U. S. TRIPATHI, J. The appellants have preferred the appeal against the judgment and order dated 30-4-1981 passed by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Session Trail No. 231 of 1980, convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. The prosecution story briefly was as under: 2. Bhadai, deceased was real brother of appellant Ram Khelawan. Appellant Ram Murat @ Balai was son of Ram Khelawan and Masuriya Din, PW 3 was son of Bhadai deceased. Civil litigations were pending between Bhadai and Ram Khelawan and at the time of occurrence of this case cases were pending before the High Court and the Consolidation Officer. On account of above litigation there was enmity between the parties. 3. On the morning of 24-9-1978, Ram Avtar Singh, PW 1 resident of the village of the appellants and the deceased was cutting Chari (green fodder) in the field of Munshi, which he had taken on Batai. His cousin brother Shiv Singh, PW 2 was also cutting green fodder in the nearby field. At about 8. 30 a. m. Bhadai deceased was coming from the village side with a bundle of flowers on his back. Behind him appellant Balai alias Ram Murat and Ram Khelawan were coming. Both appellants were armed with lathis. When Bhadai deceased reached on south eastern corner of the field of Hardeo, both the appellants abused him and started causing injuries on him with lathis. Bhadai raised alarm and fell down. Hearing his shrieks Ram Avtar Singh, PW 1, Shiv Singh, PW 2 and Dharam Singh rushed towards him to save him. Both the appellants started running towards north. The above three witnesses chased the appellants and apprehended them at some distance by causing injuries and brought them where Bhadai was crying and floundering. Dharam Singh came to village to bring charpai. In the mean time Bhadai died. Ram Avtar Singh prepared report Ext. Ka-1 of the occurrence and came to police station. Pooran Mal and Duryodhan brought the appellants to the police station along with their lathis. Ram Avtar lodged report of the occurrence of the police station Kokhraj, district Allahabad at 10. 30 a. m. on 24-9-1978. Chick FIR Ka-3 was prepared by Head Constable Shiv Kumar Singh who made an endorsement of the same at G. D. report, Ext. Pooran Mal and Duryodhan brought the appellants to the police station along with their lathis. Ram Avtar lodged report of the occurrence of the police station Kokhraj, district Allahabad at 10. 30 a. m. on 24-9-1978. Chick FIR Ka-3 was prepared by Head Constable Shiv Kumar Singh who made an endorsement of the same at G. D. report, Ext. Ka-4 and registered a case under Section 304, IPC against the appellants. The appellants were taken into custody and their lathis were also taken into possession and recovery memo Ext. Ka-2 was prepared by the Head Constable. 4. The investigation of the case was taken up by Shri Madan Singh, IO PW 5. The papers relating to the case were received by the IO, at Kasba Bharwari at about 11. 15 a. m. He reached the spot at 12. 30, appointed panches and conducted inquest of the dead body of the deceased. He prepared inquest report Ext. Ka-5 and other relevant papers Ext. Ka-6 to 9. He sealed the dead body and handed over the same to constables Ram Naresh, PW 7 and Bharat Lal for taking it for post-mortem. Thereafter, he interrogated Ram Avtar, PW 1 and on his pointing out inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan, Ext. Ka-10. He also took into possession blood stained and simple earth from the spot and prepared recovery memo, Ext. Ka-11. He also took into possession the bundle of flowers lying on the spot and prepared recovery memo Ext. Ka-12. 5. Autospy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. D. N. Sharma, PW 6 on 25-9-1978, who found lacerated wounds and contusions as ante mortem injuries and cause of death as shock and haemorrhage. He prepared post-mortem report Ext. Ka-15. The IO again visited the village of occurrence on 26-9-1978 and interrogated Shiv Singh, PW 2, Masuriya Din, PW 3, Dharam Singh, Chandrika and others and on completion of investigation submitted charge- sheet Ext. Ka-14 on 12-10-1978. 6. Cognizance of the case was taken by the Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 7. Both the appellants were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty. 8. The contention of the appellants was that there was a joint grove of Ber and flowers of the appellants and Bhadai, deceased. 7. Both the appellants were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty. 8. The contention of the appellants was that there was a joint grove of Ber and flowers of the appellants and Bhadai, deceased. After death of father of Bhadai and appellant Ram Khelawan, Bhadai was not giving share of Ram Khelawan in the said grave. Ram Khelawan filed a case. He won the case and got half share in the grove. He also got possession over his half share through police in the year 1976 Bhadai and his son Masuriya Din, PW 3 had beaten, when they had gone in the grove and a report was lodged by Ram Khelawan. Bhadai had also convened a Panchayat and Panchnama was also prepared. On the date of occurrence at about 8. 00 a. m. Ram Khelawan was plucking flowers in his share of the above grove, Bhadai went there with a lathi and started causing injuries on his (Ram Khelawan ). He also wielded lathi in his self defence due to which Bhadai sustained injuries. Ram Khelawan raised alarm and his bones were broken. Ram Murat came and tried to intervene. Bhadai caused injuries to Ram Murat also. Ram Murat also wielded lathi in self defence due to which Bhadai sustained some injuries. Ram Khelawan and his son Ram Murat went to police station to lodge the report but their report was not written. Wife of Bhadai came to the police station with two Netas and the appellants were put behind the bar. 9. The prosecution in support of its case examined Ram Avtar Singh, PW 1 and Shiv Singh, PW 2 as witnesses of fact, besides Masuriya Din, PW 3, Chandrika Prasad, PW 4, Shri Madan Singh, IO, PW 5, Dr. R. N. Sharma, PW 6 and constable Ram Naresh Tiwari, PW 7 as formal witnesses. The appellants examined Dr. Ram Bhushan, DW 1 and Shri Prabhu Dayal, X-ray Technician, DW 2. 10. Learned Sessions Judge, on considering evidence of the parties held that plea of private defence raised by both the appellants was wholly false and unreliable. The case of the prosecution was fully established about the aggressive criminal act by both the appellants beyond any doubt. Ram Bhushan, DW 1 and Shri Prabhu Dayal, X-ray Technician, DW 2. 10. Learned Sessions Judge, on considering evidence of the parties held that plea of private defence raised by both the appellants was wholly false and unreliable. The case of the prosecution was fully established about the aggressive criminal act by both the appellants beyond any doubt. With these findings the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life as mentioned above. 11. The appellants have challenged their above conviction and sentence in this appeal. 12. Appellant Ram Khelawan died during pendency of appeal and appeal preferred by him stood abated, vide order dated 15-1-2002. 13. We have heard Shri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the appellant Ram Murat @ Balai and have perused the evidence on record. 14. Ram Avtar, PW1, stated that on the date of occurrence at about 8. 30 a. m. he was cutting green fodder Chari in the field of Munshi, which he had taken on money. The above field was situate towards north of village Abadi, Shiv Singh, PW 2 was also cutting green fodder (Chari) in the nearby field, Bhadai deceased was coming from village side with a bundle of flowers on his back. Behind him Ram Khelawan and Ram Avtar appellants armed with lathis were also coming. When Bhadai reached on the south eastern corner of the field of Hardeo both the appellants abused him and started causing lathi injuries to him. Bhadai raised alarm and fell down. He (Ram Avtar), Shiv Singh, PW 2 and Dharam Singh rushed to the spot. The appellants started running towards north. They chased and apprehended them at some distance and brought them where Bhadai was lying. Thereafter, Bhadai died. He prepared report Ext. Ka- 1 of the occurrence. The appellants were brought by Poonam Mal and Duryodhan to the police station, Kokhraj, where he lodged report. 15. Shiv Singh, PW 2 stated that on the date of occurrence at about 8. 30 a. m. he was cutting green fodder (Chari) in a field towards north east of his house at a distance of one kilometer. He saw that Bhadai was coming and behind him Ram Khelawan and Ram Murat were coming with lathis. 15. Shiv Singh, PW 2 stated that on the date of occurrence at about 8. 30 a. m. he was cutting green fodder (Chari) in a field towards north east of his house at a distance of one kilometer. He saw that Bhadai was coming and behind him Ram Khelawan and Ram Murat were coming with lathis. When Bhadai reached in the field of Hardeo Kori, the appellants Ram Khelawan and Ram Murat started abusing and causing lathi injuries to him. Bhadai fell down in the field of Hardeo. He along with Ram Avtar and Dharam Singh rushed to save Bhadai. When he and other witnesses reached near Bhadai, the appellants started running. He and other witnesses chased them and apprehended them after causing injuries. They tied them with their Angochha. Their lathis were snatched, Bhadai died on the spot. Ram Avtar Singh, Duryodhan and Pooran Mal took appellants and their lathis to the police station. 16. Masuriya Din, PW 3 son of the deceased stated that there was enmity between his father and the appellants regarding litigation. At the time of murder of the deceased the cases were pending in the High Court and before the Consolidation Officer. One year before murder of the deceased Marpeet had taken place between the deceased and Ram Khelawan. 17. Chandrika Prasad, PW 4 is the witness of recovery of blood stained earth and simple earth from the spot. Madan Singh, PW 4 is Investigating Officer. He proved inquest report, recovery of blood stained and simple earth and bundle of flowers from the spot. 18. Dr. 17. Chandrika Prasad, PW 4 is the witness of recovery of blood stained earth and simple earth from the spot. Madan Singh, PW 4 is Investigating Officer. He proved inquest report, recovery of blood stained and simple earth and bundle of flowers from the spot. 18. Dr. R. N. Sharma, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased stated that he found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: (1) Lacerated wound 3" x 1/4" x bone deep on the prominence of right skull; (2) Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x bone deep, 1/2" below injury No. 1; (3) Lacerated wound 1-1/4" x 1/4" x bone deep, 1/2" below injury No. 2; (4) Lacerated wound 3" x 1/2 x bone deep on the prominence of left skull; (5) Contusion, 2" x 2" with a fracture of bone on the lower third of left arm; (6) Lacerated wound 1" x 1" with fracture of bones on the left leg, 3" below the knee joint; (7) Lacerated wound, 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep with fracture of bones on the upper third of right leg; (8) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep with fracture of bones on the middle of the right leg. (9) Contusion 6"x 3" on the right upper arm; (10) Three contusion in the area of 4" x 1/2" on the left back; (11) Contusion, 3" x 1/2" on the back near the right shoulder. 19. He further stated that on internal examination he found that bones underneath the ante mortem injury No. 1 were fractured. There was clotted blood in brain and brain matter was reddish. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to head injuries, which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death and the death had taken place at about 8. 30 a. m. on 24-9-1978. 20. Constable Ram Naresh, PW 7 had escorted the sealed dead body of the deceased from the spot to the mortuary. 21. This was the gist of the evidence led by the prosecution. Appellants examined Dr. Ravi Bhushan who stated that on 26-9-1978, he examined appellant Ram Khelawan in Central Jail, Naini at 1. 30 a. m. on 24-9-1978. 20. Constable Ram Naresh, PW 7 had escorted the sealed dead body of the deceased from the spot to the mortuary. 21. This was the gist of the evidence led by the prosecution. Appellants examined Dr. Ravi Bhushan who stated that on 26-9-1978, he examined appellant Ram Khelawan in Central Jail, Naini at 1. 30 p. m. and found following injuries on his person: (1) Contusion 13 cm x 12 cm on post medial side of right elbow extending to upper arm and forearm with suspected fracture of underlying bone and with swelling, 20 cm x 18 cm (for which) X-ray was advised; (2) Contusion with abrasion, 3 1/2 cm x 2 cm on anterior side, 12 cm above right ankle joint; (3) Contusion, 5 cm x 4 cm on lateral side of left ankle. 22. He further stated that on same day at 2. 00 p. m. he examined appellant Ram Murat alias Balai and found following injuries on his person: (1) Contusion 4-1/2 cm x 4 cm on lateral side of left ankle with swelling 6 cm x 6 cm; (2) Contusion with abrasion, 5 cm x 4 cm on anterior side of right knee (for which) X-ray was advised; (3) Contusion, 7 cm x 2-1/2 cm on anterior side of right leg, 7 cm above ankle joint; (4) Contusion 5 cm x 5 cm on posterior side of left upper arm, 8 cm above elbow joint. 23. Prabhoo Dayal X-ray Technician (D. W. 2) proved X-ray report of right fore-arm of Ram Khelawan dated 29-11-1978 Ext. Kha-4 prepared by Dr. A. K. Bajpai which indicated old fracture of shaft of radius and ulna in the middle with evidence of callus formation. Fracture of radius was in process of union but not completely united. 24. The appellants had not disputed the death and cause of death of Bhadai deceased on the date and time of occurrence. The evidence of Dr. R. N. Sharma, PW 6, referred to above clearly established that Bhadai died on account of head injuries. 25. The appellants have also not disputed the date and time of occurrence and it is admitted case of the parties that the occurrence took place on 24-9-1978 between 8 and 8. 30 a. m. 26. The evidence of Dr. R. N. Sharma, PW 6, referred to above clearly established that Bhadai died on account of head injuries. 25. The appellants have also not disputed the date and time of occurrence and it is admitted case of the parties that the occurrence took place on 24-9-1978 between 8 and 8. 30 a. m. 26. The case of the prosecution was that there was enmity between the deceased and the appellants regarding grove land and litigation was pending in respect of grove before the High Court and before the Consolidation authorities at the time of occurrence. That on the date of occurrence Bhadai was coming from the side of village with a bundle of flowers. When he reached in the south eastern corner of field of Har Dev towards north of village Abadi, both the appellants came behind him and caused lathi injuries to him, due to which he fell down on the spot and died. On the other hand the case of the appellants was that on the date of occurrence at about 8. 00 a. m. appellant Ram Khelawan was plucking flowers in his share in the grove. Bhadai came there with a lathi and abusing him started causing lathi injuries. Ram Khelawan also wielded lathi in his self defence. The bone of right hand of Ram Khelawan was broken and he raised alarm. Hearing his alarm his son Ram Avtar came there and wielded lathi in his self defence due to which Bhadai sustained injuries. 27. Therefore, it is to be considered as to which party was aggressor and which party acted in self defence. Before discussing the above point, it is relevant to mention that the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that benefit of right of private defence can be given to the accused even in the absence of specific plea in that regard, if the evidence shows that the accused persons were put under a situation where they could reasonably have apprehension of danger to the body of even one of them. Reliance was placed on the apex Court decision in Moti Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (1) JIC 634 (SC) : 2002 (9) SCC 494 , and Kashi Ram and others v. State of M. P. , 2002 (1) JIC 969 (SC) : 2002 (44) ACC 57. Reliance was placed on the apex Court decision in Moti Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (1) JIC 634 (SC) : 2002 (9) SCC 494 , and Kashi Ram and others v. State of M. P. , 2002 (1) JIC 969 (SC) : 2002 (44) ACC 57. There is no dispute regarding above proposition of law that a plea of self defence need not be taken and plead of self defence can be taken by introducing such a plea in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or in the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. or by adducing defence evidence and even if the plea is not introduced in any one of these three modes still it can be raised during course of submissions, relying on the probabilities and circumstances in the case as held by apex Court in the case of Vijai Singh v. State of U. P. , 1990 (27) ACC 483. However, in this case the appellants had taken plead of self defence in their statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. 28. The prosecution in order to prove its case had relied on the ocular testimony of Ram Avtar Singh, PW 1 and Shiv Singh, PW 2. The above witnesses stated that they were cutting green fodder (Chari) towards north of village Abadi near which the occurrence took place. Undisputedly, these witnesses are residents of the same village. They had given reasonable and probable explanation for their presence in the said filed. No animosity, ill will or grudge of any of the appellants with the above witnesses have been suggested or proved. It has also not been shown that they were interested witnesses. Those witnesses were cross examined at great length and there is nothing in their cross-examined to show that they had any reason to depose falsely against the appellants. No doubt a suggestion was given to Ram Avtar Singh, PW 1 that he was cultivating field of Bhadai, deceased, therefore, was deposing falsely being of the party of Bhadai, deceased. The witnesses had repelled the above suggestion and there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. Therefore, we find no reason to disbelieve the above ocular testimony of the witnesses. 29. The prosecution alleged that the occurrence of the case took place in the field of Hardev towards north of village Abadi. The witnesses had repelled the above suggestion and there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. Therefore, we find no reason to disbelieve the above ocular testimony of the witnesses. 29. The prosecution alleged that the occurrence of the case took place in the field of Hardev towards north of village Abadi. On the other hand, the case of the appellant was that the occurrence took place in the Ber grove of the parties. Ram Avtar, PW 1 and Shiv Singh, PW 2 have categorically stated that the occurrence took place in the field of Har Dev near the field of Munshi, where they were cutting green fodder. They further stated that the blood had fallen on the spot. Madan Singh, PW 5 the IO visited the spot and found blood on the spot. He had taken blood stained and simple earth from the spot in the presence of Chandrika Prasad, PW 4. The IO further stated that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the spot and he conducted inquest of the dead body at said place. Chandrika Prasad, PW 4 has also stated that the IO had taken into possession the blood stained and simple earth from the field of Har Dev, which was at the distance of about 2 furlongs from the village Abadi of village Naudhiya. That the dead body was also lying at the said place. The IO and Chandrika Prasad further stated that a bundle of flowers was also lying on the spot and was taken into possession. No suggestion was given to the above witnesses that the occurrence took place in the Ber grove of the parties. It is also not the case of the appellants that the Ber grove and the field of Har Dev were adjacent to each other. There was no doubt a suggestion from the side of appellants that the occurrence had not taken place at the place alleged by the prosecution, but no no counter place of occurrence was suggested. Therefore, the evidence of Ram Avtar, PW 1 and Shiv Singh, PW 2 that the occurrence took place in the field of Har Dev is corroborated by presence of blood, presence of dead body, presence of bundle of flowers being taken by the deceased as well as by evidence of Chandrika Prasad, PW 4 and Investigating Officer, PW 5. Therefore, the evidence of Ram Avtar, PW 1 and Shiv Singh, PW 2 that the occurrence took place in the field of Har Dev is corroborated by presence of blood, presence of dead body, presence of bundle of flowers being taken by the deceased as well as by evidence of Chandrika Prasad, PW 4 and Investigating Officer, PW 5. There is nothing on record to infer that the occurrence had taken place in the Ber grove of the parties. 30. Ram Avtar Singh, PW 1 and Shiv Singh, PW 2 have categorically stated that when Ram Khelawan and Balai, appellants started causing lathi on Bhadai, deceased, he raised alarm and on his alarm they and Dharam Singh rushed to save him and when they reached near the place of occurrence both the appellants ran towards north and they were chased by them and apprehended after few steps. Thereafter, they were brought to the place of occurrence and from there they were taken to the police station by Pooran Mal and Duryodhan. The copy of General Diary report No. 21, dated 24-9-1978, Ext. Ka-4 disclosed that appellants Ram Khelawan and Balai alias Ram Murat were brought to the police station along whit two lathis by Ram Avtar, Pooran Mal and Duryodhan. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the appellants had gone to police station to lodge report but in the mean time the wife of Bhadai brought a Neta and, therefore, the report of the appellants was not written and they were put behind the bar. No such suggestion was given either to the IO or any of the prosecution witness and this fact was introduced for the first time in the statement of appellant, under Section 313, Cr. P. C. As mentioned above, no reason was shown as to why Ram Avtar and Shiv Singh, PW 1 and PW 2 were falsely deposing regarding arrest of the appellants and bringing them to the police station. 31. Much emphasis was laid by the learned Counsel for the appellants on non-explanation of the injuries on the persons of two appellants and it was contended that in the absence of explanation of injuries of appellants, natural inference would be that the prosecution was suppressing the origin and genesis of Marpeet and the case set up by the appellants is more probable. It is true that it is proved that the accused side also sustained injuries in the same transaction in which the prosecution side sustained injuries and injuries of accused are apparent and not superficial, the prosecution is under obligation to explain the injuries on the side of the accused and non explanation of the injuries would be fatal to the prosecution. It is also not disputed that both the appellants had sustained contusions on hand and legs, as stated by Dr. Ravi Bhushan Abbhi, DW 1. But the case of the prosecution from the very inception was that Ram Avtar, PW 1 and Shiv Singh, PW 2 and their cousin Dharam Singh chased the appellant and apprehended them by causing injuries. It has specifically been mentioned in the FIR that on the challenge given by the above witnesses the appellants ran towards north. The witnesses chased surrounded and apprehended them with their lathis by causing injuries MARPEET KARKE. The ocular witnesses Ram Avtar Singh, PW 1 and Shiv Singh, PW 2 also stated that they and Dharam Singh apprehended the appellants by causing injuries. The injuries on the persons of appellants were on the hands and feet and there was no injury on the vital part of the body of the appellants. These injuries thus, could be caused in the course of arrest of the appellants. Thus, there is sufficient explanation by the prosecution of the injuries on the person of the appellants. However, Shiv Singh, PW 2 stated that one or two lathi injuries were caused on the legs of the appellants and no bone was fractured. The X-ray report, dated 29-11-1978, Ext. Kha-4 shows that there were fractures of radius and ulna in the middle of right forearm of Ram Khelawan, but the fracture could not be visible from naked eyes and, therefore, there was nothing wrong when Shiv Singh PW 2 stated that no bone of any of the appellant was broken during arrest. Moreover, the injury was allegedly caused on 24-9-1978 and X-ray examination of appellant Ram Khelawan was done on 29-11-1978. No explanation was offered regarding this delay. According to record of the case, the appellant Ram Khelawan was granted bail by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 21-10-1978. Therefore, the prosecution has explained the injuries on the person of the appellants. 32. Moreover, the injury was allegedly caused on 24-9-1978 and X-ray examination of appellant Ram Khelawan was done on 29-11-1978. No explanation was offered regarding this delay. According to record of the case, the appellant Ram Khelawan was granted bail by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 21-10-1978. Therefore, the prosecution has explained the injuries on the person of the appellants. 32. It is admitted case of the parties that litigation was pending on the date of occurrence between the appellants and the deceased regarding grove. The contention of the appellants was that they had won the case regarding half share in the grove. Possession over half share was given by the Court through police. That on the date of occurrence Bhadai was plucking flowers in the share of the appellants and on their objection he started causing injuries on Ram Khelawan, Ram Khelawan wielded lathi in his self defence. In the mean time Balai plied alias Ram Murat also came and he also lathi in self defence. The medical evidence shows that Bhadai had sustained head injuries and it is not the case of the appellants that after sustaining head injuries he himself left the above place or was taken by others. The evidence of the ocular witnesses shows that Bhadai, deceased was carrying bundle of flowers, which was recovered by the IO from the spot. How and under what circumstances the build of flowers came to the spot has not been explained by the appellants. 33. As mentioned above, nothing was suggested or shown to the prosecution witnesses regarding defence theory. There was no indication up to the stage of statement of the appellants under Section 313, Cr. P. C. regarding defence set up by the appellants. This further indicates that the defence taken by the appellants was an afterthought and there nothing on record to make the defence version probable. In fact the appellants have not even shown preponderance of probabilities that they got right of private defence and acted in exercise of self defence. Contrary to it the prosecution by examining reliable witnesses proved that the appellants side was aggressor and the injuries on the person of the appellants were caused by the prosecution witnesses in the course of their arrest. Contrary to it the prosecution by examining reliable witnesses proved that the appellants side was aggressor and the injuries on the person of the appellants were caused by the prosecution witnesses in the course of their arrest. The ocular testimony of the witnesses is further supported by the place of occurrence, presence of dead body on the place alleged by the prosecution, presence of blood, bundle of flowers etc. on the said place. None of the circumstances of the case supports the defence version. 34. In view of above discussions and observations we are of the view that appellants side was aggressor and there is nothing on record to infer that the appellants side had right of private defence and that prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant Ram Murat @ Balai. The appeal, therefore, has no force. 35. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appellant Ram Murat @ Balai is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the CJM concerned to serve out the sentence. 36. CJM, Allahabad/kaushambi is also directed to issue non bailable warrant against appellant Ram Murat @ Balai to secure his arrest for serving out the sentence. 37. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to CJM Allahabad/kaushambi for compliance and report within a month. Appeal dismissed. .