Judgment J. R. CHOPRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by accused Gokha Singh, who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated November 17,1972 for the offences under ss. 148, 366, 458, 302/149 and 307/149 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal succinctly stated are: that one Gurjantsingh had some love affair with Baljit Kanr, daughter of P. W. 26 Gurdeosingh of village Baam. He abducted her and later when she was recovered, her father married her to Singarasingh of village Jaloki, who is the younger brother of Dharamsingh. It is alleged that Gurjant Singh hatched a conspiracy to abduct Mst. Baljit Kaur from village Jaloki with his companions Jagmail Singh, Nazarsingh, Kamail Singh, Bayant Singh, Jagdeep Singh and Shital Singh. The sisters of accused Bayantsingh and Jagdeepsingh was married earlier to the deceased Singarasingh. He, however, left their sister and married to Baljit Kaur. It is alleged that Gurjant Singh employed Jagdeepsingh and Bayant Singh to inform him about the whereabouts of Dharamsingh the elder brother of Singarasingh and Mst. Baljit Kaur. When they informed him that every thing is O. K. and Dharamsingh has gone to Kota and Baljit Kaur is there in Dhani at village Jaloki. Gurjantsingh, Jagmailsingh, Nazarsingh, Karnailsingh, Gokhasingh, and Shitalsingh went to village Jaloki in a ear driven by accused Karamsingh on the night intervening between 25th and 26th of August, 1970. Bayantsingh and Jagdeepsingh did not accompany them. It is further alleged that all the arms were collected by Gurjantsingh and when the car reached near Padampur town in district Sri Ganganagar, he distributed the weapons to all the accused-persons. He himself was armed with a 12 bore gun and accused Nazarsingh was given 401 bore rifle and accused Gokhasingh was given one Deshi Pistol and certain cartridges. At about 12 or 12. 30 in the night when they reached village Jaloki, they left the car at some distance from the house of Singarasingh. The door of Singarasinghs house does not open in the lane but it opens In the Bara. Karamsingh was left with the car where as these 5 accused-persons viz. , Gurjantsingh, Jagmailsingh Nazarsingh, Karnailsingh and Gokhasingh alongwith approver Shitalsingh entered into the house of Singarasingh through the door in the Bara. The door of Singarasinghs house does not open in the lane but it opens In the Bara. Karamsingh was left with the car where as these 5 accused-persons viz. , Gurjantsingh, Jagmailsingh Nazarsingh, Karnailsingh and Gokhasingh alongwith approver Shitalsingh entered into the house of Singarasingh through the door in the Bara. It is alleged that Gurjit Kaur, wife of Dharamsingh, Surjeetkaur, mother-in law of Gurjit Kaur and 5 children of Gurjit Kaur were sleeping in the Angan of their house. Singarasingh and Mst. Baljit Kaur were sleeping 5-10 paces away from them. It is alleged that it was a moon-lit night and a lantern was burning in the house. Accused Gurjantsingh was also having one torch. He flashed his torch and caught the legs of Gurjitkaur. When he found that he has committed a mistake, he left three persons near those cots and other three of them, as per approver Shitalsingh, proceeded towards the cots of Singarasingh and Baljitkaur. There, accused Gurjantsingh told Singarasingh that I have come. On this Singarasingh tried to sit there but accused Gurjantsingh fired from his gun and this resulted into the death of Singarasingh. He then caught hold of Baljitkaur and took her out of the cot. Baljitkaur cried Gurjanta now kindly leave me alone and allow me to settle down. However, on hearing the gun fire, Surjitkaur came towards the cot of Baljitkaur. She too was fired by Jagmail Singh, and succumbed to the injuries. They dragged Baljitkaur towards the Bara. It is alleged that approve, Shitalsingh caught hold of her. He tried to grapple with Baljitkaur who escaped in the Bara. He again caught her in the Bara. In the meanwhile, P. W. 7 Dalip Singh arrived there armed with a spear and challenged the accused-persons as to who they are? When a cross-question was flashed from the side of the accused-persons, he answered that he is their man. Gurjantsingh immediately told him that he is not their man and he too was fired. The accused-persons then took away Mst. Baljit Kaur to the car. In the way, to frighten the villagers not to interfere with the act of the accused-persons, the accused-persons fired from their guns, pistols, and revolvers etc. The accused-party alongwith Baljit- Kaur then went towards the Punjab. In the way, it is alleged that approver Shitalsingh tried to tease Mst. Baljitkaur. Baljit Kaur to the car. In the way, to frighten the villagers not to interfere with the act of the accused-persons, the accused-persons fired from their guns, pistols, and revolvers etc. The accused-party alongwith Baljit- Kaur then went towards the Punjab. In the way, it is alleged that approver Shitalsingh tried to tease Mst. Baljitkaur. This enraged Gurjantsingh and he fired from his gun at Shitalsingh. Shitalsingh was injured by the gun-fire. He was, then, thrown from the car near village Dodakoni. He became unconscious. Thereafter, the villagers took him Dodakoni hospital where on the next day, at about 10 or 10. 30 A. M. , he regained consciousness and informed the Doctor about the entire incident. The Doctor immediately called the police from Police Station, Kotbhai, from where, A. S. I. Rajendrasingh came to the hospital and recorded the statement of Shitalsingh, which has been marked Ex. P. 59 and on the basis of which, a formal F. I. R. Ex. D. 1 was recorded at Police Station, Padampur because the occurrence took place in the area of P. S. Padampur. On the basis of this information, it is alleged that all these accused-persons were arrested So far as accused Gokhasingh is concerned; he was arrested along with Kamalsingh and Nazarsinghby the S. H. O. Zeetsingh with the help of S. H. O. Mokamsingh of Kotbhai in the presence of Motbirs P. W. 27 Gurbachansingh and P. W. 28 Avtarsingh. On arrest, one pistol marked Art. He was recovered along with two cartridges from the possession of the accused Gokhasingh. The Police also recovered certain cartridges Art. B-i to B-6 from near the car in village Jaloki. The articles recovered from the accused and crime empty cartridges were all sealed along-with other weapons and they were sent for ballistic examination to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta has reported that one of the crime-cartridges i. e. , B-i was fired from the pistol-Act. He recovered from the accused Gokhasingh. The test identification of accused Gokhasingh alongwith others was also got conducted in which Gurjit Kaur failed to identify Gokhasingh but Dalipsingh identified him correctly. On the basis of this evidence, accused Gokhasingh along with other accused-persons was challaned in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur from where the case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. On the basis of this evidence, accused Gokhasingh along with other accused-persons was challaned in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur from where the case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The case was later transferred for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. All the 8 accused-persons were tried by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar for various offences. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Addi. Sessions Judge held that Bayantsingh and Jagdeepsingh have not taken part in the conspiracy and about the conspiracy the only evidence produced by the prosecution is of approver Shitalsingh and, therefore, without corroboration, that evidence was not sufficient to convict them of the said offences. The offence under s. 120-B. I. P. C. was not held as proved against any of the accused-persons. Accused Karamsingh too, was acquitted by the learned lower court on the same ground that against him too, the only evidence on record is that of the approver Shitalsingh and without corroboration, he too cannot be convicted. The learned lower court, however, convicted accused Gurjantsingh, Jagmail Singh, Nazarsingh, Karnailsingh, and Gokhasingh of the various offences. We have already specifically mentioned the offences of which accused Gokhasingh was held guilty. However, accused Gurjantsingh was sentenced to death and so he preferred a murder reference whereas accused Jagmail Singh, Karnailsingh and Nazarsingh also preferred a joint appeal. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of V. P. Tyagi and K. D. Sharma, JJ. (as they then were) confirmed the death sentence of accused Gurjantsingh and dismissed the appeal filed by accused Jagmail- singh and Karnail singh. However, the appeal filed by Nazarsingh was accepted and he was acquitted of all the charges of which he was held guilty b)T the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The appeal of the present appellant Gokhasingh was not heard and considered with those appeals although some passing references have come in the Judgment of the Division Bench about the participation of the accused Gokhasingh in the crime but that judgment cannot operate as res judicata so far as the appeal of Gokhasingh is concerned because the appeal of Gokhasingh was not there before the Division Bench. The learned lower court has held accused Gokhasingh giving of the offences under ss. The learned lower court has held accused Gokhasingh giving of the offences under ss. 148, 366, 458, 302/149 and 307/149 I. P. C. on the basis of the testimony of the approver Shitalsingh which is alleged to have been supported by the testimony of P. W. 3 Gurjitkaur and P. W. 7 Dalip Singh, the identification of the accused and the recovery of the crime pistol and some empty cartridges from the possession of the accused Gokhasingh. ( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. S. R. Singhi, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Mr. L. S. Udawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have given our most earnest consideration to the submissions made at the bar. ( 4 ) NOW, we have to decide whether the findings of the learned lower court so far as accused Gokhasingh is concerned can be sustained on the basis of the evidence on record. ( 5 ) FIRST we shall take up the discussion of the ocular evidence led against the accused in the case. This consists of the P. W. 2 Shitalsingh, P. W. 3 Surjit Kaur and P. W. 7 Dalipsingh. Nobody else has appeared as an eye witness of the occurrence. P. W. 2 Shitalsingh has stated that Gokhasingh was associated with the accused-party at the time when they left for village Jaloki in the car. He accompanied them to village Jaloki. In all there were 7 persons in the car. One of them was Karamsingh, driver who has been acquitted and the others were Gurjantsingh. Nazarsingh, Karnailsingh, Gokhasingh, Jagmailsingh and Shitalsingh. They all were armed with guns, revolver and pistol etc. According to Shitalsingh, Gokhasingh was armed with a Deshi pistol supplied to him near village Padampur by Gurjantsingh. According to P. W. 2 Shitalsingh, this party of 6 accused persons entered into the Angan of Singarasinghs house where Smt. Gurjitkaur was sleeping. Gurjantsingh caught held of the legs of Gurjitkaur but when he found that she is not Baljitkaur, he proceeded towards the cots of Singarasingh and Baljitkaur alongwith two other persons. According to him, Gurjantsingh, Jagmailsingh and he himself went towards the cots of Baljit Kaur and Singarasingh whereas Karnailsingh, Gokhasingh and Nazarsingh remained near the cot of Gurjitkaur. Gurjantsingh caught held of the legs of Gurjitkaur but when he found that she is not Baljitkaur, he proceeded towards the cots of Singarasingh and Baljitkaur alongwith two other persons. According to him, Gurjantsingh, Jagmailsingh and he himself went towards the cots of Baljit Kaur and Singarasingh whereas Karnailsingh, Gokhasingh and Nazarsingh remained near the cot of Gurjitkaur. He then supports the prosecution story that Gurjantsingh woke up Singarasingh and told that he has come and as soon as, Singarasingh tried to sit up, he fired at him, by which, Singarasingh died at the spot. Baljitkaur then remonstrated Gurjantsingh not to pursue her and allow her to settle down, whereupon, Gurjantsingh caught hold of her hand and pulled her out of the cot. She later grappled with Shitalsingh. Shitalsingh took her out of the house by force. It is alleged that Surjitkaur came towards them i. e. the cot of Baljitkaur but she too was fired at by Jagmailsingh. When they were going out of the house of Singarasingh, P. W. 7 Dalipsingh came armed with a spear which is locally called Sella and challenged these persons. One of the accused then fired at Dalip Singh and he too was injured. The accused-persons then made good their escape by finding in the air from their weapons. According to P. W. 2 Shitalsingh, accused Gokhasingh accompanied them in the car. He went inside the Angan armed with a Deshi pistol and he was standing near the cot of Gurjitkaur. He has now come with the case that 6 persons went inside the house whereas the prosecution originally came with a case that only four accused persons came inside the house. In his statement before the District Magistrate, Shitalsingh came with a case that he did not go inside the house but was standing at the gate to guard the scene of occurrence and to resist the attempt of any villagers to enter into the house of Singarasingh during the commission of the offence. A Division Bench of this Court in Gurjantsingh v. State of Rajasthan (D. D. Cr. Appeal No. 819 of 1972) and Jagmailsingh and others v. State of Rajasthan (D. D. Cr. A Division Bench of this Court in Gurjantsingh v. State of Rajasthan (D. D. Cr. Appeal No. 819 of 1972) and Jagmailsingh and others v. State of Rajasthan (D. D. Cr. Appeal No. 815 of 1972) decided on September 3, 1973 while deciding the appeal of the other accused-persons has, held that actually Shitalsingh has not entered the house of Singarasingh and, therefore, to this extent, his testimony was not reliable. ( 6 ) P. W. 3 Mst. Gurjitkaur who is an eye witness of the occurrence has originally propounded the theory that only four accused-persons entered her house. P. W. 11 Narsingh who has lodged the F. I. R. has got it recorded in the F. I. R. that he has come to report the matter after going to the house of Dharam Singh and after talking with Gurjitkaur, who has related the entire story to him. In portion A to B of Ex. p. 6, he has got it recorded as under: Bdy vklkh jkr ds djhc /kezflag ds ?kj xqtjar flag vksj rhu vksj vkneh ?kql vk;sa A P. W. 3 Gurjitkaur has now come with a case that actually 5 accused-persons entered her house. Although she has stated in her earlier police statement Ex. D. 6 portions A to Band C to D that only four persons entered her house. In portion A to B, she has got it recorded that 4 persons were found standing near her cot. In portion C to D she has stated that two persons armed with weapons stood by the side of her cot and two persons went towards the cots of Singarasingh and Baljit Kaur. She has now stated at the trial that she did not get these facts recorded in her police statement. This is not a sufficient explanation. Even in the trial, she has stated that only 5 persons entered into the house and 3 of them stood by the side of her cot and two persons including Gurjitsingh went towards the cots of Singarasingh and Baljitkaur. She has categorically stated that the three persons who were standing near her cot were accused Nazarsingh, Karnailsingh and Jagmailsingh. She does not say that Gokhasingh was present. She has stated before the court that she has identified all these accused persons during the occurrence. She has categorically stated that the three persons who were standing near her cot were accused Nazarsingh, Karnailsingh and Jagmailsingh. She does not say that Gokhasingh was present. She has stated before the court that she has identified all these accused persons during the occurrence. She eliminate Gokhasinghs presence near her cot or in the Angan of her house, which clearly establishes that P. W. 2 Shitalsingh is lying about the presence of Gokhasingh. P. W. 3 Gurjitkaur even did not identify accused Gokhasingh in the Jail. Thus, the testimony of P. W: 3 Gurjitkaur does not support Shitalsingh so far as the presence of Gokhasingh in the commission of this crime is concerned. ( 7 ) P. W. 7 Dalipsingh has, however, stated that he was standing in the Bara of Singara Singh. 4 accused persons who came out of the house of Singarasingh included accused Gokhasingh. He has identified these accused-persons in Jail as well as in the Court. The learned lower court has disbelieved the testimony of the identification of this witness for very good reasons firstly that Dalipsingh did not have enough opportunity to identify any of these accused-persons because as soon as they came out, he challenged them and they fired at him and thus, it was difficult for him to correctly identify them and secondly that accused Gokhasingh was brought at Police Station, Padampur from Muktsar (Punjab) and was kept in the Police Thana without any purpose for one day. The learned lower court took a view that this was done only to show him to the witnesses and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on this identification. The S. H. O. Zeetsingh was specifically asked as to why these accused persons were brought to Padampur to which he replied that Gurjitkaur and Dalipsingh were not ready to go to Punjab and, therefore, these accused persons were brought to Padampur but Gurjitkaur and Dalipsingh have nowhere stated that they were not ready to go to Punjab. Even a Division Bench of this Court while deciding the appeals of Gurjantsingh, Jagmailsingh, Nazarsingh and Karnailsingh has held that the testimony of Dalipsingh regarding identification is most unreliable and cannot be acted upon. We respectfully agree with the observations of the Division Bench so far as the testimony of Dalipsingh regarding identification of accused Gokhasingh is concerned. Even a Division Bench of this Court while deciding the appeals of Gurjantsingh, Jagmailsingh, Nazarsingh and Karnailsingh has held that the testimony of Dalipsingh regarding identification is most unreliable and cannot be acted upon. We respectfully agree with the observations of the Division Bench so far as the testimony of Dalipsingh regarding identification of accused Gokhasingh is concerned. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the fact that it was impossible for Gokhasingh to have accompanied these persons for the commission of the crime. Firstly, Gokhasingh had no special relations with Gurjantsingh. Nothing has been brought on record as to why he readily agreed to accompany these persons for commission of such a heinous crime. Secondly, P. W. 31 Mohakamsingh, who was the S. H. O. at Police Station, Kotbhai has stated that this Shital Singh had lodged a report under section 307 I P. C. which was registered against Gokha Singh at his police station, in which, Nazar Singh and Karnailsingh were his witnesses. Gokhasingh was actually wanted in that case under section 307 I. P. C. , which was got registered at the instance of Shitalsingh, which was witnessed by Nazarsingh and Karnailsingh. It was impossible for Gokhasingh to have accompanied these arch enemies and to help them in the commission of crime. Learned counsel for the accused, therefore, argued that Gokhasingh has made an attempt on the life of Shitalsingh and he has falsely implicated accused Gokhasingh in this case. Under these circumstances, the testimony of Shitalsingh becomes unworthy of any credence so far as the participation of the accused Gokhasingh in the crime is concerned. Looking to these circumstances of the case and in the light of the testimony of P. W. 31 Mohkamsingh, an independent witness, it is difficult to hold that Gokhasingh would have become a party to such a crime in the company of his arch enemies. ( 9 ) NOW we take up the testimony of the recovery of the pistol Art. He from the possession of accused Gokhasingh at the time of his arrest. The arrest of accused Gokhasingh was affected by P. W. 29 Zeetsingh in the company of P. W. 3 Mohkamsingh in the presence of Motbirs P. W. 27 Gurbachansingh and P. W. 28 Avtarsingh. Zeetsingh has stated that he informed Mohkamsingh that some of the accused-persons have not been arrested. The arrest of accused Gokhasingh was affected by P. W. 29 Zeetsingh in the company of P. W. 3 Mohkamsingh in the presence of Motbirs P. W. 27 Gurbachansingh and P. W. 28 Avtarsingh. Zeetsingh has stated that he informed Mohkamsingh that some of the accused-persons have not been arrested. Mohakamsingh informed that he has received information that these persons are robbing in the very area. They proposed to lay an ambush to arrest these accused persons. They called these two Motbirs. There is a contradiction whether they were called from the house or from the shop, or from the way but that is not very material for the decision of this Court. It has been admitted by these two witnesses that they were present at the time of the arrest and at the time of the recovery of these articles. They put Nakabandi and ultimately effected arrest of accused Karnailsingh, Gokhasingh and Nazarsingh. From the possession of Gokhasingh one pistol Art. He was recovered which was seized and sealed vide recovery memo Ex. P. 44. This recovery memo has been proved by P. W. 29 Zeetsingh and P. W. 31 Mohkamsingh and it has also been proved by P. W. 27 Gurbachansingh and P. W. 28 Avtarsingh. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that it has come in the evidence of Shitalsingh that all the arms were collected by Gurjantsingh and they were distributed to the accused party by him near village Padampur. After the commission of the crime, they were taken back by Gurjant Singh in the car and, therefore, there was no occasion for Gokhasingh to have been armed with any pistol. According to learned counsel, this recovery is fake and cooked up. It is true that Shital Singh has stated that arms were supplied to the accused-persons by Gurjantsingh and they were collected back by him. Thus, it is not known how again the accused Gokhasingh came into possession of that Deshi Pistol when he was arrested. To support his contention that it is a cooked up recovery, learned counsel submitted that P. W. 27 Gurbachansingh and P. W. 28 Avtar Singh who are the alleged Motbirs of the recovery are the stock witnesses of the Police. To support his contention that it is a cooked up recovery, learned counsel submitted that P. W. 27 Gurbachansingh and P. W. 28 Avtar Singh who are the alleged Motbirs of the recovery are the stock witnesses of the Police. P. W. 28 Avtarsingh has admitted in his cross-examination that he and Gurbachan Singh have been kept as police witnesses in a number of cases and Gurbachansingh has actually appeared as a witness 2-3 times with him in cases challaned by the Police. Thus, they are stock witnesses of the police and, therefore, no reliance on such a recovery can be placed. Zeetsingh has admitted that the recovered arms after they were sealed were kept at Police Station Kotbhai in the possession of SH. O. Mohkamsingh and he cannot say who brought these weapons from Kotbhai to Padampur. No evidence has been produced to show how these weapons were received from Punjab to Padampur. Thus, the entire evidence regarding seals of the arms remaining intact bas not been produced. There is no evidence that the seal of P. S. Kotbhai was handed over to any Motbir. Learned counsel, therefore, argued that such a recovery cannot be pressed into service against the accused-persons. In this respect, reliance was placed on Rajaram v. State of Rajasthan. ( 10 ) REGARDING the recovery of crime cartridge B/i to B/6, Mr. Singhvi submitted that this too is a cooked up recovery. It is alleged that this recovery was made from near the place where the Car was left. The Motbirs of this recovery are P. W. 22 Sadhuram and one Naharsingh. P. W. 22 Sadhuram has stated that he does not remember anything about the recovery but whatever has been mentioned in Ex. Ps. 17, i8 and 19 is correct. He has admitted that Naharsingh did not witness this recovery at all. He has further admitted that he must have given evidence in number of cases filed on behalf of the police. This shows that he is also a stock witness of the police who is ready to support the memos Ex. Ps. 17, 18 and 19 prepared by the police although he does not remember the details of such recovery. He has further admitted that he must have given evidence in number of cases filed on behalf of the police. This shows that he is also a stock witness of the police who is ready to support the memos Ex. Ps. 17, 18 and 19 prepared by the police although he does not remember the details of such recovery. On the basis of this evidence of P. W. 22 Sadhusingh it is clear that recovery memos of crime cartridge-empties are cooked up documents and much reliance cannot be placed on such a testimony of recovery of empties. We do find some force in this submission of Mr. Singhvi. ( 11 ) MR. Singhvi further argued that even if it is admitted that some weapons were recovered from Gokhasingh and certain cartridges were recovered near the car and the Ballistic Expert has opined that Cartridge Art- B. 1 has been fired from the crime pistol Art. He then too, this circumstance cannot be pressed into service against the accused because the report of the Ballistic Expert has not been put to him in his statement under s. 313 Cr. P. C. In this respect, he placed reliance on Bhimsen v. State of Punjab2 wherein the report of Public Analyst showing the sample of aerated watert containing non-permitted Coaltar dye was not put to the accused in his examination u/s 342 Cr. P. C. , it was held that the State is not entitled to urge this ground for the conviction of the accused. Here too, the report of the Expert bas not been put to the accused in his statement under s. 313 Cr. P. C. and no explanation has been obtained from the accused as to how he was found in possession of the crime pistol from which cartridge B-i has been alleged to have been fired. In the absence of any question put to the accused in his statement under s. 313 Cr. P. C. , this 2. 1975 Cr. Appeals Reporter 403. circumstance cannot be pressed into service for connecting him with the crime. There is no other evidence which connects the accused with the crime. The ocular evidence and the testimony of the recovery of the pistol and crime empty cartridge B-i are not free from doubt and so, they cannot be pressed into service. 1975 Cr. Appeals Reporter 403. circumstance cannot be pressed into service for connecting him with the crime. There is no other evidence which connects the accused with the crime. The ocular evidence and the testimony of the recovery of the pistol and crime empty cartridge B-i are not free from doubt and so, they cannot be pressed into service. ( 12 ) TAKING an over all view of the entire evidence on record, we are of the view that the participation of accused Gokhasingh in the crime has not been proved beyond doubt and hence when a doubt is created in the mind of the court whether this accused Gokhasingh has actually participated in the crime or not, the accused deserves the benefit of such a doubt and his consequent acquittal of all the offences, which have been held as proved against him by the learned lower court. ( 13 ) WE, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated November 17, 1972 so far as it relates to the participation of accused Gokhasingh in the commission of the crime is concerned. He is, therefore, acquitted of the offence under ss. 148, 366, 458, 302/149 and 307/149 I. P. C. by giving him the benefit of doubt. He is already on bail. He need not surrender his bail bonds and his bail bonds are, therefore, discharged. Appeal allowed.