Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. There are altogether Six appellants in these four appeals arising from a common judgment and order, dated 4/6.12.2000 passed by the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1997. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court convicted all the appellants under Section 302 and then also under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code. For the two convictions the Court below sentenced the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for life and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. It directed that on realisation of fine half the amount should be paid to the father of Vijay Kumar Singh, one of the two victims in the occurrence. The Court below, however, over looked to direct as to what would be the consequence of default in payment of fine. Karu Singh, the sole appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 599 of 2000 and Harishchandra Singh, the sole appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 600 of 2000 were additionally convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on that score. The two sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The two convictions for committing murder, both independently and with the aid of Section 34, appears to be somewhat incongruous. In this regard it may be noted that only Karu Singh and Harishchandra Singh were charged under Section 302 as also under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code. The charge against the rest of the appellants was only under Sections 302/34. Hence, neither the charge nor the materials on record justified their conviction, under Section 302 independently of Section 34 of the Penal Code. It may further be noted that all the appellants were also charged under Section 341 of the Penal Code but the trial Court over-looked to consider the charge and to pass any judgment in that regard. It is hoped and expected that in future the Court below will pay more attention to these matters of legal detail. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a FIR (Ext. 4) lodged at Barahiya Police Station on 3.6.1992 at 2.05 p.m. The FIR was drawn up by incorporating a written report which at. its bottom bears the signature of Ramdeo Singh @ Lakhan Singh, PW 7 (father of Vijay Singh, one of the two deceased in the occurrence). The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a FIR (Ext. 4) lodged at Barahiya Police Station on 3.6.1992 at 2.05 p.m. The FIR was drawn up by incorporating a written report which at. its bottom bears the signature of Ramdeo Singh @ Lakhan Singh, PW 7 (father of Vijay Singh, one of the two deceased in the occurrence). In course of his deposition before the trial Court, PW 7 identified his signature on the written report which was then marked as Ext. 2/3. On the formal FIR, Rajendra Pd. Singh, Inspector of Police made an endorsement to the effect that the written report submitted by the informant was the main basis and was enclosed with the original FIR. The endorsement on being identified by him before the trial Court was marked as Ext. 4. In column 3 of the FIR relating to the date of despatch from the Police Station, no date is mentioned but it is simply stated that (it was despatched) through special messenger. It, however, appears that the FIR was seen by the S.D.J.M. Lakbisarai on 5.6.1992. The delay in the FIR reaching the Court has been one of the main grounds for assailing the prosecution case but that aspect, of the matter shall be examined at its proper place later on in this judgment. 4. In the written statement submitted to the Officer Incharge, Barahiya P.S. the informant Ramdeo Singh @ Lakhan Singh, resident of village Khuthadih stated that on 3.6.1992 (Wednesday) he had gone to Barahiya in connection with the monthly meeting of Dalpaties. His son Vijya Kumar Singh who was an employee of Khutha Post Office as E.D.M.C. (presumably the abbreviated form of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier) came to Barahiya carrying the mail from Khutha. At about 11 he was returning with the mail from Barahiya. The informant told him to proceed ahead on cycle and that he would go after taking tea. Vijay Kumar Singh proceeded on cycle and he went behind him on foot. On the way, about 100 yards towards east from Sablaghat he saw 10-12 persons standing, armed with rifles, gun and pistols. The cycle and the mail bag of Vijay Kumar Singh was thrown away on the bank of the Ganges and they were surrounding Vijay. The informant asked why had they caught him. On the way, about 100 yards towards east from Sablaghat he saw 10-12 persons standing, armed with rifles, gun and pistols. The cycle and the mail bag of Vijay Kumar Singh was thrown away on the bank of the Ganges and they were surrounding Vijay. The informant asked why had they caught him. In the meanwhile, Ramashrey Singh (victim No. 2) of village Khutha also came there from the direction of his village. He too was caught. Rajo Singh (acquitted by the trial Court) gave the order to shoot down both of them and to bury their bodies after putting them in gunny bags. Ramashrey Singh said that he was going to Barahiya for purchasing a handpump. Then all the accused took the two victims towards the orchard in the south, assaulting them with the rifle and gun-butts and fists and slaps, the informant and 4-5 other persons also followed them. There Darin Singh and Balmukund Singh, sons of Rajo Singh caught hold of Vijay Kumar Singh and tied him to one of the bamboos in the bamboo clump. Appellants Manik Singh and Sahdeo Singh, son of Sarvjeet Singh similarly caught hold of Ramashrey Singh and tied with a gamcha to one of the bamboos in the bamboo clump. Sri Singh took out Rs. 3500/- from the kurta lying on the shoulder of Ramashrey and also took away the HMT watch from his wrist. Karu Singh, son of Sri Singh fired a shot hitting Vijay Kumar slightly below the chest and Sri Singh fired another shot hitting Vijay Kumar in the abdomen. The appellant Harishchandra Singh, son of Rajo Singh fired a shot hitting Ramashrey Singh in the abdomen. Shankar Singh, acquitted by the trial Court hit Ramashrey Singh with the butt of the gun on his right hand and arm and on his back. The occurrence was witnessed by a number of persons going to and coming from Khutha. The informant further stated that he protested to the residents of Jaitpur village against such high-handedness and begged for the life of his son but he was asked to keep quite otherwise he too would be killed. Notwithstanding the threat, Arjun Singh, PW 1, Ramudit Singh, PW 4 and some others followed the assailants and begged before them to spare the two victims but the assailants did not listen to their entireties and killed the victims before their eyes. Notwithstanding the threat, Arjun Singh, PW 1, Ramudit Singh, PW 4 and some others followed the assailants and begged before them to spare the two victims but the assailants did not listen to their entireties and killed the victims before their eyes. The occurrence was witnessed by a number of persons; some were, at a distance while the others had hid themselves in the orchard. They too may be able to give their statements before the Police in due time. The written report concluded by making a request to the police for taking suitable action in regard to the carnage. 5. From the FIR it appears that it was a cold blooded murder of two persons of village Khutha committed in the open in broad day light. More than one prosecution witnesses have stated that there was no personal animus between the accused and the two victims but it appears that the occurrence was the result of village rivalry. The victims as stated in the FIR were residents of village Khutha whereas the appellants are from Jaitpur. From the suggestion given by the defence to PW 4 (though it was denied by him) it appears that prior to the occurrence there was a case of looting of Parwal crop between the people of Jaitpur and Khutha and further that one Chimokan Singh of Khutha had up-rooted the Parwal creepers of the accused and the occurrence took place in revenge or to settle the score with the residents of Khutha. The two victims were picked out not because of any personal animus but simply because they were the residents of Khutha. 6. On investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused, including the six appellants and Shankar Singh and Rajo Singh. Another accused named in the FIR. Sri Singh was shown as absconder. There were, thus, eight accused before the trial Court, including the six appellants and Shankar Singh and Rajo Singh but by the impugned judgment, Shankar Singh and Rajo Singh were acquitted of the charges and the six appellants were convicted and sentenced as noted above. 7. The prosecution in support, of its case examined ten witnesses. PW 2 is a witness to the inquest report and PW 10 proved the written report submitted by the informant Ramdeo Singh which was not in his writing. PW 6 was the Post Master of Barahiya Post Office at the material time. 7. The prosecution in support, of its case examined ten witnesses. PW 2 is a witness to the inquest report and PW 10 proved the written report submitted by the informant Ramdeo Singh which was not in his writing. PW 6 was the Post Master of Barahiya Post Office at the material time. PW 9 is the I.O. PWs 1,3,4 and 7 are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PWs 5 and 8 are the two doctors who held post-mortem over the bodies of Ramashrey Singh and Vijay Kumar Singh respectively. 8. The defence also examined one witness but that was only on the question of sentence. 9. PW 5 Dr. Ravindra Kumar held post-mortem over the body of Ramashrey Singh. From his disposition and from the post-mortem report (Ext. 3), it appears that Ramashrey Singh had the following ante- mortem injuries on his person : "(a) A lacerated circular wound of entry of 1/2" diameter and abdominal cavity deep margin inverted and black on left side of back 3" lateral to second lumber vertebra. (b) Wound of exitA lacerated oval wound 1" x 1/2" x abdominal cavity deep. Margin everted momentum (sic) protruding through wound side 3" lateral to umbilicus on right side of abdomen. (c) Abrasion on left side on the back of shoulder 2-1/2" x 1/2". (d) Abrasion on left wrist on back of size 1-1/2" x 1/2". On dissection stomach severely lacerated liver lacerated blood and clots present in abdominal cavity." 10. The doctor opined that death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injury caused by fire-arm, may be by pistol, and the time elapsed between death and post-mortem was within 24 hours. 11. PW 8 Dr. Jaideep Singh held post-mortem over the body of Vijay Kumar Singh. From his deposition and the postmortem report of Vijay Kumar Singh, it appears that he had the following anti-mortem injuries : "(i) Wound of entry : Lacerated circular wound 1/2" in diameter x chest cavity deep on the right side of the chest 3" below was lateral to right nipple at level of 8th intercostal space with margin inverted. (ii) Wound of exist-Lacerated oval wound 1" x 1/2" x chest cavity deep on left posterior auxilliary line at level of 10th intercostal space margin everted. (iii) One lacerated circular wound 1/2" diameter x abdominal cavity deep. (ii) Wound of exist-Lacerated oval wound 1" x 1/2" x chest cavity deep on left posterior auxilliary line at level of 10th intercostal space margin everted. (iii) One lacerated circular wound 1/2" diameter x abdominal cavity deep. 2-1/2" below and to right of umbilicus, margin inverted. (iv) Lacerated circular wound 1/2" in diameter on left side of back just by the side of 5th lumber vertebra, margin everted. Wound Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) and (iv) communicating each other. On further dissection 8th right rib fractured upper part of liver torn, pericardium x lower heart perforated through and through, left lungs lacerated, stomach ruptured and tenth rib on left side fractured. Blood and blood-clot present in the thoracic and abdominal cavities. Small gut perforated in three places. Large guterat one place extravassation of blood in muscular x left peritoneal space." 12. The doctor opined that death was due to shock and haemorhhage as a result of the injuries and the time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. 13. The medical evidence leaves no room for doubt that both Vijay Kumar Singh and Ramashrey Singh were killed by gun-shot injuries. 14. In the face of the medical evidence, Mr. Madhup, counsel appearing for the appellants did not try to dispute that the two victims were killed by gun shot injuries. But he seriously disputed the manager of occurrence as stated by the prosecution and the appellants being the assailants. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants the only question that is to be considered is whether the gun shot injuries causing the death of Vijay Kumar Singh and Ramashrey Singh were inflicted by the appellants in the manner as stated by the prosecution. 15. As noted above, there are four eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The informant, Ramdeo Singh @ Lakhan Singh, PW 7 and Ramnandan Singh PW 3 had started together from Barahiya for their village Khutha and they witnessed the occurrence on the way. PWs 1 and 4 were going from Khutha to Barahiya and they were slightly behind Ramashrey Singh who too was going to Barahiya for purchasing a hand-pump when he was caught by the accused on the way. 16. PW 7, the father of Vijay Kumar Singh, one of the two victims stated that the occurrence took place on Wednesday, 3.6.1992. PWs 1 and 4 were going from Khutha to Barahiya and they were slightly behind Ramashrey Singh who too was going to Barahiya for purchasing a hand-pump when he was caught by the accused on the way. 16. PW 7, the father of Vijay Kumar Singh, one of the two victims stated that the occurrence took place on Wednesday, 3.6.1992. He had gone to Barahiya for attending the monthly meeting of Dalpaties. The meeting did not take place and he went to Barahiya Bazar. Vijay was his son. He was a postal employee working at Khutha post office. He used to carry mail from Khutha to Barahiya and from Barahiya back to Khutha. On 3.6.1992 he had brought mail to Barahiya and at about 11 he was returning with the mail from Barahiya. At that time he (the witness) was at a tea shop. He came there and enquired whether he would go with him. He asked him to proceed saying that he would go after taking tea. He (Vijay) started with the mail on his cycle. At that time he was taking tea with Ramanandan (PW 3). After finishing tea they too proceeded for Khutha. They were on foot. They were at a distance of about a 100 meters from Sablaghat on the banks of the Ganges when they saw 10-12 persons, armed with rifles and guns, standing in group. He then named the six appellants and Shankar Singh, Rajo Singh and Sri Singh with the respective weapons in their hands. At Sablaghat they had surrounded Vijay from all sides and his cycle and mail-bag were thrown away on the bank of the Ganges. In the mean while Ramashrey Singh who was coming from Khutha also reached there. He too was surrounded. The witness asked why had they caught Vijay on which he was told that he too would be killed if he spoke any further. Ramashrey Singh said that he was going to Barahiya for purchasing a hand-pump. From there they took Vijay towards the dera of Manik Singh, Vijay and Ramashrey Singh were assaulted with fists and slaps and by gun-butts. Shankar Singh was hitting with the butt while the others were hitting by fists and slaps. By the side of the dera of Manik Singh, there were some bamboo clumps. The two victims were tied to separate bamboo clumps with gamchaas. Shankar Singh was hitting with the butt while the others were hitting by fists and slaps. By the side of the dera of Manik Singh, there were some bamboo clumps. The two victims were tied to separate bamboo clumps with gamchaas. Vijay was caught and tied by Darin Singh and Mukund Singh and Ramashrey Singh by Sahdeo Singh and Rajo Singh, Sri Singh took away Rs. 3,500/- from the kurta of Ramashrey Singh and also his wrist watch. Then Karu Singh shot a fire at Vijay with his rifle. Ramashrey Singh was shot by Harishchandra Singh, Vijay and Ramashrey died on the spot. At the place of occurrence apart from him there were Arun Singh, PW 1, Udit Singh, PW 4 and Yogendra Singh (not examined). Then he (PW 7) and Ramanand, PW 3 went to Barahiya P.S. and told the Daroga about the entire occurrence. After giving the statement (to the Police) he put his signature which he identified in Court. The signature of the informant was then marked as Ext. 2/3. 17. The testimonies of the three other witnesses PWs 1, 3 and 4 also fully support the prosecution case on all material points. It is true that there are some omissions or inconsistencies of which advantage was sought to be taken on behalf of the appellants but those are of a very trivial nature and that aspect to the matter shall be examined presently while dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel. 18. PW 6 was the Post Master of Barahiya Post Office at the material time, lie confirmed that Vijay Singh was the mail carried at Khutha Branch Post Office and it was his duty to carry mail from Khutha to Barahiya and from Barahiya to Khutha. On 3.6.1992 he had brought mail from Khutha at 10.15 and at 11.15 he had carried away mail in two bags from Barahiya to Khutha on his cycle. At about 12 or 1 someone came and said that he was killed. In. this cross-examination he stated that no receipt was given for mail received from Khutha and no receipt was taken for mail, being taken away from Barahiya. He explained that there was no system of receipts under the postal administration and the mail was carried by the mail carrier without granting or taking any receipts. In. this cross-examination he stated that no receipt was given for mail received from Khutha and no receipt was taken for mail, being taken away from Barahiya. He explained that there was no system of receipts under the postal administration and the mail was carried by the mail carrier without granting or taking any receipts. The evidence of PW 6 who is a completely independent witness practically fixes the time of the occurrence and frustrates the attempt of the counsel for the appellants to suggest that the murder took place at some other place and some other time, quite different from the time stated by the prosecution. 19. PW 10 was examined to identify the writer of the written-report that was submitted to the police by the informant and that was incorporated into the formal FIR. The written report submitted by PW 7 is clearly not in his hand writing and it appears that though he can put his signature, he does not know to write. In course of his deposition the counsel for the prosecution omitted to ask him as to who was the writer of the written report that was submitted by him under his signature and this necessitated the examination of PW 10. He told the Court that the written report was written by one Arjun Singh. He identified his hand writing and thereupon the written report was marked as Ext. 8 without any objection by the defence. 20. In cross-examination he stated that he and Arjun Singh were coming from (Barahiya) Bazar. They saw Ramdeo Singh at the Thana. He was sitting there weeping. They went to him at the Thana. There Ramdeo Singh, the informant gave a pen and a piece of paper to Arjun Singh who wrote down the report as dictated by Ramdeo Singh. After the report was written down, Ramdeo Singh put his signature and sub-mitted it to the Officer Incharge. 21. It is this part of the prosecution case that case under the severest attack by Mr. Madhup, counsel appealing for the appellants in all the appeals. Mr. Madhup submitted that the FIR in this case that forms the basis and the starting point of the case was extremely doubtful and it was not clear how and under what circumstances the written report, signed by PW 7, was prepared. Madhup, counsel appealing for the appellants in all the appeals. Mr. Madhup submitted that the FIR in this case that forms the basis and the starting point of the case was extremely doubtful and it was not clear how and under what circumstances the written report, signed by PW 7, was prepared. Learned counsel stated that though the FIR was instituted at 2.05 p.m. on 3.6.1992 and it was shown to have been sent to the Court through special messenger, it reached the Court two days later on 5.6.1992. Though it has not come on record, Mr. Madhup said that it was common knowledge and it could be verified that the Court of the S.D.J.M., Lakhisarai was at a distance of not more than 8 Kms from Barahiya P.S. There was, therefore, no justification for the FIR to reach the Court after a delay of two days. 22. Mr. Madhup submitted that coupled with the delay in the FIR reaching the Court was the fact that the writer of the report was not ascertained. In this regard he also referred to certain stray and isolated statements of PWs 1, 3, 9 and 10. He submitted that from its inception the case was shrouded in doubt and uncertainty. The prosecution case was, therefore, liable to be rejected on that score alone. In support of his submission he relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, one in Ishwar Singh V/s. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 2423 (para 5) and the other in Meharaj Singh V/s. State of U.P., 1995 (1) East Cr C 592 (SC) : (1994) 5 SCC 188 (para 12). 23. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Madhup. It is true that the FIR reached the Court after some delay and no explanation or justification has been offered for this. But on this score alone, I am not prepared to believe that the written report incorporated as the FIR was tampered with or it presented a concocted version of the occurrence. 24. From the deposition of PW 7 it appears that he is quite illiterate. He also seems to have got somewhat confused in Court. But on this score alone, I am not prepared to believe that the written report incorporated as the FIR was tampered with or it presented a concocted version of the occurrence. 24. From the deposition of PW 7 it appears that he is quite illiterate. He also seems to have got somewhat confused in Court. But the picture clearly emerges that he had submitted the written report with his signature at the P.S. He told the Court that after Vijay Kumar Singh and Ramashrey Singh were killed, he and Ramanand (PW 3) went to Barahiya P.S. and there they told Darogajee about the entire occurrence. On the statement given by him, he put his signature. He identified his signature on the written report (FIR.) which was marked as Ext. 2/3. He said that Ramanand put his signature after him (though there is no signature of Ramanand on the written report). 25. The cross-examination begins by his statement that immediately after the occurrence he and Ramanand went to the P.S.At Thana he told Darogqjee about the occurrence. Darogqjee wrote down his statement. He did not put his signature on the statement (recorded by Darogqjee) there and put his signature only after they had come to the bank of the Ganges. He put his signature at Sablaghat (when the I.O.) came to examine the dead bodies. They reached Sablaghat at about 2.30 p.m. He further stated that though he gave his statement at Barahiya P.S. he did. not put his signature there. He put his signature at Sablaghat where the dead bodies lay after Darogqjee had taken their statements there. Then he said that before that he had submitted a report (darkhast) and had put his signature on it. Then when they went back to Barahiya with the dead bodies, he gave a written report that had his signature on it. 26. It is, thus, clear to me that the informant had earlier given a written report with his signature to the Officer Incharge, Barahiya P.S. and his subsequent statements were taken by the I.O. at the P.O. where the dead bodies were examined by him. 27. 26. It is, thus, clear to me that the informant had earlier given a written report with his signature to the Officer Incharge, Barahiya P.S. and his subsequent statements were taken by the I.O. at the P.O. where the dead bodies were examined by him. 27. I, therefore, do not find any sub- stance in the submission that the prosecution case was liable to be rejected and disbelieved because the circumstances in which the FIR was instituted was not clear and there was no explanation for the FIR reaching the Court after some delay and, in my view, the two decisions relied up by Mr. Madhup are on different facts and those decisions do not advance the case of the present appellants. 28. Mr. Madhup next submitted that the so called eye-witnesses had falsely claimed before the trial Court that they had actually witnessed the occurrence. In support of his submission, he mainly relied upon the post-mortem report of Ramashrey Singh, according to which, the wound of entry was on the left side of back 3" lateral to second lumber vertebra and it was the wound of exit that was on the abdomen. Mr. Madhup pointed out that all the eye-witnesses had consistently stated that he was shot from the front. He referred to the statements of PWs 1, 3 and 4 who said that at the time (the shorts were fired), the assailants were facing north while the victim had his face turned towards south. Mr. Madhup contended that the shots being fired from the front, there was no question of the wound of entry being caused at the back. 29. I am not able to accept this sub- mission either. There may be any number of explanations for this. The witnesses have stated that the victims were tied to the bamboo in the bamboo-clumps by their hands by means of a gamcha. The body movement was not restricted and the victims were in a position to freely move their bodies. It is common experience that when a gun is pointed, one may flinch and turn back and if the gun is fired in that position, the shot will hit the back and not the abdomen. I thus find no irreconsiliable inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. 30. Mr. Madhup then advanced a number of arguments, assailing the prosecution case. I thus find no irreconsiliable inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. 30. Mr. Madhup then advanced a number of arguments, assailing the prosecution case. He submitted that there was vast difference between the witnesses in regard to the time taken in the commission of the offence. PW 1 said that the victims were killed in 2-4 minutes time. PW 3 said that the occurrence took place over a period of one or half hour. PW 7 said that the time taken during which Vijay was caught and he was shot down was about one and half hours. I fail to see any discrepancy in these statements. PW 1 was clearly referring to the time taken after the victims were tied to the bamboo clumps and were shot down. PWs 3 and 7 were stating about the entire episode starting with the armed accused assembling near Sabalghat, the two victims being caught by them, their being taken to the orchard and finally their being killed there. 31. Mr. Madhup also made another highly laboured submission in regard to what he described as the difference in the manner of occurrence and the manner of catching hold of the victims by the different accused. He referred to the statements of the eye-witnesses, and submitted that different witnesses and named different accused as holding two victims. In this submission also I do not find much substance. When a number of assailants are hitting, shoving and finally shooting down two victims, it is quite natural that at one or her other moment the victims would be seen caught and held by different persons in the group of assailants. 32. As regards snatching of money from Ramashrey Singh, Mr. Madhup submitted that in the FIR it was said that it was Sri Singh who took the money but PW 3 stated that it was Balmukund Singh who took the money from the kurta of Ramashrey Singh. PWs 1 and 4 did not say anything in this regard. In this connection suffice it to note that the appellants were either charged nor are they convicted under Section 379 of the Penal Code. 33. Mr. Madhup lastly submitted that admittedly there was no enmity between the appellants and the two victims and, therefore, there was no reason for the appellants to commit their murder. In this connection suffice it to note that the appellants were either charged nor are they convicted under Section 379 of the Penal Code. 33. Mr. Madhup lastly submitted that admittedly there was no enmity between the appellants and the two victims and, therefore, there was no reason for the appellants to commit their murder. This aspect of the matter has already been dealt with in the earlier part of this j udgment. 34. Mr. Madhup tried to pursuade the Court to believe that the victims were killed by some unknown assailants at a different time and place, but, the story appears to be based wholly on surmises and there is absolutely not an iota of material on the record to give credence to any such suspicion or doubt. 35. On a careful consideration of the entire materials on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. The conviction of Karu Singh and Harishchandra Singh under Section 302 and the rest of the four appellants under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code was well arrived at. and those convictions do not warrant any interference by this Court in appeal. The conviction, of the appellants is, therefore, confirmed. Also confirmed is their sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of line, the defaulter would undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 36. The bail bonds of appellants Balmukund Singh, Darin Singh, Sahdeo Singh, Manik Singh and Karu Singh are cancelled and they are directed to surrender forthwith to serve out their sentences. In case they fail to surrender within one month from today, the Trial Court is directed to take all steps to secure their arrest. 37. In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed. B.K.Jha, J. 38 I agree.