JUDGMENT I. P. Singh, J. 1. Hardwari, Rajju, Sarju, Babu Ram s/o Manni, Dilawar s/o Haidwari and Nathu s/o Lallu, appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri J. N. Bansal, II Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukbabad, dated 10-8-1977, passed in S.T. No. A-2 of 1977 State v. HARDWARI, convicting and sentencing each one of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC to imprisonment for life and under Section 147 IPC to one year RI. Both sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Hardwari, Rajju, Sarju, Babu Ram (four appellants), Ram Nath (since murdered) and Maiku (died after the present occurrence) are sons of Manni, resident of village Rasoolpur, P. S. Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad. Dilawar appellant is son of HARDWARI appellant. Nathu is son of Lallo and belongs to the same village. The prosecution case is that four days prior to the instant murder of Sughar Singh of village Rasoolpur one Ram Nath brother of Hardwari appellant was murdered. In the FIR lodged about the murder of Ram Nath, Sughar Singh deceased was named as one of the murderers. 3. On 1-5-1976 Asha Ram complainant PW 1 husband of sister of Sughar Singh deceased r/o village Tajpur Bera Gadhiya, P. S. Aligani, District Etah, accompanied by Babu Ram PW 2 resident of Tajpur happened to visit Sughar Singh at his house in village Rasoolpur. Soon after their arrival they heard a rumour that the police was soon arriving in the village to arrest Sughar Singh in connection with the murder of Ram Nath. Sughar Singh deceased told Asha Ram and Babu Ram that as he was named for the murder of Ram Nath, there is every likelihood of his arrest, so they should leave the house. All three of them left the village and went to Thigarawala's field of Sughar Singh deceased, situated towards south of the village Abadi. At that field Smt. Batasho PW 3 widowed sister of Sughar Singh deceased, was plucking Hariyali. All three of them noticed that these six appellants and Maiku all carrying lathis were coming towards them. Sughar Singh became suspicious that they would assault and kill him. He, therefore, started running away towards Peelkhana (south). All the said seven assailants chased him. Asha Ram PW 1 Babu Ram PW 2 and Smt. Batasho PW 3, in order to save Sughar Singh ran after the said assailants. Sughar Singh became suspicious that they would assault and kill him. He, therefore, started running away towards Peelkhana (south). All the said seven assailants chased him. Asha Ram PW 1 Babu Ram PW 2 and Smt. Batasho PW 3, in order to save Sughar Singh ran after the said assailants. The said seven assailants succeeded in over taking Sughar in the ' Usar ' near the Rahat of Bhagwan at about 5 PM and assaulted him with lathis. The said three witnesses raised alarm in order to save deceased Sughar Singh. The said seven assailants killed him on the spot before running away saying that he (Sughar Singh) was their enemy and so they had killed him. 4. Oral FIR of this incident was lodged by Asha Ram complainant PW 1 at Police Station Kaimganj, next day on 6-1-1976 at 9.30 A.M. 12 miles away It was mentioned in the FIR that all the assailants were dangerous persons, so on account of fear he did not proceed to Thana to lodge the report during the night. The post mortem examination on the dead body of Sughar Singh was conducted by Dr. Sabeer Hussain, Civil Surgeon (Medical Officer) District Hospital, Fatehgarh, on 7-1-1976 at 3.30 PM. The probable age of the deceased was 45 years. The probable time since death was one day. The following ante mortem injuries were found on his person : 1. A lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" x bone deep over the left leg, 4" above the ankle. 2. An abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" over the right knee. 3. A lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep over the right wrist with fracture of both the bones underneath it. 4. Fracture of left humerous in the middle. 5. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4'' in the middle of the left fore-arm. 6. Abrasion 2" x 1" over the anterior aspect of right shoulder. 7. Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on the outer aspect in the middle of right thigh. 8. A lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 1/4" x scalp, 3" above the bridge of nose, over the head mid-line. 9. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the left temple. 10. Abrasion 2" x 1 1/2" on the right side of back in its lower one third portion. 11. 8. A lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 1/4" x scalp, 3" above the bridge of nose, over the head mid-line. 9. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the left temple. 10. Abrasion 2" x 1 1/2" on the right side of back in its lower one third portion. 11. Four abrasions 1/2" x 1/2" to 1/3" x 1/3" on the lower one third of back in an area of 5" x 3". 12. Contusion on the right side of back, in the middle. 5. Internal examination revealed that the right perital bone was fractured in pieces. It was communicated fracture. In the opinion of the doctor death was due to coma and syncope on account of head injury no. 8 as well as shock and haemorrhage due to the remaining ante-mortem injuries. Doctor in his statement deposed that the said injuries could be caused by some blunt weapon like lathis. 6. Here it may be noted that during the pendency of the trial Maiku accused was said to be dead, but the fact could not be confirmed till then by the prosecution. Accordingly his trial was separated and registered as Sessions Trial No. 2-A of 1977. The present Sessions Trial No. A-2 of 1977 proceeded against the six appellants. All the appellants pleaded not guilty. They denied their participation in the said crime. They, however, admitted that few days prior to the instant murder of Sughar Singh, Ram Nath brother of Hardwari appellant and uncle of Dilawar appellant, had been murdered and Sughar Singh deceased was named in the FIR as one of the murderers. They contended that they were falsely implicated in this case. It was further pointed out by them that Babu Ram PW 2 did not know them from before, the occurrence. Naththu appellant gave out that Sughar Singh deceased was of bad character, who was involved in numerous cases including one about the abduction of Jagan Nath and Chhokhe of his village Rasoolpur. However, the appellants did not lead any evidence in defence. Prosecution in order to establish their case, in all, examined 10 witnesses including three eye witnesses namely Asha Ram complainant PW 1, Babu Ram PW 2 and Smt. Batasho PW 3. The learned Sessions Judge after assessing the evidence and circumstances of the case convicted and setenced each one of six appellants, as already mentioned above. 7. Prosecution in order to establish their case, in all, examined 10 witnesses including three eye witnesses namely Asha Ram complainant PW 1, Babu Ram PW 2 and Smt. Batasho PW 3. The learned Sessions Judge after assessing the evidence and circumstances of the case convicted and setenced each one of six appellants, as already mentioned above. 7. The prosecution have alleged a definite motive on the part of the appellants to murder Sughar Singh deceased. It is alleged that about four days prior to the instant murder of Sughar Singh, one Amar Nath brother of Hardwari appellant had been murdered and in the FIR lodged in connection with the murder of Ram Nath, Sughar Singh deceased was named as one of the murderers. In this way the appellants are said to have a strong motive to murder Sughar Singh. It is to be noted that the appellants have admitted that in the FIR lodged about the murder of Rom Nath, Sughar Singh was named as one of the murderers. In this back-ground the alleged motive prominently stands out. 8. As the law of the country stands, motive is never conclusive. This is so because a person having a strongest of motive may not be the culprit, while a person having no motive at all may be the real offender. Motive only provides a link in the probabilities of the case. By itself it hardly establishes the guilt. The prosecution leads direct evidence of the occurrence, it has to be evaluated to draw a conclusion one way or the other. The presence of motive may add to the probabilities of the commission of offence by the accused if the assessment of the ocular evidence, points that way. For this reason, we assess the evidence of the above named three eye witnesses. Asha Ram PW 1, is resident of village Tajpur Bera Gadhiya P. S. Ali Ganj, Distt.Etah. He has admitted in his cross-examination that his village is about 14 miles away from village Rasoolpur, to which place Sughar Singh deceased belonged. Babu Ram PW 2 is also a co-villager of Asha Ram PW 1. Asha Ram PW 1 stated that on the day of occurrence he and Babu Ram PW 2 together had reached village Rasoolpur at the house of Sughar Singh deceased. Babu Ram PW 2 is also a co-villager of Asha Ram PW 1. Asha Ram PW 1 stated that on the day of occurrence he and Babu Ram PW 2 together had reached village Rasoolpur at the house of Sughar Singh deceased. Asha Ram, no doubt, is husband of one sister of Sughar Singh and obviously there will be no bar to his visiting Sughar Singh. But for each visit there ought to be some immediate reason. It appears that he was conscious of this necessity. So in the end of his examination-in-chief he stated that he had gone to Rasoolpur at the house of Sughar Singh after hearing about murder of Ram Nath. However it was not explained how the news of murder of Ram Nath should have promoted Asha Ram PW 1 to visit Sughar Singh deceased. At any rate, he stated in his cross-examination that when he was on his way to village Rasoolpur, then Babu Ram PW 2 had met him at 1 1/2 furlongs towards west of village Chandpura, which is situated about 1 furlong towards south of village Rasoolpur. He stated that it was from there that Babu Ram PW 2 accompanied him to Rasoolpur, although he was on his way to his Samdhiyana in village Bijori, which was about 3 kms ahead towards east of village Rasoolpur. 9. It is also to be noted that Asha Ram PW 1 has stated in his cross-examination that Babu Ram PW 2 is not related to him even by village relationship, of course, he belonged to his caste. He confirmed that Babu Ram PW 2 was neither his friend nor for meaning thereby that he had no special relation with him. If it was so, it is not understandable why he would invite Babu Ram, who was on his way to Bijori to accompany him to the house of Sughar Singh in village Rasoolpur. He has also admitted that Babu Ram PW 2 has no relation of his own in village Rasoolpur. He had never visited Rasoolpur in his company He stated that since Babu Ram met him on the way, so he accompanied him to village Rasoolpur. We are not convinced by this explanation. 10. He has also admitted that Babu Ram PW 2 has no relation of his own in village Rasoolpur. He had never visited Rasoolpur in his company He stated that since Babu Ram met him on the way, so he accompanied him to village Rasoolpur. We are not convinced by this explanation. 10. Babu Ram PW 2 has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was to go from his village to meet his relation to village Biori, when Asha Ram PW 1 told him to go via Rasoolpur. So he had accompanied him to Rasoolpur. In his cross-examination he stated that Asha Ram PW 1 had made the above proposal in village Tajpur and they both had started from their village Tajpur together in the morning. He refuted the fact that they had travelled all the way separately and Asha Ram had met him that day for first time a few furlongs before Rasoolour. Needless to say that this aspect involves contradiction between the Statements of Asha Ram PW 1 and BABU Ram PW 2. Asha Ram PW 1 stated in his cross-examination that the moment he and Babu Ram had reached the house of Sughar Singh, he (Sughar Singh) got the news about the possible arrival of the police, so he immediately left his house. Asha Ram PW 1 further stated that he and Babu Ram PW 2 also went with him. He further clarified that all three of them had left the village Abadi and gone to the field running. Here it may be noted that according to Babu Ram PW 2, all three of them, had gone to the field at a slow pace. Obviously, this projects a contradiction between the statements of these two witnesses. 11. Smt. Batasho PW 3, sister of Sughar Singh deceased is also Sali of Asha Ram PW 1. She stated in her cross-examination that both Asha Ram PW 1 and Babu Ram PW 2 had come to her house in village Rasoolpur in the morning of the day of murder of her brother (Sughar Singh). It may be noted that according to Asha Ram PW 1 and Babu Ram PW 2 they had reached the house of Sughar Singh at about 3-00 in the noon (Nek Phaile) and not in the morning hours. The contradiction is patent. SMT. It may be noted that according to Asha Ram PW 1 and Babu Ram PW 2 they had reached the house of Sughar Singh at about 3-00 in the noon (Nek Phaile) and not in the morning hours. The contradiction is patent. SMT. Batasho PW 3 further stated that she had left house to go to the field for picking up Hariyali a few moments after arrival of Asha Ram PW 1 and Babu Ram PW 2. It really looks very strar.ge that Asha Ram PW 1, who had come to her house would not be well-comed by SMT. Batasho PW 3, so as to exchange a few words with him or offer something to eat or to drink but rather she immediately left the house to pick up Hariyali. 12. All the three witnesses namely Asha Ram PW 1, Babu Ram PW 2 and Smt. Batasho PW 3 stated that Sughar Singh deceased had come to his field, known as Dingre wala Khet, where Smt. Batasho PW 3, was already picking Hariyali. It has been seen above that according to all these three witnesses, all of them had left the house without much loss of time after the arrival of Asha Ram PW 1 and Babu Ram PW 2, there. Smt. Batasho PW 3 was to leave the house first to be followed by Sughar Singh deceased, Asha Ram PW 1 and Babu Ram PW 3 who had gone running to the field. From this it would appear that Smt. Batasho PW 3 was joined by the said three persons at the said field almost simultaneously. According to all of them, the assailants appellants had arrived there soon after and the murder of Sughar Singh took place in continuation of above events, what we want to stress is that there was not much time at the disposal of Smt. Batasho PW 3 before the arrival of the other three to pick up Hariyali in sufficient quantity. However, she has stated in her cross-examination that she was able to pick up Hariyali about 5-6 kgs. before the arrival of Sughar Singh deceased and others at the field. This rattier seems doubtful. It leaves an impression with us that perhaps the witnesses are not deposing events as they happened. To us, the whole occurrence rather seems a great coincidence. before the arrival of Sughar Singh deceased and others at the field. This rattier seems doubtful. It leaves an impression with us that perhaps the witnesses are not deposing events as they happened. To us, the whole occurrence rather seems a great coincidence. It is nothing short of a coincidence that Asha Ram PW 1 and Babu Ram PW 2, who had independently decided to visit their relations at Rasoolpur and Bijori respectively that very morning and that too without any special reasons for the visits. It is again a coincidence that they happened to meet at the village and Asha Ram PW 1 proposed the other agreed to postpone his visit to Bijori and agreed to accompany him in village Rasoolpur. It is again a coincidence that the moment they reached the house of Sughar Singh deceased Smt. Batasho PW 3 left for the particular field known as Digre wala Khet to pick up Hariyali there and just at that time Sughar Singh got information about the arrival of the police to the village and he decided to run away from the house to avoid his arrest by the police. If he had decided that way then in all probability Asha Ram PW 1 and Babu Ram PW 2 would not have run alongwith him. At any time, they should not be believed that they also accompanied Sughar Singh deceased in his bid to run away to avoid the police. To our mind if the police would have missed to contact him at his house then the most natural other place to look for him would have been his field not far away from the village Abadi. A man, who would run away from his house to avoid police would certainly not choose a place to conceal himself where he would be most likely to be found out by the police.But strangely enough, according to the witnesses, Sughar Singh deceased had preferred to go to his own field. To our mind these circumstances do cast a doubt about the veracity of the said witnesses when they deposed that way. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the witnesses chose to depose in that manner so as to make them present at the spot to see the alleged occurrence. To our mind these circumstances do cast a doubt about the veracity of the said witnesses when they deposed that way. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the witnesses chose to depose in that manner so as to make them present at the spot to see the alleged occurrence. According to him, events had not taken place that way and as a matter of fact none of the witnesses had seen the occurrence. We must say that we cannot take the above narration of the events by the said three witnesses at its face value because there appears to be a ring of doubt about it. 13. Asha Ram PW 1 has stated in his cross-examination that the assailants had arrived at the field of Sughar Singh deceased 2-3 minutes after they (Sughar Singh, ASHA Ram PW 1 and Babu Ram PW 2) had reached the field and were sitting at the Mend of that field. However, Babu Ram PW 2 has stated in his cross-examination that the assailants had arrived there when they were still standing under the tree. This no doubt presents a contradiction. ASHA Ram PW 1 has stated that seeing the assailants, Sughar Singh deceased ran towards 'Pilakhana' (towards south) along Mends of the field. He was chased by the assailants along those Mends. According to him, they (three witnesses) had followed the assailants and in the fitness of things it could only be along Mends. However, Babu Ram PW 2 has stated in his cross-examination that Sughar Singh deceased had run away through the fields (Kheto-Khet) and the assailants had chased him and they (witnesses) had followed the assailants. Evidently then all this chase etc. was through the fields (Kheto-Khet) and not along Mends of the field. It involves a contradiction. 14. According to the site plan, the place of assault and murder of Sughar Singh deceased is towards south-east at a distance of about 70 paces of the Rahat, situated adjoining towards east of six bighas Arhar field of Bhagwan. Asha Ram PW 1 has stated that the assailants had chased Sughar Singh for about 1-1/3 furlongs and over powered him in the Usar towards east of the Arhar field and Rahat of Bhagwan. Smt. Batasho PW 3 stated that the assailants killed Sughar Singh near the east of Arhar field of Bhagwan where his Rahat is also there. Asha Ram PW 1 has stated that the assailants had chased Sughar Singh for about 1-1/3 furlongs and over powered him in the Usar towards east of the Arhar field and Rahat of Bhagwan. Smt. Batasho PW 3 stated that the assailants killed Sughar Singh near the east of Arhar field of Bhagwan where his Rahat is also there. However, Babu Ram PW 2 has stated that the assailants had over powered Sughar Singh, 5-10 paces before i. e. towards north of the Rahat. This is in contradiction to what the other two witnesses stated. This contradiction assumes importance when he claims that he had spent the entire night alongwith other two witnesses, by the side of the dead body, if it was, so, he could not have made a mistake regarding the place of murder vis-a-vis Rahat in question. Sughar Singh on seeing the accused assailants had started running away to save his life. He therefore, must have run at his top speed. The evidence shows that assailants had over taken him after a chase of about 1-1/2-1-1/3 furlongs. Evidently, then they too must be running at still faster speed. Even if, Asha Ram PW 1 and Babu Ram PW 2 being males, be taken to run after them at such speed so as to reach the spot in good time, but this in no way can apply to Smt. Batasho PW 3, a forty years old lady. We doubt, if she could reach any where near the place of assault, so as to witness the occurrence. 15. According to FIR murder took place on 1-5-76 at 5 P. M. and the FIR was lodged at Police Station, 12 miles away next morning i. e. 6-1-76 at 9.30 A. M. In this way, FIR was lodged after 16-1/2 hours of the murder Sughar Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that even.on foot the distance of 12 miles could be covered within four hours or so and the FIR could be lodged same day i. e.5-1-76 by 9.00 or 10 P. M. It is therefore, argued that the FIR is very much delayed one. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that even.on foot the distance of 12 miles could be covered within four hours or so and the FIR could be lodged same day i. e.5-1-76 by 9.00 or 10 P. M. It is therefore, argued that the FIR is very much delayed one. All the three witnesses Asha Ram PW 1, Babu Ram PW 2 and Smt.Batasho PW 3 have stated that after murder of Sughar Singh they had stayed with the dead body throughout the night and the complainant had not dared to move out in the night on account of fear of the accused assailants. But the learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that there is nothing in the statement of any witnesses that the assailants bad extended any threat before running away from the spot and as such there could be no question of any fear from the side of the accused assailants. Asha Ram PW 1 has stated that he had left the spot in the early morning in good time so as to reach the Thana by sun rise. Smt. Batasho PW 3 has stated that Asha Ram PW 1 had left the spot for Thana at the time when cock crows (Murga Bole). It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that if it was so then also Asha Ram had undertaken the journey to Thana on foot in the darkness of the night, and the so called fear to move out in the night, would still be there. It is argued that the theory of fear is unconvincing and that does not explain the delay we feel inclined to agree with this line of reasoning. Even then if Asha Ram PW 1 had reached Thana by sun rise there is nothing to explain as to why FIR was recorded at 9.30 A. M. and not by sun rise. Babu Ram PW 2 has stated in his cross-examination that Asha Ram had infact, left for Thana next morning after sun rise by 6.00 A. M. These contradictory statements make the whole thing doubtful and we feel statisfied that there is no satisfactory explanation of the delay in lodging FIR. Babu Ram PW 2 has stated in his cross-examination that Asha Ram had infact, left for Thana next morning after sun rise by 6.00 A. M. These contradictory statements make the whole thing doubtful and we feel statisfied that there is no satisfactory explanation of the delay in lodging FIR. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that from the statement of Asha Ram PW 1 and Babu Ram PW 2, it appears that the murder took place near about 3.00 or 3.30 P. M. and if it was so, it was still any time and the so called fear of the appellants would not have kept back Asha Ram from proceeding to the Thana to lodge the report that very night. It is further argued that it appears that after the murder of Sughar Singh, information of the said fact was communicated to Asha Ram PW 1 in his village Tajpur, 14 miles away and then he accompanied by Babu Ram PW 2 of that village came to village Rasoolpur and after due consultations and deliberations went to the police station next morning, after sun rise and lodged the report there by 9.30. It is argued that the delay can reasonably be accounted for in the above fashion and so the probabilities in that direction cannot be excluded. Whatever be the fact we are of the opinion that the prosecution have failed to explain the delay in lodging the report in any satisfactory manner. Once it is held to be delayed one, then the possibility of it being the out come of the deliberations and consultations, cannot be ruled out. The FIR therefore, loses its corroborative value. 16. Babu Ram PW 2 has stated in his cross-examination that after Asha Ram PW 1 left for Thana in the morning after sun rise, then he too left for Bijori within 1/2 an hour thereafter. He stayed at Bijori for one day from there went to his own village Tajpur the following day. He further stated in cross-examination that in connection with the incident he was never interrogated by the I.O. and he was deposing about it for the first time before the Sessions Court. This statement throws a doubt whether he was an eye witness of the occurrence otherwise the I.O. would have interrogated him. He further stated in cross-examination that in connection with the incident he was never interrogated by the I.O. and he was deposing about it for the first time before the Sessions Court. This statement throws a doubt whether he was an eye witness of the occurrence otherwise the I.O. would have interrogated him. No doubt, the I.O. has stated that he had interrogated BABU Ram, but then in view of the above statement of BABU Ram, it becomes a doubtful fact. Again Asha Ram PW 1 has stated that when the I.O. had recorded his statement he was made to sign the same. He further stated that similarly BABU Ram PW 2 was also made to sign the statement recorded by the I.O. after reading the same to him. If it was said, then certainly no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of Asha Ram PW 1 and BABU Ram PW 2 for they no longer remain free witnesses. Here it may be noted that Babu Ram PW 2 has admitted that he did not know the assailants from before and that he had seen them for the first time during the assault. If it was so it was necessary for the investigating agency to hold an identification proceeding to verify as to whether Babu Ram PW 2 could pick up any of the appellants as those assailants. Since it was not done, the mere fact that Babu Ram PW 2 in the trial court identified the appellants as those assailants, is of no value. For this reason also no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Babu Ram PW 2 for holding the appellants guilty of the charge levelled against them. 17. The post mortem examination report indicates that the post mortem examination was conducted on 7-1-76 at 12.00 noon and probable time since death was given as one day. The same was confirmed by Dr. Sabeer Hussain PW 4. This would mean that Sughar Singh met his death on 6-1-76 by 12.00 noon. If margin of six hours as deposed by doctor is also applied, then the death could go back to 6.00 AM on 6-1-76. Apparently the medical evidence does not fit in with the alleged date and hour of the said murder. Sabeer Hussain PW 4. This would mean that Sughar Singh met his death on 6-1-76 by 12.00 noon. If margin of six hours as deposed by doctor is also applied, then the death could go back to 6.00 AM on 6-1-76. Apparently the medical evidence does not fit in with the alleged date and hour of the said murder. Learned DGA has pointed out that this is only the opinion of the doctor and it does not stand to reason that the FIR would be lodged prior to murder. It is argued that when three eye witnesses deposed that the murder took place in the evening of 5-1-76, then their evidence cannot be brushed aside simply on account of the above opinion of the doctor regarding the date and time of murder. Without entering into any detailed discussion about the above opinion of the doctor concerned regarding the probable time of death of Sughar Singh deceased, let us take it that Sughar Singh was murdered in the evening of 5-1-76 some time between 3 p.m. to 5 pm. Still the most pertinent question that arises is as to whether implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of the above named three eye witnesses so as to fix the guilt of murdering Sughar Singh on the appellants. We have already discussed above in detail the contradictory statements of the said witnesses on numerous relevant points and how the witnesses are not free witnesses, certainly the witnesses do not fall in that category of witnesses on whom full reliance can be placed. The prosecution case is full of improbabilities and coincidences. We have no hesitatation to record that the prosecution have miserably failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts. The benefit of this doubt has to go to the appellants. 18. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded against each one of the appellants are set aside. They stand acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds, which are cancelled. Their sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed.