Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 636 (PAT)

Ram Bilas Rai v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-06

AFTAB ALAM, B.K.JHA

body2004
Judgment BALKRISHNA JHA, J. 1. These three appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25/27th of January, 2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 336/97 and 241/97 by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ill, Sitamarhi. 2. All the five appellants have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and in default further R.I. for two years. The fine amount was ordered to be paid to the wife of the deceased, Jai Kumari Devi, PW 7 by way of compensation. The appellants, Ram Bilas Rai and Paldhari Mahto, have again been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for five years under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a direction to run their sentences concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the intervening night of 2nd/3rd June, 1997, the informant, Lalbabu Rai, PW 12 and his. other family members were sleeping after taking their meals. The eldest brother of the informant, Ram Prit Rai, was sleeping on a chowki in the veramdah of his house where a lantern was burning. The Informant along with his brother, Ram Babu Rai, was sleeping at the Gsara. of his northern house. At about 12.00/1.00 a.m. the informant and his brother. Ram Babu Rai, heard the sound of foot steps coming from the side of Bandh. They noticed that the accused (1) Ram Bilas Rai, (2) Shashi Bhushan Rai @ Guddu, (3) Chandra Bhushan Rai @ Pappu, (4) Paldhari Mahto, (5) Laldhari Mahto and (6) Raj Karan Mahto armed with Narkatua and danda came and surrounded Ram Prit Rai sleeping on the chowki. The accused Ram Bilash Rai, fired from his Narkatua on the back of the head of Ram Prit Rai and Paldhari Mahto, also fired from his Narkatua on the back of his head. Thereafter, the accused Ram Bilas Rai, uttered that "chalo kaam ban gaya" and thereafter they made good escape in the western direction. The informant and his.brother, Ram Babu. Rai, out of fear could not muster courage to raise alarm. The further case of the prosecution is that on the sound of firing the other family members and the witnesses, Gajendra Rai, PW 6, Jai Kishore Rai, PW 11 and many others assembled and noticed the dead body of Ram Prit Rai, lying there. Rai, out of fear could not muster courage to raise alarm. The further case of the prosecution is that on the sound of firing the other family members and the witnesses, Gajendra Rai, PW 6, Jai Kishore Rai, PW 11 and many others assembled and noticed the dead body of Ram Prit Rai, lying there. They also learnt about the occurrence from the informant. It is further alleged that there was a land dispute with the accused, Ram Bilas Rai from before the occurrence and because of the land dispute he with the help of other accused persons committed the murder of his brother. Ram Prit Rai. 4. On 3.6.1997 at 8.30 a.m., the SI, S.S.Singh of Parashitt O.P., P.S. Majorganj, recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. No. 4) of the Informant, Lalbabu Rai, Son of Sri Ramlagan Rai of Village Pachharwa, P.S. Majorganj, District-Sitamarhi at his house. The fardbeyan of the informant was forwarded to the O.C., Majorganj, for the institution of a case and on the basis of which Majorganj P.S. Case No. 36 dated 3.6.1997 was registered under Sections 302/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the six accused persons, namely, (1) Ram. Bilas Rai, (2) Shashi Bhushan Rai @ Guddu, (3) Chandra Bhushan Rai @ Pappu, (4) Paldhari Mahto (5) Laldhari Mahto and (6) Raj Karan Mahto. After investigation the accused, Raj Karan Mahto, was not sent up for trial and the rest five accused-appellants were sent up for trial. Accordingly, the cognizance of the offence was taken against the five accused-appellants and the accused, Raj Karan Mahto, was discharged vide order dated 24.12.1997. The case of all the five accused-appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions where they were tried and convicted in the above referred manner. 5. The defence of the appellants is that they are quite innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute and enmity with the prosecution party. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. The documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence by filing a number of documents (Exts, No. A to S). These documents were brought on record by the defence in support, of the land dispute in between the parties. 6. At trial, the prosecution examined altogether 14 witnesses in support of its case. The documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence by filing a number of documents (Exts, No. A to S). These documents were brought on record by the defence in support, of the land dispute in between the parties. 6. At trial, the prosecution examined altogether 14 witnesses in support of its case. Out of them Pw 1, Uttim Mahto, PW 3, Ram Rekha Mahto and PW 4, Nageshwar Mahto, have been declared hostile by the prosecution and nothing material has come in their cross-examination. PW 8, Jagdeb Rai. and PW 9, Laxman Rai, both are the witnesses on the point of the motive. PW 13 is Dr. Alka Rai, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Ram Prit Rai and PW 14, Shyam Sundar Singh, is the Investigating Officer of this case. The rest 7 witnesses, PW 2, Ram. Babu Rai, PW 5, Narendra Kumar Rai, PW 6, Gajendra Rai, PW 7, Jai Kumari Devi, PW 10 Puran Rai, PW 11, Jai Kishore Rai and PW 12, Lal Babu Rai, the informant, are the material witnesses. PW 2, Ram Babu Rai, the brother, PW 7, Jai Kumari Devi, the wife and PW 12, Lal Babu Rai, the informant, brother of the deceased are the witnesses of the actual assault. 7. The evidence of PW 13, Dr. Alaka Kumar Singh, is that on 4.6.1997 at 10 a.m. he held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, Ram Prit Rai and found the following ante-mortem injuries : 1. External Injury : (i) Circular hole over-right side of neck on posterior aspect near the occipital prominence. Size 1-1/4" diameter X cavity deep. Margines were lacerated, inverted. (ii) Circular hole over left side of neck on posterior aspect. Size 1-1/2" diameter, margines-everted and lacerated, cavity deep near the left occipital prominence. The brain matter and blood coming out from both wounds. In his opinion the cause of the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of above mentioned injuries caused by fire arm. According to him the time elapsed since death and post-mortem examination held was within 36 hours. He proved the post-mortem report which is in his pen and signature (Ext. No. 3). In cross- examination he has stated that injury No. (1) was the result of one shot, one was injury of entry and other was injury of exit. According to him the time elapsed since death and post-mortem examination held was within 36 hours. He proved the post-mortem report which is in his pen and signature (Ext. No. 3). In cross- examination he has stated that injury No. (1) was the result of one shot, one was injury of entry and other was injury of exit. Me has further stated that the above injuries were not possible from a very close range and were also not possible in sleeping position. 8. The defence has not challenged the homicidal death of the deceased, Ram Prit Rai. The participation of the appellants in the commission of his murder has been disputed by it. 9. Now I turn to evaluate the evidence of the material witnesses adduced by the prosecution in this case. PW 12, Lal Babu Rai, is the own brother of the deceased, Ram Prit Rai. His evidence is that in the relevant night he was sleeping in his house and his brother Ram Babu Rai, was sleeping on the Osara of the northern house. His other brother, Ram Prit Rai, was also sleeping on a chowki on the Osara of the house and a lantern was burning there. At about 1 a.m. he heard the sound of foot steps whereupon he along with his brother, Ram Babu Rai, noticed that the accused, Ram Bilas Rai with Narkatua, Paldhari Mahto with Narkatua, Shashi Bhushan @ Guddu, Chandra Bushan @ Pappu, Laldhari with danda come and encircled his brother, Ram Prit Rai. The accused, Ram Bilas Rai, opened fire from his Narkatua on the back of head of the Ram Prit Rai. Then the accused, Paldhari Mahto, also opened fire from his Narkatua on his back. At this, the accused, Ram Bilas Rai, uttered that "chalo kaam ban gaya" and all of them made good escape in the western direction. Thereafter, he went near his brother, Ram Prit Rai and found two injuries on the back of his head. He has further stated on the sound of firing the villagers, Gajendra Rai, PW 6, Jai Kishore Rai, PW 11 and many others arrived and witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, he went near his brother, Ram Prit Rai and found two injuries on the back of his head. He has further stated on the sound of firing the villagers, Gajendra Rai, PW 6, Jai Kishore Rai, PW 11 and many others arrived and witnessed the occurrence. He has further stated that one day before the occurrence at 10 a.m. his brother, Ram Prit Rai, had quarrelled with the accused, Ram Bilash for plucking of mangos from a mango tree standing on the land measuring one katha purchased by him from one Khenan Mahto. His further evidence is that in the following morning of the occurrence, i.e. on 3.6.1997 at about 8 a.m. darogaji came, recorded his fardbeyan and he put his signature (Ext. No. 1). Ram Babu Rai, also signed his fardbeyan (Ext. 2). His further evidence is that the accused, Raj Karan Mahto, was not named by him before the darogqji and he was declared hostile on this point. At para 8 of his cross-examination his evidence is that he had stated before the police that the accused, Ram Bilas Rai and Paldhari Mahto, were armed with Narkatua and rests, Shashi Bhushan Rai @ Guddu, Chandra Bhushan Rai @ Pappu and Laldhari Mahto, with danda. At para 11 his evidence is that in his fardbeyan it was stated that there was a land dispute with the accused, Ram Bilas Rai from before the occurrence and so he with the help of other co-accused, Laldhari, Paldhari and Raj Karan Mahto, committed the offence. At para 13 his evidence is that he and his other three brothers are separate. Three brothers have got their residential houses in the south of the Bandh whereas Ram Prit Rai, has his residential house in the north of the Bandh. At para 16, he has stated that when he reached near the dead body of his brother. Ram Prit Rai the blood was oozing out from his injured portion. At para 18 he has stated that Bansbhitta O.P. was situated at a distance of 2 Kms, from his village. He has further stated that he had shown the alleged lantern and the chowki to the police on which his brother was sleeping at the alleged time of the occurrence. He has further stated that he along with his brother, Ram Babu Rai, was sleeping on one chowki. He has further stated that he had shown the alleged lantern and the chowki to the police on which his brother was sleeping at the alleged time of the occurrence. He has further stated that he along with his brother, Ram Babu Rai, was sleeping on one chowki. His further evidence is that at the place of occurrence he had not seen any cartridge there. He has admitted to have stated before the police that the lantern was burning at the place where his brother, Ram Prit Rai, was sleeping. At para 23 of the cross-examination his evidence is that on 21.8.1997 he had filed a petition before the Court that the chargesheeted witnesses, Tej Narayan Rai, Gajendra Jha, Budhan Jha, Raj Kishore Jha, Devendra Rai, Marindra Mahto, Poddar Mahto, Ram Briksh Mahto, Ramsurat Mahto, Ramdeo Mahto, Chuldaie Mahto and Kailash Ram, were gained over by the accused, so they were given up from their examination in this case. He has proved his signature as well as the signature of his brother, Ram Babu Rai, on that petition (Ext. Nos. A and B). A vakalatnama has also filed along with a petition by his Advocate, Narendra Prasad Sinha, He has proved the signature of Narendra Prasad Sinha (Ext. No. D), his own signature (Ext. No. C) and that of Ram Babu Rai (Ext. No. E) on the vakalatnama. At para 25 he has deposed that he had also made a protest petition against the Investigating Officer on 13.6.1997 along with vakalatnama. He has proved his signature on the protest petition (Ext. No. F). He has also proved the signature of his Advocate, Ajay Kumar Gupta, on the vakalatnama as well as on the protest petition (Ext. Nos. G and G/1). At para 28 his evidence is that he had also made a petition before the Collector against the conducting APP, Sri Rameshwar Prasad on 21.8.1997 and had engaged a private lawyer, Sri Rambabu Rai for conducting his case. He has proved his signature and that of Ram Babu Rai on the petition (Ext. Nos. H and I). His further evidence at para 29 is that in the night of occurrence his brother, Ram Azodhya Rai, had asked his maternal brother, Gajendra Rai, to go to the police station for lodging information about the incidence. PW 2, Ram Babu Rai, is the other eye-witness to the occurrence. Nos. H and I). His further evidence at para 29 is that in the night of occurrence his brother, Ram Azodhya Rai, had asked his maternal brother, Gajendra Rai, to go to the police station for lodging information about the incidence. PW 2, Ram Babu Rai, is the other eye-witness to the occurrence. At the relevant time of the occurrence he along with his brother, Lal Babu Rai, the informant, was lying on the same chowki and had witnessed the entire occurrence. He has corroborated the evidence of the informant in toto and supported the case of the prosecution on all material points. In cross- examination he has stated that he has got three brothers and all are separate since a long time. At para 9 of his cross-examination his evidence is that his brother Ram Prit Rai, was sleeping on a chowki at a distance of 15 feets in the west from the place where he along with his brother, Lal Babu Rai, was sleeping on a chowki. His brother, Ram Prit Rai, was clearly visible from there. At para 10 of his cross-examination, he has admitted to have stated before the police that he along with his brother, Lal Babu Rai, the informant, was lying on a chowki and on hearing the sound of foot steps both of them sat on the chowki. He has admitted to have stated before the police that Ram Bilas Rai, was armed with Narkatua and Chandra Bhushan and Shashi Bhushan with danda. At para 14 his evidence is that darogaji had not seized the lantern. Before the arrival of darogaji, Gajendra Rai, was sent to the police station for lodging information against the accused persons. At para 21 he has admitted to have stated before the police that the accused, Paldhari, was armed with Narkatua and Laldhari with danda. PW 7, Jai Kumari Devi, the wife of the deceased, is also an eye-witness to the occurrence. At the alleged time she was sleeping at the darwaza of her house on the ground along with his son by the side of the chowki on which her husband. Ram Prit Rai, was sleeping there. She has further stated that at that time the lantern was burning there. She has also fully corroborated the evidence of the informant and supported the case of the prosecution. In cross-examination at. Ram Prit Rai, was sleeping there. She has further stated that at that time the lantern was burning there. She has also fully corroborated the evidence of the informant and supported the case of the prosecution. In cross-examination at. para 12 she has stated that the Narkatua was fired from a distance of two hands. At para 13 her evidence is that she had noticed a hole on the head of the deceased with two fire arms injuries and the blood was oozing out from the injured portion. At para 35 she has stated that she had not named the accused, Raj Karan Mahto in her statement before the police. PW 5, Narendra Kumar Rai, is the son of the deceased, It appears from his evidence is that on the sound of firing he woke up and noticed all the accused-appellants with weapons in their hands standing near his father. He also spotted the injuries on the back of the head of his, father and the blood was oozing out from his head. He learnt from his uncles, Ram Babu Rai, PW 2 and Lal Babu Rai, PW 12, the informant that the accused, Ram Bilas Rai and Paldhari Mahto, shot dead his father. At para 7 he has admitted to have stated before the police that the accused, Ram Bilas Rai, Paldhari Mahto and Raj Kumar Mahto, were armed with pistols. PW 6, Gajendra Rai, arrived at the place of occurrence on the sound of firing and noticed Ram, Prit Rai, lying dead there. He has stated that the blood was oozing out from the injured head of the deceased and learnt from Lal Babu Rai and Ram Babu Rai about the details of the occurrence. He has further stated that in the following morning darogaji came and prepared inquest report and was signed by him as well as by Surendra Rai. At para 4 he has stated that in the very night of the occurrence no information was lodged to the Police Station. Ram Babu Rai and.Lal Babu Rai, had asked him for giving information to the police station but out of fear he did not move out of the place. At para 18 he has stated that he was never examined by trie police in this case. PW 10, Puran Rai, also arrived at the place of the occurrence on hearing hulla. He noticed. At para 18 he has stated that he was never examined by trie police in this case. PW 10, Puran Rai, also arrived at the place of the occurrence on hearing hulla. He noticed. Ram Prit Rai lying dead on the chowki with fire arm injuries. PW 11, Jai Kishore Rai, is the co-villagers of the deceased. He also arrived at the place of the occurrence on hearing the sound of filing and saw Ram Prit Rai lying dead on a chowki He noticed fire arm injuries on the back of his head and theblood had fallen on the chowki. He learnt, from Ram Babu Rai and Lai Babu Rai about the names of the murderers of the deceased. He has further stated that due to land dispute both parties were inimical to each other from before the occurrence. 10. PW 14, Shyam Sundar Singh, is the Investigating Officer of this case. His evidence is that on 3.6.1997 while he was posted at Bansbhitta O.P. about 8 a.m. he heard a rumour about the occurrence. He went to the P.O. Village Pachharwa and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, Lal Babu Rai. He has proved the fardbeyan which is in his pen and signature (Ext. No. 4). His fardbeyan was forwarded to the Majorganj Police Station for the institution of a case on the basis of which a case was registered. He has proved the formal FIR (Ext. No. 5). Thereafter he inspected the place of occurrence which was the residential house of the deceased, Ram Prit Rai, situated in Village Pachharwa in the north of the Bandh. He found a chowki in the north-south on which the deceased was alleged to have been sleeping in the night of the occurrence. He also found two fire arm injuries on the back of his head. He prepared the inquest report on the dead body of the deceased and has proved the inquest report (Ext. No. 6). Thereafter the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination through the chowkidar. He has proved the carbon copy for challan prepared dispatching the dead body (Ext. No.7). He took down the statements of the witnesses and submitted the chargesheet. He has further stated that PW 3, Ram Rekha Mahto and PW 4, Nageshwar Mahto, had supported the occurrence in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr PC. He has proved the carbon copy for challan prepared dispatching the dead body (Ext. No.7). He took down the statements of the witnesses and submitted the chargesheet. He has further stated that PW 3, Ram Rekha Mahto and PW 4, Nageshwar Mahto, had supported the occurrence in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr PC. In cross-examination he has stated that no one had informed him about the occurrence in. the very night and on hearing the rumour in the morning he made station diary entry No. 32. He has further stated that he had not prepared the sketch map of the place of the occurrence. He had not seen any lantern nor the same was produced before him. He has further stated that there was a blood on the Chataie. He had also found blood at the place of the occurrence but had not seized. He had also not found any cartridge there. He had also not found any tampering mark. He had not seized any blood stained cloth nor was produced before him by the house inmates. His attention was drawn to the statements of the witnesses made before him in course of investigation. PW 2, Ram Babu Rai had not stated before him that at the alleged time he was sleeping on the chowki He had not stated before him that on hearing the sound of foot steps he along with his brother sat on the chowkL He had not stated before him that the accused-appellants, Ram Bilas Rai and Paldhari Mahto, were armed with Narkatua and Shashi Bhushan, Chandra Bhushan and Paldhari with danda rather he had stated before him that all were armed with Narkatua. PW 5, Narendra Kumar Rai, had not stated before him that the accused, Ram Bilas Rai, Paldhari Mahto and Rajkaran Mahto, were armed with Narkatua. He had stated before him that he was sleeping along with his deceased father on the chowki PW 7, Jai Kumari Devi, had stated before him that a lantern was burning there, in which she identified the accused persons. PW 12, Lal Babu Rai, the informant had not stated before him that the accused, Paldhari and Ram. Bilash were armed with Narkatua rather he had stated all were armed with Narkatua. 11. PW 12, Lal Babu Rai, the informant had not stated before him that the accused, Paldhari and Ram. Bilash were armed with Narkatua rather he had stated all were armed with Narkatua. 11. On behalf of the appellants it was submitted that as per the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, PW 2, Ram Babu Rai, PW 7, Jai Kumari Devi and PW 12, Lal Babu Rai, the informant, two fire arm injuries were caused on the back of the head of the deceased, Ram Prit Rai but the doctor found only one injury, an injury of entry (inverted) and other injury of exit (everted) both communicating to each other. Thus, the case of the prosecution stands falsified by the medical evidence. According to him the Court below wrongly appreciated the testimony of the witnesses and accepted for the conviction of the appellants. It may be pointed out here that the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injury could have been caused in the manner alleged by prosecution and nothing more. The testimony of the eye-witnesses can be discarded on the ground of inconsistency between the testimony of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence only when the medical evidence completely rules out all the probabilities of the injuries taking place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. In the present case, the medical evidence does not disapprove the prosecution case rather it is in support of it. All the eye-witnesses have categorically stated that two shots were fired on the back of the head of the deceased and Doctor found fire Arm injury (entry) on the right side of the neck. PW 7, Jai Kumari Devi, at para 13 has clearly stated that she had spotted a hole on the head of the deceased with two fire arm injuries. In such a situation, it. is just possible that both shots might have been fired at the same place. Thus, I find no substance in the submission raised on behalf of the appellants. 12. It was again contended that the night of occurrence was dark and the witnesses alleged to have identified the appellants in the light of the lantern burning on the varmdah of the deceased but the same was not seized by the I.O nor was produced before him. 12. It was again contended that the night of occurrence was dark and the witnesses alleged to have identified the appellants in the light of the lantern burning on the varmdah of the deceased but the same was not seized by the I.O nor was produced before him. All the witnesses have stated that they identified the accused-appellants in the light of the burning lantern and it is also found mentioned in the FIR, so its non- seizure or non-production will not effect the case of the prosecution in any manner. Thus, I find no merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. 13. It was again contended for the appellants that the prosecution examined only related and interested witnesses who implicated the appellants falsely in this case because of long standing enmity and land dispute. Further they have also contradicted to each other and also the statements made before the I.O. during investigation under Section 161, Cr PC, on all material points, so the Court below wrongly relied upon their testimony for the sake of the conviction of the appellants. In this context, it may be stated here that under settled principle of the law the evidence of such witnesses is not required to be rejected directly rather it is required to be scrutinized with great care and caution. On close scrutiny of the evidence of the eye-witnesses it is established that they are consistent on all material points with respect to the place of the occurrence, use of weapons in the occurrence and the time of occurrence and the manner of occurrence. They have clearly stated that the accused, Ram Bilash Rai and Paldhari Mahto fired from their Narkatuas on the back of the deceased, Ram Prit Rai. All the witnesses have been cross-examined at length and except minor contradictions nothing major surfaced to discard their evidence. 14. On behalf of the appellant, Laldhari Mahto in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2001 and the appellants, Shashi Bhushan Rai @ Shashi Bhushan Kumar @ Guddu Rai and Chandra Bhushan Rai. @ Chandra Bhushan Kumar @ Pappu Rai, it was argued that they were simply the members of unlawful assembly. There is no allegation of any overt act against them, so they were illegally convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC. @ Chandra Bhushan Kumar @ Pappu Rai, it was argued that they were simply the members of unlawful assembly. There is no allegation of any overt act against them, so they were illegally convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC. In this context,, it may be outlined here that Section 149 of the IPC, creates vicarious liability for which active participation of each and every member of unlawful assembly is not at all required. But the position is one of facts in this context as to whether a person happens to be innocently present at the place or was actually a member of unlawful assembly sharing common object. In the present case, the occurrence took place in the intervening night of 2nd/3rd June, 1997. These three appellants with danda and rest two appellants with Narkatua appeared at the scene and both of them shot dead Ram Prit Rai. These three appellants remained present till the consummation of the crime and they retreated the place of occurrence when the accused- appellant, Ram Bilas Rai, uttered that "chalo kaam ban gaya", so in such a situation it cannot be inferred that these three appellants were not innocently present at the place of the occurrence rather on the reverse it can be concluded that they were the members of the unlawful assembly and shared the common object of committing murder of Ram Prit Rai. I find no substance in the submission raised on behalf of the appellants. 15. On active consideration of the above discussed evidence, facts and circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against all the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. I find no wrong in the order of conviction recorded against them by the Court below. 16. In the result, there is no merit in all the three appeals and they are dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below against all the appellants are hereby confirmed. The appellant Ram Bilas Rai, in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2001 (DB) is in custody. The appellants, Paldhari Mahto and Laldhari Mahto in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2001 (DB) and the appellants, Shashi Bhushan Rai @ Shashi Bhushan Kumar @ Guddu Rai and Chandra Bhushan Rai @ Chandra Bhushan Kumar @ Pappu Rai, in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2001 (DB), are on bail. The appellants, Paldhari Mahto and Laldhari Mahto in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2001 (DB) and the appellants, Shashi Bhushan Rai @ Shashi Bhushan Kumar @ Guddu Rai and Chandra Bhushan Rai @ Chandra Bhushan Kumar @ Pappu Rai, in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2001 (DB), are on bail. The bail bonds of these four appellants stand cancelled with a direction to surrender in the Court below within one month failing which the Court below will take all coercive steps for their arrest to serve out the sentences imposed upon them. Aftab Alam, J. 17 I agree.