Judgment S. H. S. Abidi, J. 1. Appellants Shakhi Rajwar @ Sakhichand Rajwar, nanhu Rajwar and Ramdhari Rajwar have been convicted under Sec.302/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I. P. C.) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonments for life and one year rigorous imprisonment under each count respectively. Appellant Ramdhari Rajwar has further been convicted under Sec.27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Kailash Rajwar, Jokhu Rajwar Ramautar Rajwar and bharosa Rajwar have been convicted under Sections 147 and 323 I. P. C. and have been ordered to be released under the Probation of Offenders Act. 2. A First Information Report was lodged by Sheo Prasad (P. W.10) on 16-6-1980 at 2 p. m. at police-station Bishrampur saying that he had come to the police-station along with Chaukidar Shanker Prasad. He further stated that he had got land in khata No.25 khesra No.158 in the village Chhatarpur about which there has been dispute with Kailash Rajwar (appellant No.4)for the last three years. A case was pending in the court and therefrom it was sent to the Gram Panchayat where also the same has been decided in favour of the informant. On this land the informant had constructed a wall for his Bhandar but on account of dispute being raised further construction was postponed. After the decision by the Gram Panchayat on 16-6-1980 at 10 a. m. he along with his father Deodhan Mahto, uncle Ramsunder Mahto (P. W.1), Bachan Mahto (P. W.5) a cousin, Basudeo Mahto (P. W.3), Ram nath Mahto (P. W.4) Ramdhari Mahto (P. W.8), Bishwanath Mahto (P. W.2)and Lashman Mahto (P, W.6) to the place and they were thatching the north portion of the Bhandar. In the meantime the aforesaid seven appellants including four ladies, namely, Dhan Rajwarin wife of Sukhu Rajwar, Smt. Bakali wife of Jokhu Rajwar, Jagawo Rajwarin wife of Kailash Rajwar and wife of Nanhu rajwar came armed with lathis, garasa,, tangi and country made pistol. Sakhi rajwar had a garasa by which he assaulted Ramdhari Mahto (P. W.8) on account of which his left hand was cut and little portion was attached with the body. He also hit Bishwanath Mahto on his head. Accused Nanhu Rajwar had balua by which he hit on the waist of Ram Nath Mahto (P. W.4) and also on the toe of his right leg which was cut. He also hit Bishwanath Mahto on his head. Accused Nanhu Rajwar had balua by which he hit on the waist of Ram Nath Mahto (P. W.4) and also on the toe of his right leg which was cut. Accused Ramdhari had a pistol by which he fired at Basudeo Mahto (P. W.3) and his right hand got pellet injury. Accused Bharosa Rajwar assaulted the informant by lathi on his left hand on account of which there was swelling. Deochand Mahto father of the informant cams down from the chhapar and then Smt. Dhanwa, Smt. Bakali and Smt. Jagwa caught his legs, then accused Nanhu Rajwar assaulted by balua blow, accused Sakhi Rajwar by garasa and Jokhu Rajwar by lathi on the head of Deochand whereupon he fell down : yet he was again assaulted falling on the ground by the accused Nanhu, Shakhi and Jokhu by balua, garasa and lathi. His face was broken in pieces and then he died. Ram Nath Mahto (P. W.4), Ramdhari Mahto (P. W.8), Bishwanath M ihto (P. W.2) had received grievous injuries and blood was coming out and so after stopping the goods train, informants uncle Ramsunder Mahto /p. W.1), maternal uncle and bhuneshwar Mahto took the injured to Daltonganj Sadar Hospital for treatment. On the scene of occurrence the cousin maternal uncle, uncle and Dukhi Rajwar were present and they had seen the occurrence. 3. After recording of the First Information Report the investigation was started by Ram Bachan Singh Sub-Inspector of Police (P. W.11) He reached the spot, inspected the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, prepared the inquest report, sent the dead body for postmortem examination. After completing the investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. The postmortem examination had been conducted by Dr. S. P. Sinha on 17-6-1980 at 5 p. m. and he submitted his report which is Ext.4. 4. The accused for defence denied the prosecution case and alleged that they have been implicated. They took the plea that the land was their and they had gone there for thatching the roof then Sheo Prasad (P. W.10), Bachan mahto (P. W.5), Bishwanath Mahto (P. W.2), Lakshman Mahto (P. W.6), ram Nath Mahto (P. W.4), Ramdhari Mahto (P. W.8), Purbesh Mahto, ram Sunder Mahto (P. W.1) came to the Tath and asked the accused party to run away. Threat was also given and then they were chased by lathi, bhala, garasa. They injured Shakhi Rajwar (appellant Rio.1) his father and Nanhu was injured by the firing of Basudeo Mahto. Ram Nath had assaulted Kamlesh by lathi and had broken his left hand. Bishwanath (P. W.2j assaulted Shakhis wife Dhanwa by bhala and P. W.3 Basudeo assaulted Sakhis nephew by bhala. Accused examined Dr. S, B. Mahto as D. W.9 who has said that he examined Nanhu Rajwar, Ramdhari Rajwar, Kailash Rajwar, Smt. Jagwa a nd smt. Daanwa and gave report Ext. B Series. 5. The prosecution in support of its case produced 20 witnesses. Out of whom Ram Sunder Mahto, Bishwanth Mahto, Basudeo Mahto, Ram Nath mahto, Ramdhari Mahto and Sheo Prasad Mahto (P. Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 10)are the eye-witnesses. P. Ws.5, 6, 9, 11 and 15, namely, Machan Mahto, lakshman Mahto, Muni Manjhi, Ram Bilsh Mahto and Karandeo Rajwar have been tendered. P. W.7. is 7 is Dr. Bharat Manjhi, who had medically examined p. Ws.2, 4 and P. W.12 Baijnath Mahto is a seizure witness. P. W.13 Dukhi rajwar bad turned hostile. P. W.14 Sita Ram Mahto is a seizure witnees of lathi from the house of accused Nanhu. P. W.16 Sachidanand Upadhaya has proved the signature on the first information report, P. W.17 is Dr. S. P. Sinha who conducted the postmortem examination. P. W.18 is Ram Bachan singh the investigating officer, P. W.19 is Banshi Mahto and P. W.20 is rajendra Prasad Mahto the who Taids who have proved sale-deed and rent receipts respectively. No charge-sheet had been submitted against the three women mentioned in the first information report, but later on 3-5-1984 they were summoned under Sec.319, Cr. P. C. on the application of the Public prosecutor after examination of P. W.2. The trial court after considering the entire material on the record acquitted the three women and convicted and sentenced the seven appellants, as said above. 6. The factum of death of Deochand Mahto alias Deochani Mahto father of the informant is well proved by the evidence of P. Ws, 12, 3, 4, 8 and 10 the eye-witnesses and the investigating officer who had found the dead body on the spot and also by the Dr. S. P. Sinha who had conducted the postmortem examination. His death has not been challenged by the appellants. 7. S. P. Sinha who had conducted the postmortem examination. His death has not been challenged by the appellants. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the order of conviction of the appellants is bad in law ; that the names of appellant Kailash rajwar have not been mentioned in the first information report and no overt act has been assigned to them even in the evidence ; the appellants had got the right of private defence of property and persons as the plot was in their possession and the informants party had gone to the spot and had assaulted the accused party ; that there was no common object and further there was no unlawful assembly and so Sec.149, I. P. G. is not attracted ; that the place of occurencs is not established as to which was portion of plot No.158 where the occurencs had taken place has not been established ; that the sale-deeds and other documents relied upon by the prosecution were forged documents as ths plot belongs to one Alima Babi ; that no copy of the decree of the Gram Paachayat has been filed and Mukhiya has not been examined ; that actually the accused were present on the spot and they were repairing their own Bhadar ; that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to commit the offence as ladies from their side had been present ; that five persons on the side of the accused including three women had been injured and their injuries had not bsen explained ; that no case under the Arms Act has been made out ; rather prosecution party was armed with gun which is apparent from the injuries received by Nanhu Rajwar ; that no independent witness has been examined and even one witness has been examined as P. W.13 has turned hostile ; that looking to the postmortem report is not clear as to who had caused the fatal injury and lastly there was no common object or intention, rather it was a sudden fight so case under Sec.302, i. P. C. is not made out and, if at all, the offence comes under Sec.304, i. P. C. 8. P. W.10 Sheo Prasad Mahto is the informant in this case. P. W.10 Sheo Prasad Mahto is the informant in this case. In his statement in court he has repeated the same version as given by him in the first information report and so the same need not to be reproduced. However, he has further said that Ramdhari Rajwar (appellant No.3) had assaulted deochand deceased by Barcha and Smt. Jagwa had hit the deceased by tangi. These two matters have not been said in the first information report earlier. In cross-examination he said that he was ploughing the plot No.158 and out of that plot 20 acres was his. The plot No.158 is gairmajarua malik land which he purchased and is bandobasti land The occurrence had taken place in northeastern portion of the said plot and blood had fallen there. He denied to have seen any injury on the hand, feet or belley of the victim but had seen the injuries on the head. He said that he also received injuries. He also denied to have seen any injury on the persons of the three women. He totally denied the defence case as is said to have been given out in the counter case. 9. Next eye-witness is P. W.1 Ram Sunder Mahto uncle of the informant. He is said to have received injury but there is no medical report in support of the same. He said that on the date of occurrence at about 10 a. m. the informant party was repairing the Bhandar and thatching it. He was giving the pieces of bamboos from the ground to the persons on the roof. Then the accused came there armed with various weapons as detailed in the first information report. They started assaulting. He is specific in saying that Shakhi had given a garasa blow on the head of Deochand (deceased) and had also assaulted P. W.8 on his hand. Bishwanath Mahto (P. W.2) is also said to have been assaulted by bhala and garasa by appellant No.1. Appellant No.2 nanhu Rajwar had given a balua blow on the waist and on the toe of the leg. He also assaulted Deochand by balua on his head. Appellant Ramdhari fired from his pistol at Basudeo Mahto which is in his hand. Appellant Ramdhari rajwar also assaulted Deochand by barcha which hit on his check and Smt. Jagwa gave a tangi blow pa the leg. Jokhu Rajwar also assaulted Deochand by lathi. He also assaulted Deochand by balua on his head. Appellant Ramdhari fired from his pistol at Basudeo Mahto which is in his hand. Appellant Ramdhari rajwar also assaulted Deochand by barcha which hit on his check and Smt. Jagwa gave a tangi blow pa the leg. Jokhu Rajwar also assaulted Deochand by lathi. Kailash Rajwar plied his lathi but whom it hit he could not say. Appellant Ramvatar gave a lathi blow to Deochand on his head. In cross-examination he said that he was also a co-accused in cross-case. He says that he had not assaulted. He had no weapon and none of the accused was assaulted nor he had seen any injury on the accused. This witness has said about assaults which were not in the first information report, namely, about the appellant ramdhari Rajwar giving barcha blow on the cheek of Deochand, Smt. Jagwa hitting by tanging to the victim and Ramutar giving a lathi blow to Deochand. 10. P. W.2 Bishwanath Mahto also an eye-witness. He also sustained injury. He said that he was also doing Tath repairing as the informant and his party was doing and then the accused came with weapons and started assaulting. He has said the same thing which has been said in the first imformation report. He has given out the pedigree and relationship of the victim and the P. Ws. who are brothers and cousins. He admitted that P. Ws.2, 5 1, 4, 8, and 10 besides Lakshman, Rampravesh were the co-accused in the cross case, and they were doing repairing of the Bhandar. A case under Sec.144, cr. P. C. was between the parties in which the report was in his favour. He says that he was himself assaulted by Shakhi Rajwar by garasa on his forehead. This witness has been medically examined by P. W.7 Dr. Bharat Manjhi. 11. P. W.3 is Basudeo Mahto. He too says that he was doing thatching and he also received injuries like other P. Ws. His version is same as in the first information report. He admits that he was hit by pistol firing in his right hand, and he was medically examined. He admits that he was also an accused in the cross case though he had not assaulted the accused. His version is same as in the first information report. He admits that he was hit by pistol firing in his right hand, and he was medically examined. He admits that he was also an accused in the cross case though he had not assaulted the accused. He says that on account of the pistol firing no whole was created in the ganji and shirt which he was putting on. He denies that the accused had got any single dhoor of land in the disputed plot and said that there was 144 proceedings which resulted in favour of his party and his party has 21 acres of land out of 29 acres of and odd in plot No.158. 12. P. W.4 Ram Nath Mahto is another injured witness who said that he was in the party repairing the Bhaadar and doing the thaching work. He has said the same version as has been mentioned in the first information report. He said that Nanhu Rajwar had given a balua blow on his waist and on the toe of his right leg which was cut. He denied in the cross-examination that Kailash rajwar was injured by his party. 13. P. W.8 Ramdhari Mahto is also injured eye-witness. He also said the same thing which has been mentioned in the first information report. He has said that he was injured by Shakhi (appellant No.1) and his right hand was cut. He was medically examined by Dr. Bharat Manjhi (P. W.7 ). 14. One of the witnesses Dukhi Rajwar had turned hostile and as said above P. Ws.5, 6, 9, 11 and 15 have been tendered but they have not been cross-examined. 15. The investigating officer is P. W.18 who reached the spot and found the pane land and a kachha room. He also said that the dead body was found about 90 steps away from the kachha Bhandar. Nothing has come in the cross-examination to show that this witness are liable to be discarded and not to be relied upon. Postmortem report (Ext.4) by Dr. S. P. Singh (P. W.17) shows that he had conducted the postmortem examination on 17-6-1980 at 5 p. m. and he had found the following ante mortem injuries : "1. Incised wound in left cheek 2" x " X ".2. Incised wound in right cheek 1"x"x".3. Incised wound below lower lip right side 2" x " X ".4. S. P. Singh (P. W.17) shows that he had conducted the postmortem examination on 17-6-1980 at 5 p. m. and he had found the following ante mortem injuries : "1. Incised wound in left cheek 2" x " X ".2. Incised wound in right cheek 1"x"x".3. Incised wound below lower lip right side 2" x " X ".4. Incised wound on perital region 3"x"x scalp deep.5. Incised wound on occipital region 2"x"x scalp deep.6. Incised wound between thumb and index finger of right side 1"x1/4"x. " According to the doctor the death was caused by shock and hamemorrhage. Thus from the evidence it is apparent that the informant, who is himself injured, besides other injured and non-injured witnesses that the assaults had been done by the appellants 1, 2 and 3. The medical evidence of Dr. S. P. Sinha, who had conducted the postmartem examination and also of Dr. Bharat Manjhi, who had examined the injured P. Ws.2, 4 and 3, corroborates the oral testimonies of the injured and non-injured witnesses. The prosecution is to stand on its leg which it tried to prove by this cogent and reliable evidence. 16. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had been assaulted by the informant party for which there is counter-case and the persons on the side of the accused had been injured for which the Doctor (D. W.1) was produced. On perusal of the statement of the doctor (D. W.1)it appears that No.4 Kailash Rajwar had received grievous injury. Nanhu rajwar had received gun-shot injury below the eye for which Xray is said to have been done. Other accused had received simple injuries. As regards appellant Kailash Rajwar his name has not been mentioned in the first information report and so no overtact has been given to him and as such his injury, has got no effect. Similarly, appellant Nanhu Rajwar even though he is said to have received the gun-short injury below the eye, but the same appears to have been received by him because of firing of the pistol done by Ramdhari rajwar and he might have got the same in the melee. The witnesses on the side of the prosecution had been subjected to the severe and searching cross-examination but nothing has come out from their evidence to show that they were armed with any weapon. The witnesses on the side of the prosecution had been subjected to the severe and searching cross-examination but nothing has come out from their evidence to show that they were armed with any weapon. The non-explanation of the injuries of the accused connot affect the prosecution case, as the prosecution is expected to prove its case and is not expected to explain the injuries suffered by the accused. It has been observed in the case of Hare Krishna Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 863 , by the Supreme Court in Paras 18 and 20 : "we have referred to the above decisions in extenso in order to consider whether it is an invariable proposition of law that the prosecution is obliged to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence and whether failure of the prosecution to so explain the injuries on the person of the accused would mean that the prosecution has suppressed the truth and also the genesis or origin of the occurrence. Upon a conspectus of the decisions mentioned above, we are of the view that the question as to the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every ease. In other words, it is not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is undoubtedly on the prosectution. The accused is not bound to say anything in defence. The prosecution has to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. If the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the Court in proof of the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, the question of obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of accused. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of accused. " "all the decisions of this Court which have been referred to and discussed above, show that when the Court has believed the prosecution witnesses as convincing and trustworthy, the court overruled the contention of the accused that as the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries. sustained by the accused in the same occurrence the prosecution case should be disbelieved and the accused should be acquitted. Thus, it is not the law or invariable rule that whenever the accused sustains an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution has to explain the injuries failure of which will mean that the prosecution has suppressed the truth and also the origing and genesis of the occurrence. " Thus the contention about non-explanation of the injury of the accused has got no force. 17 The appellants have taken plea of self defence. T hey have claimed that the land has been in their possession. They do not dispute that the whole plot No.158 is, the place of occurrence. But it is a portion f the plot. The prosecution party claims about 21 acres of land out of 29 acres and odd towards north-eastern portion and the dead body was found near about the Bhandar in question. This plot is Sairmajarua malik. Ext.7 has been filed by the prosecution being a sale-deed executed by Smt. Samat Sahu wife of Ramdeo Sahu in favour of Bachan Mahto, Deochand and Ram Sunder Mahto dated 20-5-1957, that is raiyati land of a zamindar, in respect of 13 33 acres and the second sale-deed Ext.7/1 is dated 30-3-1957 to Bhagwat Mahto Bechan Mahto and deochand Mahto in respect of 5.66 acres. The boundary of the second sale-deed given is as follows : 17_662_BLJ2_1989.htm Ext.8 series is rent receipts in the name of Bachan Mahto and others. 18 In respect of the plot in dispute defence has filed some papers. Ext. D is the khatauni which shows that it was in the name of Alima Bibi and as Sairmajarua malik with an area of 29.20 acres. 18 In respect of the plot in dispute defence has filed some papers. Ext. D is the khatauni which shows that it was in the name of Alima Bibi and as Sairmajarua malik with an area of 29.20 acres. There is nothing to show that any of these plots have come in possession of the accused and, if at all, in what way. P. W.2 has said that 20 acres is in their possession and the rest is in possession of Rajwar. P. W.8 also claims an area to be in possession of about 20 acres and rest is in possession of others. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the appellants accused though being Rajwar, are connected with the land in dispute in any manner whatsoever. Thus the accused have no title to the plot in dispute at the relevant time and when they had no right or title to the plot in dispute then they had got no right of self-defence. Further nothing has been shown by the accused persons that the sale-deeds and documents relied upon by the prosecution are forged and fabricated. Mere assertion and suggestion will not do and the forgey if at all, could not be proved in this trial. 19. As regards the litigation under Sec.144, Cr. P. C. and before the gram Panchayat, it has been categorically said by the P. Ws. that the decree of the Gram Panchayat in respect of that land is in their favour. It has not been challenged that there is no decree. Mere non-production of the decree will not be ground to hold that there is no decree of the Gram Panchayat. Thus from the documents relied on and statements about the decree of the Gram pancbayat, it appears that the informant party were well within the rights to be on the plot and do thatching of the Bhandar. A false plea of defence, no doubt, gives help to the prosecution but it may lends support to the otherwise reliable and convincing evidence of the prosecution. A false plea of defence, no doubt, gives help to the prosecution but it may lends support to the otherwise reliable and convincing evidence of the prosecution. It has been observed in case of S. C, Dixit V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765 , by the Supreme court that the falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish and a false plea of defence can at best, be considered as an additional circumstances, if other circumstance point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , it has been observed by the Supreme Court in Para 150 : "it is well-settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. This is trite law and no decision has taken a contrary view. What some cases have held only this ; where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a defence may be called into aid only to lend assurrance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted bv a court. " 20. It appears that accused first information report does not mention about ramdhari Rajwar assaulting the deceased by Barcha, but it was in his statement in court that the informant gave out that this appellant caused barcha injuries to the deceased. This is an improvement over the first information report. It is a very material improvement, which goes to the very root of the case so far as this appellant is concerned. The P. W.1 has also said about this appellant assaulting by barcha. But in view of the non-mention in the first information report about this role of Ramdhari, this allegation against the appellant is not tenable. It is a very material improvement, which goes to the very root of the case so far as this appellant is concerned. The P. W.1 has also said about this appellant assaulting by barcha. But in view of the non-mention in the first information report about this role of Ramdhari, this allegation against the appellant is not tenable. Though only the informant is affected in his statement by the material in the first information report and other witnesses cannot be contradicted by the same, yet it will not be safe to accept this allegation against this apppellant. Further this very appellant is said to have fired at Basdeo mahto (P. W.3 ). But Basdeo Mahto has not been medically examined as dr. Bharat Manjhi (P. W.7) had examined only P. Ws.2, 4 and 8 and not the p. W.3. There is no medical report on the record given by any doctor in respect of the injuries said to have been received by P. W.3. In this view of the matter the participation of Ramdhari Rajwar appears to be doubtful. Further appellant nos.4 and 5 Kailash Rajwar and Ram Autar have not been assigned any overt act, though they are mentioned to be armed with lathis and so they are also entitled to benefit of doubt. 21. As regards the appellants 5 and 7, they have been convicted by the learned trial court only under Sections 323 and 147, I. P. C. and have been released on bonds and that there is no government appeal. Jokhu Rajwar has been mentioned in the first information report to have given lathi blows to deochand (deceased) while in the standing position and then again when he fell down. Bharosa Rajwar is said to have assaulted the informant by lathi on his right hand. In this view of the matter, the convictions of these two appellants nos.5 and 7 under Sections 323 and 147 I. P. C. are maintained and so also for execution of bond ; as ordered by the learned trial court. 22. As regards appellant Nos.1 and 2, the eye-witnesses account supported by the medical evidence is clearly establishing their participation in the offence and assaulting the victim by garasa and balua causing his death. These appellants assaulted the victim not only while he came down from the chappar but also when he had fallen on getting injuries. 22. As regards appellant Nos.1 and 2, the eye-witnesses account supported by the medical evidence is clearly establishing their participation in the offence and assaulting the victim by garasa and balua causing his death. These appellants assaulted the victim not only while he came down from the chappar but also when he had fallen on getting injuries. So their common intention was to kill the victim. As such both the appellants are liable to be convicted under Sec.302 read with Sec.34,1. P. C. Therefore, their conviction is altered from Sec.302/149, I. P. C. to Sec.302/34. I. P. C. but their sentence imprisonment for life is maintained. Further their conviction and sentence under Sec.148 are also upheld. 23. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentences of the appellant Nos.3, 4 and 6 are set aside. They are on bail they are released from the liabilities of their bonds. The conviction and sentences of the appellant Nos.5 and 7 are maintained. The conviction of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 are altered from Sec.302/149, I. P. C. to one under Sec.302/34, I. P. C. but their sentences of rigorous imprisonment for life are maintained. Their conviction and sentences under Sec.148, I. P. C are also maintained. They are on bail ; their bonds are cancelled and they are ordered to be taken into custody to serve out the sentences.