JUDGMENT 1. - This case has a chequered history. There are two groups, one of the accused-respondents and the other of the complainant party. Spate of murders and other offences have been committed by both the groups and many criminal cases had been filed against each other. In the present incident, which took place on October 31, 1976, two persons Satveer and Lal Chand were killed and Tnlok Kumar and Bai Chand received grievous injuries. 2. During investigation it was found that 8 persons, viz., Pritam Singh, Amrik Singh, Harbans, Chetan, Mohar Singh, Satnam, Jagdish and Atrik were involved in the crime. Out of these 8 persons six accused persons viz., Pritam Singh, Atrik Singh, Mohar Singh, Jagdish, Satnam Singh and Harbans were arrested and tried in Sessions Case No. 33/77. In this case learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, accepted the plea of alibi in regard to four accused persons, namely ; Pritam Singh, Harbans, Jagdish and Atrik Singh. Learned Sessions Judge also disbelieved the prosecution case against the remaining accused persons, namely, Mohar Singh and Satnam Singh and acquitted all the six accused persons by judgment dated October 4, 1978. The State of Rajasthan has filed the present criminal appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 3. One of the accused Amrik Singh, who remained absconded surrendered on May 3, 1979 after the decision of acquittal in Sessions Case No. 33/77. He was tried in Sessions Case No. 63/79 and was convicted under sections 148, 302 read with 149 and 307 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment, imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar dated December 3,1980. D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 487/80-Amrik Singh v. State of Rajasthan was heard by us against the judgment dated December 3,1980 and we dismissed the appeal by our judgment dated April 27, 1983. One of the accused Chetan still appears to be absconding. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that on October 31, 1976, Satveer (now deceased) popularly known as Bhai Sahib had gone to play hockey on Mela ground at Bhawani Mandi. Trilok Kumar (PW 1), Bai Chand (PW 22) and Lal Chand (deceased) had also gone to the play ground for playing hockey. At about 6 p.m. all the aforesaid four persons returned back in a Station Wagon No. RJD 1057 belonging to Satveer. Trilok Kumar (PW 1), Bai Chand (PW 22) and Lal Chand (deceased) had also gone to the play ground for playing hockey. At about 6 p.m. all the aforesaid four persons returned back in a Station Wagon No. RJD 1057 belonging to Satveer. The vehicle was driven by Trilok Kumar and Satveer was sitting by his side on the front seat. Bal Chand was sitting behind Trilok Kumar and Lal Chand behind Satveer on the back seat. After driving a distance of about one furlong when they reached near the sawing machine of Pritam Singh then left hand tyre of rear side of the vehicle burst on account of a shot fired and the vehicle stopped. Soon thereafter Pritam Singh, Harbans, Atrik Singh, Satnam, Jagdish, Amrik Singh, Chetan and Mohar Singh came armed with pistols and revolvers from the sawing machine. These persons started firing. Trilok Kumar got down from the car and tried to run away but he was also injured by bullets in his back and hip while running. Trilok Kumar reached the dispensary of Dr. Shanti Lal PW 2. Dr. Shanti Lal asked his compounder Babu Khan PW 3 to take Trilok Kumar on his motor-cycle to Government dispensary. Trilok Kumar was taken to Government dispensary, Bhawani Mandi where he was clinically examined by Dr. Jagdish Kumar Arora PW 17. As the condition of Trilok Kumar was serious, his dying declaration (Ex. P 1) was also recorded by Dr. Arora at 6.50 p.m. In the mean time one Nawal Kishore PW 21, who was standing outside the dispensary of Shanti Lal, informed police station Bhawani Mandi on telephone at 6.20 p.m. that somebody had fired on Trilok and Satveer Bhai Sahib. On this telephonic information Shri Ronak Ali PW 25, incharge Police Station alongwith Mohan Singh PW 11, Assistant Sub-Inspector, went on the spot and found Satveer. and Lal Chand lying dead and Bai Chand lying unconscious inside the car. The Station House Officer brought the two dead bodies and Bal Chand to the Government dispensary and found Trilok Kumar lying in a serious condition. As the condition of Trilok Kumar was serious. Dr. Arora advised him to be taken to Jhalawar hospital. Mohan Singh A. S. I. then brought Trilok Kumar and Bal Chand to Jhalawar hospital. The injuries of these two persons were clinically examined by Dr. Gopal Dutt Sharma PW 8. As the condition of Trilok Kumar was serious. Dr. Arora advised him to be taken to Jhalawar hospital. Mohan Singh A. S. I. then brought Trilok Kumar and Bal Chand to Jhalawar hospital. The injuries of these two persons were clinically examined by Dr. Gopal Dutt Sharma PW 8. On x-ray examination of the injuries of Trilok Kumar, it was found that there was fracture in one of his ribs. As the condition of Trilok Kumar was serious, his dying declaration, (Ex. P 2) was also recorded in the presence of Dr. Gopal Dutt Sharma at 9.15 p.m. in hospital Jhalawar. Trilok Kumar was then immediately sent to Kota hospital in the same night. Trilok Kumar was then operated in the hospital at Kota and one bullet was taken out from his body, which was sent to the police. The Station House Officer, Ronak Ali also registered an FIR Ex. P 53. Sub-Inspector Mangu Singh PW 26 inspected the site and found 10 empty cartidges on spot. Mangu Singh recovered hockey sticks, broken chappals and broken pieces of glass from inside the car. After completing the investigation the accused persons were charged for offences under sections 302 read with Section 149, 302, 148, 307, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 120 & IPC. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The defence in support of its case examined 11 witnesses and filed documents. 5. The learned Sessions Judge believed the evidence of alibi so far as accused Pritam Singh, Atrik Singh, Jagdish and Harbans, was concerned. The learned Sessions Judge then held that no reliance could be placed on the statements of Trilok Kumar PW. 1, Ram Singh PW. 4, being unscruplous and having no conscience as they had falsely implicated four accused persons, he discarded the evidence of these witnesses as regards the other accused persons viz., Mohar Singh and Satnam Singh as they had falsely named the four accused persons for whom the evidence of alibi was held established. 6. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the defence. 7. We would first discuss the evidence of alibi led by the four accused-respondents. So far as accused Atrik Singh is concerned, he has examined DW. 1 Behari one of his relations living at Jaipur. 6. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the defence. 7. We would first discuss the evidence of alibi led by the four accused-respondents. So far as accused Atrik Singh is concerned, he has examined DW. 1 Behari one of his relations living at Jaipur. Behari stated that Sardar Atar Singh had come to his house at Jaipur in the morning of October 31, 1976. He was indisposed and as such he had taken him to S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur. Atar Singh was got admitted in the hospital in emergency ward where he remained upto 12.00-1.00 in the day. Behari Lal further stated that he was with Atar Singh till he was examined in the hospital. After examination of Atar Singh in the hospital prescription of medicines was given to Atar Singh. Thereafter, Atar Singh told that he wanted to go to Jail for meeting some persons. Behari Lal then stated that he came back to his house and Atar Singh went to Jail for meeting some persons. Atar Singh then had returned back at 5 00-5.15 p. m. in the evening at the house of Behari Lal. Thereafter, Atar Singh was again sent to hospital for check-up in the evening. After returning back from the hospital Atar Singh informed that he lost one bag containing Rs. 140/-, C form and some papers, which dropped from his cycle. Behari Lal then said that he instructed Atar Singh to go to the police station and lodge a report. Thereafter, Atar Singh went to lodge a report and returned back to the house of Behari Lal at 6.15 p. m. Behari Lal further stated that Atar Singh stayed with him in the night at his house. 8. In this regard the defence further examined DW. 7 Sohan Pal, Head Constable, Moti Doongri Police Station. Sohan Pal DW. 7 stated that he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur on October 31, 1976. On that day Atar Singh Chhabra S/o Shri Gopal Singh Chhabra had lodged a report that he had lost a bag black in colour. Sohan Pal further stated that he had registered a report Ex. D. 11 in Rojnamcha. He stated that report Ex. On that day Atar Singh Chhabra S/o Shri Gopal Singh Chhabra had lodged a report that he had lost a bag black in colour. Sohan Pal further stated that he had registered a report Ex. D. 11 in Rojnamcha. He stated that report Ex. D. 11 was in his hand-writing and it contained his signatures at A to B and that of Atar Singh at C to D. He further stated that he could identify Atar Singh. He pointed out towards Atar Singh accused and stated that it was the same Atar Singh, who had lodged the report. Sohan Pal further stated that the Sub-Inspector, Bhawani Mandi had called him to identify Atar Singh. Sub-Inspector in this regard had summoned him by report Ex. D. 10, which contained his signatures at E to F and an endorsement at C to D. The bag of Atar Singh could not be traced out. 9. The defence in this regard has also placed reliance on Ex. D. 12 dated December 20, 1976, whereby the , Central Jail, Jaipur, has sent a reply to Station House Officer, Bhawani Mandi, that Atar Singh S/o Gopal Singh resident of Bhawani Mandi had come to meet the prisoner Prem Chand S/o Mathura Lal on October 31, 1976 at 4.40 p.m. and had gone back at 5.20 p. m. Ex. D. 13 is the certified copy of the entry of the register showing the name of Atar Singh S No. 29 for going inside the jail at 4.40 p. m. and returning back at 5.20 p. m. 10. PW. 26 Mangu Singh, Sub-Inspector, Bhawani Mandi, at the relevant time, and who had investigated the case admitted in his statement that he had made investigation whether Atar Singh had gone or not inside Central Jail, Jaipur, to meet Prem Chand. During investigation he had received the reports Ex. D. 12 and a letter dated December 21, 1976 written by the Superintendent, S. M. S. Hospital to Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhawani Mandi that according to the hospital Atrik Singh, who had chest pain, was kept in emergency out-door on October 31, 1976 for observation. He was not admitted in the hospital. The learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the above unimpeaching evidence led by the accused Atrik Singh and we also place reliance on the above evidence. He was not admitted in the hospital. The learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the above unimpeaching evidence led by the accused Atrik Singh and we also place reliance on the above evidence. Even if the oral evidence of Behari Lal may be ignored, there is unimpeaching evidence Ex. D. 11 by which Atrik Singh had lodged a report at Police Station, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur that when he was returning back from the hospital at 6.30 p. m. than he lost his bag containing Rs. 140/- and other important papers. The above report has been proved by DW. 7 Sohan Pal Head Constable of Moti Doongri Police Station, Jaipur. Apart from that Ex. D. 14 dated December 31, 1976 is the original letter written by the Superintendent, S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur to Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhawani Mandi, that according to the record of the hospital Atrik Singh suffering from chest pain was kept in observation in emergency out-door on October 31, 1976. Then there is Ex. D. 12 and D. 13 which also go to show that Atrik Singh had gone to meet Prem Chand inside Central Jail, Jaipur, and remained there from 4.40 p. to 5.20 p. m. Learned Public Prosecutor was unable to show anything from those documents or in the cross-examination of the defence witnesses, not to place reliance on such evidence or to doubt the genuineness of these documents. 11. So far as the other three accused persons viz., Pritam Singh, Jagdish and Harbans Singh are concerned, their plea of alibi is that they had remained inside Central Jail, as under trial prisoner from October 29, 1976 to November 3, 1676. In this regard DW 2 Jamuna Sahai stated that he was Jailor at Jail, Kota on October 28, 1976 and was transferred to Cential Jail, Jaipur, November 1, 1975. He had taken charge of his post at Central Jail, Jaipur on November 1, 1976. A register of under-trial prisoners is kept at the Jail. Jagdish Kumar son of Deshraj, Pritam Singh s/o Gopal Singh and Harbans Singh s/o Gopal Singh were involved in a case under section 13 of Rajasthan Gambling Act and were admitted in the Jail as under-trial prisoner on October 29, 1976. Jamuna Sahai further stated that he could identify these persons on the basis of their particulars mentioned in the Jail record. Jamuna Sahai further stated that he could identify these persons on the basis of their particulars mentioned in the Jail record. The entries in the Jail register were not in his hand. These persons were not admitted in the Jail in his presence. He had brought the original record. He filed the certified copies of the entries of Jail register Exs 6, D8A, D8B, and DSC, which were true copies of the original and related to Jagdish, Pritam Singh and Harbans Singh respectively. On a question put to him whether he could identify the accused persons after looking to the entries in the register, the witness answered that he could do so. Thereafter, Jamuna Sahai, correctly identified all the three accused persons, namely Jagdish, Pritam Singh and Harbans Singh. He further stated that he had seen these persons in Central Jail, Jaipur, on November 1, 1976 and they were released on November 3, 1976. They were released on the basis of an order issued by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3. When these prisoners were released from Jail then their signatures were also taken. He further identified the signatures of all the three accused persons in the aforesaid Exs. D8A, D8B and D8C. 12. Prabhu Singh DW 4 stated that he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station, Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur on October 28, 1976. He had made arrest under Rajasthan Gambling Ordinance. Three persons were gambling in front of hospital, Saheedi Park and he had arrested these persons who were Harbans Singh, Pritam Singh and Jagdish Kumar. Due to lapse of more than one year he could not say definitely but by pointing out towards accused persons Jagdish, Harbans Singh and Pritam Singh, witness told that the persons, whom he arrested were of same features. He was telling this on doubt. He had arrested all these persons and produced them before the Sub-Inspector, Vidhayakpuri. He had filed report Ex. D 16 in this regard which contains his signatures at A to B. He had completed the investigation and thereafter the Sub-Inspector had given him a challan for filling the same in the court. He had submitted the challan in the Court on the next morning. The report was written by Ramji Lal, L. C. 13. DW 5 Ramji Lal stated that he was posted as L. C. at Police Station Vidhayakpuri on February 28, 1976. He had submitted the challan in the Court on the next morning. The report was written by Ramji Lal, L. C. 13. DW 5 Ramji Lal stated that he was posted as L. C. at Police Station Vidhayakpuri on February 28, 1976. (There appears to be a mistake in noting 26.2.76 instead of 28.10.76). He further stated that be had arrested the accused persons. The report Ex. D 16 was scribed by him at the instance of Shri Prabhu Singh. The accused persons were arrested on cross-road in front of Government hospital, M. I. Road, Jaipur. These persons were playing cards. The witness pointed out towards Pritam Singh and said that he could identify Pritam Singh, but he was unable to identify other accused persons. He further stated that he was called at the police station Bhawani Mandi to identify the accused persons. He had gone along with Prabhu Dayal. The accused persons were not taken out of Jail Bhawani Mandi as such he did not identify them correctly. The defence counsel made a prayer for declaring the witness hostile but the prayer was refused. 14. DW 8 Jai Singh Rathore stal d that he was Officiating Jailor at Central Jail, Jaipur, on October 30, 1976. He had brought the Jail register. By going through the register he stated that according to the entries Ex. D8A to D8C Jagdish Kumar, Pritam Singh and Harbans Singh were admitted in Central Jail, Jaipur. They had remained in jail from October 29, 1976 to November 3, 1976. By pointing out towards Jagdish Kumar he said that he was inside jail. For the other accused persons he said that he could identify them after going through their identification marks. Thereafter the witness correctly identified Pritam Singh and Harbans Singh after seeing their identification marks in the register. The witness further stated that he had released the accused persons Jagdish Kumar, Pritam Singh and Harbans Singh on November 3, 1976 from Central jail, Jaipur, in the capacity of Superintendent. He stated that the entries of releasing these persons in Ex. D8A to D8C were in his hand-writing. 15. DW 9 Girdhar Dutt Sharma stated that he was posted as compounder in the dispensary of Central Jail, Jaipur, on October 30, 1976. He stated that the entries of releasing these persons in Ex. D8A to D8C were in his hand-writing. 15. DW 9 Girdhar Dutt Sharma stated that he was posted as compounder in the dispensary of Central Jail, Jaipur, on October 30, 1976. He further stated that the identification marks of Jagdish Kumar, Pritam Singh and Harbans Singh were entered in the Jail register when they were admitted in the jail. He further stated that for Jagdish Kumar in the column of medical remarks in Ex. D8A, the entries are in his hand-writing but on the left side for the size of mark on the back 1 x only one line was drawn by him above the figure 1 but the second line was not in his hand-writing. We had called the original register from jail containing entries Exs. D8A to D8C. In Ex. 8A, which relates to Jagdish Kumar in the column of medical remarks, it has been entered (1) 1" x 1/2" The mark over 1 if taken to be only one then it comes to left. and if two lines are read then it indicates the size into inches, the witness Girdhar Dutt Sarma had stated that another line, which indicated inches was not in his hand. He further stated that in Ex. D8A, he had mentioned over 1 as 1 ft. long 1/2" wide. The witness also identified Jagdis Kumar, Pritam Singh and Harbans Singh in the court. The witness in the cross-examination admitted that the jail doctor was present at that time. The entries from I to J and M to N in the above Exs. D8A to D8C were not in his hand. He further admitted that he had wrongly above that the entire entries were in his handwriting. He them made it clear and admitted that under the column of Medical remark he had only put his signatures at `O' to `P' the other entries were not made by him. 16. DW 10 Nand Lal Jain is a convict under-going sentence of imprisonment inside Central Jail, Jaipur. He stated that on October 29, 1976, Jagdish Kumar, Pritam Singh and Harbans Singh of Bhawani Mandi were admitted to Jail. He could identify these persons by faces but not by names. The witness then pointed out towards Pritam Singh, Harbans Singh and Jagdish Kumar and said that, these three persons were admitted in Central Jail, Jaipur. He stated that on October 29, 1976, Jagdish Kumar, Pritam Singh and Harbans Singh of Bhawani Mandi were admitted to Jail. He could identify these persons by faces but not by names. The witness then pointed out towards Pritam Singh, Harbans Singh and Jagdish Kumar and said that, these three persons were admitted in Central Jail, Jaipur. He further stated that he was given the work of making, entries in the Jail of undertrial prisoners. He had prepared the papers of these accused persons. So far as he remembered the accused persons were admitted in Jail on October 29, 1976 and released on November 3, 1976. 17. Apart from the above oral and documentary evidence there is letter dated November 20, 1976, Ex. D6 written by Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur to Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhawani Mandi. It has been written in this letter that Police Station, Vidhayakpuri had produced accused persons Pritam Singh, Harbans Singh and Jagdish Kumar on October 29, 1976 and had sought judicial remand of 7 days. The court had given a direction that in case the accused persons could furnish the personal bond and surety in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each then they could be released on bail. As these accused persons were unable to furnish the bonds as such they were sent to judicial custody upto November 8, 1976. Thereafter, the accused persons had submitted bail bonds on November 3, 1976 and after verifying the bail bonds the order was given for releasing the accused persons. Ex. D7 is a document regarding the first information report lodged by Prabhu Singh Head Constable against the accused persons Prabhu Singh, Harbans Singh and Jagdish Kumar. Ex. D8 is a letter written by Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur, dated November 20, 1976, the Station House Officer, Bhawani Mandi that the under-trial prisoners Jagdish Kumar, Pritam Singh and Harbans Singh were admitted in the Jail on October 29, 1976 and were released on November 3, 1976. 18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above evidence of alibi led by the above mentioned three accused persons. We minutely examined the original register of under-trial prisoners containing entries Exs. D8 to D8C, but we fail to notice anything in these entries to doubt their genuineness. The names, parentage, caste, residence, age, height and identification marks are noted in these documents. We minutely examined the original register of under-trial prisoners containing entries Exs. D8 to D8C, but we fail to notice anything in these entries to doubt their genuineness. The names, parentage, caste, residence, age, height and identification marks are noted in these documents. Their entries of Jail record are kept in official course and learned Public Prosecutor failed to point out any infirmity in these entries so as to doubt their genuineness. If those entries are believed, these persons were at Jaipur inside Central Jail from October 29, 1976 to November 3, 1976, and the question of their presence on October 31, 1976 at Bhawani Mandi is totally ruled out. Learned Sessions Judge has. also placed reliance on this evidence and we are inclined to uphold his view regarding these accused persons also. 19. The question now remains regarding the two accused persons Mohar Singh and Satnam Singh. The main argument given by the learned Sessions Judge for disbelieving the evidence of Trilok Kumar PW. 1 was that when his evidence is discarded with regard to the four accused persons, his evidence should not be relied upon regarding the remanining two accused persons also. Suffice it to say, that for this very incident we had examined the evidence of Trilok Kumar while deciding the D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 487/80 and in our judgment dated April 27, 1983, we had held that his evidence was reliable. We have thoroughly perused the statement of PW. 1 Trilok Kumar given in the court in the trial of this case and we have no manner of doubt that he was driving the car at the relevant time. His presence on the spot cannot be doubted as he was injured at the spot and his dying declarations were also recorded twice. The bullet was taken out from his body. In the incident two persons sitting inside the car namely, Satveer and Lal Chand have died and Trilok Kumar and Bai Chand also received the injuries. His presence on the spot cannot be doubted as he was injured at the spot and his dying declarations were also recorded twice. The bullet was taken out from his body. In the incident two persons sitting inside the car namely, Satveer and Lal Chand have died and Trilok Kumar and Bai Chand also received the injuries. The manner in which the shots were fired and the persons injured, there can be no manner of doubt that there were number of accused persons, who had fired, thus, even if, the four accused persons, viz., Pritam Singh, Jagdish Kumar, Atrik Singh and Harbans Singh are given the advantage of plea of alibi, it is no ground to disbelieve the evidence of Trilok Kumar so far as Mohar Singh and Satnam Singh are concerned. The presence of Trilok Kumar on the scene of occurrence remains established beyond any manner of doubt. He had clearly stated that as his car reached near the sawing machine of Pritam Singh, then Pritam Singh, Amrik Singh, Harbans, Chetan, Mohar Singh, Satnam, Jagdish and Atrik Singh were standing. As soon as the car reached in front of the sawing machine all the accused persons fired at the car. All the accused person were armed with 12 bore revolvers. He further stated that the rear tyre of the car burst on account of the shot and the car had to stop. The accused persons surrounded the car from two sides and went on firing. Trilok Kumar further stated that as soon as he opened the gate of the car towards him and tried to run then Mohar Singh accused fired the shot which hit at bis hip. Thereafter when he went in front of the bonnet of the car then Pritam Singh and Jagdish accused persons fired at him which struck in his back and side. Then he narrated the story as to how he reached the dispensary of Dr. Shanti Lal and then was taken to Government Dispensary by Babu Khan. Thus, so far as Mohar Singh is concerned, he has clearly stated that when he had come out of the car by opening the gate and was trying to run then Mohar Singh accused had fired which hit him on his hip. Shanti Lal and then was taken to Government Dispensary by Babu Khan. Thus, so far as Mohar Singh is concerned, he has clearly stated that when he had come out of the car by opening the gate and was trying to run then Mohar Singh accused had fired which hit him on his hip. In the cross-examination also he stated that while surrounding the car Chetan and Mohar Singh had come running from the back of the car and had come on the right side. They were coming by firing shots. The rest of the accused persons were towards the left side of the car where Satveer was sitting. In view of these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that learned trial Court was clearly wrong in not placing reliance on the statement of Trilok Kumar even with regard to the two accused persons Mohar Singh and Satnam Singh. 20. In the result, this appeal filed by the State, is dismissed so far as the accused respondents Pritam Singh, Atrik Singh, Jagdish and Harbans are concerned and the order of acquittal passed in their favour is maintained. The appeal against accused Mohar Singh S/o Ram Singh and Satnam Singh S/o Jagat Singh is allowed. They are found guilty of committing murder of Satveer and Lal Chand and having injured Trilok Kumar and Bai Chand. Both the above accused persons are convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- (i) under section read with 302 34 I. P. C. Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in defaulte of payment of fine to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year and (ii) under section 307 read with 34 I. P. C. For 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 21. The accused persons, who have been acquitted need not surrender to the bail bonds. The accused-respondents Mohar Singh and Satnam Singh shall surrender lo the bail bonds and the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, shall take steps for arresting these accused persons for serving out the sentence awarded to them. *******