Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 78 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Kuljit Singh alias Billa

2003-01-16

S.S.SARON, SWATANTER KUMAR

body2003
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. - Kuljit Singh alias Billa, Amarjit Singh, Inder Singh, all sons of Harpal Singh and Harpal Singh were committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code, vide order of the learned Magistrate dated 21.2.1991. 2. FIR No. 153 was registered on 28.11.1990 in furtherance to the statement of Suba Singh PW 5. It was recorded therein that Devinder Singh had executed an agreement to sell in respect of land in favour of Harpal Singh accused 3 to 4 months prior to the occurrence. Major part of the consideration had been paid while some of it still remained unpaid. Devinder Singh, thus, was claiming the said amount from Harpal Singh and there was dispute in that regard between the parties. On 28.11.1990 at about 10.00 A.M. Suba Singh along with Sarwan Singh was present in the fields. Sarwan Singh was ploughing the fields and Suba Singh was standing nearby. At about 12.00 noon time Kuljit Singh and Amarjit Singh accused armed with Kahis and Inderbir Singh alias Bittu and Harpal Singh empty handed were present at the drain. Devinder Singh came to the tubewell along the boundary of a sugarcane field. Harpal Singh gave a lalkara and immediately caught hold of Devinder Singh from his long hair and threw him on the ground whereas Inderbir Singh alias Bittu caught hold of Devinder Singh from his legs. On alarm being raised by Suba Singh and Sarwan Singh the accused ran away from the spot carrying with them their respective weapons. Devinder Singh died at the spot. 3. Statement of Suba Singh was recorded by the investigating officer and formal FIR Ex. PL/2 was recorded. Inquest report Ex. PC was prepared and dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The investigating officer lifted blood stained earth which was sealed and site plan was prepared. Accused were arrested on 10.12.1990. Kuljit Singh and Amarjit Singh both suffered a disclosure statement which led to the recovery of Kahis which each one of them was carrying. Upon completion of investigation challan was presented. 4. The prosecution examined PW 1 to PW 8 in order to prove its case. Accused were arrested on 10.12.1990. Kuljit Singh and Amarjit Singh both suffered a disclosure statement which led to the recovery of Kahis which each one of them was carrying. Upon completion of investigation challan was presented. 4. The prosecution examined PW 1 to PW 8 in order to prove its case. Learned Public Prosecutor made a statement on 25.9.1991 where he stated: "I give up Sukhpal Singh and Balwinder Kaur PWs being unnecessary." He further made statement on 14.1.1992 wherein he closed the case of the prosecution. 5. Statement of each of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded on 9.6.1992. After hearing the arguments the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide her judgment dated 29.10.1992 acquitted Harpal Singh and Inderbir Singh of the offences with which they were charged and found Kuljit Singh alias Billa and Amarjit Singh both sons of Harpal Singh as guilty of an offence under Section 304 Part-I of the Code. After hearing the convicted accused on the question of sentence, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced both the accused namely Kuljit Singh and Amarjit Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. This has resulted in filing of two appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 186-DBA of 1993 has been preferred by the State. The Division Bench dealing with the matter at the relevant time, vide its order dated 26.5.1993 passed the following order :- "Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, DAG, Punjab. Leave to appeal qua acquittal of Kuljit Singh and Amarjit Singh accused- respondents on the charge of murder under Section 302 Indian Penal Code only is granted. Admitted. However, no case is made out for interference with the acquittal of Inderbir Singh and Harpal Singh respondents. Bailable warrants of Kuljit Singh and Amarjit Singh respondents to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur." 6. Criminal Appeal No. 25-SB of 1993 has been filed by both the accused Kuljit Singh and Amarjit Singh praying that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge be set aside and they be acquitted. Both these appeals have been heard together as they arise from one and the same judgment. 7. Criminal Appeal No. 25-SB of 1993 has been filed by both the accused Kuljit Singh and Amarjit Singh praying that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge be set aside and they be acquitted. Both these appeals have been heard together as they arise from one and the same judgment. 7. From the order of the Division Bench dated 26.5.1993 it is clear that the main question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the accused are entitled to acquittal even of an offence under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 of the Code or they are liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code. As far as accused Harpal Singh and Inderbir Singh are concerned, the matter has already attained finality and the State had not assailed the order dated 26.5.1993 before the Court of competent jurisdiction till date. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the State contended that once motive of the offence was proved to the satisfaction of the trial Court and the prosecution had led oral and documentary evidence to bring the guilt of the accused in relation to the offence at home beyond any reasonable doubt, the accused ought to have been convicted for an offence under Section 302 and not under Section 304 Part-I of the Code. He further contended that the injuries inflicted by the accused upon the body of the deceased were of the such nature that they were intended to cause death and as such it was a case of murder and not that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 9. On the other hand, the contention on behalf of the accused is that there were serious contradictions in regard to the motive as well as commission of the offence in the statement of the witnesses. The site plan Ex. PD again was not a proper site plan which correctly depicted the place of occurrence and the same is not in consonance with the statements of witnesses. According to the learned counsel there are material improvements in the statements of the witnesses and the case of the prosecution is padded one and the prosecution has also failed to examine the material witnesses. As such adverse inference should be drawn and the accused are entitled to acquittal. 10. According to the learned counsel there are material improvements in the statements of the witnesses and the case of the prosecution is padded one and the prosecution has also failed to examine the material witnesses. As such adverse inference should be drawn and the accused are entitled to acquittal. 10. In order to appreciate the merits of the contentions raised before us, it would be appropriate to refer to the case of the prosecution. FIR was registered upon the statement of Suba Singh PW5. In his statement before the Court he has mainly reiterated his version. He stated that at the time of occurrence and after Harpal Singh had given a Lalkara "that Devinder Singh be not allowed to escape on that day. On hearing Lalkara, I called my son Swaran Singh to stop the tractor but he could not hear my call due to the noise of the ploughing of the field. I then gave a signal to my son by raising hand to stop the tractor. Myself and my son then rushed towards Devinder Singh. When we were at a distance of half a killa from the accused and Devinder Singh, I saw that Harpal Singh caught hold of Devinder Singh from his long hair and threw him on the ground. Accused Bittu caught hold the legs of Devinder Singh. Devinder Singh fell down with his face downwards. Thereafter accused Billa and Amarjit Singh started causing Kahi blows with their respective weapons on the back of neck of Devinder Singh using the Kahi from the sharp side as well as blunt side." After they raised alarm, all the four accused ran away from the site with their weapons. Devinder Singh died at the spot. In his examination-in-chief he also stated that there was some dispute between Devinder Singh and Harpal Singh about payment of money. Devinder Singh demanded money from Harpal Singh, but the latter was not prepared to give the same. This witness was confronted by certain portions of his statement recorded under Section 181 Criminal Procedure Code He had not stated before the police with regard to above facts for raising signal after his son failed to listen to his call of raising alarm. This witness was confronted by certain portions of his statement recorded under Section 181 Criminal Procedure Code He had not stated before the police with regard to above facts for raising signal after his son failed to listen to his call of raising alarm. He also said that the motive for commission of crime was not stated by him before the police that Harpal Singh was in possession of excess of land of Devinder Singh as mortgage. These are certain material contradictions or improvements which are in the statement of this witness. Other eye witness at the place of occurrence is stated to be PW 6 Sarwan Singh. He has by and large supported the case of the prosecution and in his examination-in-chief he stated as under :- "....I remained at the spot to guard the dead body whereas my father went to the P.S. to lodge the report. The wife of the deceased and his son were present on the drain. She also came near the dead body after the accused had fled away. My father brought the police at the spot. The blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and made into a sealed parcel." In his cross-examination this witness also admitted that their lands adjoin the land of Kuljit Singh. Or course, lateron he stated that one acre of land intervenes the two lands. 11. Relying upon the statements of PW 5 and PW 6 who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph No. 21 of the judgment held that where positive evidence against the accused was clear in relation to the offence, the motive is of not much importance. However, it was felt by the learned Judge that the motive in that case had been successfully proved by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge further felt that Harpal Singh and Inderbir Singh were falsely implicated and acquitted them. In regard to motive, it must be noticed that there are some contradictions in the statements of PW 5 and PW 6 in that behalf. However, one fact which cannot be disputed on record even in face of the statements of both the convicted accused recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is that there was a land dispute between the parties. However, one fact which cannot be disputed on record even in face of the statements of both the convicted accused recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is that there was a land dispute between the parties. According to the prosecution the deceased had to take some money from Harpal Singh in regard to the land in question while according to the accused Devinder Singh had mortgaged the land with Harpal Singh, which they had refused to redeem without payment. According to the accused, they had been falsely implicated as the deceased was killed by some other persons and Suba Singh and Sarwan Singh had made false statements as they are interested witnesses and particularly Suba Singh in whose favour 10 marlas of land was transferred in village Rania abadi at the intervention of Balwinder Kaur at a very low consideration during the pendency of trial. 12. On the evidence afore-noticed, we cannot entirely reject the version put forward by the prosecution in regard to existence of motive. However, there are certain doubts with regard to the exact motive whether excess possession of land by the accused or refusal to redeem the land without consideration. There was some dispute between the parties in relation to the land and payment of money. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the accused heavily relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gordhan and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 Crl.L.J. 541 to contend that there was no intention on the part of the accused for any motive worth its consideration. Neither of them have been proved on record and as such they ought to be acquitted particularly when they have been falsely implicated as alleged. We have already noticed that there was an existing dispute between the parties as has come in evidence in fact of both parties and, thus, it is difficult for us to hold that the motive or intention on the part of the accused was non-existent. 14. Now we shall proceed to discuss the main plank of submissions made on behalf of the State that accused ought to be punished under Section 302 and not under Section 304 Part-I of the Code on the basis of the case proved by the prosecution on record. 14. Now we shall proceed to discuss the main plank of submissions made on behalf of the State that accused ought to be punished under Section 302 and not under Section 304 Part-I of the Code on the basis of the case proved by the prosecution on record. The distinction between the ingredients constituted an offence under Section 302 and/or 304 Part-I of the Code is a question to be determined more on the basis of evidence on record in a case rather than a question of law. Intention, motive, weapon of offence, on which part of the body of the deceased the injuries were caused, whether such injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, seen in light of whether the offence was committed in furtherance to pre-meditated plan or was at the spur of moment are, amongst others, the basics which would lead the Court to finally determine under what provision of law the offence will fall. However, even if basic ingredients are satisfied in any of the case the fact that the intention has been specifically proved or not may not be a material consideration. This has been the consistent view taken by the Courts ab antique. 15. The learned counsel for the State relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dhupa Chamar and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2834 and Gudar Dusadh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 952 to contend that intention, to inflict the bodily injury is the determining factor and there was intention to cause injury. As such it would be an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. In the case of Gudar Dusadh (supra) it was concluded by the Court as a matter of fact that attack on the deceased was pre-meditated and was not an accidental one. The injury was given on the head of the deceased in that case while in the case of Dhupa Chamar (supra) the injury was given on the chest of the deceased with a Bhala and was given with the knowledge of causing death. No evidence was lead to show that such injury was not given. In these circumstances the Court held that it was an offence under Section 302 of the Code. 16. No evidence was lead to show that such injury was not given. In these circumstances the Court held that it was an offence under Section 302 of the Code. 16. In the present case there is no definite evidence on record and it is not even specifically stated by the two alleged witnesses that the accused had planned to kill the deceased. This is a fact which cannot be inferred and there has to be definite link evidence to establish motive and intention with the crime and due planning on the part of the accused. 17. Now we may examine certain judgments which have bearing on this question. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and another, 1977 Chandigarh Law Reporter (Supreme Court) 65 the Court held as under :- "From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a Court is confronted with the question whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should be determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four Clauses of the definition of murder contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third Clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under the First Part of Section 304, Penal Code. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under the First Part of Section 304, Penal Code. (Para 19) The crux of the matter is, whether the facts established bring the case within Clause Thirdly of Section 300. This question further narrows down into a consideration of the two-fold issue : (i) Whether the bodily injuries found on the deceased were intentionally inflicted by the accused. (ii) If so, were they sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature ? If both these elements are satisfactorily established, the offence will be murder, irrespective of the fact whether an intention on the part of the deceased to cause death, had or had not been proved." 18. In the cases of Patel Rasiklal Becharbhai and other v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1150 and Gurdeep Singh v. Jaswant Singh and others, JT 1992(2) S.C. 123 the Honble Apex Court followed its earlier view in the case of Hem Raj v. The State (Delhi Administration), JT 1990(3) SC 58, where the Court held as under :- "The question is whether the appellant could be said to have caused that particular injury with the intention of causing death of the deceased. As the totality of the established facts and circumstances do show that the occurrence had happened most unexpectedly in a sudden quarrel and without premeditation during the course of which the appellant caused a solitary injury, he could not be imputed with the intention to cause death of the deceased or with the intention to cause that particular fatal injury; but he could be imputed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. Because in the absence of any positive proof that the appellant caused the death of the deceased with the intention of causing death or intentionally inflicted that particular injury which in ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death, neither Clause I nor Clause II of Section 300 Indian Penal Code will be attracted. Because in the absence of any positive proof that the appellant caused the death of the deceased with the intention of causing death or intentionally inflicted that particular injury which in ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death, neither Clause I nor Clause II of Section 300 Indian Penal Code will be attracted. We are supported in this view by a series of decisions of this Court, namely, (1) Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana, 1981(3) SCC 616, (2) Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab, 1981(4) SCC 245, (3) Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1981(4) SCC 474 (4) Gurmail Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1982(3) SCC 184 and (5) Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983(2) SCC 342. Following the ratio of the afore-mentioned decisions, we hold in the present case that the offence committed by the appellant is the one punishable under Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code but not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code." 19. Simple analysis of the above judgments indicate that the Court must be satisfied with regard to intention of the accused in relation to causing death, the injuries should be caused with the intention and knowledge that such injuries are likely to result in the death of the person and the attendant circumstances should support the case of the prosecution in that regard. In the present case, even if the statements of PW 5 and PW 6 who are stated to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence, is taken on its face value, it is nowhere stated that all the accused had pre-meditated to cause death of the deceased. The dispute with regard to the land and the money between the parties arose at the spur of moment. According to these witnesses, the wife and son of the deceased were present at the site at the drain and there is no proper explanation rendered on record as to why they were given up as being un-necessary. In fact they were material witnesses both for motive, intention and in relation to the commission of offence or what happened immediately thereafter. 20. It appears from the record and even keeping in mind the site plan Ex. P.4 post mortem report and statement of Dr. In fact they were material witnesses both for motive, intention and in relation to the commission of offence or what happened immediately thereafter. 20. It appears from the record and even keeping in mind the site plan Ex. P.4 post mortem report and statement of Dr. R.K. Bhatia PW 1 who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, as many as 16 injuries were caused to the deceased, out of which injuries No. 1 to 5 were stated to be used by sharp weapon, which according to PW5 and PW6 were Kahis and the injuries at No. 6 to 17 had been caused by a blunt weapon. Only Injuries No. 4 and 5 which were at the back of the deceased were stated to sufficient individually to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. There are stated to be four assailants including the two convicted accused. It is difficult in the normal course of things that if four persons catch hold of an individual and they want to kill him why they need to inflict so many injuries on the person of the deceased. They could have inflicted 1 or 2 fatal injuries on the vital part of the deceased. There was no pre-concert or prior planning to kill the deceased. Nobody was carrying any lethal weapon or there was no such common intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. At least the prosecution has not proved any such case on record. It is in evidence on record before us that the accused had met the deceased in the normal course of events as he had come to plough his fields and other persons including the accused were working on their fields. Their lands are adjacent as per the version of the accused and as per the prosecution, they are a killa away. 21. The cumulative effect of the above evidence on record is that it is difficult for this Court to accept the contention of the State that accused should be held guilty of an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 21. The cumulative effect of the above evidence on record is that it is difficult for this Court to accept the contention of the State that accused should be held guilty of an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge rightly held that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case also rightly concluded that the accused were guilty of an offence under Section 304 Part-I of the Code and held as under :- "As regards Kuljit Singh and Amarjit Singh accused, there is specific ocular as well as medical evidence on the record. There is also indirect evidence led by the prosecution as against the two. Both these accused Kuljit Singh alias Billa and Amarjit Singh had suffered disclosure statements in the presence of Mitter Man Singh (PW 7) which are Ex. PN, and PO respectively signed by the accused. In pursuance of that disclosure statements they had led to the recovery of the Kahis from the pointed places of concealment. After preparing the sketches of the blades of the Kahis, these were taken into possession vide memos prepared by ASI Malook Singh and attested by the witnesses. The Kahis are Ex. P.1 and P.2. The occurrence took place in broad day light. The presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence is also quite natural. They being cultivators had been cultivating their land with the tractor. Coming back to the subject of the offence complained of fatal injury has not been attributed to any of the accused persons jointly tried for causing the death of the deceased. Thus, under these circumstances only an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code is held to have been made out and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code In this regard, reliance is placed on Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1977 C.L.R. 95." 22. Thus, under these circumstances only an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code is held to have been made out and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code In this regard, reliance is placed on Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1977 C.L.R. 95." 22. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Norang Singh and another v. State of Punjab, JT 2002(10) SC 422, where the trial Court convicted two accused who caused the fatal injuries under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and other two under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and the High Court having interfered and convicted the all under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code, upset the judgment of the High Court and held as under :- "There was no pre-concert or prior planning between the accused nor was there any other evidence on record to come to the conclusion that all the accused had common intention to cause the death of the deceased. All of them were armed with lathis which are usually found in the villages and there was no evidence to show that they had any lethal weapons and therefore, their common intention could utmost be stated to be only to give blows to Gurdev Singh and if some of the blows have proved fatal, it is only as a result of the injuries inflicted by Ajaib Singh and Bant Singh. The High Court does not give any fresh reasoning as to how there was pre- concert among the accused persons to come to the conclusion that their common intention was to do away with Gurdev Singh. In the absence of any material and when the reasoning given by the trial court is cogent and is available from the facts arising in the case, finding recorded by the trial Court should not have been disturbed." 23. On the facts of the present case appropriately reference to the case of Afrahim Sheikh and others v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1263 can be made. In that case several persons including the accused chased Abdul Sheikh and threw him on the ground. The accused were armed with Ballams and Sabbals. They began to strike different persons. The incident was witnessed by different people. The serious injuries were suffered and both legs below the knee were fractured. As well there were other injuries. In that case several persons including the accused chased Abdul Sheikh and threw him on the ground. The accused were armed with Ballams and Sabbals. They began to strike different persons. The incident was witnessed by different people. The serious injuries were suffered and both legs below the knee were fractured. As well there were other injuries. Later, Abdul Sheikh died. The Honble Apex Court held as under :- "Where the deceased went to a particular place for a peaceful purpose and immediately after his arrival there, he was chased by two of the accused and caught and felled to the ground and after this the remaining four accused appeared and beat the deceased with diverse weapons, while those who were not armed held him pinned to the ground, the conviction of all the six accused for culpable homicide not amounting to murder in furtherance of a common intention under Section 304 Part II, read with Section 34 was legal." Reference can also be made to a recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002(1) Recent Criminal Reports 670, where number of injuries were caused to various persons and two of them died subsequently as a result of injuries and the conviction of such accused who had even inflicted injuries on the skull of the deceased fracturing the same, their conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Code was held to be valid. 24. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that purchase of land of 10 marlas by Suba Singh from Balwinder Kaur wife of the deceased would render him as an interested or motivated witness and who should not be believed, cannot be accepted. This is so for different reasons. Firstly, when Suba Singh PW5 was subjected to cross-examination by counsel for the accused, no such suggestion was put to him. Secondly, the mere fact the widow of the deceased had sold land to the said witness, per se would not render the evidence of the said witness inadmissible being interested or motivated witness. It cannot be quite possible that the widow sold the land per compulsion. It must also be noticed that the accused themselves had cited Suba Singh as a defence witness, but then he was given up as being un- necessary. It cannot be quite possible that the widow sold the land per compulsion. It must also be noticed that the accused themselves had cited Suba Singh as a defence witness, but then he was given up as being un- necessary. The defence cited a prosecution witness as their witness and after he was present in Court, he was given up for the reasons best known to the accused. This all in any case cannot be of any advantage to the accused. Further, one fact is clear that if was not a pre-meditated murder. It is relevant to refer to the statement of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code where they have pleaded a case of false implication. The prosecution has not been able to establish by cogent evidence and beyond doubt that the accused had planned to kill the deceased and it was in furtherance to their common intention to kill the accused that they had committed the crime. It was a fight where number of injuries were caused and nearly 14 injuries were not even termed as grievous or dangerous to life by the medical evidence. 25. For the reasons afore-stated we see no reason to take a view contrary to the one taken by the learned Sessions Judge. The mere absence of motive even if so assumed will not per se entitle the accused of an acquittal if otherwise the offence/the commission of crime is proved by cogent and reliable evidence. Consequently, we dismiss both the appeals. 26. Appellants Kuljit Singh and Amarjit Singh were on bail. They are directed to be taken into custody for further undergoing the remaining imprisonment in accordance with law. Appeals dismissed.