JUDGMENT D P. Sood, J.—This is yet another case wherein the trial Court has again committed an error in imposing sentence upon the appellants after having held each one of them to be guilty of the commission of the offence under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code The Statute provides minimum sentence of life imprisonment to a person convicted of the commission of the offence under section 302, I. P. C. Here in the instant case departure has been made in imposing sentence lesser than life imprisonment. In the earlier case, (Cr. A. No 59 of 1991, Nazar Singh v. State of H.P.), we have already pointed out that in such like cases, the trial Court has no option but to award the minimum sentence as prescribed by the statute. It has no discretion to make a departure therefrom and this discretion can only be exercised by the Apex Court of the country under its inherent jurisdiction. That is why in the instant case, notices as to why the sentence should not be enhanced, were issued to the appellants. However, this question would arise only in case the impugned judgment is up-held by this Court. 2. S/Shri Gulzar Mohammad, Sita Ram and Satish Knmar appellants alongwith their co-accused S/Shri Dharam Singh, Bansi Lal and Joginder Singh, since acquitted, were tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and fine for the commission of offences under sections 302 and 210,1. P. C. as tabulated below :— Name of the accused Under section Sentence awarded Fine In default 1. Satish Kumar 302 IPC 5 Years Rs. 5,000 1 Year 201 IPC 3 Years Rs. 1,000 2 months 2. Gulzar Mohd. 302 IPC 7 Years Rs. 5,000 1 Year 3. Sita Ram 201 IPC 3 Years Rs. 1,000 2 months Accordingly, both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently, vide the impugned judgment dated August 7, 1990 of the learned Sessions Judge, Una, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned judgment, the appellants have challenged the same in this appeal. 4. 5,000 1 Year 3. Sita Ram 201 IPC 3 Years Rs. 1,000 2 months Accordingly, both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently, vide the impugned judgment dated August 7, 1990 of the learned Sessions Judge, Una, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned judgment, the appellants have challenged the same in this appeal. 4. The charge against all the accused, i.e., the appellants and their co-accused, since acquitted, under sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was that on or about the night intervening June 30,1988 & July 1,1988 at or near village Chhatbar, they all entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder Sh Balbir, since deceased of village Guret and in pursuance to the said conspiracy, they all or some of them murdered him in a forest and after committing such heinous crime, all of them tried to destroy the evidence of the said offence with a view to save themselves from legal punishment. 5. The prosecution case as unfolded by the statements of material witnesses adduced by the prosecution is that Shri Balbir. since deceased, was the real brother of S/Shri Tilak Raj and Mehar Chand, PWs 1 and 2 respectively He was working as a medical practitioner at village Chhatbar for the last about five years prior to the occurrence, in a rented shop. He had recently been married. On June 30, 1988, the deceased had gone to examine one Kali Ram (PW 3) in village Naul and after attending him, the formers son Ram Singh (PW 9) accompanied him on his return with a view to drop him when both of them came across S/Shri Joginder Singh accused and one Cbuhi, brother of Gulzar Mohd appellant in the fields. It is the case of the prosecution that both Joginder Singh and said Chuhi asked the deceased to accompany them to examine the sister-in-law of Sita Ram appellant who was ailing for which the latter readily agreed and went along-with them and from that place Ram Singh (PW 9) returned home. Later on the ailing woman, namely, sister-in-law of Sita Ram appellant was removed to the hospital at Amb in a taxi. Later on the ailing woman, namely, sister-in-law of Sita Ram appellant was removed to the hospital at Amb in a taxi. Balbir deceased alongwith the appellant came back towards their village Chhatbar at about 1100 p m. Allegedly at about 1.30 or 2.00 a.m., during the night the dead-body of the deceased was brought in the verandah of the accused Bansi Lal by the appellants where one Jagan Nath (PW 3) apart from Joginder, co-accused of the appellants and his brother were sleeping. The accused are stated to have declared the death of Balbir due to electric current and before bringing the dead-body of the deceased there two of the appellants, namely, Gulzar Mohd. and Satish had also inquired from Ranjit Singh (PW 5) Pradhan of the panchayat, the remedy as to what should be done if a person gets an electric current. Later on all the accused are stated to have hired a truck HPM 8C0, for removing the deceased Balbir to the hospital under the pretext of his being having suffered a shock on account of electric current but they were prevented from doing so by (PW 5), on developing some suspicion. 6. PWs 1 and 2 the brother! of the deceased who were attending the marriage of the son of Bharam Dass In their village, were informed about the accident and cause of death of Balbir was also given to them to be due to electric shock Believing the said information to be true, the dead-body was removed by them without allowing the Pradhan of the panchayat to report the matter to the police or subject the said dead-body to postmortem examination. Later on PWs 1 and 2 became suspicious regarding the cause of death not being natural but homicidal and suspecting accused to be the perpetrators of the crime, Tilak Raj (PW 1) lodged a report in writing fix. PA to the police of police station, Amb, on July 10, 1988 on the basis of which the police registered a criminal case vide FIR No. 96/88, dated 7-8-1988. 7. On receipt of the report, the police machinery came into action. Sh. Himanshu Misra (PW 26) the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Una, directed the inquest to be made by Shakti Chand, the then A S. 1. Inquiry under section 174, Cr. 7. On receipt of the report, the police machinery came into action. Sh. Himanshu Misra (PW 26) the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Una, directed the inquest to be made by Shakti Chand, the then A S. 1. Inquiry under section 174, Cr. P. C. was conducted which culminated into the unfolding of entire prosecution version regarding the cause of death of Balbir deceased. Site plan (Ex. PY) was prepared and recovery was effected. During investigation, all the accused made disclosure statements and got recovered certain articles connected with the commission of the offence. Statements of various witnesses were also recorded and on completion of the investigation, all the appellants as also other co-accused, three in number, gince acquitted, were prosecuted for the commission of the offence under section 302 read with section 120-B and section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. On consideration of the material placed before the Court, the trial Court charged each one of them as indicated above. 9. To the charge, all the accused abjured the guilt and pleaded false implications. In their statements under section 313, Cr. P C each one of the appellants and their co-accused raised a defence of denial siropliciter, and contended that they have been implicated in the instant case due to the existence of party faction and inimical relations with PWs. 10. The learned trial Court on appraisal of evidence acquitted three other co-accused of the appellants but convicted and sentenced the appellants for the commission of the offence referred to above. 11. We have heard Pt. Om Prakash, Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sh. M. L Chauhan, learned Asstt Advocate General at length. Learned Counsel for the appellants has meticulously and scrupulously pointed out the inordinate delay in lodging the first information report regarding the commission of the offence in question, the inconsistency in the report Ex PA, lodged by PW 1 Tilak Raj and his statement before the Court as also other material witnesses adduced by the prosecution According to him, each one of the prosecution witnesses has propounded his own theory regarding the cause of death of Sh. Balbir since deceased. He has also pointed out that the dead-body was cremated by his relations after satisfying themselves regarding the cause of his death and without getting the postmortem conducted. Balbir since deceased. He has also pointed out that the dead-body was cremated by his relations after satisfying themselves regarding the cause of his death and without getting the postmortem conducted. Thus cumulatively, he says that no case is made out against either of the accused person. 12. Learned Asstt. Advocate General has also attempted to sustain the judgment of the learned Court below by pointing out linking evidence against either of the appellants and adopting the reasoning given by the Court below. We have gone through the entire record carefully and also given our considered thought to the arguments advanced by the rival parties. 13. In our considered opinion, the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court is absolutely unwarranted and is liable to be set aside and all the appellants are acquitted of the charges against them. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution with respect to motive is: (i) inference drawn from the suggestions made by the defence to the prosecution witnesses to the effect that appellant Sita Ram had advanced an amount of Rs. 5,000 to the deceased and—said Sita Ram demanded the said amount from the brothers of the deceased immediately after the cremation of late Sh. Balbir ; (ii) that Dharam Singh wanted his brother to substitute him as a medical practitioner in place of the deceased because the latter was having sufficient income from his profession whereas the former was earning a nominal sum. To achieve this end said Dharam 5ingh conspired with other appellants to kill the deceased, in this respect help has been sought from the statement of Dhani Ram PW 18 who had stated that he heard Dharam Singh and Bansi Lai saying tbat in case the deceased is turned out from Chhatbar, the practice of the brother of Dharam Singh as also that of Bansi Lal would flourish in village Ghango; (iii) that as per Smt. Kailash Rani (PW 19) Sita Ram appellant and Bami Lal accused, since acquitted, were talking to each other to oust the deceased from the village in order to enable them to have a good practice and for achieving that object they were planning to kill him and that she had passed this information to her husband. She has also stated that Sita Ram aforesaid was indebted to the sum of Rs. 8,000 to late Sh. Balbir. 14. She has also stated that Sita Ram aforesaid was indebted to the sum of Rs. 8,000 to late Sh. Balbir. 14. The suggestion by itself regarding the demand of Rs. 5,000 does not tantamount to a motive to wipe out the deceased. S/Shri Sita Ram and Bansi Lai had sought training from the deceased at his shop and they had started medical practice independently. Even otherwise Sita Ram appellant had sought help of the deceased before latters death to get his sister-in-law checked up by him and at his advice he had sent her to Civil Hospital Amb. In other words both of them were having good relations. Thus it cannot form any such motive. Regarding the other facts, Dharam Singh, Bansi Lal have been acquitted by the trial Court for want of cogent evidence. It has been observed that there is no iota of evidence against them neither with respect to conspiracy nor with respect to their participation in the commission of the crime. Thus the other two pieces of evidence as per Dhani Ram or that of Smt. Kailash Rani (PWs 18 and 19) cannot form the motive in any way. There is no other reliable evidence on record indicating motive on the part of either of the appellants or their co-accused since acquitted. 15. To prove motive in all criminal cases, is difficult since even devil knowth not, what is in the mind of a man. The prosecution is not bound to prove a motive for a crime. However, in case motive comes forth, it can be examined in association with other evidence on record to establish the crime. 16. Adverting to the main case, it entirely depends upon the circumstantial evidence. When we critically scrutinise the various pieces of evidence, we find that the main link in the chain of circumstances has completely broken and there is nothing connecting the evidence whatsoever worth mentioning incriminating the appellants with the crime in question. The earliest version given in ruqa Ex. PA is in material contradictions to that of the oral depositions made by the prosecution witnesses before the Court. PWs 1 to 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 20 have propounded their own theories by making entirely contradictory disclosures of the facts to each other However, the trial Court has placed absolute reliance upon their statements by observing that they stated the true facts, before it. PWs 1 to 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 20 have propounded their own theories by making entirely contradictory disclosures of the facts to each other However, the trial Court has placed absolute reliance upon their statements by observing that they stated the true facts, before it. On examining their statements critically we find that none of them except PW 5 to some extent is reliable. PW 1 states that many persons collected at the spot had apprised him and his brother PW 2, on their enquiry, the cause of death of late Shri Balbir to be due to electric current shock whereas in his deposition before the Court he states that appellant Sita Ram had informed them about the cause of death at their house. Similarly, in ruqa Ex. PA, PW 1 states that PW 5 Ranjit Singh Pradhan acceded to their request regarding the removal of the dead-body from Chhatbar but in his statement on oath he points out that PW 5 refused to handover the dead-body to them and it was on the assurance given by PW 2 that they were allowed to remove the dead-body from the spot. Another material contradiction is that in the said ruqa he has pointed out that dead-body of late Sh. Balbir bad already been cremated before their arrival whereas in his statement, he admits that it was cremated on 3-7-1988 in his presence Several improvements have also been made by him in a statement on oath before the Court in contradiction to his statement recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. when confronted with it. 17. Now statements of PWs 1 and 2 also are contradictory on material particulars. According to PW 1 he was informed by Gulzar Mofad and Sita Ram appellants regarding the death of his brother Balbir in the marriage party on 30-6-1988 whereas PW 2 names a driver to be the sourer of information of this fact on 1-7-1987. On the other hand Sat Pal has been named to be the informant by PW 1 in ruqa Ex. PA. Similarly PW 2 states that said Balbir was cremated on 2-7-1987 whereas PW 1 gives the date as 3-7-1988. On the other hand Sat Pal has been named to be the informant by PW 1 in ruqa Ex. PA. Similarly PW 2 states that said Balbir was cremated on 2-7-1987 whereas PW 1 gives the date as 3-7-1988. Also PWs 1 and 2 states that symptoms of froth from the mouth and abrasions on the abdominal portion of the body of late Shri Balbir were observed by them, whereas PW 5 only states about the froth from the mouth and nose. On the contrary PWs Is and 20 state on oath that no injury or abnormality in the body of the deceased was observed by them. At this stage it is to be noted that PW 2u Sudesh Kumar was another medical practitioner of Sapori was not only felt the pulse of the deceased but also applied stethoscope to know his condition at that time At the same time PWs 1 and 2 do not reveal whether autopsy was conducted on the dead body through police or not whereas PW 5 deposea that autopsy was conducted and nothing was found therein and that is why he did not bother to ask the police about—further steps to be taken by them. None of these persons have revealed that villagers had sensed some foul play regarding the death of Balbir and then 100 to 200 persons including PW 5 had met PW 26 and pleaded for action as has been admitted by PW 11 in his statement More we probe into the circumstances, we find that these witnesses have suppressed the genesis, origin and manner in which the occurrence had taken place and none of them can be believed. 18. Now we advert to the previous as also subsequent conduct of the appellants. Their co-accused have already been acquitted of the charges framed against them for want of any linking evidence. All of them have been exonerated of the commission of the offence on the ground that neither there was any evidence of conspiracy against either of them nor they asso ciated themselves in the commission of the offence at any stage. S/Shri Sita Ram, Bansi Lal, Satish Kumar and Joginder Singh are real brother" The last seen theory propounded by the learned Sessions Judge even if it be taken as true, it does not in any way link either of the appellants with the commission of the offence. S/Shri Sita Ram, Bansi Lal, Satish Kumar and Joginder Singh are real brother" The last seen theory propounded by the learned Sessions Judge even if it be taken as true, it does not in any way link either of the appellants with the commission of the offence. The cause of death allegedly given by the appellants as also by other co-villagers was the shock suffered due to electric current. According to the material by way of disclosure statement, of S/Sh. Satish Kumar, appellant, Bansi Lal since acquitted and Gulzar Mobd. and Sita Ram, both appellants, (Exs. PD to PG) they had carried the deceased to Khoblian Bala Cho and killed him there beside administering some injection to him. Had it been so, they would have left the dead body in that ‘cho’ instead of bringing him either on the back of Satish Kumar appellant as stated by Jagan Nath or on the cot at about 1 20 am mid-night on the relevant date to the spot. Thus both these witnesses have made an absurd statements which are unbelievable. Rather a per PW 5 Gulzar Mohd. appellant had shouted from the road and asked this witness from a distance of about 10 yards from his compound and then enquired from him as to what should be the treatment in case a person gets an electric current. This kind of behaviour on the part of a person who is guilty, is unnatural. Such a criminal shall always attempt to remain away and conceal himself and he does not come forward to disclose his identity. Similarly, appellant Sita Ram and Gulzar Mohd. had visited the house of PW 12 and apprised him that the deceased had suffered a shock of the electric current and he was to be taken to the hospital and, therefore, he should carry him in his truck No HPM 800. This witness was a driver. Had the appellant or either of them committed such a heinous crime, they would not have disclosed their identity or then attempted to have removed the deceased to the hospital for expending him medical aid This witness further states that he had taken the truck to the shop but PW 5 Ranjit Singh Pradhan who had also gone in the truck, refused them to do so. PW 19 has stated in her examination-in-chief that Sita Ram appellant and his co-accused Bansi, since acquitted, were learning medical practice from the deceased and thereafter they pot their licence prepared and wanted to start their independent work They had no ill-will against the deceased and having such good relations with him, there appears to be no motive for either of them to have behaved in this manner. Cumulatively, the effect of the circumstances taken together with conduct of either of the appellants was above board and they had no ill-will towards the deceased. 19. We have already concluded that the dead-body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy. The medical expert concerned must have opined as to the cause of death. Raj Kumar (PW 17) has been relied upon as a star-witness to show that when a death occurs on account of an electric current the water and blood in the body of the deceased dries up and as a result thereof there appears no froth from the mouth and nose of such a dead person and the dead-body also shrinks. This witness is employed as T-Mate at Chhatbar and he is merely a middle pass and not even a diploma holder in electrical. His opinion is not legally admissible in evidence. Blood stained froth is sometimes seen at the mouth and nose in death produced by currents of electricity. This fact is corroborated in Lyons Medical Jurisprudence for India (Tenth Edition) at pages 394 and 395 wherein the author has stated regarding the Signs of Death or Injury from Electricity as under: "In death produced by currents of electricity the post-mortem appearances vary. Externally there may be burns at the point of contact with the wire carrying the current, frequently there may be merely a brown parchmentised abrasion at the site of the contact. Blood stained froth is sometimes seen at the mouth and nose, the finger-nails may be blue. Internally there may be no appearances indicative of the manner of death. Well marked signs of asphyxia are often found. The blood is dark and fluid, the heart is that of asphyxia, the lungs are deeply congested, the bronchioles exude blood stained froth on pressure, and ecchymotic extravasations of blood are to be found under the pleura and perhaps under the endocardium. The abdominal organs are congested." 20. Well marked signs of asphyxia are often found. The blood is dark and fluid, the heart is that of asphyxia, the lungs are deeply congested, the bronchioles exude blood stained froth on pressure, and ecchymotic extravasations of blood are to be found under the pleura and perhaps under the endocardium. The abdominal organs are congested." 20. Thus keeping in view the symptoms appearing on the body of the deceased and absence of other evidence showing the death in other mode, the death of the deceased in the instant case by suffering electric current shock cannot be ruled out This fact alone raises a great doubt in the authenticity of the prosecution version of which benefit should go to the appellants. 21. Another piece of evidence pressed into service by the prosecution is in the form of disclosure statement of S/Shri Satish Kumar appellant, Bansi Lal his co-accused (since acquitted) and Gulzar Mohd and Sita Ram, both appellants (Exs. PD to PH) who are stated to have made statements of similar nature to the effect that all of them including Dharam Singh another co-accused, since acquitted, carried the deceased to "Khoblian Bala Cho" and felled him there and that all of them caught hold of the deceased and he was killed there and some injection was also administered to him. The same were separately recorded by the police and the place of occurrence was pointed out as "Khun" in "Khoblian Bala Cho". This material collected by the police appears Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sapori. Thus PW 5 sent a ruga regarding the dead-body to the police and he at the insistence of PW 2 Mehar Chand, later entrusted the dead-body to him on the pretext that he would show the same to his mother and it would be thereafter available to the police. Several other co-villagers and persons from the native village had collected at the material time. PW 2 further states that they kept on waiting the police on 1-7-1988 and dead-body was cremated on 2-7-1988. In other words police was intimated of the incident in question on 1-7-1988. This is the first set of evidence regarding intimation of the incident to the police. 22. PW 2 further states that they kept on waiting the police on 1-7-1988 and dead-body was cremated on 2-7-1988. In other words police was intimated of the incident in question on 1-7-1988. This is the first set of evidence regarding intimation of the incident to the police. 22. Even if statement of PW 5 Ranjit Singh Pradhan be believed that his ruga did not reach the police, PW 2 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that he had disclosed before the police the factum of appellant Sita Ram having visited his house 3/4 days after the occurrence and that initially he (Sita Ram) evaded to disclose the cause of death of his brother but when pressurised then he stated that his brother knew the cause of death This fact is corroborated in cross-examination by PW Jagau Nath when he admitted that it may be that 3 days after the death of the deceased he had gone to the police station and he used to be called in the police-station for 4-5 days continuously and further that Ranjit Singh etc. also kept on visiting the police station during his visit. Karambir (PW 7) also admits to have visited the police station alongwith Ranjit to be un-dependable. In view of the discussions made above, the more we probe into the evidence of the witnesses to the said disclosure statements, we are left with an indelible impression that PWs 5 and 11, the marginal witnesses are not speaking the whole truth, but on the other hand they nave suppressed certain material facts, which if revealed go against the prosecution case. 23. Adverting to another important circumstance relied upon by the trial Court that there was no delay in lodging the FIR, under the facts and circumstances of the instant case, suffice it to state that the material hereinafter discussed, there are sufficient grounds to indicate mat not oniy there was inordinate delay in reporting the incident to the police but also the report so made was the consequence of consultations, concoctions and coloured version. 24. Admittedly, Shri Balbir died during the intervening night of 30-6-1988 and 1-7-1988 at Chhatbar. PWs 1 and 2 his brothers, were also intimated immediately thereafter at their village Guret on 1-7-1988. 24. Admittedly, Shri Balbir died during the intervening night of 30-6-1988 and 1-7-1988 at Chhatbar. PWs 1 and 2 his brothers, were also intimated immediately thereafter at their village Guret on 1-7-1988. They had left for the spot in a Tempo and later brought the dead-body to their house in it as stated by PW 2 According to both, the deceased used to wear a watch and ring but both these articles were found missing. Apart from it abrasions were seen on his abdominal portion and froth was coming out from his mouth and nose Besides his neck was tilting on one side. The symptom of the froth coming from his mouth was also observed by PW 5 Sh Ranjit Singh and Roshan Lal but on what date, he does not remember. Even Sh .Himanshu Misra the then Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW 26) has admitted in his cross-examination that in an enquiry which was admittedly initiated on the basis of ruqa Ex PA dated 10-7-1988, he found that the Pradhan had sent ruqa through Up-Pradhan to the police about the occurrence but he did not attempt to recover that ruqa. Also Pradhan Ranjit Singh PW 5 in the last lines of his examination-in-chief as also in his cross-examination in the last para, has categorically stated about the post-mortem of the deceased having been conducted at the behest of police and that nothing unnatural was found therein so he did not make further enquiry from the police or Mehar Chand PW 2. Even Roshan Lal (PW 11) admitted that he came to know regarding death of Balbir next day of the occurrence but he did not go to the spot, that at the first instance the police did not take any action in the matter and the villagers sensed suspicion regarding the death of Balbir and then 100-200 persons including him and PW 5 Ranjit Pradhan met the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW 26) and pleaded for action. All the above said facts emerging from the statements of various witnesses reveal that police had already been intimated about the incident even before the lodging of the report in writing on 10-7-1988 (Ex. PA) and the police had already started investigation by getting autopsy conducted on the dead-body of late Shri Balbir. All the above said facts emerging from the statements of various witnesses reveal that police had already been intimated about the incident even before the lodging of the report in writing on 10-7-1988 (Ex. PA) and the police had already started investigation by getting autopsy conducted on the dead-body of late Shri Balbir. The above said circumstances show that police had been intimated about the incident immediately or positively after 3 or 4 days of the occurrence. This is the second set of evidence. Such a report is bereft of authenticity and it cannot be made the basis of conviction of any person accused of an offence. In fact it is fatal to the prosecution case. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants has a substantial force and is liable to be accepted. This tact of the case has totally been ignored by the Court below while appreciating the evidence. In fact the above said circumstances show dishonest and gross negligent investigation made by the police agency in bringing the true facts before the Court. Thus in view of this matter, the impugned judgment is liable to be reversed. 25. In our considered opinion, this is a case where it is not possible to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff, because the truth and falsehood are so inextricably intervened together. Indeed if one tries to do so, it will amount to reconstructing a new case for the prosecution which cannot be done in a criminal case. 26. It is very unfortunate that the trial Court has conveniently omitted and ignored these disturbing features appearing in this case which compel this Court to interfere with the findings of that Court In our considered opinion, the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are improper and perverse. 27. In the result, as discussed above, we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the appellants and the trial Court has conveniently by over-looking and ignoring the vital defects in the prosecution case which have been indicated above, has arrived to a perverse conclusion that the prosecution has made out a case of murder against the appellants which conclusion in our opinion has to be set aside in the interest of justice. 28. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants and acquit them. 28. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants and acquit them. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed.