam Singh had also received injuries. I have already found that the version of the occurrence given on their t behalf is false, their participation in the fight as aggressors is established beyond doubt. I also agree with the finding of the trial court that Shyam Lal was the leader of this riotous assembly and his assertion that he had fired from his gun to disperse the contending parties who were locked in a fight is completely untrue. 29. All the other appellants have denied their presence at the scene of occurrence. None of them have received any injury. Their participation in the incident has been testified only by the six eye-witnesses who are partisan in character. Mandawat does not speak about any one of them. The other disinterested witness Tej Pal Singh had identified Bijay Pal, Bhajan Lal and Udai Singh at an identification parade in jail as those who had been the members of that riotous assembly. But the identification memo has not been tendered by the prosecution in evidence I Thus there is nothing left to corroborate his statement at the trial regarding the identity of these appellants whom, he did not know from before. Tej Pal Singh also stated that he had seen Shyam Lal and Bhagwan Singh amongst the aggressors and he knew them from before. But he also admitted that he did not see any lathi in the hand of Bhagwan Singh. Bhagwan Singh had stated that at the time of the occurrence he was in the abadi of the village collecting and sending voters to vote for Shyam Lal. But he also admitted that he did not see any lathi in the hand of Bhagwan Singh. Bhagwan Singh had stated that at the time of the occurrence he was in the abadi of the village collecting and sending voters to vote for Shyam Lal. He being/the principal supporter of Shyam Lal, it is quite possible that he might have been inside the abadi for asking the voters to muster at the polling booth. 30. As it was the polling day for the election of the Pradhan of the village, many members of the village community must have been present at the scene of occurrence. It may be that many of these appellants were also there, but from their presence alone, it cannot be said that they were members of that unlawful assembly which had committed aggression on the complainant and his party. No specific part has been assigned by the eye-witnesses to any of these appellants. On the basis of the evidence of partisan witnesses alone, in my opinion, it will not be safe to convict them. 31. No doubt 13 persons on the side of the complainant had received a large number of injuries which must have been inflicted, in the ordinary course of things, by a large body of men from the side of Shyam Lal. But it cannot be said that that large body of men certainly consisted of all the appellants, when the circumstances indicate that almost the whole village was present at the polling booth to cast their votes and when the probability of some villagers other than these 13 appellants siding with Shyam Lal and committing aggression against Sanwalia Ram and his men cannot be ruled out. 32. In the result the appeal of Bhagwan Singh, Sukkhi Ram, Nahar Singh, Ganeshi, Natthi, Bhajan son of Salig Ram, Kanhai Ram, Bhajan son of Balwant, Bijay Pal, Roshan, Kisan Singh son of Kundan Singh, Durga Prasad, and Narain Singh are allowed. Their convictions and sentences are set aside. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. They need not surrender. The conviction and sentences of other appellants, viz., Shyam Lal, Dewan Singh, Udai Singh, Bhajan Lal, Buddhi son of Dhanna, Buddhi son of Ram Gopal, Roop Singh, Khilari, Pooran and Jai Ram, are upheld "and their appeals dismissed. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. They need not surrender. The conviction and sentences of other appellants, viz., Shyam Lal, Dewan Singh, Udai Singh, Bhajan Lal, Buddhi son of Dhanna, Buddhi son of Ram Gopal, Roop Singh, Khilari, Pooran and Jai Ram, are upheld "and their appeals dismissed. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They must surrender forthwith to serve out their sentences.