JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Appeal by Nand Singh, Ram Dutt, Ram Kishan and Kalu, accused persons is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Baran convicting them under Section 302 r.w. Section 34 I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for one month R.I. 2. The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused Balu logged an oral report on 19.1. 1980 at 12. 00 noon at Police Station; Mothpura that he was watching the field of his partner Bhoopendra Singh and at 9. 00 A.M., Hari Singh Rajput while coming to village Gordi called him and told that Bana Rajendra Singh has been killed and thrown in the field of Shyam Dass Bairagi. There were cuts on the head, feet and neck by sharp-edged weapons. Tourch and Gun (Jodala) were also lying by the side of the dead body. On hearing this, he had come on foot to lodge this report. The S.H.O. Gulab Khan, P.W. 16 on the aforesaid oral report made by Kalu, entered an F I R. Ex. P. 34. The police thus registered a case u/s 302 I.P.C. and started investigation. S.H.O Gulab Khan went on the spot and prepared site plan Ex. P. 12. He also prepared the Inquest Report of the dead body. He also recovered a gun and a Battery near the dead body. He also recovered blood stained earth from the spot. Post-mortem of the dead body of Rajendra Singh was conducted by P.W. 8 Dr. Sudarshan Dutt. According to the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries found on the body of the deceased were ante-mortem in nature. There were 17 injuries found on the body of deceased. Injuries on the neck and head were dangerous to life. In his opinion, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to severe injuries in the large blood vessels and important structures of the neck-larynx and trachas and also to the vital organ brain. The police also recovered a sword and pieces of Towel at the instance of accused Nand Singh. Kutia, a watch, Jacket and Gudari were recovered at the instance of accused Ram Dayal. A Luhandi at the instance of accused Ram Kishan and a stick and two Dandiyas at the instance of Kalu accused were recovered. The police also recovered a sword and pieces of Towel at the instance of accused Nand Singh. Kutia, a watch, Jacket and Gudari were recovered at the instance of accused Ram Dayal. A Luhandi at the instance of accused Ram Kishan and a stick and two Dandiyas at the instance of Kalu accused were recovered. All the aforesaid articles seized on the spot and at the instance of the accused persons were sent for chemical examination. The police after completing investigation, filed a challan in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Atru. Learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge The case was tried by the learned Addition Sessions Judge No. 1, Baran. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined 16 witnesses in all. The accused persons in their statements under section 313 Cr. P.C. totally denied the prosecution story. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner indicated above. The accused persons aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, have filed this appeal. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has based the conviction of the accused persons on the statements of two eye-witnesses;PW.1 Smt. Pana Bai & P.W. 5 Shri Govindsingh.He has also placed reliance on the statement of PW.11 Smt. Krishna Kumari wife of deceased for having last seen the deceased with the accused persons Nandsingh & Ram Dayal. He also found corroboration of the prosecution case by the recoveries made at the instance of the accused persons. 5. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused persons contended that the statements of two eye witnesses P.W 1 Pana Bai and P.W.5 Govind Singh is wholly unreliable. As regards Mst Pana Bai it was not mentioned by the police in the charge-sheet as one of the eye witnesses, though in her statement during the trial she had deposed to have seen the beating given by the accused persons in her presence, but in her statement recordeed u/s 161 Cr. P.C. by the police as well as in her statement recorded before a Magistrate u/s 164 Cr. P.C., she had not deposed to have witnessed the inflicted by the accused persons in her presence. I is further submitted that Pana Bai has admitted to have a grudge with Nand Singh accused and under these circumstances, her statement is not worthy of credence. P.C., she had not deposed to have witnessed the inflicted by the accused persons in her presence. I is further submitted that Pana Bai has admitted to have a grudge with Nand Singh accused and under these circumstances, her statement is not worthy of credence. As regards another eye witness P.W. 5 Govind Singh, it is contended that though he has alleged to have witnessed the occurrence, but he did not disclose the same to any person till 22nd January,1980. According to P.W. 16 Gula Khan, Investigating Officer, he had integrated Govind Singh on 19th January. 1980 but Govind Singh had told that he know nothing about the incident. It is thus contended that the statement given by Govind Singh subsequently on 22-1-80 cannot be believed. It is further submitted that there are serious contradictions inherent and inconsistencies in the statement of this witness and his conduct after seeing the alleged incident, is wholly unnatural. As regards the last seeing evidence, it is contended that Nand Singh according to Smt. Krishna Kumari wife of deceased had come for a drink party and Ram Dayal was a servant of Rajendra Singh and as such the circumstances of the deceased having been last seen with the aforesaid 2 accused persons cannot be taken as a circumstances against them. It is also argued that in any case the evidence of last seen is very weak short of evidence when the story put forth by the eye-witnesses is disbelieved. 6. As regards recovery of articles, it is contended that the learned trial court committed a serious error in holding that the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused persons were stained with human blood according to the report. It is contended that the learned trial court did not properly read the report of the Seriologist, according to which no report could be given about the blood on the weapons as the blood was dis-integrated. It is also argued that admittedly on the day of incident i e. 17-1-1980 it was a dark night and the accused persons could not he seen without light. It is also argued that admittedly on the day of incident i e. 17-1-1980 it was a dark night and the accused persons could not he seen without light. Though the prosecution has tried to put forth a case that Ram Chandra P W. 7 was throwing by a tourch and in the said light the prosecution witnesses bad seen the occurrence, but P.W. 7 Ram Chandra, in his own statement has totally denied to have any tourch with him nor having thrown any light by a tourch. P.W. 7 Ram Chandra was declared hostile, but no benefit can be taken by the prosecution from the evidence of a hostile witness. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued that even if the evidence of Mst. Pana Bai may be inconsistent with her statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. or 154 Cr. P.C. as regards having witnessed the crime, her other part of her statement implicating the accused cannot be discarded. It is contended that merely on account of minor discrepencies in the statement of P.W. 5 Govind Singh his entire statement cannot be discarded. Thus, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court. 8. We have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. 9. We would first discuss the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.W. 1 Mst. Pana Bai and P.W. 5 Govind Singh whose statement have been relied upon by the trial court. 10. We may mention at the out set that though many other witnesses were produced from the prosecution side as eye witnesses, but all other have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hosbitle except aforesaid two eye-witnesses. 11. According to Pana Bai, she was in her house in the night at about 8-10 O'clock. Nandji Kalu, Ram Kishan and Dayal (Ram Dayal) accused persons came to her house. Nand Singh told that they would kill Bhanwarji. Bhanwarji is also called Banna or Rajendra Singh. They had not told anything else. There is a Neem tree about 10 steps from her house. After some time she heard the noise of beating. Dayal accused then told her to open the bolt of the door, but she refused to do so. All the four accused persons Ram Dayal, Nand Singh, Kalu and Ram Kishan were beating Rajendra Singh. There is a Neem tree about 10 steps from her house. After some time she heard the noise of beating. Dayal accused then told her to open the bolt of the door, but she refused to do so. All the four accused persons Ram Dayal, Nand Singh, Kalu and Ram Kishan were beating Rajendra Singh. Nand Singh had a sword, Kalu had a stick, Ram Dayal had a Kutia and Ram Kishan had a Lauhandi. On seeing this, she closed the bolt of the door and did not open the same even at the asking of Dayal. Dayal was a Gwala (Shapherd) of Rajendra Singh. There might be some decension on account of giving work. There was ill will on this account. In the cross-examination, she stated that her husband had died 10 or 12 years ago. She had two children. In her own house there was only one room. There is a house of Kajod in the west of her house. Thereafter, there is a house of Siriya. On the northern side there are houses of Sirdi Lal and Dhuli Lal and thereafter the houses of Chotu and Bheru Lal. Towards east and south, there are no houses. There is a way near her house towards west also. At Mothpur, a Panchayat was held in her case about 2-3 years ago. She admitted to have concieved a child. She also admitted that Nand Singh had raised false rumour that she concieved a child of Birdi Lal. Panchas had collected of 5/10 villages Nand Singh had also come in the said Panchayat. Nand Singh had also told before the said Panchayat that she was carrying the child of Sirdhi Lal. Her husband had 12 bighas of land. She was also doing labour work. She admitted to have gone in the field of Chagan Singh for cutting wheat crop and Nand Singh had told in the field that Chagan Singh was taking liberty with her. She also admitted that Nand Singh made it difficult for her to live in the village. She stated that at the time when accused persons had come to her house, her son Amar Lal aged 10 years was present there. The door of her house was open. The accused persons did not come to her house before it. Rajendra Singh also did not use to come to her house. She stated that at the time when accused persons had come to her house, her son Amar Lal aged 10 years was present there. The door of her house was open. The accused persons did not come to her house before it. Rajendra Singh also did not use to come to her house. After some time the accused persons went away. She had not told about this to any body. She had gone 10-12 steps from her house and had seen from the thoroughfare. The place where beating took place was open from all side. She was unable to tell as to which accused gave beating to Rajendra Singh at that place and how many blows. Ram Chandra had thrown torch light and she had seen the occurrence in the said light. Without the torch light nothing could be seen in the dark. Ram Chandra was in the house of wife of Bhanwariys' from where he had thrown the torch light. He was at a distance of 30-40 steps from her. She knew Ram Chandra who was brother of Ram Kishan. She did not see any body else She did not go near Ram Chandra. Ram Chandra had thrown the light only once. Torch was thrown on all persons who were beating. She only saw the incident in one glance and then come in side due to fear. She further stated that she had gone to work in the field of Ganga Dhar on the next day. She did not tell about the incident to any body in the village. She met three woman in the field but did not tell them also. In the evening also she did not tell to any person in the village. She did not tell about this even by going to Rajendra Singh's house. The accused persons hid threatened to beat her if she would disclose their names as such she did no' tell about this to any body. Police had come on the 3rd day. On that day she also did not tell to any body. Rajendra Singh's in-laws had come to call her. There was a constable with them She had narrated the entire incident to the constable. Police had also taken Ram Karan, Birdhi, Dhuli Lal, Ram Chandra, Shanker, Kamwar Lal and 5-10 other persons and remained at the police station for one night. Rajendra Singh's in-laws had come to call her. There was a constable with them She had narrated the entire incident to the constable. Police had also taken Ram Karan, Birdhi, Dhuli Lal, Ram Chandra, Shanker, Kamwar Lal and 5-10 other persons and remained at the police station for one night. The village public had stayed at the police station even thereafter. Police had given beating to her and other villagers to give the statement. She gave the statement and then she was made to go. She further stated that she saw the incident from the house of Mohan. She stays and sleeps in the house of Mohan in the night. Accused persons had come to her own house and when she had gone to sleep in the Mohan's house then the incident took place. Mohan lives with his maternal uncle. While confronted with her statement Ex. D. 1 recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. she denied portion 'A' to 'B'. Similarly she also danied portions 'C' to 'D'. She also denied Portion 'E' to 'F'. On further cross examination she stated that her statement was recorded before the Magistrate and in that she tad seen the four accused beating Bhanwarji. She also stated that she had given the statement before the Magistrate that the accused persons had sword, Kutti, Stick and Lauhandi with them. Learned trial court has put a note that the aforsaid statement is not contitned in Ex. P. 3, the statement of Mst. Pana Bai recorded by the Magistrate. 12. We have closely scrutinised the statement of Mst. Pana Bai. She was not shown as an eye witness by the Police in the charge sheet. In her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. P.C. Ex.D. 1, she had clearly deposed at Portions 'A' to 'B' mentioned above that she did not come out of her house and she did not see the accused persons beating Rajendra Singh (Bana). There is no mention at all of witnessing the beating given by the accused persons, by Mst. Pana Bai, in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr. P.C. Thus the story put forth by Mst. Pana Bai seeing the accused persons giving beating to Rajendra Singh, is clearly an after thought and this has been developed at the stage of trial. Even the earlier part of the story as narrated by Mst. Pana Bai is not believable. Pana Bai, in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr. P.C. Thus the story put forth by Mst. Pana Bai seeing the accused persons giving beating to Rajendra Singh, is clearly an after thought and this has been developed at the stage of trial. Even the earlier part of the story as narrated by Mst. Pana Bai is not believable. According to her the accused persons had come to her house and had told her that they would kill Bhanwarji. According to her, Nand Singh accused had falsely spied the rumour that she had concieved a child from Birdi Lal. Nand Singh bad also told this in the Panchayat. According to her Nand Singh had also tried to maline her by telling in the village that Chagan Lal was taken liberty with her. She admitted that Nand Singh has made it difficult for her to live in the village.In these circumstances, it cannot be believed that the accused persons would go to the house of Pana Bai and tell her that they would kill Rajendra Singh Pana Bai had no association of any kind with any of the accused persons &there does not arise any possible reason for the accused persons to halve gone to the house of Pana Bai before committing the murder. She has admitted that she had concieved after the death of her husband and a Panchayat of her caste was called 2 or 3 years back. Thus Pana Bai appears to be a woman of easy virtues and had also a griovance against Nand Singh accused and this may be a possible reason for implicating Nand Singh and other accused persons. According to her, it was a dark night and torch light was thrown by Ram Chandra, who was brother of Ram Kishan accused It is also not undeistable as to why Ram Chandra would throw a light on his own brother and allow the other persons to see him inflicting injuries on Rajendra Singh. Ram Chandra appeared as P.W. 7 and has totally denied of having any torch or throwing any light by it. Though he has been declared hostile but the fact of throwing light self by Ram Chandra show that Pana Bai and Govind Singh may have seen all the accused persons, is itself not believable. Ram Chandra appeared as P.W. 7 and has totally denied of having any torch or throwing any light by it. Though he has been declared hostile but the fact of throwing light self by Ram Chandra show that Pana Bai and Govind Singh may have seen all the accused persons, is itself not believable. Pana Bai has also admitted that she did not tell about the incident to any person in the village nor at the house of Rajendra Singh for 3 days. Even she did not tell to the Police on the 3rd day when it had come in the village at about 3.00 p m. She has also admitted that she herself and other villagers were given beating by the police to give the statement. All the above circumstances lead us to hold that the statement of Pana Bai is not worthy of reliance. 13. P.W. 9 Govind Singh is Rajput by caste and is a resident of same village Gordi. According to him, these were cold days. At about 10 30 P.M. in the night, he was meet Amar Lal, who had come from Achrawa. He had thus gone to Dhuli Lal. Shanker, Kunwar Lal Shree Lal, Dhuli Lal and Birdha etc were there. They all were talking. At this they heard a voice. He, Birdha, Shree Lal, Amar Lal and two-four persons went there Shanker and Kanwar Lal had already gone ahead of them. Birdha Amar Lal and Shree Lal had accompanied him. Kumhar Dayal and one boy were already standing there. He asked Birdha and Dhuli 'Lal as to what was the matter. On this Birdha told that probably Bhanwarji was beating some 'Hali'. At this way all told to get the 'Hali' released. Ram Chandra had tourch and he threw light from it. He further stated that he went in the light of torch towards the side from where noises of sticks was coming. There he saw that 4 persons were beating some body When second time light was thrown than he saw that 4 persons were beating some body. When 2nd time light was thrown then he saw that Nand Singh, Ram Kishan, Kalu and Dayal accused persons were beating Bhanwarji. Nand Singh had a sword, Ram Kishan a Lauhandi, Dayal a Kuttia and Kalu had a stick in their hands, by which they were beating Bhanwarji. All the four were beating him. When 2nd time light was thrown then he saw that Nand Singh, Ram Kishan, Kalu and Dayal accused persons were beating Bhanwarji. Nand Singh had a sword, Ram Kishan a Lauhandi, Dayal a Kuttia and Kalu had a stick in their hands, by which they were beating Bhanwarji. All the four were beating him. The accused persons then dragged Rajendra Singh in a Bada at distance of about 50 yards and threw the dead body there. When all the persons proceeded towards accused persons then they jumped a wall and ran away. All this incident was seen in light of torch. All his associates ran away after seeing the incident and he also followed them. Govind has further stated about the recovery articles and weapons from the possession of the accused persons at their instance and has proved his signatures over the information and recovery memos. In the cross examination, he stated that he lives in a Badi at a distance of 3 Furlongs from the village. He denied to have any relation with Rajendra Singh. He however, admitted that the ancesstory of Rajendra Singh had given him land for cultivation as the Jamidar used to give to all persons. He had gone to meet Amar Lal as he had love pith him. When he had gone to meet Amar Lal then Shanker Lal and others were already sitting there. He stayed there for 2-2, 1/2 hours. They came out on hearing the cry of 'Dode re-Dodo re'. He further stated that first of all Kanar Lal and Shanker Lal came out and thereafter he himself came out. Dhuli Lal, Ram Chandra and Ram Karan were also standing there. Ram Chandra was standing on a Chabutara 8 or 10 hands ahead. Ram Chandra was lighting the torch but nothing was visible to him. He then went near Ram Chandra and then saw Suanwarji lying on the ground He thereafter stayed that Bhanwarji was lying at a distance of 30-40 steps. He further stated that he did not raise any huge and cry nor he challenged any person. He saw the incident for 5 minutes. He told his associates to go ahead, but none of them went forward. Accused persons giving gnumerable blows. He did not count the blows. 10-10, 20-20 blows must have been given. He further stated that he did not raise any huge and cry nor he challenged any person. He saw the incident for 5 minutes. He told his associates to go ahead, but none of them went forward. Accused persons giving gnumerable blows. He did not count the blows. 10-10, 20-20 blows must have been given. They were giving beating as washerman beats the cloths He further stated that Rajendra Singh's house was at a distance of 200 steps from the place of incident. He did not go to his house and tell that Bhanwarji was being beaten. He further srated that Ram Chandra was continuously putting of and lighting the torch. During the incident he did not hear the voices of Bhanwarji. All his associates came back with him. He did not tell his associates that he had identified accused persons. His associates also did not tell him that they had identified the accused persons. He further stayed that after reaching the house he had told Bahadur Singh that Bhanwar Singh has been killed. He did not send any person to inform in the 'Ghadi'. On the next day also he did not tell to any body in the village nor to any person in Ghadi. On the next morning he went to she Bhanwarji in Mohan-ki-khedi and in a Bara, but Bhanwarji was not found there, Even than he did not go and inform at Bhanwarji's house. He had come to know that search was being made about Bhanwarji. He further stated that Madan Brahmin had tole him that search was being made for Bhanwarji, but he did not tell even to Madan Brahmin on account of fear of the accused persons and the Police. Next day he went to Gordi village and Ranpur and in the houses of Meenas. He told Madan Meena, llajari and Sukh Ram Meena that Bhanwarji had been killed in the night and what was to be done next. Then Madan and himself made a search of Bhanwarji in the evening, He further stated that on the 3rd day at 12 O'clock police had come. On that day also he did not tell the police about the incident on account of fear. Police remained in the village for the whole night. On the 4th day he and other villagers were taken by the Police. On that day also he did not tell the police about the incident on account of fear. Police remained in the village for the whole night. On the 4th day he and other villagers were taken by the Police. Ram Karan, Birdha, Shanker, Dhuli Lal, Ram Chandra, Shree Lal, himself, Dayal Kumar, Birdh Kumhar and Pana Bai were taken by the Police, He was kept in the Police station for one night. He was not given any beating. One or two persons might have given beating. On the 5th day, police had also recorded his statement. He denied to have given his statement to Police in Ex.D. 2 that when he was seeing 'he occurrence them Ram Chandra had put of the tourch. 14. A perusal of the above statement of Govind Singh shows that he was a chance witness as his house was at a distance of 3 forlongs from the field. Ordinarily there was no reason for him to have gone in the night at 10.30 P.M. in the month of January to meet Amar Lal. Shanker, Kanwar Lal, Shree Lal, Amar Lal, Dayal Kumhar and one more boy who are alleged to be present on the spot, according to Govind Singh, have not been examined by the prosecution. Other persons Sirdhi Lal, Dhuli Lal present on the spot, according to Govind Singh, have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. On the one hand Govind Singh says that he did not tell about the incident to any person in the village nor told at the house of Rajendra Singh on account of fear of accused persons, but at the same time he admits to have disclosed about the incident to Bahadur Singh, Madan Meena, Hajari and Sukh Ram Meena. None of these persons have been examined by the prosecution. It has not been stated by Goind Singh that the accused persons came near him or had seen him witnessing the incident and bad threatened him not to tell about the incident PW 16, Gulab Khan, Investigating Officer clearly admits that on 19th they had specifically made enquiries from Govind Singh and Chagan Singh, but they had not told about any incident. It is only on 22nd, 5 days after the incident the statement of Govind Singh was recorded. It is only on 22nd, 5 days after the incident the statement of Govind Singh was recorded. It is also strange that though the incident, according to Govind Singh, was witnessed by 7 or 8 persons, but none of them had courage to go near the accused persons or took any step of going to the police station even on the next day or thereafter. There is a contradiction in the statement of Govind Singh regarding the throwing of light by a tourch by Ram Chandra, in his statement in the trial court and the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. P.C. The entire story of the prosecution that Ram Chandra brother of Ram Kishan accused was himself throwing light on the accused persons and in that light Govind Singh and other persons had seen the accused persons, it itself appears to be unnatural. We have already observed above that Ram Chandra has not supported the case and has been declared hostile. 15. Thus taking in view all the above infirmities in the statement of Govind Singh, it would not be proper to rely on the statement of Govind Singh. We therefore, hold that both the eye witnesses PW 1 Mst. Pana Bai and PW 5 Govind Singh are not reliable witnesses. 16. The evidence of 2 eye witnesses having been discarded, there remains the evidence of PW 11 Krishna Kumari about the last seen evidence of Nand Singh and Ram Dayal with the deceased Rajendra Singh and the evidence or recovery. If the evidence of eye witnesses becomes unreliable, it becomes unsafe to convict the accused persons merely on the basis of last teen evidence and that of recovery. However, the evidence of last seen itself is explainable. According to Krishna Kumari herself, Nand Singh used to drink with Rajendra Singh and had come on the evening on 17-1-80 alongwith Bhadur Singh and had a drink party with Rajendra Singh. Ram Dayal was also a servant of Rajendra Singh, but according to Krishna Kumar, he used to not do any work and as such Rajendra Singh used to scolt him. As regards Nand Singh she admits that he and Bahadur Singh had gone away after taking drinks. She has also admitted that after taking meals her husband had gone alongwith Ramdayal for taking a round of the fields. As regards Nand Singh she admits that he and Bahadur Singh had gone away after taking drinks. She has also admitted that after taking meals her husband had gone alongwith Ramdayal for taking a round of the fields. She herself had not seen Ramdayal to go with Rajendra Singh but she was telling this as Rajendra Singh had told her about this. Thereafter, she states that Rajendra Singh return after 10 minutes and light down in the room. Ram Dayal then came inside the room and had told Rajendrasingh about shooting of Khargos. Ramdayal and Rajendrasingh had then gone from the house and Rajendrasingh had told that he would return back after a short time. She had not come down stairs and had seen from the window that Nandsingh was also standing down stairs. In the above circumstances, the evidence of last seen carries no value. 17. As regards the recoveries, learned trial court has held that on Chemical Examination. the weapons were found to be stained with human I blood. A perusal of Ex. P. 33, Report of Seriologist and Chemical I Examiner, shows that blood stained on item Nos. 12, 14, 20, 23. 24, 25, 26, I 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 38 were disintegrated and their origion I could not be determined. Item No. 30 is Kuttis, 31 is Talwar, 32 is Lawbandi, 33 is Lath, 34 is Dandi (Lakara) and 35 is again a Dandi (Lakara). Thus the above report also does not connect the accused persons with the offence as human blood could not be traced on these weapons. 18. The net result of the above discuss is that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the accused persons is set aside and they are ordered to be released forthwith, if they are not required to be detained in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******