JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur while convicting each of the accused persons Balu Ram and his wife Smt. Sohini under section 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code has sentenced each of them under the form count to a sentence of death and a fine of Rs. 100/- and under later account to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of a sum of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffers 3 months rigorous imprisonment. He has made a reference to this court under his letter dated September 2, 1981 for confirmation of the death sentence awarded by him. The accused persons Balu Ram and Smt. Sohini have preferred separate appeals through jail against their conviction and sentence. All the three matters arise out of the same judgement and as such are disposed of by a common judgement. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is as under : Deceased Smt. Bhanwari was wife of Mansukh Ram, PW. 12 village Kusumbi, Tehasil Ladnu, District Nagaur. She was aged about 20 years, but for the reasons which are not on record she mostly resided at the house of her parents. On August 10, 1980 it was Sunday the Sawan Vadi Amavasya and Smt. Bhanwari had gone from the house of Mansukha Ram with food for Miss Geeta, PW. 3 aged 11 years and sister of Mansukharam in the jungle, as there Geeta was grazing she goats. After some time Smt. Bhanwari was seen by Miss Geeta, PW. 3 going towards Sujangarh and did not return. Geeta PW. 3 went to Mangu Ram PW. 13, uncle of Mansukha Ram and informed him that 5mt. Bhanwari has gone towards Sujangarh. When Mansukha Ram returned in the after noon to his house for lunch his mother who has also come to know that Smt. Bhanwari has left towards Sujangarh and did not return, informed him. Mansukha Ram and Mangu Ram went towards Sujangarh for search of Bhanwari but she could not be traced. Though there is no document on record but it is said that the father of Smt. Bhanwari lodged a report about the missing of Smt. Bhanwari in police station, Jaswantgarh on August 17, 1980. Smt. Bhanwari could not be traced and Mansukha Ram, PW. Though there is no document on record but it is said that the father of Smt. Bhanwari lodged a report about the missing of Smt. Bhanwari in police station, Jaswantgarh on August 17, 1980. Smt. Bhanwari could not be traced and Mansukha Ram, PW. 12 came to know that Balu Ram, accused had taken away Smt. Bhanwari to Sujangarh to sell her. When Smt. Bhanwari left the village she was having gold and silver ornaments on her person of the value of Rs. 16,250/-. She was also wearing clothes articles 12 to 14. Mansukha Ram, PW. 12 lodged a report Ex. P. 14 in Police Station, Jaswantgarh on September 13, 1980 at 1.15 P.M. A case under section 365, 366 and 366A was registered and investigation was set in motion. 3. Narain Singh, S.H.O. PW. 27, who registered the case on the written report Ex. P. 14 of Mansukharam, did spot investigation. He arrested accused Baluram on September 20, 1980 vide arrest memo Ex. P. 3. He also arrested Om Prakash son of Balu Ram and one Gula Ram on the same day under arrest memo Ex. P. 4 and P. 5 respectively. He made a search for Bhanwari but she could not be traced. Accused Balu Ram while in police custody on September 26, 1980 made a discovery statement to Narain Singh, PW. 27 to the effect that he has burried the dead body of Smt. Bhanwari in the chowk of his house. Clothes have taken off from the dead body and after lying the dead body in a white cloth with the help of a rope the body had been burried in a pit. In pursuance of the discovery statement Ex. D. 3 dated September 26, 1980, in the presence of Mansukharam, PW. 12, Manguram, PW. 13, Sub Divisional Magistrate and others, the accused pointed out the place which was dug upto depth of about 5' and the dead body of Smt. Bhanwari tied in a white cloth and rope was recovered and a memo Ex. P. 9 was prepared. Mansukha Ram, PW. 12 and Mangu Ram PW. 13 his uncle were present and they identified the dead body as that of Smt. Bhanwari. 4. On September 28, 1980 accused Balu Ram further made a discovery statement to Narain Singh, PW. 27 that the ornaments of Smt. Bhanwari, numbering 7, and as detailed in discovery statement Ex. Mansukha Ram, PW. 12 and Mangu Ram PW. 13 his uncle were present and they identified the dead body as that of Smt. Bhanwari. 4. On September 28, 1980 accused Balu Ram further made a discovery statement to Narain Singh, PW. 27 that the ornaments of Smt. Bhanwari, numbering 7, and as detailed in discovery statement Ex. P. 38 have been concealed by him in his kitchen and he could get them recovered. Consequent to the information the ornaments were recovered at the instance of accused and were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P. 1 in the presence of Matbirs Roopa Ram, PW. 4, and Mangla Ram, PW. 19. Accused Balu Ram also gave information on September 26, 1980 to Narain Singh, PW. 27 for getting recovered brass `paizeb' with nickle polish and consequent to the information Ex. P. 36, he got recovered the `paizeb' which were seized and sealed vide Ex. P. 12. Yet another information on the same day was given to Narain Singh by accused Balu Ram to get Rs. 200/- recovered and consequent to this information Ex. P. 37 currency notes of Rs. 200/- of the denomination of Rs. 10/- were recovered which were Seized and Sealed by Ex. P. 12. Other information was also given under which some ornaments were recovered. One more information of Balu Ram is worth mentioning. On September 28, 1980 the accused Balu Ram while in police custody made a discovery statement Ex. P. 42 to get the clothes of Smt. Bhanwari recovered and consequent to this information three clothes, article 12 to 14 Ghagra, Pomcha and Kabja were recovered at the instance of the accused from a drum inside his kitchen. These clothes were also seized and sealed. 5. Narain Singh, PW. 27 arrested Smt. Sohini accused on September 28, 1980 under arrest memo Ex. P. 8. Before arrest on the same date in the early hours of the morning the accused Smt. Sohini made extra judicial confession to Rupa Ram, PW. 4 and Bhiya Ram PW. 16. After her arrest Smt. Sohini accused made a discovery statement in October 3, 1980 and consequent to her information Ex. P. 41 some clothes were recovered, which it may be stated have not been proved to be of Smt. Bhanwari, deceased. 6. During the investigation an identification parade of Balu Ram was held by Anand Prakash Magistrate, PW. 22. 16. After her arrest Smt. Sohini accused made a discovery statement in October 3, 1980 and consequent to her information Ex. P. 41 some clothes were recovered, which it may be stated have not been proved to be of Smt. Bhanwari, deceased. 6. During the investigation an identification parade of Balu Ram was held by Anand Prakash Magistrate, PW. 22. Geeta identified the accused Balu Ram. This was got done because the case of the prosecution was that Miss Geeta had seen Baluram accused going away and Smt. Bhanwari following him. It is worth mentioning that the learned judge has not rightly held it proved. On December 2, 1980 Rajendra Singh, PW. 24 was posted as Munsif Magistrate, Nawa on that day he held the identification parade of the ornaments, recovered at the instance of accused Balu Ram as well as of clothes of Smt. Bhanwari which she was wearing at the time when she left the house of her husband. The ornaments and clothes were identified by Mansukhram and Manguram PW. 12 and 13 respectively. The clothes were identified by Hanumana Ram, PW. 18. 7. To complete the narration of facts it may be stated that after alleged abduction of Smt. Bhanwari by accused Balu Ram it is said that Smt. Bhanwari was sold for a sum of Rs. 200/- by Balu Ram to Gula Ram. She lived with Gula Ram but after about 15 days she returned with Gularam to the house of Balu Ram and gave out that Gula Ram was an old man and she will not live with him. Gula Ram left leaving Smt. Bhanwari at the house of Balu Ram and Smt. Sohini his wife. It is said that thereafter Smt. Bhanwari was murdered and burried in side the house by Baluram and others. A charge sheet was filed against Gularam also but the learned Judge acquitted Gularam of the offence under Section 366 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code with which he was charged. 8. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned Amicus Curiae for the accused persons and have been taken through the record of the case. So far as accused Smt. Sohini is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has entered conviction on the evidence of her extra judicial confession made to Ruparam P.W. 4 and Bhiya Ram, PW. 16. 8. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned Amicus Curiae for the accused persons and have been taken through the record of the case. So far as accused Smt. Sohini is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has entered conviction on the evidence of her extra judicial confession made to Ruparam P.W. 4 and Bhiya Ram, PW. 16. He has also sought corroboration of the evidence of extrajudicial confession from the other circumstances which according to him are available on record. So far as accused Balu Ram is concerned, the learned Judge entered conviction under section 302/34 I.P.C. on circumstantial evidence namely (i) his information and recovery of the dead body of Smt. Bhanwari at his instance from his house; (ii) recovery of the ornaments and (iii) clothes which Smt. Bhanwari was wearing at the time she left the house of her husband and came to the house of Balu Ram, and (iv) she was seen at his house by a number of witnesses. 9. We intend to deal with wthe case of Smt. Sohini and Balu Ram separately. But before we do so, we would like to deal with the arguments of learned Amicus Curiae that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove firstly that the dead body which was recovered from the house of the accused Baluram was of Smt. Bhanwari, and secondly that Smt. Bhanwari died a homicidal death. The learned Advocate contends that it will appear from the post mortem report Ex. P. 34 that none identified the dead body before Dr. Madhusudan, PW. 25 at the time of the post mortem examination. According to him the body was in such a state of decomposition that it was unidentifiable and only on the statement of Mansukhram PW. 12 and Manguram PW. 13 the identification of the skeleton as that of Smt. Bhanwari which was recovered cannot be believed. It appears from the Ex. P. 34 and from the statement of Dr. Madhushudan P W. 25 that the body was in such a state of decomposition that hair were present fell off from skull just on touch. The bones of the body were found loose and separated from other joints by touch. Trachea and larynx muscles were in decomposed state, cartilage was loose and two of the tracheal rings were fractured. Dr. Madhusudhan, PW. The bones of the body were found loose and separated from other joints by touch. Trachea and larynx muscles were in decomposed state, cartilage was loose and two of the tracheal rings were fractured. Dr. Madhusudhan, PW. 25 has stated that the dead body was of female aged 20-40 years, that height was 5' 4". There were heir on the head. There were no eyes in the sockets. Dr. Madhususan has stated that the dead body was of Smt. Bhanwari and it has been so written in the post mortem report Ex. P.34, though there is no mention as to who identified the dead body. The post mortem was conducted after inquest report. A look at the inquest report Ex.P. 9 will show that Mansukha Ram PW. 12 & Manguram PW. 13 had seen the dead body & looking at the hair style and their colour gave out that dead body is of Smt. Bhanwari. In the court also both the witnesses Mansukharam P.W. 12 & Manguram PW. 13 have stated that the dead body was taken out from a pit from inside the house of accused Baluram. They identified that it was of Smt. Bhanwari. Mansukharam, PW. 12 has stated that he identified the dead body as of Smt. Bhanwari, his wife on the basis of her hair style, her teeth, skeleton. There was also flesh and skin on some part of the body and they also helped him in identifying the dead body as that of his wife Smt. Bhanwari. Surprisingly there was no cross-examination of Mansukharam, PW. 12 so far the identification of the dead body is concerned, perhaps because defence never challenged the identification of the dead body of Smt. Bhanwari. Manguram, PW. 13 who is uncle of Mansukha Ram PW. 12 also states that from the hair style and the style of tying the hair from the frame of the skeleton which had skinand flesh at some places he identified the dead body Smt. Bhanwari. He too was not cross-examined with regard to the identification of the dead body and obviously because the defence never challenged the identification of dead body. We may refer here to the statement of Suresh Chandra, PW. 15 a milk vendor who used to supply milk at the house of Baluram. He too was not cross-examined with regard to the identification of the dead body and obviously because the defence never challenged the identification of dead body. We may refer here to the statement of Suresh Chandra, PW. 15 a milk vendor who used to supply milk at the house of Baluram. He has been stated that on August 31, 1980 he had gone to the house of Baluram to take his dues of milk which he used to supply on credit. The wife of the accused was also present. Another lady and Gularam were also present and she was called by name of Bhanwari. She was aged about 20-22 years. We are of the opinion that from the frame of the body, hair style including manner of tying hair as well as teeth, more so when there is some flesh and skin on some part of the body, the husband of the lady and his uncle were in a position to identify the dead body. On the evidence on record we are satisfied that it is satisfactorily establish that the dead body was of Smt. Bhanwari, wife of Mansukharam, PW. 12. 10. The learned Amicus Curiae has next contended that from the statement of Dr. Madhusudan, P.W. 25 it is not satisfactorily established that death of Smt. Bhanwari was as a result of violence. He submits that though Dr. Madhusudan has stated that two tracheal rings were fractured and in his opinion Smt. Bhanwari died due to strangulation about 20-40 days ago, but his statements cannot be relied upon. He has not furnished the datas for reaching to that opinion. Learned counsel contends that it appears from the inquest report that for the preparation of the same the skeleton was handled. It is also contended that the dead body was taken out from the pit from a depth of about 5' and if one dies a natural death and is burried the possibility could not be excluded that tracheal rings might have been fractured and, therefore, the death is not proved to be homicidal. We have considered this arguments and we are of the opinion that in the absence of cross-examination of Dr. Madhusudan and in the absence of any suggestion that the tracheal rings could be fractured otherwise than by the violence, this arguments has no force. The post mortem was conducted on September 26. We have considered this arguments and we are of the opinion that in the absence of cross-examination of Dr. Madhusudan and in the absence of any suggestion that the tracheal rings could be fractured otherwise than by the violence, this arguments has no force. The post mortem was conducted on September 26. 1980 when the dead body was taken out. It has come in the statement of Suresh Chandra, PW. 15 that it was on August 31, 1980 when he went to the house of accused Baluram for taking the amount of monthly bill of milk which he supplied on credit, he saw a lady about 20-22 years of age who was called as Bhanwari. Dr. Madhusudan in his report has mentioned that death took place about 20-40 days before the post mortem examination. That apart the circumstances in which the dead body was found cannot be overlooked. The dead body of the female was naked and tied in a cloth with the help of a rope It was burried at a depth of about 5, in the house of the accused himself. While dealing with the case of accused Balu Ram we will deal in detail as to whether the house from where the dead body was found belongs to accused or not, but suffice to say for the present that there is sufficient material on record that house of Panna Lal Pagaria was on rent with the accused Baluram for the last many years. Thus, the condition in which the dead body was found to our mind also goes to show that it is the case of homicide and not of natural death as suggested by the learned defence counsel. 11. We will now take the case of both the accused separately:-SMT. SOHINI ACCUSED: The learned Sessions Judge has recorded conviction of this accused on the statements of P.W.4 Rupa Ram and P.W. 16 Bhiyan Ram before whom she is said to have made extra judicial confession on September 29, 1980 at about 7.00 A.M. The learned Judge has observed that both these witnesses are independent witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements. He has also observed that because Balu Ram, husband of Smt. Sohini had been arrested it was not unnatural for Smt. Sohini to have gone to the above named witnesses to seek their help to save her husband and in that process to confess her own guilt. We shall presently show that it is not possible to place reliance on statements of Rupram, P.W.4 and Bhiyan Ram, P-W.16 that Smt. Sohini made any extra judicial confession to them. Bhiya Ram P.W. 16 has stated that he was to go to Ratnagarah in connection with a case of his agricultural lands. Ruparm came to his house as he was to accompany him. He does not state that Ruparm was to go Ratangrah in connection with his own case, and states (page 65 of the paper book 10th and 11th line) that they had gone to Ratangarh in connection with case. Ruparam P.W.4 states that there was some dispute relating to his agricultural lands and that is why he had gone to Ratangarh. Ruparam P.W.4 states that Smt. Sohini came & said that police had taken her husband & they should help her. Then Bhiyan Ram told as to why the police has done so and she should disclose everything to him. Then Sohini made a detailed statement confessing her guilt. He states that when Sohini made a statement Ladu Mali, Oma son of Brahamdutt, Oma son of Ladu, Chimaram, maternal uncle of Bhiyanram were all present, Sohini had come to the house of Bhiyan Ram to disclose the facts & to confess her guilt to both of them viz. Bhiyan Ram & Ruparam. He states that all the persons named were present when she made her statement. Both he & Bhiyan Ram left for Ratangarh. Bhiyanram P.W. 16 on the other hand states that when Sohini came to the house and gestured to him that she wants to talk to him, he gave out that Ruparam is, his man and she should disclose in his presence. According to him then Smt. Sohini made statement confessing her guilt. A look at the statements of both the witnesses will show that there is a major difference in their statements as what actually Smt. Sohini had to them, and to whom she had come to confess her guilt. According to him then Smt. Sohini made statement confessing her guilt. A look at the statements of both the witnesses will show that there is a major difference in their statements as what actually Smt. Sohini had to them, and to whom she had come to confess her guilt. Both the witness admit that though Baluram has a house nearby the house of Bhiyaram but he was not residing in that house for near about 20 years, Ruparam P.W.4 admits that earlier Smt. Sohini had never visited him. They admit that last 20 years Smt. Sohini never visited them. The house of Pannalal Pagaria which is occupied by Baluram was far away from the house of these witnesses. There appears to be no reason as to why Smt. Sohini confessed her guilt to them and that too after about nine days of the arrest of her hushand and son Om Prakash and of the recovery of dead body from the house. If her husband Baluruam and her son Om Prakash had been arrested on September 20, 1980 there was no reason for her to come on the 10th day to seek the help and again if she wanted help of these witnesses, it would not have been necessary for her to implicate herself also and she could have said about her husband and son and sought help of these witnesses. Generally one well confess to a person if he or she has faith in him. After having gone through the statements of these witnesses Ruparam, P.W.4 and Bhiyanram P.W. 16 we are unable to place reliance on them that Smt, Sohini made any confessional statement to them. 12. There is no other evidence against Smt. Sohini and as such we are of the opinion that on the basis of the material on record it cannot be said that sohini accused caused the death of Smt. Bhanwari. She being the wife of Balu Ram and living in the same house, no doubt there may be strong suspicion against her that she may be involved but suspicion how soever strong cannot take the place of proof.ACCUSED BALU RAM : 13. There is sufficient material on record that house from where the dead body of Smt. Bhanwari was recovered was on rent with accused of Baluram. Gheesaram P.W.9 has stated that the house of Baluram is in ward No. 19, Sujangarh. There is sufficient material on record that house from where the dead body of Smt. Bhanwari was recovered was on rent with accused of Baluram. Gheesaram P.W.9 has stated that the house of Baluram is in ward No. 19, Sujangarh. He states that the house is owned by a Mahajan. P.W. 10 Ratanlal states that the accused took the police to his house, he is also a resident of Sujangarh. P.W.19 Mangla Ram has stated that the accused was residing in that house for the last 10-12 years. P.W. 15 Suresh Chandra, milk Vendor, who used to supply milk on credit has stated that Baluram was residing in the house. Though it would have been better to examine Panna Lal Pagaria, the owner of the house, but all the four witnesses named above are resident of Sujangarh. They do not bear any ill will against the accused and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements. From the evidence of Ruparam P.W.4 and Bhiyanram P.W. 16 also it can be said that there is another house belonging to Baluram near their house but he is not residing in that house for the last about 20 years. 14. Accused Baluram was arrested on September 20, 1980 and after his arrest he gave information Ex.D.3 to Narain Singh, P.W.27 that he has concealed the dead body in the `anagan' of his house in a pit and can get it recovered. Consequent to his information in the presence of Ghessaram, P.W.9, Mansukharam, P.W.12, Manguram P.W.13 who had reached there, Mangla Ram, P.W. 19 and Durgaram P.W.23, he pointed out the place mentioned in his discovery statement and when that place was dug at a depth of 5' the dead body of female in a white cloth and tied with a rope was found. We have already said that the dead body was of Smt. Bhanwari wife of Mansukharam, P.W.12. The recovery of the dead body under recovery memo Ex.P.9 in the condition and the circumstances in which it was found on his information and at his instance is a incriminating evidence against the accused. The accused has denied that he gave information and that he got the dead body recovered but his denial is of no avail. He failed to explain as to how the dead body of Smt. Bhanwari was lying burried in the `angan' of his house. 15. The accused has denied that he gave information and that he got the dead body recovered but his denial is of no avail. He failed to explain as to how the dead body of Smt. Bhanwari was lying burried in the `angan' of his house. 15. On September 28, 1980 when accused Baluram was in police custody he made a discovery statement Ex.P.38 to Narain Singh P.W.27. He gave out that seven ornaments as detailed in Ex.P. 38 have been concealed by him in his kitchen and he can get them recovered. Consequent to the information the accused led the police party including Narain Singh, P.W 27 to his kitchen and after diging near his oven (`Chulha') he took out an earthen pot and in it the ornaments articles 2 to 9 and 11 were recovered. He also gave information Ex.P.40 and got recovered silver `Kondhani'. Yet another information was given by him and under this information Ex.P.42 he got recovered articles 12, 13 and 14, the clothes of Smt. Bhanwari which she was wearing when she left her husband. Though Hanumanaram P.W. 18 in his statement in the court identified the clothes of Bhanwari and also identified before the Magistrate but the statement of Hanumanaram cannot be relied upon. He was not a relative of Smt. Bhanwari and even if he had seen Bahanwari going away on August 10, 1980 he could not have observed the clothes minutely so as to be able to identify them. Clothes Articles 12 to 14 have been identified in the court as those of Bhanwari by Mansukhram P.W.12 and Bhiyaram P.W.13. In the identification parade of clothes held before Rajendra Singh Magistrate P.W. 24 both of them identified the clothes as those of Bhanwari and have stated so in the Court. Ex. P. 19 the memo of identification is on record, it is signed also by the witnesses. Mansukharam being the husband of Smt. Bhanwari with whom he was residing before she left him on August 10, 1980 must have had many occasion to see the clothes of his wife. The main evidence of identification that in the court and it is corroborated by test identification parade of the clothes during the investigation. Mansukharam being the husband of Smt. Bhanwari with whom he was residing before she left him on August 10, 1980 must have had many occasion to see the clothes of his wife. The main evidence of identification that in the court and it is corroborated by test identification parade of the clothes during the investigation. We are of the opinion that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Mansukharam and Manglaram that the clothes articles 12 to 14 belong to Smt. Bhanwari and she was wearing them when she left the house of her husband. The ornaments which were recovered at the instance of accused have been identified by Mansukharam, P.W. 12 and his uncle Manguram P.W. 13. They had also identified the ornaments before Shri Rajendra Singh, P.W. 24 in the identification parade held by him. The accused does not claim those ornaments. Bhanwar Lal, P.W. 6 the gold smith has stated that ornaments Articles 2 to 8 had been made by him for Gordhan Ram, father of Mansukharam and so far as article 9 is concerned, he had cleaned it. Thus, the recovery of the ornaments Articles 2 to 9 and 11 of Smt. Bhanwari is also a circumstance against the accused which he has not explained. The circumstantial evidence against accused is : (1) that the dead body of Smt. Bhanwari, whose death was homicidal, was recovered on the information and at the instance of accused Baluram from his house burried 5' deep, (ii) Ornaments Articles 2 to 9 and 11 which are of sufficient value of Smt. Bhanwari were recovered from his possession on his information, (iii) Clothes, Articles 12 to 14 which Smt. Bhanwari was putting on when she left her husband were found in his possession of the accused on his information. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence the circumstance must be first proved and should be consistent with the guilt of the accused. Whether or not the proved circumstances in a case are pointer to the guilt of the accused are bound to differ from case to case. In the instant case the above circumstantial evidence to our mind is only consistent with the guilt of the accused and is incapable of any hypothesis than the one proposed to be proof that is the guilt of the accused. In the instant case the above circumstantial evidence to our mind is only consistent with the guilt of the accused and is incapable of any hypothesis than the one proposed to be proof that is the guilt of the accused. Thus, a case under section 302 and 201 I.P.C. is made out against accused Balu Ram. 16. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has awarded death sentence to the accused. He has observed that it was a pre planned murder. After having considered the matter we are of the opinion that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is not rarest of the rare cases in which death penalty should be awarded. 17. In the result we decline to accept the reference. While maintaining the conviction of the accused Baluram under section 302 and 201 I.P.C. We commute the death sentence to life imprisonment and sentence Balu Ram to under go imprisonment for life under section 302 I.P.C. and a sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment under section 201 I.P.C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 18. The appeal of Smt. Sohini is allowed. Her conviction under section 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and sentence awarded there under are hereby setaside. She is in jail and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Reference not accepted. *******