JUDGMENT 1. - The Additional Session Judge, Jhalawar, by his judgment dated 3rd February, 1993 has convicted the appellants Sheo Singh, Shiv Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Ram Singh, Hari Singh and Jamna Lal for offences under Section 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. He has sentenced each one of the appellants for offence under Section 147 Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code, he has sentenced each one of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two year, each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment off line to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two month's each. For offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code, he has sentenced each one of the appellants for imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months' each. All the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, the appellants have come in appeal. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 14th February, 1990, deceased Kanwar Lal and Munna Lal had gone to Aklera to lodge some report in connection with some incident. Both of them were returning from Aklera on the path way coming from Gehunkhedi at about 2.00 p.m. P.W. 4 Gopal saw that about 20-25 persons were assembled near the field of Chandra Singh. All these persons carried deadly weapons like swords and Gandasies. The five appellants were members of that group. The prosecution story is that when Kanwar Lal and Munna Lal came near the assailants, the appellants and their companions started beating Kanwar Lal and Munna Lal. At this Kanwar Lal and Munna Lal ran for their lives and the appellants and their companions chased Munna Lal and Bhanwar Lal in the field of said Gopal (not this witness), and caught them. Then Shiv Singh dealt a sword blow on the right hand of Munna Lal. Accused Gopal gave a Gandasi blow on the back of head of Kanwar Lal. Bhagwan Singh, Ram Singh. Kajod, Jamna Lal and Hari Singh variously assaulted the two persons. Then Shiv Singh dealt a sword blow on the right hand of Munna Lal. Accused Gopal gave a Gandasi blow on the back of head of Kanwar Lal. Bhagwan Singh, Ram Singh. Kajod, Jamna Lal and Hari Singh variously assaulted the two persons. In particular Shiv Singh and Ram Singh assaulted Munna Lal and Gopal, Kajod and Ram Singh SA) Naain assaulted Kanwar Lal. Thereafter all of them gave beating to two persons. 3. The prosecution story is that on seeing this assault on his father, P.W. 4, Gopal ran towards his house. On the way he met P.W. 5 Kalyan, P.W. 6 Janina Lal and P.W. 8, Dhanna La 1. The prosecution story is that these persons went to the place where Munna Lal and Kanwar Lal had been assaulted. All the accused persons threatened Gopal and his companions and then left the scene of occurrence. Gopal and his companions found that Munna Lal had died on the spot and Kanwar Lal was struggling for his life. The prosecution case further is that Kanwar Lal was removed to his house. Meanwhile Gopal was dispatched to Police Station, Aklera and at about 4.00 p.m. and an oral report Ex.P.20 was lodged by him. P.W. 18 Shri Samdarshan Pandcy got this oral report recorded and proceeded for the scene of occurrence. He inspected the site and prepared a site-plan Ex.P. 23. He found that dead-body of Munna Lal was lying in the field of Gopal Karad (not P.W. 4). He prepared an Inquest Report with regard to this dead-body (Ex. P. 64). He went to the house of Kanwar Lal and examined his dead-body and prepared Inquest Report Ex. P. 21. He collected the blood-stained soil and sample soil from the scene of occurrence and duly sealed the same. 4. It appears that an autopsy was conducted on the dead-body of two deceased persons on 18th February, 1990 by Dr. Kundan Mal Jain. Dr. Kundan Mal Jain found following injuries on the person of deceased Munna Lal : 1. Two incised wounds 1" x 1/2 X 1/2, second also 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on right leg. 2. Incised wound 3" x 21/2" bone deep, on right fore-arm Radium and ulna both bones were cut. right hand with wrist was not found (amputation). 3. Kundan Mal Jain found following injuries on the person of deceased Munna Lal : 1. Two incised wounds 1" x 1/2 X 1/2, second also 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on right leg. 2. Incised wound 3" x 21/2" bone deep, on right fore-arm Radium and ulna both bones were cut. right hand with wrist was not found (amputation). 3. Two incised wounds 3" X 1" bone deep second also 3" x 1" bone deep on right arm. Bone fragments are exposed. 4. One incised wound 1" x 1/2" bone deep bone exposed on left thumb. 5. One incised wound 4" x 1" brain deep on parietal occipital region with fractured parietal bones and occipital bones. He also found that there were fractures of right radius and ulna, right humerus and fracture of parietal and occipital bones of Munna Lal. According to Dr. Kundan Mal Jain, Munna Lal had died due to Hacmorragic shock. In this regard he prepared Memo Ex.P. 62. 5. Dr. Kundan Mal Jain examined the dead-body of Kanwar Lal and found following injuries on his person : 1. Two incised wounds 2" x 1/2" bone deep, second 1"x 1/2" bone deep on right fore-arm with bones exposed. 2. Seven incised wound on right arms sizes were 11/2 x 1" bone deep 21/2 X 1" bone deep, 1/1-2 x 1" bone deep, 3/4" x 3/4" bone deep, 1/2 x 1/2 x", 1/2" x 1/2 X 1/2" and 1" x 3/4" bone deep. 3. One incised wound 3" x 1" bone exposed on left ring finger left hand. 4. One incised wound on right aliac crest region 2-1.2" x 1" bone deep. 5. Two incised wounds on left knee 3/4" x 1/2 x 1/2, second 3/4" 1/2" 1/2". 6. One incised wound obliquely on nazi tal suture of humerous 1/2" x =' bunt. deep. 6. He also found fractures of both the parietal bones, fractures of radius and ulna of left hand, fractures humerus of right hand and a fracture of ring finger of left hand and of right liac crest. According to him Kanwar Lal had died due to Hemorrhagic shock. 7. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation recorded statements of certain witnesses and arrested as many as 26 persons. However, he filed challan of as many as 25 persons after completion of due formalities of the investigation. According to him Kanwar Lal had died due to Hemorrhagic shock. 7. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation recorded statements of certain witnesses and arrested as many as 26 persons. However, he filed challan of as many as 25 persons after completion of due formalities of the investigation. One accused Birdhi Lal died and remaining 24 persons including the present appellants were duly charged for offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. All the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. In support of the prosecution story, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. 9. All the accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied their complicity in the crime and alleged that they had been falsely implicated because of factionalism. As many as 7 witnesses were examined by the defence. 10. The learned Trial Judge after considering evidence on record found the present appellants guilty as stated above. He, however, found that the complicity of the other accused persons was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore acquitted other co-accused persons. 11. In the present appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants contends that all the material prosecution witnesses belong to one community and are related intense and have long standing enmity with the appellants. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses is not reliable and worthy of credence, because the F.I.R. was not promptly recorded and was dispatched to the concerned Magistrate with great delay and there arc reasons to suspect that the F.I.R. is a post investigative one. It is submitted that the testimony of the so-called eye witnesses is highly discrepant and does not accord with the circumstances of the case and the entire case is shrouded with mystery. The possibility that none of the alleged eye-witnesses might have witnesses the alleged assault, has not been ruled out. It is further submitted that the accused Gopal and Kajod and for that matter ntber accused persons who have been acquitted, were acquitted on the self some evidence of witnesses, on which conviction of the present appellants has been recorded. The possibility that none of the alleged eye-witnesses might have witnesses the alleged assault, has not been ruled out. It is further submitted that the accused Gopal and Kajod and for that matter ntber accused persons who have been acquitted, were acquitted on the self some evidence of witnesses, on which conviction of the present appellants has been recorded. It is submitted that there is nothing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to distinguish the case of the appellants from that of the co-accused persons who were acquitted by the learned Trial Judge and, therefore, the conviction of the present appellants for any of the charges cannot be sustained. Some ancillary arguments have also been raised. 12. Learned P.P. seriously opposes this appeal and submits that the learned Trial Court rightly relied upon the eye-witness account given by P.W. 4 Gopal. It is submitted that though there was some delay in transmission of F.I.R. to the ]earned Magistrate but it is incorrect to say that the FIR was not recorded on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. Regarding delay in transmission of FIR to the concerned Magistrate, he submits that those were election days and there was paucity of staff at Police Station, Aklera and this is why the FIR could not be delivered in time. It is submitted that this Court should interfere with the conviction and sentences passed upon the appellants. 13. We have considered the rival contentions and have perused the record carefully. 14. There is absolutely no doubt that an incident took place on 14th February, 1990 on the outskirts of village Devli and Gehunkhedi in which Kanwar Lal and Munna Lal were grievously assaulted and the injuries caused to their persons resulted in their deaths. This part of the prosecution case is not challenged even by the learned Counsel for the appellants. After having gone through the testimony of Dr. Kundan Mal Jain, we are not left in any manner of doubt that both these persons died a homicidal death. However, we would like to deal with one aspect of the matter on which the learned P.P. and the learned Presiding Officer of the Court below, both have fumbled. It is significant to note that no question was put to Dr. However, we would like to deal with one aspect of the matter on which the learned P.P. and the learned Presiding Officer of the Court below, both have fumbled. It is significant to note that no question was put to Dr. Kundan Mal Jain, if the injuries or any one of them on the person of Munna Lal or Kanwar Lal were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature either individually or cumulatively. It is significant to note that Dr. Kundan Mal Jain was not even asked if the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. However, the nature of the injuries and the way the bleeding took place goes to establish that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were also cumulatively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 15. Now we have to examine if the assault on the two deceased persons took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The basic substratum of the prosecution is that deceased Munna Lal was killed on the spot and Kanwar Lal was carried away to his home in seriously injured condition. The FIR Ex. P. 20 comes out with the story that when Kanwar Lal was being taken to his house, he breathed his last. P.W. 4 Gopal who is son of Kanwar Lal and who claims to have witnessed the entire occurrence does not stick to the story given in the FIR that Kanwar Lal breathed his last when he was being taken to his house. On the contrary he has come out with the story that the dead-body of his uncle (Munna Lal) and his father in an injured condition were being brought to Aklera and it was on the way that he succumbed to his injuries. It is curious that in Examination-in-Chief he states that police had interrogated his father Kanwar Lal. In cross-examination he reiterated this statement by adding that his father (Kanwar lal) had given out the names of the assailants to the police people. This story is not at all in accord with the prosecution case, according to which Kanwar Lal was dead long back before the F.I.R. was lodged. It is significant that P.W. 4, Gopal does not claim that he was taking his father Kanwar Lal in an injured condition to his house or it was he who was taking his father Kanwar Lal to Aklera. It is significant that P.W. 4, Gopal does not claim that he was taking his father Kanwar Lal in an injured condition to his house or it was he who was taking his father Kanwar Lal to Aklera. Thus from the testimony of this witness, we do not know as to who had taken Kanwar Lal from the scene of occurrence to the house of deceased Kanwar Lal. 16. We may state that Gopal is a young boy of 17-18 years. It is but natural that had his father been assaulted in his presence, he would have assisted in some manner in taking away his injured father to his home. His silence on this material point has left us baffled. His statement that the police had made enquiries from his father and his father had given the names of the assailants to the police passes our comprehension. The learned P.P. was unable to explain this curious feature of the prosecution case, even though we put a pointed query to him and asked him to explain this feature of the case. 17. P.W. 5 Kalyan is another witness, who has been examined by the prosecution in support of its story. According to Gopal, after the assault was over, he proceeded towards his house, presumably with a view to inform his people about this incident. He claims to have met Dhanna, Jamna Lal and Kalyanon the way. Kalyan, has deposed that about 2.00 p.m. he was going from his house to his field and on the way Gopal met him and Gopal informed him that Kanwar Lal and Munna Lal had been killed. Upon this he went towards the dead-bodies and when he reached the scene of occurrence he found Shiv Singh, Gopal S/o Kesho Ram, Bhagwan Singh, Ram Singh, Kajod, Jagannath, Jamna Lal, Ram Singh S/o Mangi Lal, Ballu and Hari Singh running away front the scent of occurrence. According to him Munna Lal had died and Kanwar Lal was still lying. Kanwar Lal told him that he may be taken to Jhalawar. The testimony of this witness is that he went hack to his house to take a bullock cart and came back to the scene of occurrence. He left the dead-body of Munna Lal at the spot and placed injured Kanwar Lal in the bullock-cart. Kanwar Lal told him that he may be taken to Jhalawar. The testimony of this witness is that he went hack to his house to take a bullock cart and came back to the scene of occurrence. He left the dead-body of Munna Lal at the spot and placed injured Kanwar Lal in the bullock-cart. According to this witness when he along with Kanwar Lal reached the square known as ' Barkhedi Chora ha' all 25 accused persons accosted him and threatened hint with dire consequences. The further testimony of this witness is that he left Kanwar Lal in an injured condition in bullock-cart and ran away and Dhapu Bai, Gulab Bai and Gheesa Chamar came with the bullock-cart to the home. According to him when these persons came hack home, the police had also reached and Kanwar Lal had died. According to this witness Kanwar Lal had died before the arrival of police. It is significant that the story given by this witness during the course of trial regarding his taking his father Kanwar Lal to Barakhedi and the accused persons accosting him was not recorded in his previous police statement Ex.D-1. The story of this witness regarding taking of Kanwar Lal towards Jhalawar in a bullock-cart along with Dhapu Bai, Gulab Bai and Gheesa Chamar is an improvement upon his previous police statement. Dhapu Bai, Gulab Bai and Gheesa Chamar have not been examined therefore, this part of the prosecution case and the statement of Kalyan on this aspect of the case does not inspire confidence at all. 18. P.W.6 Jamna Lal, is the other witness, who according to Gopal had met him on the way while Gopal was proceeding to the house presumably to inform the members of his family. According to Janina Lal he was actually working in his field. He claims to have seen Kanwar Lal and Munna Lal conning from Gchunkhedi towards the village. According to him he claims to be an eye-witness of the entire assault. According to hint 22 or 23 persons were moving near the field of Chandar Singh and all of them assaulted Munna Lal and Kanwar Lal while these two persons were conning from the side of Gehunkhcdi. According to him the assailants were variously armed with weapons like swords, Ballam, Axes and Gandasies. According to hint 22 or 23 persons were moving near the field of Chandar Singh and all of them assaulted Munna Lal and Kanwar Lal while these two persons were conning from the side of Gehunkhcdi. According to him the assailants were variously armed with weapons like swords, Ballam, Axes and Gandasies. He has come out with the story that he saw Shiv Singh giving a blow to Munna Lal with a sword resulting in the severance from the wrist. According to him Bhagwan Singh gave a Gandasi blow on the head of Munna Lal and Kajod gave another Gandasi blow on the head of Munna Lal thereafter Munna Lal fell down and then his father i.e. Kanwar Lal surrounded and was assaulted. According to him Gopal S/o Kesho Rant gave a Gandasi blow on his father and Ram Singh gave a Ballam blow near the chest of his father and then others also assaulted, his father. This witness claims that the assailants saw him and on seeing this he ran towards the field of Mangi Lal who was working in his field. According to him, he summoned his uncle Mangi Lal and two means by name Mangi Lal and Nathu Lal to his aid. The testimony of this witness is that he along with his uncle Mangi Lal and two Meenas Mangi Lal and Nathu Lal went near the dead-body of Munna Lal. At that time his father was still alive and requested the witness to take him to Jhalawar. The case projected by this witness in his Examination-in-Chief, is that he put his father in a bullock-cart and was proceeding towards Barakhedi with Still. Gulab Bai, Dhapu Bai and Gheesa Chamar, that all the accused persons accosted him on the way upon which he left the bullock-cart there and ran away and there after Gheesa Chamar and his ' Bua' Gulab Bai brought the bullock-cart with Kanwar Lal. According to him he came back to his house along with two Meenas. According to him, Gopal and Amri Bai his mother were sent to police. 19. A careful perusal of this testimony goes to show that it is not in accord with the testimony given by Gopal or by Kalyan. Kalyan never claimed that Janina Lal accompanied him along with his father and on the way Jamina Lal was accosted by the assemblage of the accused persons. 19. A careful perusal of this testimony goes to show that it is not in accord with the testimony given by Gopal or by Kalyan. Kalyan never claimed that Janina Lal accompanied him along with his father and on the way Jamina Lal was accosted by the assemblage of the accused persons. This witness himself did not give out this part of the story in his earlier police statement Ex. D-2. It is interesting to note that independent witnesses Mangi Lal and Nathu Lal have not been examined to support this story. It is further to be noticed that this witness does not claim that Gopal, his brother was also witness to this incident. 20. P.W. 7, Mangi Lal is other witness who has been examined in support of the prosecution story. His testimony is to the effect that at about 2.00 p.m. he was at his field. He heard some hue and cry and then Gopal came to him. At that time accused persons Sheo Singh, Jagannath, Kajod, Ram Singh, Gopal Ballu, Bhagwan Singh, Ram Singh S/o Mangi Lal, and Hari Singh came to the field of Gopal Karad armed variously with swords, Gandasies and Balams lanu. According to him the aforesaid accused persons assaulted Mangi Lal and Kanwar Lal in the field of Gopal Karad. Left hand of Mangi Lal was amputated by Gopal S/o Kesho Ram and Bhagwan Singh. According to him after the assault accused persons ran away; he told Gopal that he should go to Police Station. This witness has further deposed that Jamna Lal, Gheesa Chamar, Dhapu Bai and Gulab Bai took Kanwar Lal in a bullock-cart to the house and then the accused persons accosted them and on that Gheesa Chamarand Jamna Lal ran away and Dhapu Bai and Gulab Bai remained there with the bullock-cart. This story given by Mangi Lal is not in accord with the story given by earlier witnesses named above. According to him Mangi Lal, Ram Singh and Ranglal had brought the bullock-cart to home. None of these witnesses have been examined in support of the case that these persons had brought the bullock-cart to the village. This witness does not claim that he had accompanied Kanwar Lal in the bullock-cart. On material aspects of the case, witness was confronted with the previous police statement Ex. D-2 and we find that he resiled from his previous statement. This witness does not claim that he had accompanied Kanwar Lal in the bullock-cart. On material aspects of the case, witness was confronted with the previous police statement Ex. D-2 and we find that he resiled from his previous statement. The story that Kanwar Lal was brought to the hospital in a bullock-cart and the accused persons accosted bullock-cart was not given in his previous statements at all. 21. P.W.8, Dhanna Lal is another witness upon Whose testimony the prosecution relies. According to his at about 2.00 p.m. on the fateful day, he was coming from home when Gopal met him on the way and informed him that Kanwar Lal and Munna Lal had been killed by Sheo Singh, Gopal, Kesho Ram, Jamna Lal, Ram Singh, Ram Singh S/o Mangi Lal, Ballu, Kajod and Bhagwan Singh. He was further informed that this assault had taken place at the field of Gopal Karad. According to this witness, he went to the field of Gopal Karad and found that hand of Munna Lal had been cut and Kanwar Lal was having Gandasi injury on his head. Munna Lal had died and Kanwar Lal was still alive. According to him he gave some water to Kanwar Lal. At that time accused persons came back upon which this witness ran away. According to him Kanwar Lal also breathed his last on the spot. The testimony of this witness again is not in accord with the story of other witnesses of the prosecution namely, Gopal, Kalyan, Jamna Lal and Mangi Lal. 22. It is interesting to note that Dhanna Lal has admitted that when police people met him, police people asked him to find out and ascertain the names of the assailants and tell them of such names. If a report has been lodged by Gopal P.W. 4, naming all the assailants, it is surprising that such request could be made to P.W. 8, Dhanna Lal. 23. From a close examination and cautious scrutiny of the testimony of prosecution witnesses narrated above, we are of the view that the entire prosecution evidence is full of discrepancies and improvements on all material counts. As stated above, we have been left guessing as to actually who had taken Kanwar Lal to his house and how the dead-body of Kanwar Lal was found in his house. As stated above, we have been left guessing as to actually who had taken Kanwar Lal to his house and how the dead-body of Kanwar Lal was found in his house. The witnesses, who could have thrown light on this aspect, as pointed out earlier, have not been examined by the prosecution and the prosecution must thank itself for this kind gesture to the accused persons. 24. At cost of some repetition, we would like to observe that the basic substratum to the prosecution story comprised inter-alia of the averment that Kanwar Lal was taken to his house in an injured condition where he succumbed to his injuries and this was done before the police had arrived. This part of the prosecution case has not been prove at all, and P.W. 4 Gopal gives a complete lie to this version when he admits that police people had interrogated his father Kanwar Lal and his father had given the names of the assailants to the police. 25. We find good deal of substance in the contention of Shri Bajwa that the probability is that Munna Lal and Kanwar Lal might have been assaulted unseen by anybody in the field of Gopal Karad and Kanwar Lal might have reached the home in an injured condition. There were already two sections of two communities, one consisting of Bag dies to which the prosecution witnesses belong and the other consisting of the appellants who belong to Karad community. From the prosecution evidence itself it is discernible that there was some previous enmity also. This possibility has not been ruled out that names of large number of Karads were given in the FIR and a false case might have been prepared against the appellants and their companions. At any rate, prosecution has failed to eliminate this probability. This probability is re-enforced by the fact that the FIR was transmitted to the concerned Magistrate, who was only at a distance of 12 kilometre, after a delay of about 44 hours. The explanation that those were election days and there was paucity of staff and hence FIR could not be transmitted to the concerned Magistrate in time does not inspire any confidence. 26. We may state that even, the learned trial Judge did not find testimony of P.W.4 Gopal, P.W.5 Kalyan, P.W.6 Jamna Lal, P.W.7 Mangi Lal and P.W.8 Dhanna Lal wholly trustworthy. 26. We may state that even, the learned trial Judge did not find testimony of P.W.4 Gopal, P.W.5 Kalyan, P.W.6 Jamna Lal, P.W.7 Mangi Lal and P.W.8 Dhanna Lal wholly trustworthy. He found these witnesses to be only partly reliable. In our opinion, testimony of one partly reliable witness cannot be corroborated by another partly reliable witness particularly when witnesses are partisan and there is previous factional enmity dividing two communities. Particularly in this case, we rind that the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses is discrepant, divergent and full of contradictions and is unworthy of belief in all material aspects of the case. 27. We may state that the Inquest Reports prepared in the case do not even faintly suggest or refer to complicity of the present appellants with the crime. It is surprising that Investigating Officer while preparing the Inquest Report did not deem it proper to make even the briefest possible reference to the prosecution case. 28. It is trite law that the burden of proving prosecution story squarely rests upon the prosecution and this burden never shifts. In the present case the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden in proving beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed this murder. There is strong reason to doubt that the incident might have taken place in some other manner and aforesaid witnesses might not have at all seen the incident and the present appellants might have been implicated due to previous animosity. This probability has not been ruled out beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 29. No other point has been urged before us. 30. In the light of what we have said above, we find that this appeal must succeed and the judgment, conviction and sentences rendered by the learned Trial Judge must be set aside. We accordingly accept the appeal and acquit the appellants Sheo Singh @ Shiv Singh S/o Babulal, Bhagwan Singh S/o Bhawani Lal, Ram Singh S/o Shri Narain, Hari Singh S/o Shri Gheesa Lal and Jamina Lal S/o Shri Mangi Lal of all the charges under Section 147,148 and 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Appellants Sheo Singh and Ram Singh are in jail and they be set free immediately if not required in any other case. Appellants Bhagwan Singh, Hari Singh and Jamna Lal are on bail and they need not surrender to their bail bonds. Appellants Sheo Singh and Ram Singh are in jail and they be set free immediately if not required in any other case. Appellants Bhagwan Singh, Hari Singh and Jamna Lal are on bail and they need not surrender to their bail bonds. The bail bonds furnished by them are cancelled and fine, if any paid, shall be refunded to the concerned appellant/appellants.Appeal allowed. *******