JUDGMENT Dharmadhikari, J. -- 1. Brutal murder committed in broad day light in a running bus in presence of driver, conductor and passengers escaped unpunished by the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge against which the State in appeal and the complainant in revision (Cr. Revision No. 620/86) have approached this Court. Both the cases are being decided by this Common judgment. 2. There was bitter enmity between the three accused persons on one side and the deceased on the other. Deceased Sardar Singh, his brother Shyam Singh (PW 3) and Ramdulare (PW 9) were accused of murdering Channa Babu, real brother of accused Rammi and Chhinga. The deceased and the other abovementioned accused in that case were acquitted against which an appeal in the High Court was pending. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, on 20.7.1985, deceased Sardar Singh who was a Home Guard in his dress was travelling in a bus of M.P.S.RT.C. from Babai. The three accused persons boarded the bus at a turning towards Naseerabad and at about 5.10 in the afternoon, with knives and Ballam, made a murderous assault on the deceased. The assault caused commotion in the bus. There were about 13 passengers in the bus with a seating capacity of 49. Many of them got terrified. They got down and ran away. The assault attracted attention of the conductor Ramashre (PW 8) and driver of the bus Jabbar Khan (PW 12) who questioned the accused and stopped the bus by giving a call. The assailants caused as many as eleven in-juries all over the body of Sardar Singh who died in the bus itself. The bus was taken by the driver to the Police Station Babai and F.I.R. (EX.P/11) was recorded within less than half an hour i.e. at 17.40 hrs. on the same day on the version given by conductor of the bus Ramashre (PW 8). According to the driver and conductor of the bus, named above, they knew the assailants from before and they could easily identify them. Their names were also mentioned in the F.I.R. by the conductor, Ramashre, the first informant of the incident to the police. 4. According to the driver and conductor of the bus, named above, they knew the assailants from before and they could easily identify them. Their names were also mentioned in the F.I.R. by the conductor, Ramashre, the first informant of the incident to the police. 4. The crime was investigated by Station House Officer, Babai Ramesh Chandra Mahor (PW 13) who after recording the F.I.R. visited the spot, prepared an inquest memo and seized the blood stained clothes which were sent to the Serologist for report for confirmation of presence of human blood. The accused are said to have been formally arrested on the next day of the incident i.e. on 21.7.85 at 12.00 in the noon vide arrest memo Ex.P/26 when, it is alleged, the accused were sitting in a thatched shed under a Peepal (banyan) tree and with the approach of police force tried to run away, but were chased and arrested. 5. According to the case of the prosecution, on the information given by accused Rammi, Bhura and Chhinga under memorandums Exs.P/15, P/16 and P/17, the alleged weapons of offence i.e. Ballam and two knives as also a bush shirt concealed in a pond near graveyard in Babai were recovered and seized. The seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyst and as per report Ex.P/29 presence of human blood on them was• confirmed. 6. All the three accused persons abjured the guilt taking a plea that only because of past enmity they were falsely implicated. They also examined a defence witness Badri Prasad (DW 1) who is alleged to be one of the passengers in the bus on the date of the incident. The said defence witness stated that one fat man had some quarrel and altercation with the deceased on occupying scat in the bus and the said unidentified person took out a knife and gave repeated blows to Sardar Singh resulting in his death. 7. The learned trial Judge in acquitting the three accused disbelieved the eye witness account given by conductor Ramashre (PW 8) and driver Jabbar Khan (PW 12) on the ground that their testimony suffers from material omissions and improvements as compared to the version of the incident given by them to the police and the Magistrate under Sections 161 & 164 Cr. P.C. and in the first information report. P.C. and in the first information report. The conductor is disbelieved on the ground that he has not given a consistent version as to the time and manner in which the three assailants entered in the bus. The conductor was disbelieved also on the ground that since there was a commotion after the incident in the bus and .he passengers were rushing out, it was possible that he was unable to see the actual assault. In disbelieving the conductor, this is what the trial Court has observed :-- "It is clear from the statement of Ramashre (PW 8) that when the alarm was raised by Dardar Singh the passengers were getting down from the bus and they were leaving their scats. There was a melee inside the bus. It was not possible for Ramashre (PW 8) to v it-ness the incident from the other comer of the bus where he was busy in checking the tickets of the passengers.' Apart from the above observations, the learned trial Judge rejected the testimony of conductor Ramashre (PW 8) stating that his statement in the Court is on material points contradicted by the contents of the F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) lodged by him and his case diary statement (Ex.D/1). 8. The driver of the bus, Jabbar Khan (PW 12), has also been disbelieved by the trial Judge by observing in paragraph 157 of the judgment thus: "It is clear from the evidence on record that Jabbar Khan (PW 12) was driving the bus at the speed of 60 kilometers per hour and it was improbable for him to turn back towards the seat of Sardar Singh and witness the incident as narrated by him. If he would have acted in such manner there would have a mishap and collision where innocent passengers would have lost their lives. This is incredible part of the story. It is impossible to accept this part of his evidence as true. Therefore, having carefully considered the evidence given by these two witnesses Rarnashre (PW 8) and Jabbar Khan (PW 12), I am not satisfied that it is the evidence which can be accepted as true beyond a reasonable doubt." 9. The learned trial Judge goes on to observe that the two witnesses have given version of the incident which is so consistent that it can be inferred as tutored. The learned trial Judge goes on to observe that the two witnesses have given version of the incident which is so consistent that it can be inferred as tutored. The learned trial Judge in Paragraph 160 of his judgment records that the conductor and driver are totally independent witnesses, but surprisingly makes a general observation .as under: "Some witnesses who apparently appear to be independent/or disinterested, may in a very convincing manner falsely support the cause of a particular party for reasons which may not come to light or may not be easily known to others. In inscrutable, at times, or west of human beings and the reasons which permit them to defile their oath may not be possible to be unearthed, the Judge has to apply his intelligence with which he is in doubt, to properly assess and judge the evidence on record by the yardstick of principles, it is intrinsic worth and he is not a automating to mechanically compute the evidence on record but assessing the same in the context and prospective of the above considerations. In the present case, before me because of the improbable and unsatisfactory features in the prosecution evidence which have been mentioned above, the evidence of these two witnesses Rarnashre (PW 8) and Jabbar Khan (PW 12) does not at all inspire confidence. " By the above reasoning, learned trial Judge concludes that the driver Jabbar Khan stopped the bus after the incident was over, came to the bonet and could not have seen the actual assault which led him to make an enquiry from the conductor as to who were the assailants. 10. The learned trial Judge in paragraph 220 of his judgment then takes into consideration the circumstance as deposed by driver Jabbar Khan (PW 2) that Shivpal Singh (PW 11), the brother of the deceased was already at the police station when the bus with the dead body reached there and at that time the accused persons were also at the police station. 11. 11. So far as the evidence of recovery of the weapons of the offence on the information of the accused and the report of the Serologist confirming human blood on them as also on the bush shirt seized from accused Chhinga and Paijama from accused Rarnmi is concerned, the learned trial Judge attaches no value to that evidence stating that since the direct evidence of the alleged two eye witnesses was untrustworthy. "the subsidiary facts on which the prosecution relies cannot carry the prosecution case any further." 12. Learned Government Advocate Shri V.P. Singh attacked the judgment of acquittal saying that on minor contradictions and inconsistencies, highly reliable testimony of the two eye witnesses i.e. the conductor and driver, has wrongly been rejected by the learned trial Judge by taking recourse to strange reasonings and illogical conclusions. " 13. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Rajendra Singh for the accused persons submitted that this Court should not get influenced by the reasonings adopted by the trial Judge in passing a judgment of acquittal, but this Court should examine the evidence independently to find out whether there is any justifiable grounds to interfere with the acquittal. 14. On behalf of the accused, great emphasis has been laid on the statement of the driver Jabbar Khan (PW 12) in paragraph 7 of his cross-examination wherein he admitted that within 5 to 10 minutes after they reached the police station with the dead body in the bus, the accused persons themselves. had arrived at the police station. He also admitted that the Station House Officer had then gone along with the three accused persons and Shivpal Singh (PW 11), the maternal uncle of the deceased, and Shyam Singh (PW 3) real brother of the deceased, in a jeep to the place of incident. After returning to the police station, inquest memo was prepared. 15. On the above part of the evidence of the driver, the suggestion made on behalf of the accused is that they were innocent and the maternal uncle Shivpal Singh (PW 11) and real borther Shyam Singh (PW 3) of the deceased, because of the previous enmity, falsely implicated the accused. It is argued that had the accused persons been involved in commission of the crime, they would not have, on their own, gone to the police station soon after the incident. 16. It is argued that had the accused persons been involved in commission of the crime, they would not have, on their own, gone to the police station soon after the incident. 16. On behalf of the defence, learned counsel also referred to the circumstances previous to the incident mentioned by Shyam Singh (PW 3), real brother of the deceased, in his statement. It is submitted that the said witness admits that on the date of the incident he had gone to the police station for lodging a report as he had seen the accused persons moving with weapons in their hands and by the time he reached there the bus with the dead body of the deceased arrived. In his cross-examination he claims to have seen the accused persons armed with weapons at the Babai motor stand and thereafter he had seen them going in a jeep towards Ganera. The witness was sitting in the shop of a watch mechanic in Babai. He saw that the accused persons had returned in the jeep after about 20-25 minutes. The time when he saw the accused going with weapons from Babai towards Ganera and returning from there is stated to be between about 5-5-45 in the afternoon. On this part of the evidence the learned counsel commented that if the accused were seen at that hour in the evening, going in a jeep from Babai to Ganera, then it was not likely for them to have boarded the bus to commit murder at 5.10 p.m. In support of the above submission, the statement of conductor Ramashre (PW 8), is also commented upon by pointing out from paragraph 6 of his statement that he has given a different version as to how the three .accused persons boarded the bus. In his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. before the Magistrate (Ex.D/2) he stated that when the bus was going from Babai and turned towards Naseerabad the three accused stopped the bus and boarded it whereupon he issued tickets to them for Naseerabad. In his statement in the Court, however, the conductor states that as usual on the turning towards Naseerabad the bus halted and the accused persons got in. It is submitted that there is a material omission in the first information report as to how the three accused persons boarded the bus and from which place. In his statement in the Court, however, the conductor states that as usual on the turning towards Naseerabad the bus halted and the accused persons got in. It is submitted that there is a material omission in the first information report as to how the three accused persons boarded the bus and from which place. The conductor says that he had described to the police the place and the manner in which the accused persons boarded the bus. On the same aspect, attention is invited to the statement of Ramdulare (PW 9) who claims to be one of the passengers of the bus on the date of incident and states that the three accused persons entered the bus by climbing on it while it was in slow motion. This witness also states that on seeing the accused persons assaulting the deceased, out of freight he got down from the bus and ran away. In cross-examination he admits that there was a group rivalry between the deceased and the accused party. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the accused also very severely criticised the testimony of investigating officer Ramesh Chandra Mahor (PW 13). It is argued that when the accused persons had themselves gone to the Police Station how could they be arrested in a dramatic manner on 21.7.1985 at 12.00 in the noon as has been deposed in paragraph 14 of his statement ? It is submitted that according to PW 13, the accused persons were sitting under a Pipal tree near village Nagwada on Gunera road. On seeing the police they are alleged to have tried to escape but they were chased and arrested. The learned counsel also very strongly attacked the authenticity of the discovery and recovery of the blood stained weapons from the three accused under Exs. P/15. P/16 and P/17 on 21.7.1985 at 12.00 noon from the place described as 'near a pond' in the vicinity of graveyard of Babai. It is submitted that if the blood stained weapons were discovered and recovered from a pond at the instance of the accused on their memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, they would have contained some mud which is not to be found as per the report of the Serologist. It is submitted that if the blood stained weapons were discovered and recovered from a pond at the instance of the accused on their memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, they would have contained some mud which is not to be found as per the report of the Serologist. It is further submitted that evidence of recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused is also not reliable because soon after the incident they were seen by one of the prosecution witnesses at the police station with clothes not stained with blood. It is argued that the common witness to the discovery and seizure is Shivpal Singh (PW 11) who is maternal uncle of the deceased and who, as admitted by him, lives in village Kondarwada which is stated to be 20 k.ms. from police station Babai. It is submitted that Shivpal Singh was real maternal uncle of the deceased. He was also prosecuted for murder of Channa Babu, real brother of the accused, and was thus highly interested witness who was called from his village to be a witness to such fabricated memoranda of discovery and seizure. It is also submitted that even though the Serologist's report confirmed the presence of human blood on the weapons so discovered and presence of human blood on the weapons so discovered and clothes alleged to be belonging to the accused, as the evidence of discovery and seizure of the articles is untrustworthy of acceptance the offence is also otherwise not brought home beyond doubt against the accused. Apart from material inconsistencies in the testimony of the eye witnesses, it is contended that evidence of recovery of blood stained weapons from the accused, should also be discarded as the weapons were never shown to the doctor to obtain his opinion as to whether the injuries could have been caused by those weapons. Reliance is placed on Kartarey and others v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1976 SC 76 - Paragraph 25). 18. One other serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer is pointed out that he has not proved that the copy of F.I.R. was sent to the Judicial Magistrate as required by the provisions of Section 157 of the Cr. P.C. 19. 18. One other serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer is pointed out that he has not proved that the copy of F.I.R. was sent to the Judicial Magistrate as required by the provisions of Section 157 of the Cr. P.C. 19. Lastly, on behalf of the accused, learned counsel reminded this Court that the inferences and conclusions drawn by the trial Judge, who had opportunity to sec the demeanor of the witnesses, should not lightly be disturbed in appeal, particularly against acquittal. 20. We have carefully looked into the evidence on record particularly the statements of the two eye witnesses, the conductor and driver of the bus. The incident took place at a short distance from the bus stand Babai from where the bus had started. The accused were known to the conductor and the driver of the bus from before and this part of their version has not be doubted either in the cross-examination or in this Court. The driver in fact in the evidence box has stated that one of the accused lived near his house at the bus stand Ganera. There were only 13 passengers in the bus, When the murderous assault took place, it was broad day light. The commotion caused by the assault in the normal course must have attracted attention both of the conductor and the driver. They could see the assailants from a very close range. They were on a Corporation bus and had no enmity or grudge against the accused persons so as to falsely implicate them. The versions given by them about the manner of incident is natural and consistent. The First Information Report was promptly lodged within half an hour and the dead body was carried in the bus to the police station where in the First Information Report, the conductor named the assailants. Such consistent version of the two eye witnesses of a sterling quality surprisingly did not receive acceptance and reliance by the trial Judge. We have purposely extracted the relevant part of the reasonings and inferences of the learned trial Judge to demonstrate how illogical and absurd are the reasonings of the trial Judge. Such consistent version of the two eye witnesses of a sterling quality surprisingly did not receive acceptance and reliance by the trial Judge. We have purposely extracted the relevant part of the reasonings and inferences of the learned trial Judge to demonstrate how illogical and absurd are the reasonings of the trial Judge. When there is a murderous assault made on a passenger inside the bus leading to commotion and fright, it is most unlikely that the attention of the driver and the conductor was not attracted towards the incident and the persons who were committing the crime. The driver in his statement has clearly deposed that although he had started from the bus stand and was trying to gain speed, on hearing the commotion in the bus he had stopped the bus and stood near the bonet which is inside the bus near his driving seat. The deceased was sitting just a few seats behind him. It was, therefore, possible for him to witness the assault as also the assailants. It is not one but several injuries were caused to the deceased who was killed on the spot as a result of infliction of several injuries. The evidence of driver, therefore, could not have been disbelieved by the trial Judge by giving reasoning that he was sitting on the driving seat and in the course of driving he must have been looking only towards the road. Similarly, the version of the conductor could not have been disbelieved on a possible hypothesis that as the passengers in commotion and melee tried to rush out and run away from the place of occurrence, the assailants must not have been seen or identified. As has been noted above, in the bus there were only 13 passengers and it cannot be said that there was so much of rush in the bus that the vision of the conductor was obstructed. Even if the conductor was busy in issuing tickets, soon after the assault when cries and commotion were emitting from a seat in the bus, he must have naturally looked at the incident and could have identified the assailants. 21. The criminal jurisprudence as has developed on the basis of British model, is that the offence alleged is required to be proved "beyond all reasonable doubt". 21. The criminal jurisprudence as has developed on the basis of British model, is that the offence alleged is required to be proved "beyond all reasonable doubt". What is to be noted is that the doubt which is required to be removed is of a reasonable man and not every kind of doubt based on surmise or guess. "Reasonable doubt", therefore, does not mean a vague, speculative or whimsical doubt or uncertainty, nor a merely possible doubt of the truth of the fact to be proved. It also does not mean proof to a mathematical certainty nor proof beyond the possibility of a mistake. The requirement in criminal case of proof ''beyond reasonable doubt" to support conviction, therefore, does not mean proof beyond all possible doubts. 22. A trial Judge in assessing and appreciating the evidence of witnesses appearing before him to prove a crime, cannot overlook the common human conduct and realities of the life known to him by his experience of the society. Unfortunately, in the criminal justice delivery system, the victim has a minimum role to play and can assist the Court in reaching the truth only through the agency of the State i.e. the prosecution. The trial Judge, therefore, has to give due allowance to minor lapses and omissions of the prosecution agency. He should assess the intrinsic worth of the evidence, oral and documentary, produced before him. No full-proof and perfect system in law Courts can be evolved because of the human limitations, but the job of the Judge is to search from mass of falsity the truth hidden in the evidence before him. This difficult job, to a great extent, can be successfully accomplished by him if he looks to the substance of the evidence brought before him and is not way-laid or influenced by forensic art. It is a matter of common experience in criminal trials that a truthful witness is many times subjected to such a scathing and grueling cross-examination that he is made to look less confident and shaky. 23. In the instant case, we have exposed the absurdity of the reasonings of the trial Judge and for that purpose 'quoted relevant portions of his conclusions. On behalf of the accused in this appeal several discrepancies and omissions in the testimony of the two eye witnesses have been highlighted. 23. In the instant case, we have exposed the absurdity of the reasonings of the trial Judge and for that purpose 'quoted relevant portions of his conclusions. On behalf of the accused in this appeal several discrepancies and omissions in the testimony of the two eye witnesses have been highlighted. In our opinion, such omissions or contradictions with regard to the manner and place of boarding the bus by the three accused persons are less important part of their testimony. At the time the accused persons boarded the bus they might have been treated by the staff of the bus like any other passengers as there was nothing special or peculiar about them for the driver and conductor to specially take note of and how they got in. Whether they boarded the bus from the bus stand or at the turning towards Naseerabad, by climbing or stopping the bus, therefore, are not very vital parts of the testimony of the two witnesses. Similarly, no importance can be attached to the time factor highlighted from the testimony of Shyamsingh (PW 3), real brother of the deceased. The above-mentioned witness had seen the assailants armed with weapons going in a jeep and returning at or about the place and time of the incident. The witness cannot be tied down to the exact or approximate time which he mentioned in his version. As has been stated by this witness. if there was a party rivalry between them, and they were in search of an opportunity to kill the deceased, it was not difficult for them to have been seen going in a jeep at that hour of the time and reaching the bus stand or the turning towards Naseerabad to get into the bus. 24. On behalf of the accused in this appeal very great emphasis has been laid on the version of the driver who admits that he had seen the assailants at the police station soon after the incident when he reached there with the dead body in the bus. In our considered opinion, accepting this part of the version of the driver as true, the accused can drive no benefit from the same. This suggestion regarding their presence at the police station was also given in cross-examination of the investigating officer Ramesh Chandra Mahor (PW 13) and he denied their presence. In our considered opinion, accepting this part of the version of the driver as true, the accused can drive no benefit from the same. This suggestion regarding their presence at the police station was also given in cross-examination of the investigating officer Ramesh Chandra Mahor (PW 13) and he denied their presence. It was also suggested to him that the accused had gone to the police station only to ascertain as to who was the person killed in the bus. If the accused had really out of curiosity gone to the police station soon after the incident and. as has been deposed by the driver, gone to the place of incident with the police party and returned from there to the police station, it was most unnatural for them to have left the police station without waiting for registration of the offence and allowed the driver and conductor to name them in the F.I. R. It has been admitted that the accused and the deceased party were sworn enemies. Their visit to the police station soon after the incident and their conspicuous disappearance from there do not in any manner indicate their innocence or false implication. 25. It is argued on behalf of the accused that after committing the crime they could not have gone to the police station with their clothes fully smeared with blood. The argument is hypothical. The place of incident is out-skirts of Babai village. The distance between the place of incident, the police station and the bus stand was not much. It was possible for the accused to commit the crime and conceal their weapons and clothes in a nearby graveyard and reach the police station few minutes after the bus reached the police station with the dead body. Both the places were in close proximity of Babai bus stand. The alleged presence of the assailants at the Police Station, therefore, in no manner discredits the testimony of the eye witnesses that they saw the assailants in course of commission of the offence and identified them. 26. The evidence of discovery and recovery of blood stained weapons and clothes cannot also be completely discarded only because witnesses to the seizure is Shivpal Singh, maternal uncle of the deceased. The witness to the seizure might have been a resident of village which is 20 k.ms. 26. The evidence of discovery and recovery of blood stained weapons and clothes cannot also be completely discarded only because witnesses to the seizure is Shivpal Singh, maternal uncle of the deceased. The witness to the seizure might have been a resident of village which is 20 k.ms. away from the police station, but it cannot be said that he was specially called from that distance to be a witness to the discovery and seizure. As a relation and a person concerned with the incident, it, was not unlikely that he was readily available in the course of investigation by investigating officer. The most important circumstance is that the weapons recovered as also the clothes contained human blood as confirmed by the report of the chemical analyst. It is most unlikely ,that the police fabricated evidence of discovery of weapons and smeared the recovered articles with human blood to obtain a positive report from chemical analyst. 27. As a matter of fact, from careful assessment of the evidence made by us, we find that a very natural, cogent and consistent version of the incident has been given by the eye witness which is so highly reliable that the conviction could have been based an it independently of any other supporting evidence of discovery and seizure of weapons and blood stained clothes. 28. It may also be mentioned that non-sending of copy of F.I.R. to the Magistrate under Section 157 Cr. P.C. is also not such a vital infirmity as to discredit the whole prosecution evidence. In fact, we find that the investigating officer in his statement before the Court claims to have sent such report to the Magistrate after recording F.I.R. He only states in paragraph 16 of his crass-examination that in the absence .of availability of the diary of that date he was unable to state as to when and at what time he sent the copy of F.I.R. to the Magistrate. On this evidence, it cannot be held that there was non-compliance .of the provisions of Section 157 of the Cr. P.C. 29. We are mindful of our limitations in reversing a judgment of acquittal. From the discussions of the evidence made by us above and the perversity in the reasoning of the trial Judge extracted above, we consider ourselves fully justified in upsetting the verdict .of acquittal into conviction. P.C. 29. We are mindful of our limitations in reversing a judgment of acquittal. From the discussions of the evidence made by us above and the perversity in the reasoning of the trial Judge extracted above, we consider ourselves fully justified in upsetting the verdict .of acquittal into conviction. We are, however, guided in exercising our powers in appeal against acquittal by the observations .of the Supreme Court in the case .of State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh [ (1998) 3 SCC 561 ) and State of U.P. v. Krishnagopal [ (1988) 4 SCC 302 ] and particularly the fallowing observations in Nahar Singh's case, based an the Privy Council decision in Shivswaroop v. King Emperor (AIR 1934 PC 227): "The plenitude of the power of the appellate Court to review and reappreciate the evidence cannot be limited under the supposed rule that unless there are 'substantial' .or 'compelling reasons or very substantial reasons' .or 'strong reasons', the findings in a Judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with. There is thus no immunity to an erroneous order from a strict appellate scrutiny. But the appellate Court whenever it finds justification to reverse an acquittal must record reasons why it finds the lower Court wrong." Before parting with this appeal, we cannot resist from observing that the perverse reasoning and conclusions given by the trial Judge in appreciating the evidence in the instant case cannot be supported. Such unrealistic approach in appreciating evidence in a criminal case shakes the confidence of the society in the legal system itself and our interference, there fare is urgently called far 30. Consequent to the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeal and the revision preferred by the State and the complainant respectively. The judgment dated 26.7.1986 of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge is hereby set aside and the accused are convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. far committing murder of Sardar Singh and are each sentenced to imprisonment far life. We are told that accused Chhinga (respondent Na. 2) died during pendency of this appeal. The bail bands of the other two accused-respondents Rammi alias Rameshwar and Bhura alias Sajjan Singh are forfeited and they are directed to be arrested and put in prison far undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment imposed an them by this Judgment.