Chandra Reddy, J.- On 23rd March, 1956, one Pedda Ranga Reddy of Chitrachedu Village was murdered in his own house. Alleging that it was the eight appellants and nine others who committed the offence, the Police of Teliki charge-sheeted them all for various offences. The Sessions Judge of Anantapur who tried them found only accused 1 to 8 guilty of some offence and acquitted the rest. Accused 1 to 8, the appellants before us, were convicted under section 148 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. In addition A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to death under section 302 while the rest were found guilty under section 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, and given life imprisonment. The 3rd and 4th accused were also convicted under section 19 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. The facts of the case for the prosecution may be briefly stated: The village of Chitrachedu was torn by factions one headed by the deceased and his son P.W. 1 while A-1 to A-8 were the prominent members of the other faction. In June, 1955, one Papireddy alias Papodu was murdered. In connection with that case P.W. 1 and his paternal uncle China Rangareddy were put up for trial before the Sessions Judge of Anantapur. That case ended in acquittal. As a measure of retaliation, the murder in question was committed by the present accused. On the fateful night, the deceased and his son P.W. 1 were served food by their cook P.W. 2 in the kitchen. After meal they walked into the hall adjoining the kitchen. The deceased was chewing betel leaves standing in front of an iron safe while his son P.W. 1 was getting up the stairs. P.W. 2 was standing at the door-way of the kitchen. A petromax light was burning in the hall. At that juncture, A-1 to A-8 armed with deadly weapons rushed into the hall. A-2 shouted “What do you see still? Attack.” Immediately the 1st accused beat the deceased on the face with a sickle and A-2 struck him on the head, whereupon the deceased fell down and all the assailants surrounded the fallen man and began to beat him indiscriminately. After a while, the assailants looked at P.W. 1 who was standing on the stair-case. Attack.” Immediately the 1st accused beat the deceased on the face with a sickle and A-2 struck him on the head, whereupon the deceased fell down and all the assailants surrounded the fallen man and began to beat him indiscriminately. After a while, the assailants looked at P.W. 1 who was standing on the stair-case. The latter became frightened, ran upstairs, went into a room and bolted the door. Then he peeped into the hall through the sky-light and saw what was happening below. He found A-3 and A-4 standing with revolvers, and others attacking his father. He also heard revolver shots and pelting of stones outside. After having accomplished their task, the assailants left the place. While going out, the second accused hurled the light at the deceased saying “You fellow! Die”, and the light got broken. The inmates of the house were so terror-stricken that they did not stir out of the house. P.W. 15 the Village Munsif of the place living 30 yards away from the scene of occurrence heard sounds of gun-shot from the direction of the deceased’s house. So, he got frightened and bolted himself inside. After two hours, he sent for the ‘talayari’ and accompanied by the latter he went to the house of the deceased. P.W. 1 opened the door. The Village Munsif saw the deceased lying dead with stab injuries all over the body and broken pieces of light. He recorded the statement of P.W. 1 in which accused 1 to 8 were named as the assailants. That statement is marked as Exhibit P-1 which is in these words: "This night at about 8-00 p.m., my father, myself, Chinnappa and Boya Sanjappa took meals. When I ascended half of the stair-case there was a cry "What do you see still? Attack". I turned back and saw (1) Jayarama Reddy armed with a hand srickle, (2) Bayanna with hand sickle, (3) Musala, Reddy with a revolver 4 (Sic), (5) Gaddam Adinarayana Reddy with a dagger, (6) Ankala Reddy Garu Aswartha Reddy with a spear, (7) Chinna Hussain’s son Giriappa with a spear and (8) Geriredcigaru Ramreddy with a spear. They all entered our house. My father L. Pedda Ranga Reddy was standing at the almyrah. All these persons came and stabbed and cut and killed" him. When they all set upon me I put the bolt on the upstairs. They all entered our house. My father L. Pedda Ranga Reddy was standing at the almyrah. All these persons came and stabbed and cut and killed" him. When they all set upon me I put the bolt on the upstairs. There were shouts alround the house and shots of guns and revolvers were heard. I have read. It is correct." The Village Munsif sent the reports at about midnight to the Police Station at Teliki and the Stationary Sub-Magistrate at Gooty. The report to the police reached the station which is 8 miles from the village at about 3-00 a.m. on the 24th, while the Magistrate received it at about 1-00 p.m. The Sub-Inspector-in-Charge of the station registered the case and proceeded to the village, got there at 6-30 a.m., seized various articles and started investigation. He held the inquest between 8-00 a.m. over the body, examined P.Ws. 1, 2 and Sanjappa and recorded their statements. Afterwards he recorded some more statements. He left for Rampuram and Kandlagudur to which some of the accused belong, to continue his investigation. Meanwhile, the Inspector of Police arrived at the village at about 3-30 p.m., and took over the investigation. He examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and some others. The Sub-Inspector, P.W. 17, came there at about 9-00 p.m. After the completion of the investigation, the final charge-sheet was laid on the 25th of May, 1956. The prosecution case rests mainly on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. P.W. 1. deposed that after eating his food in the kitchen he and his father adjourned into the hall. While his father was taking the betel leaves and the nuts that were placed on an iron safe in the hall he was going up the stairs. A petromax light was burning in the hall. Hardly had he gone half the way when he heard sounds of "Gaba Gaba" as if some some people were rushing into the house from outside. He turned back to see A-1 to A-8 in the hall. A-1 and A-2 armed with sickles, A-3 and A-4 with revolvers, A-5 a dagger and A-6 to A-8 with spears. They all entered the hall. A-2 shouted "What do you see? Attack". Taking this as a signal, A-1 cut the deceased with his sickle on his forehead. A-2 hit him with the sickle on his head. The deceased fell down on the ground. They all entered the hall. A-2 shouted "What do you see? Attack". Taking this as a signal, A-1 cut the deceased with his sickle on his forehead. A-2 hit him with the sickle on his head. The deceased fell down on the ground. Then A-7 looked at him and placed his foot in the direction of the witness and other culprits also started at him. So, he went upstairs and bolted the door of the staircase. From that room, he heard sounds of the revolver shots. He then looked into the hall from the sky-light and saw A-3 and A-4 standing with revolvers in their hands and A-1, A-2, A-5 to A-8 striking the deceased with their weapons. He heard sounds of revolver shots and pelting of stones from outside. After the deceased was killed A-2 threw the petromax light by the side of the deceased shouting "You fellow! Die". This witness is sought to be corroborated by P.Ws. 2 and 3. P.W. 2 said that after giving food to his masters P.W. 1 the deceased and one Sanjappa the farm-servant were standing at the doorway of the kitchen. The deceased was standing near the iron almyrah and taking betel leaves from the basket. P.W. 1 was ascending the steps to go upstairs. He then heard a noise coming from the front side of the house, and saw seven or eight persons entering the house of whom he could identify A-1 to A-4 and A-7. A-1 and A-2 were armed with sickles, A-3 and A-4 with revolvers and A-7 with a spear. On the instigation of the 2nd accused, the 1st accused cut the deceased with a sickle on the forehead and the 2nd accused struck him with his sickle on the head. The deceased then fell on the ground. At once, A-3 and A-4 fired a shot at the witness with his revolver. He hid himself behind the pots in the kitchen. Two more shots were fired into the kitchen. He also heard the sounds of firing of guns and stone-pelting from outside the house. The accused left the house after a little while. Then P.W. 1 asked Sanjappa from the sky light whether the assailants had left the place and the door was bolted. It is only on the assurance given by Sanjappa that they had left the place that P.W. 1 came down. The accused left the house after a little while. Then P.W. 1 asked Sanjappa from the sky light whether the assailants had left the place and the door was bolted. It is only on the assurance given by Sanjappa that they had left the place that P.W. 1 came down. After sometime, the Village Munsif came on the scene and took down the statement of P.W. 1 and he was present then. The story given by P.Ws. 1 and 2 was confirmed by P.W. 3 the mother-in-law of Chinna Rangareddy, the elder brother of the deceased. According to her, she could see as to what was happening in the hall through the crevices of the bamboo “thattis” that separated the portion in which she was living with her daughter and son-in-law from that occupied by the deceased and his family. The plea of the accused was one of denial. They also added that P.W. 1 had induced P.Ws. 2 and 3 to give false evidence. The Sessions Judge had accepted the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and convicted the appellants of the offences mentioned above. The question for consideration in these appeals is whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that all or any of these appellants had participated in the crime that was committed on the night of 23rd March. This in its turn, depends upon whether the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 could be safely acted upon. At the outset it should be remembered that the motive for this crime was the desire of the accused to wreak vengeance on the assassins of Papireddy alias Papodu. It should also be borne in mind that it was P.W. 1 and Chinna Rangareddy that were suspected to have murdered Papodu. So, the principal target of attack would be P.W. 1 and China Rangareddy. After the near relations of Papodu had entered the hall, P.W. 1 was getting up the stairs and was seen by the culprits when they came to the scene of occurrence. In such a situation, is it probable that if the assailants were A-1 to A-8 they would have left P.W. 1 uninjured or at any rate would they not have attempted to cause him some injury especially when it is the prosecution case that A-3 and A-4 were armed with revolvers? In such a situation, is it probable that if the assailants were A-1 to A-8 they would have left P.W. 1 uninjured or at any rate would they not have attempted to cause him some injury especially when it is the prosecution case that A-3 and A-4 were armed with revolvers? The learned Sessions Judge sought to get over this difficulty by observing that they first saw the deceased when they came into the hall. That might be so, but even according to P.W. 1 the assailants saw him standing on the stairs and they merely started at him. Surely even at that stage, it would not have been difficult for the delinquents to attempt to shoot at this witness. Another infirmity in the evidence of this witness is this. A cording to him he was standing on the steps leading to the upstairs and witnessing the occurrence till the 7th accused looked at him and advanced towards him and the other accused also did the same. It is only thereafter he ran into the upstairs and shut himself in. It is in evidence that there are several houses of the partisans of P.W. 1 in the neighbourhood. If so, the natural conduct of the son would be to go to the terrace and shout calling for help. The Sessions Judge thought that P.W. 1 would not do it because he became frightened having regard to the sudden and unexpected attack and therefore shut himself in the room. If it was the instinct of self-preservation that prompted this witness to do it, we are unable to understand how he could stand on the steps witnessing the whole occurrence. If he was a timid man, he would have rushed upstairs and bolted himself in. It has also to be observed that this witness is anxious to ascribe as important a role as possible to A-1 and A-2 the brother and the son of the murdered Papodu respectively and for this reason he improves upon his earliest version as contained in the F.I.R. Exhibit P-1. While in that document it was stated he heard a cry “What do you see? Attack”, in evidence he attributes that cry to the 2nd accused. He also developed the case in the witness box by saying that the first and second accused cut the deceased on the forehead and the head respectively. While in that document it was stated he heard a cry “What do you see? Attack”, in evidence he attributes that cry to the 2nd accused. He also developed the case in the witness box by saying that the first and second accused cut the deceased on the forehead and the head respectively. This reveals an anxiety on the part of the witness to aggravate the offence committed by the two important members of the opposite faction. Comment is also made in regard to the delay in giving the complaint. The offence is said to have been committed at 8-00 p.m. The complaint is said to have been given at 10 p.m. and the reports despatched at 12-00 midnight. This delay is sought to be explained away by the fear-complex. If it was the fear that was responsible for the Village Munsif coming (Sic.) to the scene, how could be recover it within two hours? Further, it is not as if the members of the deceased’s family were helpless. They had as powerful a faction to support them as the accused, and at least immediately after the assailants left the scene they could have called in their partisans. It is not unlikely that Exhibit P-1 was drafted just before the report to the police and the Magistrate was despatched. The village servant was with the Village Munsif and the reports would have been entrusted to him as soon as they were prepared. In these circumstances, the suggestion of the defence that P.W. 1 was not an eyewitness to the occurrence and that the interval between the commission of the offence and the despatch of the reports was utilised for consultation amongst the members of the faction as to the names of persons who had to be implicated is not without force. Admittedly ail the 8 accused who are said to have actually participated in the crime are either the leaders or prominent members of their faction. We, therefore, find, it quite unsafe to act on the testimony of P.W. 1. The evidence of P.W. 2, is not of a better type. Apart from the non-mention of his name in the F.I.R. which by itself may not be fatal to the prosecution case, there are several infirmities attached to his testimony. We, therefore, find, it quite unsafe to act on the testimony of P.W. 1. The evidence of P.W. 2, is not of a better type. Apart from the non-mention of his name in the F.I.R. which by itself may not be fatal to the prosecution case, there are several infirmities attached to his testimony. This witness deposed that after the deceased P.W. 1 and Sanjappa had their food he came in to the hall and was standing at the entrance of the kitchen. It is inexplicable as to why he was there instead of taking his meal in the kitchen. Admittedly, he could not have seen what was going on in the hall if he was in the kitchen. It is perhaps for that reason he deposed that he was standing in front of the doorway of the kitchen. The witness stated that he was present throughout the time the Village Munsif was there and was recording his statement, and yet he had not told either the Village Munsif or P.W. 1 that he had witnessed the attack on the deceased. If really he had seen the attack, he would not have remained silent. He tells us that he told P.W. 1 of his also having ben an eyewitness only after the Village Munsif had left. It is not a story that would commend itself to any one. There is another circumstance which throws considerable doubt on the credibility of P.W. 2. A-1 to A-4 belong to a different village and admittedly they had never visited the house of the deceased. Nor had this cook ever gone to their house. In order to get over this difficulty he pretended that off and on he was attending to cultivation work. Even he did not succeed in carrying conviction because he had to admit that the fields of A-3 and A-4 were not near those of the deceased. We do not think that there would have been necessity for him to go to the fields because the deceased is stated to be a very wealthy man having a number of farm-servants. Again, the assailants, whoever they might be, would not have allowed this witness to stand in the kitchen and witness the whole occurrence and then only think of shooting at him. Another ludicrous part of his deposition is this. Again, the assailants, whoever they might be, would not have allowed this witness to stand in the kitchen and witness the whole occurrence and then only think of shooting at him. Another ludicrous part of his deposition is this. The assailants shot at him and the bullets missed him because he hid himself behind the pots. Yet, they did not make another attempt to fire their guns at him. Instead, they merely discharged the bullets into the kitchen. We do not find even a single pot being damaged. It looks to us that this witness is a suborned one and would not have witnessed the occurrence. He came into the witnesse-box only to oblige P.W. 1. P.W. 3 had not fared better. We may also point cut here that the learned Public Prosecutor has not placed much reliance on the evidence of this witness and rightly in our opinion. This witness was not examined by the Sub-Inspector of Police; at the inquest. It is only the Circle Inspector of Police who arrived on the scene several hours later that examined her. Further, we do not think it would have been possible for this woman to have seen as to what was taking place in the hall through the chinks of the “thatties”. The purpose of having a partition wall or “thatties” is to have privacy which will be frustrated if the thatties contain big holes. There could not have been big crevices in the thatties so large as to enable the witness who was 57 years old to witness as to what was occurring on the other side of the house. It is significant that in Exhibit P-17 the Sub-Inspector had stated that the scene of occurrence was visible through the space between the thatties and the wall. If the chinks in the thatties were such as to permit a clear view of things in the hall it was unnecessary for the Inspector to write so in that document. There is another important consideration which, in our opinion, renders the evidence of P.W. 3 unacceptable. Although it is stated that she went into the hall immediately after the assassins left the place and was there with P.Ws. 1 she had not mentioned either to P.W. 1 or anyone else there that she had also seen the deceased being attacked by A-1 to A-8. Although it is stated that she went into the hall immediately after the assassins left the place and was there with P.Ws. 1 she had not mentioned either to P.W. 1 or anyone else there that she had also seen the deceased being attacked by A-1 to A-8. If really she was direct witness to the occurrence, she would certainly have informed P.W. 1 or someone else of it. The further fact that she was examined only the next day has also some bearing. We now come to another aspect of the case, viz., the manner in which the investigation was carried on by P.W. 17. This police officer deposed that he examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Sanjappa at the inquest and reduced their statements in writing. It is complained that he had suppressed the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and then copied the case-diary of the Inspector-in-charge and it was the copy of this diary that was supplied to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge slurred over this matter by observing that it might be that the Sub-Inspector copied the case-diary of the Inspector-in-charge so far as this witness was concerned, but no prejudice had really been occasioned to the accused for the reason that he had not reduced to writing the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2. We cannot agree with the trial Court. There is no scope for the statement that the, Sub-Inspector had not recorded the earlier statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in view of what the witness had said: "I wrote down in the case-diary what the witness stated at the inquest. I wrote it as and when they stated at the inquest. I wrote it in English. The copies supplied to the accused are those of the statements I recorded at the inquest." The witness has testified to his having reduced to writing the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in unmistakable terms. It is also clear as found by the Sessions Judge that the copies of statements supplied to the accused were those which he copied from the the Inspector’s case-diary. This has not been questioned even by the Public Prosecutor. There could be no doubt that he did so. There is a reference to A-10 in the statement although admittedly at the time he recorded their statements only A-1. to A-8 were said to have participated in the crime. This has not been questioned even by the Public Prosecutor. There could be no doubt that he did so. There is a reference to A-10 in the statement although admittedly at the time he recorded their statements only A-1. to A-8 were said to have participated in the crime. There was no possibility of Kattubadi Girappa being referred to as A-10 in the statements recorded by P.W. 17 as at that time only eight persons were implicated in the crime. This Sub-Inspector also could not have written the statements now attributed to him having regard to his knowledge of English. For instance when he was asked to say what is the meaning of the word ‘simultaneously’ he said ‘one after another’. These various considerations lead us to the conclusion that he suppressed the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2. There can be little doubt in this case that this has resulted in great prejudice to the accused. The accused were deprived of effective means of testing the truth of the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 with reference to their earlier statements. It is a valuable right which the Legislature has chosen to confer on the accused by enacting section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. If the earlier statements of the witnesses are not made available to the accused, they lose the opportunity of cross-examining the two witnesses in the light of what was stated at the earliest opportunity. It is urged by the learned Public Prosecutor on the basis of W. Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, that a breach of the provisions of section 162 does not necessarily involve prejudice to the accused and that prejudice cannot be assumed even in cases of denial of copies of statements under section 162 or destruction thereof and it should be established that as a matter of fact prejudice has been caused by it. We cannot accept the proposition so stated. W. Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 has not belittled the consequences of the refusal of copies of those statements to the accused or destruction of them. The subject of inquiry there was the effect of the omission to an alternative charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code, i.e., whether such an omission is an illegality that cuts at the root of conviction or culpable irregularity. The subject of inquiry there was the effect of the omission to an alternative charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code, i.e., whether such an omission is an illegality that cuts at the root of conviction or culpable irregularity. In dealing with that question Justice Bose made the following remarks on which reliance was placed by the Public Prosecutor: "Except where there is something so vital as to cut at the root of jurisdiction or so abhorrent to what one might term natural justice, the matter resolves itself to a question of prejudice. Some violations of the Code will be so obvious that they will speak for themselves, as for example, a refusal to allow him to defend himself, a refusal to explain the nature of the charge to him and so forth. These go to the foundations of natural justice and would be struck down as illegal forthwith. It hardly matters whether this is because prejudice is then patent or because it is so abhorrent to well-established notions of natural justice that a trial of that kind is only a mockery of a trial and not of the kind envisaged by the laws of our land, because either way they would be struck down at once. Other violations will not be so obvious and it may be possible to show that having regard to all that occurred no prejudice was occasioned or that there was no reasonable probability of prejudice. In still another class of case, the matter may be so near the border line that very slight evidence of a reasonable possibility of prejudice would swing the balance in favour of the accused. This passage has not the effect attributed to it. On the other hand, Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J., who spoke for himself and Jagannadha Das, J., with whom Bose, J., agreed has observed referring to Pulakurthi Kotiah’s case1 the defect was recognised to be a matter of gravity and if the statements had been completely destroyed or if there had been a total refusal to supply copies to the accused, the convictions were liable to be quashed. Thus even here the importance of the granting of copies of the record made under section 162 and the preservation thereof has been stressed. In the context of this inquiry Baladin v. State of U. P.2 is relevant. Thus even here the importance of the granting of copies of the record made under section 162 and the preservation thereof has been stressed. In the context of this inquiry Baladin v. State of U. P.2 is relevant. This is what is stated by Sinha, J., who delivered the opinion of the Court: "Hence the record made by a police investigating officer has to be considered by the Court only with a view to weighing the evidence actually adduced in Court. If the police record becomes suspect or unreliable, as in the present case, on the ground that it was deliberately perfunctory, or dishonest, it loses much of its value and the Court in judging the case of a particular accused has to weigh the evidence given against him in Court keeping in view the fact that the earlier statements of witnesses as recorded by the police is tainted record and has not as great a value as it otherwise would have in weighing all the material on the record as against each individual accused. This principle enunciated in the passage does not in any way conflict with the rule embodied in Kotiah’s case1namely, that where statements are not made available an inference which is almost irresistible arises of prejudice to the accused. His Lordship has pointed out earlier in the judgment that such statements are very valuable material for testing the veracity of the witnesses examined in Court. The circumstances in which the observations extracted above have been made should be membered. It was found that the officers concerned did not carry on the investigation honestly with a view to help the accused and the Sub-Inspector had not faithfully recorded the statements of the witnesses and purposely distorted their versions. There is no indication in the report that their Lordships meant to strike a different note from Pulakurthi Kotiah’s case1 the doctrine of which has been accepted by the Supreme Court also. In Purushotham v. State of Kutch3 it is laid down that the wholesale refusal to grant copies of statements made during investigation is a serious irregularity which would vitiate the entire trial as held by the Privy Council in Kotayya v. Emperor1. Thus a deliberate destruction of statements of witnesses made during investigation or wholesale refusal to furnish copies of such statements leads to the inference that prejudice was occasioned to the accused. Thus a deliberate destruction of statements of witnesses made during investigation or wholesale refusal to furnish copies of such statements leads to the inference that prejudice was occasioned to the accused. Even otherwise "a slight evidence of a reasonable possibility of prejudice would swing the balance in favour of the accused" in the words of Bose, J., in Slaney’s case4. According to the accused P.Ws. 1 and 2 among others are false witnesses. P.W. 1 is a factionist and P.W. 2, his servant and they would be anxious to rope in as many of their enemies as possible and to ascribe a leading role to the prominent members of the opposite faction. It is therefore of utmost importance to know their earliest versions especially when the First Information Report is silent about P.W. 2. It would have offered the accused with very valuable material to cross-examine those witnesses. Why were these documents suppressed ? The obvious answer is that they were not favourable to the prosecution. In circumstances like this, it is open to a Court to presume that the statements withheld would be unfavourable to prosecution if produced. At any rate, much value does not attach to the testimony of these witnesses in such a situation. It is regrettable that in spite of repeated warnings against such practices and emphasising the need to carry on investigation honestly some of the investigating officers should still persist in such dubious methods. It is high time these officers realise that by destroying the recorded statements they are interfering with a fair trial. Such destruction is utterly repugnant to the principle underlying section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, and is incompatible with the claims of justice. In this connection, we will do well to refer to the remarks of the Nagpur High Court in Balaram’s case1, that the statements recorded by them either in the diary or separately in the course of investigation are not their property out constitute an important official record relating to an affair of State, (see Baij Nath Bhatnagar v. Mohammad Din2) which is intended by law to be preserved for purposes of judiciatrial. More often than not this strategy enables even guilty persons to escape. There is another factor which cannot be overlooked, namely, the presence of a hat at the scene of occurrence. More often than not this strategy enables even guilty persons to escape. There is another factor which cannot be overlooked, namely, the presence of a hat at the scene of occurrence. This seems to lend colour to the suggestion that the culprits disguised themselves so as to make their identity unknown to the inmates of the house and therefore the story of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that they could identify the assailants could not be accepted. Be that as it may, the infirmities pointed out in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses render it very unsafe for us to base a conviction thereon. We have, therefore, to hold that the appellants have not been established to be the persons that participated in the crime. Their appeals are allowed and they are directed to be set at liberty. A.S.R. ----- Appeals allowed. Convictions set aside,