JUDGMENT 1. - DB Criminal Appeals Nos. 225/82 & 120/80 have been preferred by Jalal, Bheru and Mohan appellants against the judgements of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, dated 29th February, 1980 in Sessions Case No. 52/1978, whereby, they have been found guilty under Sections 302/149 & 148, IPC; whereas DB Criminal Appeal No. 41/1982 has been preferred by Ikram and Abdul Kalam, against the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, dated 19th January, 1982, where by, they have been found guilty under Sections 302/149, and 148 IPC, in Sessions Case No. 17/1981. 2. The police submitted a challan against 13 persons including all the accused-appellants mentioned above; and a case was registered in the court of Additional Sessions Judge as Sessions Case No. 52/1978. After charge-sheeting against all the accused persons including the appellants the learned Additional Sessions Judge started recording prosecution evidence. The prosecution closed its evidence on J 9th November, 1979. On this date, all the accused persons except Abdul Aziz, were present in the Court. Accused Abdul Aziz was absent on the previous date, i.e. on 13th September, 1979 also. All the other accused persons including the present appellants were present on 13th September, 1979. On that date, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order under Section 317 (2), Cr. PC and separated the case of Abdul Aziz from, the other accused persons. Up to 13th September, 1979, the prosecution examined only 16 witnesses. The remaining 4 were examined by the prosecution on various dates in the absence of Abdul Aziz accused, and closed its evidence on 13th November, 1979. Thus, the entire prosecution evidence was recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge in the presence of the accused persons including the present appellants. When the case was fixed for final arguments, accused-appellants Ikram and Abdul Kalam remained absent; and on 20th February, 1980, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order against these two accused persons Ikrsm and Abdul Kalam under Section 317 (2), Cr.P.C. and separated their case also from the other accused persons. Hence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments in Sessions Case No. 52/1982 gave his judgement on 29th February, 1980. Later on, accused Abdul Aziz, Ikram and Abdul Kalam appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments in Sessions Case No. 52/1982 gave his judgement on 29th February, 1980. Later on, accused Abdul Aziz, Ikram and Abdul Kalam appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As the statements of four prosecution witnesses, namely Vijay singh PW 20, Dr S. P. Elhance PW 18; Vijay bahadur PW 17: and Shambhukaran, ASI PW t9 were recorded in presence of these three accused persons after their arrest, and after their putting appearance in the court, The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after recording the statements of the above prosecution witnesses, heard the arguments. As the three accused persons were before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the previous sessions case was renumbered as Sessions Case No. 17/1981. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both the sides, gave his judgement dated 19th January, 1982, by which he convicted accused Ikram and Abdul Kalam under Sections 148 & 302/149, IPC. He, however, acquitted accused Abdul Aziz of the charges levelled against him, as no case was made out and established against him. Thus accused-appellants Jalal,. Bheru and Mohan preferred appeals against the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, dated 29th February, 1980. while accused-appellants Ikram and Abdul Kalam preferred appeal against the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 19th January, 1982. I here are two judgements with regard to one and the same incident. The entire prosecution evidence in Sessions Case No. 52/1978 was recorded in presence of the appellants. The statements of lour prosecution witnesses as mentioned above, were not recorded in presence of Abdul Aziz accused, and hence, these four witnesses were re-examined when Abdul Aziz was brought before the court. All these four witnesses were re-examined in presence of Abdul Aziz, Ikram and Abdul Kalam. The case was then fixed for final arguments. On that date, Abdul Kalam and Ikram accused remained absent from the court and their case was separated under Section 317 (2), Cr.P.C. Has the entire evidence was recorded in presence of all the accused-appellants, in Sessions Case No. 52/1978, Accused Ikram and Abdul Kalam were asked to explain the offences against them, under Section 313, Cr. P.C. 3. Hence, I deem it proper to dispose of all the three appeals by this common judgment. 4. The entire evidence which would be considered in Appeals Nos. P.C. 3. Hence, I deem it proper to dispose of all the three appeals by this common judgment. 4. The entire evidence which would be considered in Appeals Nos. 285/82 & 120/80, can be considered as such in Appeal No. 41/82, filed by Ikram and Abdul Kalam. A subsequent judgment dated 19th January, 1982, has no doubt, been pronounced after recording the evidence of the aforesaid four prosecution witnesses as mentioned above, because, their statements were not recorded in presence of accused Abdul Aziz, but, their statements were previously recorded in presence of accused Ikram and Abdul Kalam. Hence, the evidence recorded in Sessions Case No. 52/78 can be looked in to while deciding Appeal No. 41/82 preferred by Ikram and Abdul Kalam accused appellants. Thus, we need not give a separate judgment in DB Cr. Appeal No. 41/82 ; and ali the three appeals are, therefore, being decided by this common judgment. 5. According to the story of the prosecution, it is alleged that on 19th June, 1978, one case was registered against Kalamama and Babakalam for forcibly snatching money from the shop1 of Mohammad Umar (deceased). In that case, the police wanted to arrest Kalamarna, and when he was being arrested, he jumped into the river where he died. Ikram accused, who is the brother of Kalamama, told Md, Umar that a case was registered on account of this report against Kalamama, and that, had he not reported against Kalamama in the police, and had a case not got registered by him, Kalamama would not have died. Ikram further told Md. Um at that he would take revenge of the death of his brother Kalamama. With this object Ikram formed a party and on night intervening 27th & 28th July, 1978, at about 1230 O'clock, they collected near the `Apsara Hotel', and stood hiding themselves near the water-tap. On that night, Md. Umar along with his brother Md. Ammen, was going on motorcycle to their house. Md. Umar was driving it. When they reached near the `Apsara Hotel', all the accused persons, who were hiding themselves near the water-tap, came out and stopped the motorcycle. Ikram, Jalal and Babakalam said to kill them. All the accused persons who were 13 in number, they started beating Md. Umar, by iron-rod. Ikram, Babakalam and Jalal caught hold of Md. Umar, and accused Bheru inflicted a knife-blow to Md. Umar. Ikram, Jalal and Babakalam said to kill them. All the accused persons who were 13 in number, they started beating Md. Umar, by iron-rod. Ikram, Babakalam and Jalal caught hold of Md. Umar, and accused Bheru inflicted a knife-blow to Md. Umar. Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from the spot leaving Md. Umar there. It is also alleged that all the accused persons also inflicted knife-blows to Md. Umar. While running away from the place of occurrence, Ikram accused told that he had taken the revenge of the death of Kalamama. This incident was allegedly seen by Kallu, Irshad, Kamil, Abdul Shakoor, Maqsud, Farookh, Laxman and Santosh. Mohd. Umar in a serious condition, was taken to hospital by Santosh, Laxman and others. Md. Ameen, who is brother of Md. Umar and w ho was accompanying him on the motorcycle, submitted a written-report at the police station Maqbara, which is Ex. P. 1. This report was immediately sent to the police station. On its basis, a regular FIR, Ex. P. 2 was prepared and a case under Sections 307, 147, 148 & 149, IPC was registered, against the accused persons. SHO Shambhukaran PW 19, during investigation, inspected the site of the incident, and prepared a site-plan Ex. P. 3. From the spot, one motorcycle, two cycles and one pair of `Chappal' (Sandal) were taken into possession vide memo Ex. P. 4. Blood-stained earth and plain earth were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. P. 5 and Ex. P. 6. One Kamiz, one Banyan and one Pajama of the deceased, were also seized and sealed vide memo Ex. P. 8. The clothes of accused Ikram were also seized and sealed vide memo Ex. P. 9. The clothes of accused Jalal were seized and sealed vide memo Ex. P. 10. The deadbody of Md. Umar was then sent for postmortem examination ; and the report in this regard is Ex. P. 20. A Panchnama of the dead body was also prepared, which is Ex. P. 21. One pant of accused Chunnu having blood-stains on it, was also seized and sealed vide memo Ex. P. 22. Accused Jalal, while in custody, gave information for recovery of a knife, which was reduced into writing and marked Ex. P. 23. On the basis of this information and at his instance, the said knife was recovered vide memo Ex. P. 12. P. 22. Accused Jalal, while in custody, gave information for recovery of a knife, which was reduced into writing and marked Ex. P. 23. On the basis of this information and at his instance, the said knife was recovered vide memo Ex. P. 12. Accused Mashuq Ali also gave information for recovery of one iron-rod, which is Ex. P. 24. On the basis of this information and it his instance, the iron-rod was recovered vide memo Ex. P. 25. Vijay singh SHO, PW 20 was posted as such at Thana-Maqbara, Kota. He arrested accused Bberu vide memo Ex. P. 27. Bheru gave information Ex. P. 28 for recovery of a knife. On the basis of this information and at his instance, the said knife was recovered vide memo Ex. P. 29. He also arrested accused Sadhu and Mashuq Ali vide memo Ex. P. 30 & Ex. P. 31 respectively. Investigation of this case was also done by Balbansingh SHO, PW 16. He arrested accused Abdul Kalam and Abdul Aziz vide memo Ex. P. 13 & Ex. P. 14 and on the information and at their instance a knife was recovered by him. The prosecution has also examined Balbir singh PW 10 before whom, the report Ex. P. 1 was presented, and who registered the case on the basis of Ex. P. 1 FIR is Ex. P. 2. The articles recovered by the police were then tent to the Serologist and the Chemical Examiner for examination. Ex. P. 32 & Ex. P. 33 are the reports regarding the said examination. After recording the evidence and completing the investigation, the police submitted a challan against 13 accused persons, who were committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kota. 6. All the accused persons were charge-sheeted under Sections 302/149, IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution has examined 26 witnesses in all to establish its case against the accused persons. The accused persons in their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. denied the allegations and the charges levelled against them. They have stated that on account of enmity, they have been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been stated by the accused persons that Md. The accused persons in their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. denied the allegations and the charges levelled against them. They have stated that on account of enmity, they have been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been stated by the accused persons that Md. Umar (deceased) had gone to `Gouri Hotel' for his dinner, where some dispute arose and between him and some Panjabi persons, and while quarrelling each other, they came out of the hold and then the Punjabis inflicted knife-blow to Md. Umar, who died on account of that injury. Thus, they have completely denied the allegations and have asserted that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after perusing the entire evidence on the record, and hearing the arguments of both the parties, held accused Jalal, Bheru and Mohan Pehalwan guilty of the offences under Sections 302/149 & 148, IPC, vide his judgment dated 29th February, 1980. Accused persons Ismail, Shabbir, Kallu, Chunnu, Mohd. Ishaq, Sadhu and Mashuq Ali were acquitted of all tin charges framed against them. No decision was given with regard to Ikram, Abdul Kalam and Abdul Aziz. When these three accused persons appeared before take learned Additional Sessions Judge, he, after perusing the entire prosecution evidence and after hearing the arguments of both the parties, held that no case was established against Abdul Aziz, and as such, he acquitted him of the charges framed against him. Accused Ikram and Abdul Kalam were found guilty of the offences under Section 148 ; and 302/149, IPC and convicted as such. 9. In the report Ex. P. 1, Md. Ameen, who is the brother of Md. Umar deceased, has mentioned the names of 8 persons who had witnessed the alleged incident. The prosecution has examined some of the witnesses mentioned in Ex. P. I. Abdul Shakoor, who is also one of them, has supported the prosecution story. But, the other persons who were examined by the prosecution as eyewitnesses, have not supported the prosecution story, and as such, they have been declared hostile. Thus, we find that PW 1 Md. Ameen and PW 5 Abdul Shakoor are the only two eye-witnesses to prove the case of the prosecution. Laxmandas PW 15 who is said to be one of the eye-witnesses, and who took Md. Thus, we find that PW 1 Md. Ameen and PW 5 Abdul Shakoor are the only two eye-witnesses to prove the case of the prosecution. Laxmandas PW 15 who is said to be one of the eye-witnesses, and who took Md. Umar from the spot to the hospital, has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. 10. Thus, the entire case depends on the statement of PW 1 Md. Ameen, who is the real brother of the deceased, and on the statement of PW 5 Abdul Shakoor, who is real uncle of Md. Umar (deceased). 11. The learned counsel for the accused appellants, has hotly contested the case and argued that the statements of these two witnesses, namely, PW 1 Md. Ameen and PW 5 Abdul Shakoor are unreliable and untrustworthy, and that, no reliance should be placed on their testimony. According to him, these two witnesses were not present at the spot when the alleged incident took place ; at.d that, they are made, but witnesses, and as they are very near relatives of the deceased, they gave their statements as desired by the prosecution. I would deal with the statements of these two witnesses later on, and discuss whether their testimony is worth believable or not. 12. It has not been disputed that Md. Umar died on account of the injuries caused to him by some sharp-edged weapon. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that Md. Umar was attacked by the accused persons who were having iron-rods in their hands, and he had also sustained a number of stab injuries by some sharp-edged weapon, and on account of these injuries, he died as is clear from the postmortem report, Ex. P. 20. 'I his fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. I he postmortem examination on the dead body of Md. Umar, was conducted by Dr. S.S. Bukshi. His postmortem report is Ex. P. 20, which has been proved by Dr. S. P. Elhance PW 18, who has stated that he identified the signature of Dr. Bukshi, who has expired. Thus, the postmortem report Ex. P. 20 has been proved by Dr. Elhance PW 18. According to this report, there were 15 injuries on the person of Md. Umar. P. 20, which has been proved by Dr. S. P. Elhance PW 18, who has stated that he identified the signature of Dr. Bukshi, who has expired. Thus, the postmortem report Ex. P. 20 has been proved by Dr. Elhance PW 18. According to this report, there were 15 injuries on the person of Md. Umar. Out of these 18 injuries, 13 injuries were incised wounds on the different parts of the body ; one is multiple abrasion on the right leg middle medial side ; and one is contusion on the left thigh. On intern: examination, it was found that there was fracture of right parietal bone going to Ant to post for about four inches. There was another incised wound (torn) cutting ti e intercostal muscle in the second space entering the chest. There was a cut of about 2" X on the right pleurae upper part ; and blood was found in the right pleura cavity. In the pericardium, there was a cut of about 1" X 1/2". In the right lung, there was a cut. There was a cut in the pulmonary artery just before entering the right auricle. Thus, according to the doctor, the cause of the death of Md. Umar was syncope due to hemorrhage from the pulmonary artery and head-injury. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The injuries on the chest and head were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused the death. It was also opined by the said doctor that the incised wounds were by some sharp weapon. Thus, from the post-mortem report, it is clear that Md. Umar died on account of the injuries found on his person. Those injuries were caused by some sharp weapon. Thus, the death of Md. Umar was homicidal in nature ; and there is no dispute on this aspect. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has argued that the report, Ex. P. 1 is not the original report which was submitted by Md. Ameen at the police station, and that, the original one has been suppressed by the police ; and this Ex. P. 1 was prepared later on, which is a concocted one. To support his argument, he has pointed out the statements of Md. Ameen PW 1; Shambhukaran SHO PW 19 ; and Balbirsingh PW 10, Md. Ameen at the police station, and that, the original one has been suppressed by the police ; and this Ex. P. 1 was prepared later on, which is a concocted one. To support his argument, he has pointed out the statements of Md. Ameen PW 1; Shambhukaran SHO PW 19 ; and Balbirsingh PW 10, Md. Ameen PW 1, in his statement, has stated in court that two blows were inflicted to Md. Umar, when he (Md. Ameen) got down from his motorcycle, and he ran and stood at some distance ; and when the accused persons after beating Md. Umar ran away, he sat down on the way and wrote the report, Ex. P. 1. He has further stated the paper on which he wrote the report Ex. P.1, was in his pocket in four-folded condition. He took out that paper from his pocket; wrote the report ; and submitted it at the police station. During the course of arguments, it was pointed out that the report Ex. P.1 is in two pages, and by seeing the pages, it was found that those pages were not four-folded. This argument was also advanced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has discussed it in detail in his judgment. We have also perused the two papers of Ex. P. 1. There was one fold visible on these papers. The second fold was not visible. It means that the papers were only two-folded, and it cannot be said that it was a four-folded paper. By this, we find that it is not correct to say that the paper on which, PW 1 Md. Ameen had written the report Ex. P. 1 was in the pocket of Md. Ameen when he had written the said report. Had it been in his pocket, there should have been more folds in this paper. Certainly, this argument has some force, and on the face of other materials which near doubt in the testimony of the witnesses, this has got some value, PW 1 Md. Ameen has stated that he knew SHO Shambu-karan, and ASI, Balbirsingh. In his cross-examination, he has said that when he submitted the report Ex. P. 1 at the police station, Shambhukaran was sitting at the Thana. He submitted the report to Shambukaran, who handed over the same to Balbirsingh, who prepared the report Ex. P. 2. Ameen has stated that he knew SHO Shambu-karan, and ASI, Balbirsingh. In his cross-examination, he has said that when he submitted the report Ex. P. 1 at the police station, Shambhukaran was sitting at the Thana. He submitted the report to Shambukaran, who handed over the same to Balbirsingh, who prepared the report Ex. P. 2. Balbir singh PW 10 has stated that Md. Ameea submitted a written report Ex. P. 1 to him, and he made an endorsement marked C to D on it which bears his signature marked E to F. He then prepared the report, Ex. P. 2, on its basis. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in those days. Shambhukaran was the SHO of the said police station, but, on that day, he was not present at the police station. Shambhukaran PW 19 in his statement, has stated that he took over the investigation of the case in the morning at about 5-6 O' clock. He has stated that it is not correct that when he returned from night-patrolling, the report Ex. P. 1 was written at the police station, in his presence. He has stated that when the report was submitted at the police station, Balbirsingh ASI was the in charge of the Thana, and it was presented to him. Thus, on this point as to whom the report Ex. P. 1 was submitted, there is some difference in the statements as mentioned above If the statement of PW 1 Md. Ameen is believed, then, he submitted it to Shambhukaran SHO, and not to Balbirsingh, ASI. Ex. P. 1 has an endorsement on its back by Balbirsingh, ASI indicating that it was presented to him. So, this difference in the statements of Md. Ameen PW 1; and Balbirsingh ASI PW 10; and Shambhukaran SHO PW 19 creates doubt what whether the report, Ex. P. 1 was the same which was presented by Md. Ameen or not. 13. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that the report Ex. P. 1 asw submitted at the police station in toe night intervening 27th & 28th July, 1978 around 12-30 O'clock. It means that the report was lodged on 28th July, 1978 in the morning at about 12-30 O'clock. It was sent to the concerned Magistrate oi 29th July, 1978. P. 1 asw submitted at the police station in toe night intervening 27th & 28th July, 1978 around 12-30 O'clock. It means that the report was lodged on 28th July, 1978 in the morning at about 12-30 O'clock. It was sent to the concerned Magistrate oi 29th July, 1978. When the report was lodged on 28th July, 1978, in the very early morning, i.e. around 12.30 O'clock, i e., much before the sunrise, the same could have been easily sent to the Magistrate whose seat was at Kota, on the very day. Why it had not been sent on 28th July, 1978, has not been explained by the prosecution. It was received by the Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 2, Kota, on 29th July, 1978 . This delay in sending the FIR, should have been explained by the prosecution. No doubt, mere delay in sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate does not throw the entire case on the ground but, while considering the other aspects of suspicious nature, the said delay has certainly some weight. As I have mentioned above, there is some doubt, whether Ex. P 1 was the original one or not; and whether it was submitted to SHO Shambukarn PW 19 or not. Thus, a doubt has been created. J hat situation along with the fact of sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate with delay creates further doubt in the prosecution story. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants, has then argued that the story put forward by the prosecution is a false and concocted one, and that, a dispute had taken place due to some `Satta' (gambling) between Md. Umar and the Punjabis in the hotel, and some one of them inflicted injuries to Md. Umar. According to him, Satta used to be played at the shop of Chandkhan, the father of deceased Md. Umar, and that, in this respect, the prosecution has totally denied the fact that, I Satta used to be played at the shop of the deceased father Chandkhan. In this ' regard, the statements of the witnesses were perused. PW 1 Md. Ameen has denied that they did Satta-Business at his shop. He has admitted that there was some arrest in connection with gambling from his shop though he was acquitted in that case. He has stated that Md. Umar was also arrested in that case. In this ' regard, the statements of the witnesses were perused. PW 1 Md. Ameen has denied that they did Satta-Business at his shop. He has admitted that there was some arrest in connection with gambling from his shop though he was acquitted in that case. He has stated that Md. Umar was also arrested in that case. He has totally denied to have Satta-Business But, in his police statement, Ex. P. 1, he has stated that they did Satta-Business near Mohan - Talkies". He has also stated that Kallu accused had stopped their motorcycle in front of the `Apsara Hotel' and asked about the open number in Satta. In his statement, he has denied to have stated as such in his police statement Ex. D. 1 recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. PW 19 Shambhukaran SHO has stated that he got information that Md. Umar, Chandkhan and his brother Md. Ameen did Satta-Business. The statement Ex. D. 1 has been recorded during investigation, and it has been proved so. Why the police would record false statement So, PW I Md. Ameen, the real brother of the deceased, Umar, has gone back from his own statement given in the police under section 161, Cr. P. C. Another prosecution witness Kallu PW 13 who is the relative of deceased Umar, has statement (cross-examination) that Chandkhan is the father of Md. Umar I deceased, who had Satta-Business. He had 3-4 shops of Satta. PW 17 Abdul Rasheed, who is also relative of deceased Md. Umar, has stated that Chandkhan had Satta business. Laxmandas PW 15 has also stated that Md. Umar and his father used to do Satta business. PW 7 Md. Kamil has also stated that Laxmandas was working in the Satta shop of Chandkhan. From the statements of all these witnesses, it is clear that Md. Umar and his father Chandkhan had Satta business. This fact which has been established by the prosecution evidence, has been denied during the arguments by the learned Public Prosecutor. All this shows that the correct fact has been with held and on what ground the dispute had taken place and as to what was the cause for causing injuries to Md. Umar, has not been brought before the court correctly. The defence has tried to show that the real cause of the dispute was Satta business, which has been denied by the prosecution. Umar, has not been brought before the court correctly. The defence has tried to show that the real cause of the dispute was Satta business, which has been denied by the prosecution. The defence version is certainly probable, but has been established by the prosecution witnesses themselves. So, this aspect also creates doubt in the correctness of the prosecution " case. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants on this point has force. PW I Md, Ameen has stated in Ex. P. 1 that Md. Umar was driving the motorcycle and he was sitting on it behind him; and that, 13 accused persons were hiding themselves near the water-tap, who stopped their motorcycle; and Ikram, Jalal and Babakalam asked to kill them. At this, all their associates started beating Md. Umar by iron rods. Then, Ikram, Babakalam and Jalal caught hold of Md. Umar and Bheru in order to murder him, inflicted a knife-blow all the accused persons ran away. While running, accused Ikram said that he had taken the revenge of death of Kalamama. So, according to this report, Ex. P. 1, Md. Umar was beaten by all the accused persons with iron-rods first; and then he was caught hold of by Babakalam, Jalal and Ikram accused, while accused Bheru inflicted knife-blow to him. Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from the scene of I occurrence. From this report, Ex. P. I, it is found that all the 13 accused persons were hiding themselves near the water-tap; all of them h id stopped the motorcycle; and all of them had given beating to Md. Umar by iron rods; and then, only Bheru accused inflicted one knife-blow to him. In his court-statement, Md. Ameen has I improved his own earlier version. He has stated that he along with Md. Umar was going on motorcycle, and in the lane near `Apsara-Hotel', all the 13 accused persons were standing. When their motorcycle reached near the said hotel. Ikram, Bheru, Kalam, Jalal and Mohan Pehlwan came in their way and obstructed the road. Ikram asked Umar to stop his motorcycle. Md. Umar stopped it.Then, these five persons surrounded Md. Umar. Ikram told that on that day, they would take revenge of the death of Kalamama and saying this, Ikram accused inflicted a fatal-blow to Md. Umar on the right side of his chest. Ikram asked Umar to stop his motorcycle. Md. Umar stopped it.Then, these five persons surrounded Md. Umar. Ikram told that on that day, they would take revenge of the death of Kalamama and saying this, Ikram accused inflicted a fatal-blow to Md. Umar on the right side of his chest. Kalam accused then i inflicted a second blow by knife on the neck of Md. Umar. At this, he (Md. Ameen) I got down from the motorcycle and stood at a distance of about 5-6 paces, where b 6-7 persons were sitting on Patas, When his brother Md. Umar wanted to get 1 down from the motorcycle, Mohan Pehlwan inflicted another knife-blow on the right side on his head. After this Md. Umar began to run. All the five accused I persons then pursued Md. Umar. Ikram and Kalam ultimately caught him. Then Bheru, Jalal and Mohan Pehlwan started inflicting knife-blows to Md. Umar on his back, ribs and hip. Thereafter, Ikram and Kalam made Md. Umar fall on the ground. All the other 8 accused persons who were standing in the lane, with iron-rods in their hands, crime running there and started beating Md. Umar by the said iroa-rods. After that, they all ran away from the scene of occurrence. There is a vast difference in the facts mentioned in the report, Ex. P.1 and in the court-statement of Md. Ameen PW 1. In the said report he has mentioned that first, all the accused persons beat Md. Umar with iron-rods and then Bheru accused, later on, inflicted a kaife blow to him. In his court-statement, he has stated that first, Ikram inflicted a cutter-blow on the chest of Md. Umar and then, Kalam 1 gave a knife blow to Md. Umar. And then, Mohan Pehlwan gave another knife-I blow on the right side of the head of Md. Umar. After this, when Ikram and I Kalam accused persons caught hold of Md. Umar, Bheru, Jalal and Mohan Pehlwan inflicted knife-blows to him. This is certainly a great improvement in his statement. 1 Md. Ameen is the real brother of deceased Md. Umar. He was sitting on the motorcycle, which was being driven by Md. Umar. According to him, Ikram and Kalam accused persons inflicted blows to Md. Umar while he was sitting on the back of the motorcycle. This is certainly a great improvement in his statement. 1 Md. Ameen is the real brother of deceased Md. Umar. He was sitting on the motorcycle, which was being driven by Md. Umar. According to him, Ikram and Kalam accused persons inflicted blows to Md. Umar while he was sitting on the back of the motorcycle. Then he was standing at a distance of about 5-6 paces and saw Mohan Pehlwan inflicting knife blow, and then Bheru, Jalal and Mohan Pehlwan inflicted a number of knife-blows to Md. Umar. He had seen all these infliction of blows to Md. Umar and immediately thereafter, he wrote the report Ex.P. 1. Why he did not mention all these facts in the report in Ex. P. 1 ? Why he has only mentioned that Bheru accused only inflicted knife blow to Md. Umar. I There is no mention that Ikram, Kalam, Jalal and Mohan Pehlwan inflicted cutter or knife-blow to Md. Umar. Whether knife-blow was inflicted first, or whether blows 1 by iron-rods were given first, is also not clear. According to Ex. P. 1, blows by is iron-rods were given first by all the accused persons. While this is not so according I to his court-statement. Ex. P. 1 is the report and there is no doubt that FIR is not I a substantive piece of evidence, but, it can be used for contradicting a person who lodge report. In this case, Md. Ameen was contradicted by Ex. P.1 in his cross-I examination. In the said report, he has stated that 13 accused persons were hiding I themselves near the water-tap. But, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that this is correct that they were hiding themselves near the water-tap. In Ex. P.1, he has mentioned this fact due to nervousness. He has also admitted that this is incorrect in Ex. P.1 that 13 persons had stopped the motorcycle, which was actually stopped by five persons. He has also stated that in Ex. P. I, the portion marked E to F that I cram, Jalal and Babakalam all the three accused persons told to kill Md, Umar, he has mentioned on account of nervousness, and that, only Ikram had told like this. In Ex. P. 1, the portion G to H is that all the associates started beating Md. Umar with iron-rods. This beating with iron-rods was alleged after inflicting the knife-blows. In Ex. P. 1, the portion G to H is that all the associates started beating Md. Umar with iron-rods. This beating with iron-rods was alleged after inflicting the knife-blows. The fact that they first started beating with iron-rods, is incorrect. He has also admitted that portion I to J, is that Ikram, Babakalam and Jalal caught hold of Md. Umar and Bheru accused in order to kill him, Inflicted knife blow to Md. Umar. Accordidg to him, this is incorrect and he had mentioned like this on account of nervousness. He has stated that he had forgotten to mention in Ex. P. 1 that Ikram also inflicted knife-blow to Md. Umar. He has also mentioned that Bheru, Mohan Pehlwan and Jalal inflicted knife-blows. He has stated that this is incorrect that Bheru inflicted knife be on the chest of Md Umar, but, it was Ikram who inflicted cutter-blow on the chest of Md. Umar; and Bheru inflicted a knife-blow on the back of Md. Umar. This has not been mentioned in the report. Ex. P.l. This witness was also contradicted by his police statement (Ex. D. 1). Portions marked A to B; C to D; E to F; G to H; and I to J were read over to this witness, and be has denied to have given such statement in the police. After hearing the entire statement, Ex. D. 1, he has admitted that it is not in the statement that Ikram had stopped the motorcycle and told that he would take revenge of the death of his brother Kalamama. He has also stated that he had deposed in bis police statement that Ikram had a cutter; and Babakalam, Jalal and Mohan Pehlwan had knives in their hands. He has mentioned that Ikram had a cutter in his hand. But, there is no mention that the other persons had knives in their hands, as stated by him. He could not say as to why the police did not record his statement properly. He was then confronted with the portions marked K to L, M to N; and N; to O, and after hearing these portions, he has denied to have given this statement in the police. Md. Ameen P W1 was examined by the police during the investigation, and his statement is Ex.D. 1. The entire statement has been contra dieted by his court statement. Md. Ameen P W1 was examined by the police during the investigation, and his statement is Ex.D. 1. The entire statement has been contra dieted by his court statement. He has denied to have given this statement in the police, which means that the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, is incorrect. It has' been proved that Ex. D. I. has been correctly recorded by the Investigating Officer, and nothing has been added or subtracted from the statement deposed by MJ. Ameen PW 1 during the investigation So, there are are only two aspects one is that Md. Ameen is a liar and he has denied his own earlier police-statement; and the other is that his statement Ex. D. 1 has been wrongly recorded by the Investigating Officer. This statement is a false one and this was not given by Md. Ameen. The learned Public Prosecutor could not explain this discrepancy in the statement. He could not satisfy us on this point whether the statement of MJ. Ameen, which is Ex. D. 1 recorded by the Investigating Officer, was correctly recorded or not. Believing that Ex. D. I was correctly recorded by the Investigating Officer, the statement given by Md. Ameen in the court, appears to be a false one. A person who can deny his own deposition given in the police earlier, can certainly improve his statement in the : court in order to implicate the accused persons. He can easily give a false version in the court. He being real brother of Md. Umar deceased, had only one view in his mind that the accused persons should be convicted. ]f he was an eye-witness to the alleged incident, and had he seen the entire incident, there could he no question of there being any difference in his statement given in the police and in the court. His only explanation in this record was that on account of nervousness, he could not mention in his report, Ex. P. 1, what he has stated in the court. This is no explanations at all. Firstly, he was sitting with Md. Umar oo the motorcycle. Two blows were inflicted to Md. Umar .while he was sitting oi the motorcycle. He(Md. Ameen) got down from the motorcycle and stood aside at a distance of about 5-6 paces, aid then saw infliction of other knife-blows to Md Umar. But. This is no explanations at all. Firstly, he was sitting with Md. Umar oo the motorcycle. Two blows were inflicted to Md. Umar .while he was sitting oi the motorcycle. He(Md. Ameen) got down from the motorcycle and stood aside at a distance of about 5-6 paces, aid then saw infliction of other knife-blows to Md Umar. But. he did not to save or rescue Md. Umar. It is easy to say that of account of danger from the accused persons, i. e., on account of danger of being beaten by the accused persons, he did not try to rescue Md. Umar. This explanation is not believable. According to his statement, there were 30-40 persons present at the spot at the time of the incident, to is also not believable that all these persons would see that 3-4 persons inflicting injuries sand murdering one person, and they would not try to save him. Md. Ameen who is real brother of Md. Umar deceased too did not try to rescue him and kept standing nearby and remained seeing all the accused persons beating and inflicting injuries to Md Umar. Then, he, after the beating was over and the accused persons had run away from the spot, sat on the road and wrote the report Ex. P. 1, which was in two pages. He had so much sense that he wrote the report in two pages, and could he not have this sense to mention in the report Ex. P. 1 the fact which he has stated in the police and court statements ? There was no question of any nervousness while writing Ex. P. I. Why did he fail to mention that Ikram had inflicted cutter-blow on the chest of Md. Umar; and Babakalam had inflicted a knife-blow on the neck of Md Umar; and Bheru had inflicted another knife-blow on the right side of the head of Md. Umar ? Why did he only mention that Bheru accused only inflicted one knife-blow to Md. Umar to murder him, when he stated in the court that Ikram, Babakalam and Bheru infected cutter and knife-blows and that Jalal, Bheru and Mohan inflicted a number of knife blows to Md. Umar ? According to the postmortem report of the deceased, Md. Umar. Ex. P.20, there were 13 incised wounds, which mean that a number of knife-blows were inflicted to Md. Umar. Umar ? According to the postmortem report of the deceased, Md. Umar. Ex. P.20, there were 13 incised wounds, which mean that a number of knife-blows were inflicted to Md. Umar. In spite of this, Md. Ameen PW 1, has mentioned in his Ex. P. 1 that only one knife-blow by Bheru accused was inflicted to him. It cannot be believed that on account of nervousness, be could not mention all the number of injuries by knife caused to Md. Umar, in the the report, Ex. P. i. Then, it is in the evidence and admitted fact also that Maqbara Thana was very near the place of the incident. It was only 100 yards from that place, and one could easily reach the said Thana within 3-4 minutes. When Md. Ameen witnessed, he should have immediately rushed to the police station, which was very near from there, and called the police force to save Md. Umar. Beating by iron-rods and inflicting number of injuries, that too, one after another, had certainly taken sometime. According to PW 5 Abdul Shakoor, he also witnessed the entire incident. He is real uncle 0f Md. Umar. He was also returning from the picture-hull and saw the incident H n could have easily rushed to the police-station and informed Balbirsingh, ASI, abou1 the incident, as Balbirsingh was on duty at the said Thana. So that the police could have easily reached the spot in no time and saved Md. Umar from further biting. It might be possible that some of the assailants could have been caught by the police with the help of the other persons, who had collected there. Why did Md. Ameen. PW 1 wait for writing report, Ex. P. 1 and why Abdul Shakoor too did not go to the police station to report the matter, could not be explained by any i one. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor could not satisfy us on this point. He could not give any explanation as to why Md. Ameen instead of writing the report Ex. P.1, did not rush to the police station to report the matter verbally and inform about the alleged incident. He even could not explain as to why Abdul Shakoor who is real uncle of Md. Umar did not go to police station. He could not give any explanation as to why Md. Ameen instead of writing the report Ex. P.1, did not rush to the police station to report the matter verbally and inform about the alleged incident. He even could not explain as to why Abdul Shakoor who is real uncle of Md. Umar did not go to police station. He could and should have immediately rushed to police station when he saw that his nephew was being beaten by some persons. He had witnessed the entire happening. When Md Umar was stopped by Ikram and others. Abdul Shakoor could have apprehended that Md Umar would he beaten by these persons. He could have run in the police station and informed the police authorities that some incident was likely to take place there, and the police-party could have easily reached there. 15. Another aspect to be considered is that when the accused persons ran , away from the place of occurrence, Md. Ameen did not even attend on Md. Umar, but, he was busy in writing the report, Ex. P. 1. Similarly, Abdul Shakoor, who also had seen the incident, did not attend can Md. Umar, but left the father of deceased Uinar. The conduct of both these witnesses is, therefore, most unnatural. When they both had seen that Md. Umar was being beaten by the accused persons and was lying in a pool of blood, both Md. Ameen and Abdul Shakoor should haste ath nded him first and then tried to take him to hospital in order to save his life. But, their behaviour was just contrary. They did not bother to take Md. Umar to hospital; nor; they bothered to see whether he was alive or dead; and instead, Md. Ameen was busy in writing the report, Ex. P. 1, and Abdul Shakoor left the place to inform the father of Md. Umar about the incident. This was a very unnatural conduct on the part of both these witnesses. This shows that it may be quite possible that both these witnesses were not even present, at the spot, when the incident took place. It certainly creates doubt about their presence, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. We have also perused the statements of these two witnesses very minutely. We have also gone through the statements of these witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161, Cr. It certainly creates doubt about their presence, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. We have also perused the statements of these two witnesses very minutely. We have also gone through the statements of these witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161, Cr. P. C. After examining their depositions, and a detailed scrutiny, we find that both these witnesses are unreliable and untrust worthy witnesses. We agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that both these witnesses were not present at the spot when the incident took place or when Md. Umar was inflicted blows. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants then argued that according to the prosecution, Md. Umar was driving the motorcycle and Md. Ameen was sitting behind him. Two knife-blows were inflicted to Md. Umar while Md. Ameen was sitting behind him on the motorcycle. One blow was on his chest and the other was on the neck by some sharp weapon. Both these wounds were incised wounds, and it was natural that blood would come out from the said wounds. Then, Md. Ameen PW. 1 who was sitting behind Md. Umar on the motorcycle, must have got bloodstains on his clothes; But, as no clothes of Md. Ameen having blood were recovered, it indicates that he was not present when the injuries were inflicted to Md. Umar. There was no reason that Md. Ameen would not have had blood-staini on his clothes at the time of infliction of the injuries. This argument has substance. A person who sits on the back of a motorcycle sits just touching the person who drives it, because of the reason that the rear seat is always a small one. There can be hardly any distance between both the riders. So, any injury on the neck and on the chest by a sharp weapon to the driver, would certainly result in blood coming out of the said wounds, and it would be certainly on the clothes of the injured as well as the person who is sitting being him. There were full chances of having blood on the clothes of Md. Ameen, PW 1. The third injury was also inflicted on the right side of the head of Md. Umar, and from that injury, blood must have come out. So, we agree that had Md. Ameen been with Md. There were full chances of having blood on the clothes of Md. Ameen, PW 1. The third injury was also inflicted on the right side of the head of Md. Umar, and from that injury, blood must have come out. So, we agree that had Md. Ameen been with Md. Umar on the motor cycle, there should have been blood on his clothes positively. As there is nothing on the record to show this fact, it creates doubt about the presence of Md. Ameen at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident, and when Md. Umar is alleged to have been stabbed. This argument too, has therefore, full force. 17. We have also gone through the statement of PW 5 Abdul Shakoor, who has stated that he was returning from a picture-hall. He stopped at the `Apsara-Hotel', for taking tea. while taking tea, Md. Umar came there on a motorcycle from the side of Ghantaghar. Md. Umar was driving the said motorcycle and Md Ameen was sitting behind him. Ikram, Mohan Pehlwan, Jalal, Babakalam and-Bheru obstructed the road and stood before the motorcycle. Ikram told that he would take revenge of the death of his brother, and inflicted a cutter-blow on the right chest of Md. Umar. Babakalam then inflicted a knife-blow on his neck. Md. Ameen got down from the motorcycle, and when Md. Umar got down, Mohan Pehlwan inflicted a blow on his head with a knife. Thereafter, Babakalam and Ikram caught hold of Md. Umar; and Jalal, Bheru, and Mohan Pehlwan started giving knife blow to him. Md. Umar was made fall on the ground; and 6-7 persons who were standing on the corner of the lane, started beating Md. Umar with knives. They had iron-rods also with them. 18. Thu.k. we find that there is difference in the statements of Md. Ameen PW 1 and Abdul Shakoor PW 5. He (Abdul Shakoor) has admitted that Md. Ameen and Md. L'mar are his real nephews. He has stated that it is incorrect to say that he reached Apsara-Hotel, it was closed, and tea was not being served, According to him, Kayyum was sitting at the cash-box of the said hotel, and another person was serving tea. He has also stated that Rashid, Kallu and Fakru were also sitting at the said hotel. He was also confronted with his police-statement. Ex. D. 2. He has also stated that Rashid, Kallu and Fakru were also sitting at the said hotel. He was also confronted with his police-statement. Ex. D. 2. He has denied to have given the statement marked at A to B and C to D portions. He has stated that from the spot, he went to his house. The way leading to his house is in front of police station-Maqbara. He did not go to police station and inform there, but, straightway, he went to his house. He could not give any explanation as to why he did not go to police station. He had come with his brother's wife, to the spot, but, did not find Md. Umar there. He has also stated that out of the 13 accused persons two had iron rods with them and the rest had knives with them. He has also stated that no blow was inflicted to Md. Umar while he was standing. He was put down on the road and after making him fall, blows were inflicted to him. He has also admitted that Rashid, Fakru and Kallu are relatives of Chandkhan, father of the deceased, Md. Umar, and that, all they were present at the spot, at the time of the occurrence, but, they did not try to rescue Md. Umar. He has also stated that he saw Md. Ameen at the spot, when two injuries were already inflicted to Md. Umar and thereafter, he did not see him. Then, Md. Ameen had met him on the next morning at about 12 O'clock, at the hospital. When he and his brother, i.e., the father of the deceased had come to the spot, could not find Ameen there. He had gone to hospital and the way was in front of Maqbare Thana, but he did not go to Thana to see whether any report had been lodged or not. He even did not care to lodge any report afterwards. This statement shows that Abdul Shakoor is an unreliable witness. He has not given the true version in the court. He being the real uncle of the deceased, has narrated the story as asked by the police. His conduct appears to be most unnatural, and cannot be believed. Abdul Kayyum PW 2 is the owner of the `Apsara-Hotel'. He has not supported the prosecution story. He has been declared hostile. He has not given the true version in the court. He being the real uncle of the deceased, has narrated the story as asked by the police. His conduct appears to be most unnatural, and cannot be believed. Abdul Kayyum PW 2 is the owner of the `Apsara-Hotel'. He has not supported the prosecution story. He has been declared hostile. In his statement, he has stated that in the night around 12 O'clock, he was closing his hotel when there was some dispute. He heard that some quarrel had taken place. So, he closed his hotel and went away. He has denied that Fakru, Rashid, Abdul Shakoor and others were taking tea at his shop. Thus, the presence of Abdul Shakoor is denied by this witness, Abdul Kayyum. 19. In Ex. P. 1, it is mentioned that i.Kallu, Rashid, Kamil Tailor, Abdul Shakoor, Fakru, Farook, Laxman and Santosh were the persons who had witnessed the incident. Out of these witnesses, Kallu PW 13, Rashid PW 14, Md. Kamil PW 7, Fakruddin PW J2, and Laxmandas PW 15 have been examined by the prosecution; and, none of them has supported the prosecution story. All these persons have been declared hostile. It is immaterial to note that out these witnesses, Farook, Rashid and Kallu are relatives of the deceased. There is no reason he these persons would favour the accused persons. They are alleged to be the eye-witness to the actual incident, and that they had seen that their relative, Md. Umar was being killed by the accused. There is no reason why they would support the accused persons. This shows that it is wrong to say that these persons had witnessed the alleged incident. Santosh has not been examined, laxmandas PW 15 has been examined. He has also not supported the prosecution story. According to this witness Laxmandas PW 15, the incident took place at `Gouri-Hotel', where some quarrel had taken place in between Md. Umar and some 4-5 other persons, who were taking their dinner. In that quarrel, these persons had inflicted knife-blows to Md. Umar. Thereafter, while he and Santosh were taking Md. Umar to hospital, he died in the way. 20. What we find in this case is, that investigation of this case was not done properly. There were 25-30 persons present at the spot, when the incident had taken place. In that quarrel, these persons had inflicted knife-blows to Md. Umar. Thereafter, while he and Santosh were taking Md. Umar to hospital, he died in the way. 20. What we find in this case is, that investigation of this case was not done properly. There were 25-30 persons present at the spot, when the incident had taken place. They have not been examined by the Investigating Officer. Only the relatives of the deceased were interrogated during the investigation. Then, they have also not supported the prosecution story. All this shows that either they were not present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident, or their statements were recorded incorrectly. Laxmandas PW 15 has stated in his statement that there was some dispute at `Gouri-Hotel' in between Md. Umar and some 4-5 other persons and there, he was inflicted knife-blows. It was for the Investigating Officer to have investigated into this aspect and tried to find out the correct position. But, instead of that, a new case has been made out. The incident is alleged to have taken place before `Apsara-Hotel'. But. the owner of the said hotel also, is not supporting the prosecution-story. Then, the Investigating Officer has only examined the persons who are related to the deceased. The defence has examined two witnesses in support of their case, namely DW 1 Usman Gani and DW 2 Altab Hussain. They were also interrogated by the Investigating Officer. But, their statements were not recorded by him. No reason is there on the record as to why their statements were not recorded. Anyway, what we find is that the investigation was not done in this case in a proper way. 21. The Investigating Officer recovered knives form Jalal, Bheru, Aziz and Kalam. Out of these 3 knives, one was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The other knives were not sent. The report regarding that one knife is that blood was detected from the said knife, but, it was so small in quantity that they did not send it for further examination to the Serologist. Though, this knife had human blood on it, but the blood was not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. Hence, the recovery of the knife is of no value. Some clothes were also recovered from the accused persons, and they have also no connection with the crime. Though, this knife had human blood on it, but the blood was not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. Hence, the recovery of the knife is of no value. Some clothes were also recovered from the accused persons, and they have also no connection with the crime. Thus, the recoveries of the articles do not help the prosecution in any way in proving the case against the accused persons. 22. As in the prosecution story, Ikram wanted to take revenge from Md. Umar for the death of his brother Kalamama and on account of the report of Md. Umar, a case was registered against Kalamama. When the police wanted to arrest Kalamama, he jumped into the river and died. Ikram bad told Md. Umar that on account of his report, Kalamama had died, so he would take revenge from him. No report was lodged for this threatening. It is said that to take this revenge, Ikram formed a party of all the accused persons. There is nothing on the record to prove that Ikram had formed a party to take revenge from Md. Umar. There is nothing on the record to show any enmity in between Md. Umar and accused Jalal, Bheru, Mohin Pehlwan and Babakalam. If there was any enmity, it was with Ikram. So, there is no proof that Ikram had formed a party and the other accused persons had associated him. All these indicate that the case has not been properly investigated, and with some ulterior motive, the accused-appellants have been made out as accused in this case. 23. No doubt. Md. Umar died on account of injuries to him. It most unfortunate that he lost his life, but, unless the case is proved and established against the accused appellants, they cannot be held guilty of the offence of his murder. The prosecution had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants. As we have discussed above, the prosecution has failed to do so. The learned Additional Sessions Judges have failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence. They have incorrectly weighed and scrutinised the evidence on the record and have erred in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case against the accused-appellants. As we have discussed above, the prosecution has failed to do so. The learned Additional Sessions Judges have failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence. They have incorrectly weighed and scrutinised the evidence on the record and have erred in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case against the accused-appellants. As discussed above, we have minutely perused the entire prosecution evidence and find that the prosecution witnesses are most unreliable and untruer twenty witnesses, and it does rot support to arrive at conclusion that the accused-appellants are guilty of murdering Md. Umar. 24. As a result of the above discussion, we do not agree with the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge, and we are unable to up hold the convictions of the accused appellants. Appellants Jalal, Bheru. Mohan Pehlwan, Ikram and Abdul Kalam are not found guilty of the offences under Sections 148 & 302/149, IPC. Their convictions and sentences for the said offences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judges. are set aside, and they are acquitted for the said charge Accused Jalal, Abdul Kalam and Mohan Pehlwan are in jail. They be released forth with if they are not required in any other case. Accused-appellants Bheru and Ikram are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds, which are hereby cancelled, the three appeals, D. B. Cr. Appeals Nos. 255/80 ; 120)/80; & 41/82, are allowed as indicated above. *******