JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, whereby he convicted accused - Govind Singh, Shyam Singh and Shankar Singh for offences under Sections 460 and 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, for each of the offences, in default of payment of fine, the appellants were directed to further undergo two months RI., for each of the offences. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that Vishnu S/o Teekam Singh (PW-1) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1), on the basis of which the first information report (Ex.P/7) was recorded. The allegations levelled in the written report were that on the night intervening between 14th and 15th of June, 1989 at 3.00 in the morning when he was sleeping on his own roof and his elder brother - Mahaveer was sleeping in his own courtyard (chowk) alongwith his family, he heard a sound of gun shot. He rushed to the house of Mahaveer and lighted the torch. He saw Govind, Shyam and Shankar; all the three jumping from the roof. Shyam was alleged to have a rifle (pachfera). Govind and Shankar were armed with Pistol (Katta). He, thereupon, went on the roof of Mahaveer and came in the chowk. He saw that a bullet hit the chest of Mahaveer who was lying on the cot. He raised alarm, on which several villagers collected. He also sent information to his relations, Shri Mahendra Singh, Sarpanch, and thereafter, took Mahaveer on a cot to Morena where they found that Mahaveer had died. Hence, his dead body was brought back to the village. At that time, Durga Singh was standing under the tree outside his house, who left that place immediately on seeing him. He alleged that the accused persons had killed Mahaveer because of previous enmity. On receipt of this report, as mentioned above, the F.I.R. (Ex.P/7) was recorded and investigation commenced. Investigating Officer i.e. S.H.O. - Police Station - Diholi, went on the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.P/2). He also prepared the memo concerning the site inspection. He prepared this site plan in presence of Mahendra Singh and Megh Singh. He also prepared the inquest memo (Ex.P/3), and arrested all the three accused appellants. Investigating Officer i.e. S.H.O. - Police Station - Diholi, went on the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.P/2). He also prepared the memo concerning the site inspection. He prepared this site plan in presence of Mahendra Singh and Megh Singh. He also prepared the inquest memo (Ex.P/3), and arrested all the three accused appellants. He also recovered, from the site the blood stained mattress (gudree) and one bullet. He also got the post-mortem conducted and after completing the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur, who committed the accused to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Court read cover the charges for offence under Sections 460 and 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code to each of the accused appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined eight witnesses. Accused did not lead any defence evidence, however, in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code they pleaded that they had got Mahaveer Singh punished in a criminal case and it was for this enmity that they have been falsely implicated. The learned trial Judge held that the statement of both the witnesses, namely, Vishnu (PW-1) and Smt. Laxmi (PW-7) is truthful and they are the witnesses of sterlingworth. Hence, he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated above. 4. In this appeal, it is contended by Mr. Biri Singh, appearing for the appellants, that the first information report is inordinately delayed, in the circumstances of the case. His submission is that police station - Diholi was at a distance of 5 kilo metres from the place of occurrence; which distance has also been exaggerated as it is clear from the statement of Vishnu (PW-1) that the distance of the police station is about 1 to 11/2 kilometres. It is submitted that this report has been lodged after due deliberation and with the assistance of Shri Mahendra Singh, Sarpanch, who had bore enmity with the accused persons. It is submitted that the entire case is based on the testimony of two witnesses, namely, Vishnu (PW-1) and Mst. Laxmi (PW-7); both of whom are highly interested inasmuch as the former is the brother of the deceased while the latter is the wife. It is submitted that the entire case is based on the testimony of two witnesses, namely, Vishnu (PW-1) and Mst. Laxmi (PW-7); both of whom are highly interested inasmuch as the former is the brother of the deceased while the latter is the wife. It is submitted that admittedly Vishnu (PW-1) was not in the house of Mahaveer and he was sleeping at his own house, when he heard the gun shot sound. It is, thereafter, that he woke up from the sleep and alleged to have run with a torch and saw the three accused jumping from the roof. It is submitted that it is not in the evidence that he might have narrated to any one who collected soon after the incident; that the assailants were the three accused appellants. It is submitted that Vishnu (PW-1), thus, besides being an interested witness, is also a chance witness and only proves a circumstance of seeing the accused from the back. The submission is that his statement is full of self-contradictions and is not worthy reliable. Similarly, it is stated that Mst. Laxmi (PW-7) W/o Mahaveer (deceased) has also changed her version. She was not examined soon after the occurrence but her statement had been recorded after 48 hours of the incident, for reasons best known, wherein she stated that she got up on hearing a sound of gun fire and when she got up, she saw Shyam armed with a rifle standing near the cot of her husband and Shankar Singh standing on the roof of kotha who too was armed with a pistol. According to her, it was at that time that her brother-in-law Vishnu (PW-1) who was sleeping on the roof came and he also saw the three persons in torch light jumping from the roof. It is submitted that she has changed her version in the Court where she has stated that she was already awaken at the time of incident because she was feeding her son at that hour when the accused came and fired the gun shot. It is submitted that Smt. Laxmi (PW-7) has improved her version to the extent that she stated that Shyam Singh gagged her mouth so as to prevent her from raising an alarm and Govind Singh fired the rifle as a result of which her husband died. It is submitted that Smt. Laxmi (PW-7) has improved her version to the extent that she stated that Shyam Singh gagged her mouth so as to prevent her from raising an alarm and Govind Singh fired the rifle as a result of which her husband died. It is submitted that there are several contradictions in her statement making her statement absolutely doubtful. It is submitted that the exaggerations in the statement of the witness are to the extent that it makes her statement wholly inconsistent with the evidence of Vishnu (PW-1) and thus doubtful. It is contended that Investigating Officer, in this case, has also not investigated the case properly. According to him, there were the marks of movement of two persons on the roof from where they jumped after committing the murder; but he neither took the foot-prints nor any drop of blood to compare them with any of the accused persons. It is also submitted that no recovery of any weapon of offence has been made from any of the accused persons and thus there is no corroboration to the ocular statement of the aforesaid two witnesses, namely, Vishnu (PW-1) and Mst. Laxmi (PW-7). It is submitted that Raj Singh (PW-8), who was S.H.O., Police Station-Diholi, who investigated the case, has admitted that he had suspected two persons as accused in this case and they were Khubi Ram and one Ashok Kumar. Thus, the police was not certain even during investigation as to whether the statement of Vishnu (PW-1) and Mst. laxmi (PW-7) were sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. It is then submitted that admittedly there was no light and accused are said to have been identified in the torch light which have not been recovered in the case nor have been shown to the police. It is very strange circumstance that Vishnu (PW-1) had also a torch on the roof and Mst. Laxmi (PW-7) had also a torch while sleeping in the Chowk and both of them identified the accused, after the incident, in the light of these torches. It is submitted that the evidence suggests that the distance between the roof of Vishnu and the place of occurrence is more than 50 fts. and it could not have been possible for him to have identified the accused from the back in a torch light; while they were in the process of jumping. It is submitted that the evidence suggests that the distance between the roof of Vishnu and the place of occurrence is more than 50 fts. and it could not have been possible for him to have identified the accused from the back in a torch light; while they were in the process of jumping. It is submitted, it was very easy to have got them apprehended at the spot by the villagers, in case, they were identified in the alarm having raised. It is then submitted that no motive has been brought forward for committing the murder on the night intervening between 14th and 15th; particularly, when there was no immediate cause given out for the same. It appears to be a case of mistaken identity or that murder took place elsewhere and the dead-body was brought here as neither the pool of blood has been found nor the marks of blood on the earth, according to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the gudri, on which the deceased is alleged to have been sleeping at the time of fire, had also few, faint brown large, medium patches, at places. It is submitted that in a gun shot wound in the chest there would have blood to the extent the entire floor would have been soaked with blood. Beside this, even the blood group and the contents of blood found on the mattress could not be known as having been disintegrated. In these circumstances, it is submitted that strong evidence was required to connect the accused with the crime. It is then submitted that admittedly the four children of the deceased were sleeping alongwith him including a daughter and a son, who are aged of 15 and 12 years; respectively, but for reasons best known, they were neither made witnesses nor have been examined in the case. Hence, adverse inference should be drawn from the fact of non- protection of important witnesses. 5. Mr. Gopal Bhargava, appearing for the State, vehemently contended that no independent witness from outside could be expected at the odd hour at 3.00 a.m. and only eye-witnesses could be the inmates. It is submitted that the facts, in the instant case, are not only established by the evidence of Vishnu (PW-1) and Mst. laxmi (PW-7), but are also corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstantial evidences. It is submitted that the facts, in the instant case, are not only established by the evidence of Vishnu (PW-1) and Mst. laxmi (PW-7), but are also corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstantial evidences. It is contended that the report is promptly lodged in the circumstances of the case because when the elder brother is killed, it could not have been expected that without collecting the relations and the villagers, he would have rushed to the police station. It was very natural for him to have called the Sarpanch, who was his relative, before lodging the report and no inference can be drawn that Vishnu was delivered influence by Mahendra Singh, Sarpanch, for lodging a false report. It is also submitted that there is not an iota of evidence to suggest that Mahendra Singh bore any enmity with any of the accused persons, so that, he could falsely implicate them into the case. It is submitted that the statement of Mst. Laxmi (PW-7) is wholly consistent but for minor contradictions which are not of any significance. His submission is that prosecution was not required to multiply the evidence on the same point and, therefore, once the wife and the brother of the deceased are examined; no further evidence was required to be produced in the case. His submission is that both the witnesses are of sterling worth and have rightly been relied upon by the trial court and no interference is required to be done in this appeal. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the entire record. 7. Before we adjudicate upon the points raised by the learned counsel for either side, we deem it proper to quote the evidence of Vishnu (PW-1) and Mst. Laxmi (PW-7), in extenso so that in the light of the statements re-produced, the arguments can be appreciated. 8. Vishnu (PW-1), in his examination in chief, has stated that at about 3.00 in the night, he was sleeping on the roof. His brother Mahaveer was sleeping in the chowk alongwith his wife and minor children. He heard the sound of a fire. He suddenly got up and rushed to the house of Mahaveer. He saw three persons Govind, Shyam and Shankar on the roof of Mahaveer. According to him, Shyan was armed with a rifle, and Govind and Shankar was armed with katta. He heard the sound of a fire. He suddenly got up and rushed to the house of Mahaveer. He saw three persons Govind, Shyam and Shankar on the roof of Mahaveer. According to him, Shyan was armed with a rifle, and Govind and Shankar was armed with katta. Thereafter, these people jumped and ran away. He stated that since his roof is connected with the roof of Mahaveer; he went there scanning the wall. He jumped from the roof and went near Mahaveer, where he found that he had received a bullet injury in his chest. At that time he was lying on a cot. He raised alarm; a number of people collected. He took him to Morena, but having found Mahaveer dead; returned to the village. He, thereafter, informed the Sarpanch and then went to Diholi for lodging the report. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that prior to this incident, there was a criminal case between Mahaveer and Govind but the same was two years earlier. And, in that criminal case, Mahaveer is alleged to have been sentenced to nine months imprisonment. He admitted that Shankar was a witness for Govind Singh. The witness stated that his roof is about 5 cubits higher than the ground and at the time when he heard the gun shot and saw the accused, moon was in the sky and there was moon light in which the man was visible. He stated that the moon light was to the extent that a man could be identified from a distance of twenty paces. He admitted that he had lighted the torch from his own roof, but had not done so immediately after hearing the gun sound but after he got up from his cot when he went to a little distance. The distance between his cot and Mahaveers cot was about 50 fts. The witness was tested for his knowledge about the distance and for that the Court placed a note that it appears that the witness has no sense of distance. The witness stated that when he saw the accused, they were on the souther side near Matadeens kotha. He saw their back while they were jumping but had seen them from the face when they were on the roof; he, thereafter, corrected himself and again said that this is correct that when they were jumping; the and back was towards him. He saw their back while they were jumping but had seen them from the face when they were on the roof; he, thereafter, corrected himself and again said that this is correct that when they were jumping; the and back was towards him. He admitted that had he not any torch, he could not have identified the accused correctly. He denied the suggestion that there was no moon light. He, on the contrary, stated that there was light of the day dawning at that time and the sky was yellow. He, however, admitted that there was no other lamp, lantern or any other source of light except the torch. He also admitted that when he got up, there was no light in the chowk of Mahaveer. He also admitted that he only saw the accused for the moment when they were jumping but were also not visible when they had actually jumped down. According to him, the SHO had not taken the torch; though he had shown it to the Investigating Officer. He admitted that when the police came and prepared the documents; Mahaveers wife and other persons were also sitting there. He stated that Mahaveers wife and children had started weeping only after he reached the chowk of Mahaveer Singh. He admitted that Smt. Laxmi had not told him that the three accused had come and inflicted injury by gun shot. He stated that he had not even asked about this fact from his brothers wife. He then assigned the reason that because he had taken the deceased to Morena on the cot; Laxmi did not tell the names of any of the assailant; he has given out the names of persons collected on his alarm. According to him, there was atleast twenty persons who had collected at that point of time. He admitted that he did not tell any of the villager about the name of any of the accused who had fired at Mahaveer Singh. He stated that police had found the foot marks of three persons and not of two. Distance, according to him, between Maraina and his village is only one kilometre by short cut and three kilometres through regular way; while the police station is also one and half to two kilometres. He admitted that his brother, in those days, was selling tea and wine both. Distance, according to him, between Maraina and his village is only one kilometre by short cut and three kilometres through regular way; while the police station is also one and half to two kilometres. He admitted that his brother, in those days, was selling tea and wine both. He, however, denied that few days before this incident, he had a quarrel with two persons on payment of the wine sold. He denied the suggestion that the three accused were named at the instance of Mahendra Singh. He, however, could not name the person who had gone to call Mahendra Singh; he then said that the fact whether or not Gopal had gone to call Mahendra Singh, is not known to him. He also could not give out the name of the scriber of the first information report (Ex.P/1). He, however, denied that two reports were taken down and one was torn. He admitted that he had not seen the rifles with any of the accused prior to this incident nor had seen the pistols. The witness has given out the colour of the clothes which the accused were wearing on that night. According to him, when he reached the house of Mahaveer, Laxmi was not found on her cot but she was raising cries and when he went in the chowk he found that the door had the lock which was broken by him. He had broken the lock with the stone. He, however, stated that this broken lock was not shown by the Investigating Officer nor was seized.Mst. Laxmi (PW-7) stated that about 2.30 or 3.00 in the night, her husband was sleeping on the cot and at nearby she was sleeping with the child. Her children were also sleeping on a cot. According to her, the gate of her house was locked and the key was on her cot. When her husband was sleeping she was feeding milk to her son. At the time when she was feeding, there was a big sound and, hearing that sound; she looked with her husband and saw Govind standing near the cot. He (Govind) had a katta in his hand, who hit her husband. According to her, Shyam gagged her mouth who was pulled up by Shankar, who was standing on the roof. At the time when she was feeding, there was a big sound and, hearing that sound; she looked with her husband and saw Govind standing near the cot. He (Govind) had a katta in his hand, who hit her husband. According to her, Shyam gagged her mouth who was pulled up by Shankar, who was standing on the roof. Shyam had also pointed that revolver on her chest and warned that she would raise a voice, she would be killed, She, thereafter, lighted the torch which was on her cot and saw the three accused running away. They (accused) had climbed up the roof. She stated that she had not seen anything with Shankar. Her brother-in-law Vishnu had also come on the roof. She with her brother-in-law had taken her husband to Morena hospital, but he died and, therefore, they came back. She stated that her husband had been killed by the enmity by all the three accused. According to her, police had arrived in the morning at 10.00 a.m. and dead-body was lying out side the house, since, it has been brought back from Morena. She stated that she had taken the same cot, on which the deceased sustained injury, to Maraine. She then stated that when police arrived, she was inside the house and was near the dead-body of her husband. She stated that at that time when the Investigating Officer had seen the dead-body, she had told the SHO that Govind had killed her husband and she had seen him firing because she was feeding her child at that time. According to her, when she heard the sound of jumping, she got up while feeding and it was at that time that her husband was fired at and her mouth was gagged. She empathetically stated that on the same day her statement was recorded by the police. She has alleged to have shown the Investigating Officer the torch also, in the light of which she had identified the accused. She denied the suggestion that her statement was recorded on 16th. She admitted that her daughter is 15 years of age and her son is 12 years of age, who were with her at the time of incident. According to her, it was a dark night on that day. She stated that she did not see Govind jumping from the roof but saw him later on. She admitted that her daughter is 15 years of age and her son is 12 years of age, who were with her at the time of incident. According to her, it was a dark night on that day. She stated that she did not see Govind jumping from the roof but saw him later on. She stated that she had not lit the torch at that time but she had lighted when the accused were running away, otherwise there was no other source of light in the chowk. According to her, her brother-in-law Vishnu (PW-1), came and saw under torch light then they saw the bullet injury in the chest of her husband. She has stated that she had seen the accused towards the side of Govindas house. She stated that her husband was not selling wine but he was only a tea vendor. She has also stated that her husband never told her that he had some quarrel with a certain persons regarding recovery of money from the liquor sale. According to her, her husband had no enmity with any of one. 9. From the perusal of the aforesaid two statements, it is clear that both these witnesses were in sleep at the time when the accused is alleged to have come and fired at Mahaveer. The story of Laxmi (PW-7) that she was feeding the child at that point of time, is not worthy of any reliance. Firstly, this was not her case in the police statement and secondly she has given an inconsistent statement even in the Court on this aspect on the matter. She got up from sleep only when the gun had been fired and there was the sound of the gun shot. Thus, she had not seen the accused in her house prior to that point of time and we are unable to believe that she could identify them after the gun shot was fired and they were in chowk, as there was no light. According to her own statement, she had lit the torch only when the accused had already gone on the roof. In fact, the evidence of both the witnesses, is that they had seen the accused only S when they were running on the roof, in an attempt to jump down towards the side of Govinds house. According to her own statement, she had lit the torch only when the accused had already gone on the roof. In fact, the evidence of both the witnesses, is that they had seen the accused only S when they were running on the roof, in an attempt to jump down towards the side of Govinds house. Thus these two witnesses had no occasion to see the faces and it was only from their back that they might had seen the persons running, which makes the identification doubtful. Again the story of pulling up by Shankar and firing by Govind and gagging the mouth by Shyam cannot easily be digested because the version has been tried to be twisted thrice in her single statement. Apparently, it appears that the prosecution has tried to weave a story but looking to the time and hour in which the incident had taken place and the manner in which the names had not been shown while lodging the first information report by either of the two, makes the story doubtful and atleast they are highly a suspicious circumstances. Again admittedly prosecution case is that Vishnu (PW-1) jumped in the chowk and saw his brother dead, yet, neither she (Laxmi, PW-7) asked Vishnu as to who were the assailants nor he (Vishnu) asked her the names of the assailants. This is very strange conduct of both of them, not to have exchanged notes about the identity of the accused persons. It is also surprising that the house was locked from inside and the lock was broken open by twenty persons who came inside but names of the assailants were not told to them by any of these two witnesses. We are unable to conceive of that in case the brother-in-law and the decead's wife would have identified the accused why they should have not told to any one the story of her gagging by Shyam and shot fired by accused Govind. Whatever could be the story, even if, they suspected the accused, I there was nothing to prevent them from coming out with the names of these assailants before the persons who collected there. In this light the conduct of these two witnesses, Devar - Bhabi, it also assumes importance that the son and the daughter have not been examined in the case. In this light the conduct of these two witnesses, Devar - Bhabi, it also assumes importance that the son and the daughter have not been examined in the case. Both mamta (daughter) and Ranveer (son) were of 15 and 12 years of age; respectively, were of the age of full understanding, atleast, to the extent they could speak of the circumstances. Both of them could have been competent witnesses to lend support to the statement of Mst. laxmi (PW-7) who was 25 years of age, as per statement, and Vishnu (PW-1), uncle of the children, who was 30 years of age. We fail to understand yet another circumstance that though it was dark night and there was no other source of light, how the three accused came to the particular cot on which mahaveer was sleeping and fired at him from the point blank range of which no blood is found on the earth as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The changing of stories by wife and the brother of the deceased, has convinced us that they are not truthful witnesses, even about the source of light there is a contradiction in the statement of both the witnesses inasmuch as according to Vishnu (PW-1) it was a moon light night and there was sufficient light so as to identify the accused while according to Laxmi (PW-7) it was a dark night. We have referred to the calender of that particular year and date and the position of the moon on that date was that there was no moon in the sky to have given any light at 3.00 in the morning. The witnesses then tried to shift the time to the extent that it was becoming day down; there was a yellow light the sky. This shows that Vishnu (PW-1) is try to put himself in a situation that he could certainly identify the persons in natural light even if the story of the torch light is disbelieved. It is also not understandable to us that brother of the deceased (Vishnu, PW-1) who was sleeping in his own house which is though adjacent to the house yet is about 50 fts. It is also not understandable to us that brother of the deceased (Vishnu, PW-1) who was sleeping in his own house which is though adjacent to the house yet is about 50 fts. from the chowk of Mahaveer (deceased), when he heard the gun shot sound; how could he image that a shot sound had come from the chowk of Mahaveer (deceased), so he could have straight rushed to that place. Man in normal course has sound sleep at 3.00 in the night, thus he would have first tried to acquaint himself with the sound as to from which direction it was coming and could not all of a sudden have gone to a particular place, as if, he were knowing it from before that this sound was likely to come from the chowk of Mahaveer (deceased). His coming to this house and that too not through staircase but by jumping from roof in the chowk, is also unexplainable circumstance and create suspicion about his own conduct, qua the conduct of wife of the deceased Mst. Laxmi. More and more when we read their statements; looking to the contradictions, we are convinced that some truth has not been investigated in this case. There is yet another angle of looking at the conduct of Mst. Laxmi that she did not first disclose the name of assailants to any one; she, herself went up to Morena and came back, still she did not give out the name of any one. Police came on the same date, she did not give out the name of any of the accused on that date and it was on the 16th i.e. after 24 hours of taking down the first information report that her statement was recorded for first time by the police and it is for this reason that there was a suspicion against two other persons, namely, Sukhi Ram and Ashok Kumar, to whom the Investigating Officer suspected to be murderers. Mst. Laxmi has lied to the extent that as per her statement, her husband was not selling wine, while the Investigating Officer has very categorically stated that the deceased had a wine shop at Morena Bus Stand and this fact has also not been denied by Vishnu (PW-1). Mst. Laxmi has lied to the extent that as per her statement, her husband was not selling wine, while the Investigating Officer has very categorically stated that the deceased had a wine shop at Morena Bus Stand and this fact has also not been denied by Vishnu (PW-1). According to the Investigating Officer, Laxmi was not even available when he visited the site as he wanted to record her statement but failed to record only on this count. Though, according to her, it was in her presence that the site plan was prepared and she had a talk with the Investigating Officer. Thus, the entire case is shrouded in mystery and though it is a cold-blooded murder yet we feel reluctant to maintain the conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court. 10. In view of the fact that we are not relying upon the statement of the two witnesses, we need not go to other infirmities in the case as no positive evidence is available in the case in favour of the prosecution inasmuch as neither the moulds of the foot prints have been taken nor rifles or the pistols have been recovered. Not only that even the bullet recovered by police, casts grave doubt, inasmuch as, according to the Forensic Science Laboratory, it was found to be 1.35 Copper jacketted bullet-which appears to have been fired from smooth bore country made firearm, while the recovery memo in respect of this bullet is EX.P/11, which shows one bullet live appears to be filled (HINDI), which is also a variance with the aforesaid report. The totality of the entire evidence and circumstances shows that there is a lurking doubt in the truthfulness in the prosecution story and the benefit of same is extended to the accused. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment dated 7th of Sept., 1990, of the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, consequently, the conviction and sentence and acquit of the accused of all the charges. Accused, Govind Singh, is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Accused-Shyam Singh and Shankar Singh are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds which shall stand discharged. *******