Judgment :- M.Karpagavinayagam,J. The appellants are A-1 to A-5. A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and each sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. A-2 was also convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment. A-3 was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. A-4 was also convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment. A-5 was also convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed by the appellants/A-1 to A-5. 2. Short facts leading to conviction are as follows: (a) P.W.1 Raja and P.W.2 Kannan are the sons of Babu Naidu, the deceased. P.W.3 Venkatesan is the brother of the deceased. P.W.4 Tmt.Balamani is the wife of the deceased. P.W.5 Leela and P.W.6 Gandhimathi are the daughters of the deceased. P.W.7 Srinivasan and P.W.8 Panneer Selvam are the friends of the deceased. P.W.10 Tmt.Pushpa is the wife of P.W.3 Venkatesan. (b) A-1 and A-2 are brothers. A-3 to A-5 are the associates of A-1 and A-2. A-1 and A-2 are the sons of one Jayalakshmi, who is distantly related to the deceased. There was enmity between the family of the deceased and the family of the said Jayalakshmi over the chit transactions. P.W.4 Balamani, the wife of the deceased, joined the chit run by the said Jayalakshmi, but did not pay back the amount regularly to her. Similarly, two other subscribers introduced by P.W.4 Balamani also had not paid back the amount to Jayalakshmi after getting the amount in auction. Over this, there used to be frequent quarrels between these two families. (c) A-1 Selvam @ Selvakumar proposed to marry a girl. Relatives of the girl came to the accused place to enquire about A-1. On some information suspected to be given by the deceased Babu Naidu, the girl's family was not inclined to give the girl in marriage to A-1 Selvam. Ultimately, the marriage proposal was dropped. Over this also, there was a grudge in the mind of the accused family. Relatives of the girl came to the accused place to enquire about A-1. On some information suspected to be given by the deceased Babu Naidu, the girl's family was not inclined to give the girl in marriage to A-1 Selvam. Ultimately, the marriage proposal was dropped. Over this also, there was a grudge in the mind of the accused family. (d) P.W.1 Raja was in his shop on 16.3.1994 at about 10 p.m. P.W.2 Kannan, after finishing his job, came to the shop of P.W.1 in order to take him to the house. Then, both of them left the shop and they were proceeding to their house at about 12.15 mid-night. While they were reaching their house, A-1 to A-5 suddenly appeared in the scene along with deadly weapons. (e) A-1 Selvam shouted at P.W.2 Kannan, stating that because of the trouble given by his family, the image of their family got spoiled and therefore, the entire family must be finished off. While so stating, A-2 Sasi @ Sasikumar stabbed P.W.2 Kannan on his hip. On receipt of injury, P.W.2 Kannan cried. (f) On seeing this ghastly incident, P.W.1 Raja cried aloud and ran into his house and informed his father and mother about the occurrence. Both of them rushed to the scene of occurrence. A-3 Madhu @ Madhusudanan gave a cut on the deceased on his right shoulder and right thigh. When the deceased turned round and about to escape by climbing the staircase, A-1 Selvam prevented him from proceeding further and gave a cut on the head of the deceased. (g) On hearing this sound, P.W.3 Venkatesan, the brother of the deceased, who was residing in the neighbouring house, came out of the house along with his wife P.W.10 Pushpa and saw the attack. When they came nearer to the scene of occurrence, A-4 Khalid, with a knife gave a cut on P.W.3's right hand back side and also on the fingers of the deceased. P.W.10 shouted. Then, A-5 Munivel cut the ring fingers of both the left and right hand of P.W.10. (h) Then, on hearing the sound, P.W.7 Srinivasan, P.W.8 Panneer Selvam and other persons came there. By that time, the accused persons fled away. On noting that P.Ws.2,3,10 and the deceased sustained injuries, P.W.1 Raja took them to Virugambakkam Police Station at about 12.30 mid-night. (h) Then, on hearing the sound, P.W.7 Srinivasan, P.W.8 Panneer Selvam and other persons came there. By that time, the accused persons fled away. On noting that P.Ws.2,3,10 and the deceased sustained injuries, P.W.1 Raja took them to Virugambakkam Police Station at about 12.30 mid-night. (i) P.W.1 Raja gave Ex.P-1 complaint to P.W.19 Inspector of Police. They were advised to go to Royapettah Hospital along with Police Memo. A case was registered in Crime No.311 of 1994 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 326 and 307 IPC. Ex.P-26 is the F.I.R. The F.I.R. and the complaint were sent to the Magistrate and other superior officers. (j) On 16/17.3.1994 at about 12.55 mid-night, P.W.11 Dr.Loganathan attached to Royapettah Hospital, saw the deceased and declared him dead. He admitted P.W.2 Kannan in the Hospital and gave treatment. He issued Ex.P-4 accident register. He also admitted P.W.3 Venkatesan and issued Ex.P-5 accident register. P.W.11 Doctor also admitted P.W.10 Pushpa and issued Ex.P-6 accident register. Ex.P-7 is the accident register relating to the death of the deceased. Then, P.W.12, another Doctor, conducted surgery on the stomach of P.W.2 Kannan. (k) In the meantime, at about 1.00 p.m., P.W.19 Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence and observed all formalities by preparing observation mahazar and rough sketch and recovered the bloodstained earth, sample earth etc. (l) Since P.W.19 received the message of death of the deceased, he prepared Express Report altering the case into one under Section 302 IPC. He also arranged for recording of dying declaration from P.W.2 through the Magistrate. Accordingly, the Magistrate came and recorded the statement of P.W.2 Kannan. (m) Then, P.W.19 Inspector of Police came to the Hospital and conducted inquest. Ex.P-29 is the inquest report. He examined the eye-witnesses and others. The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. (n) P.W.13 Doctor conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found five injuries on the body of the deceased. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage, shock, as a result of stab injuries on the right thigh. Ex.P-10 is the post-mortem certificate. (o) On 18.3.1994, P.W.19 Inspector of Police arrested A-2 and A-4 and on their confession, recovered M.Os.3,5 and 6, the weapons (knives). On the same day, he arrested A-3 and A-5 and on their confession, recovered M.Os.4 and 7, the knives and M.O.27 shirt. Ex.P-10 is the post-mortem certificate. (o) On 18.3.1994, P.W.19 Inspector of Police arrested A-2 and A-4 and on their confession, recovered M.Os.3,5 and 6, the weapons (knives). On the same day, he arrested A-3 and A-5 and on their confession, recovered M.Os.4 and 7, the knives and M.O.27 shirt. Then, P.W.19's successor, another Inspector of Police took up investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. (p) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-29 were filed and M.Os.1 to 27 were marked. On the side of defence, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. (q) When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials available on record, they merely denied their complicity in the crime in question. (r) Ultimately, the trial Court convicted all the accused with reference to the offences and sentenced them as referred to above. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr.T.Sudanthiram, learned counsel appearing for the appellants 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 would make the following contentions in order to establish that the case of the prosecution would fail in view of the patent infirmities: (i) Ex.P-1 complaint would not have come into existence at the time alleged by the prosecution. P.W.18 Police Constable would state that Ex.P-1 complaint was recorded by the Head Constable. On the other hand, P.W.19 Inspector of Police would state that the complaint was given by P.W.1 Raja to him at the relevant time and he only registered the case and sent the injured to the Hospital along with the Memo through P.W.18. Admittedly, the Memo had not been produced. Further, P.W.19 Inspector of Police would admit in the cross-examination that even before the registration of the F.I.R., the Memo has been prepared. Hence, Ex.P-1 which has been prepared by the Head Constable as stated by P.W.18 Police Constable, has not been placed before the Court. Therefore, Ex.P-1 complaint stated to have been prepared by P.W.19 Inspector of Police, would not have been prepared at the alleged time. (ii) Admittedly, Ex.D-1, the statement given by P.W.2 Kannan, the injured, in the Hospital, was recorded by the Magistrate on the requisition given by P.W.19 Inspector of Police. Therefore, Ex.P-1 complaint stated to have been prepared by P.W.19 Inspector of Police, would not have been prepared at the alleged time. (ii) Admittedly, Ex.D-1, the statement given by P.W.2 Kannan, the injured, in the Hospital, was recorded by the Magistrate on the requisition given by P.W.19 Inspector of Police. As per Ex.D-1 marked through P.W.2 Kannan, A-1 Selvam, A-2 Sasi and group of Jaya with ten people, came and attacked him and his father, the deceased and brother P.W.1 Raja and one Raja Badar attacked the deceased. This is quite contradictory to the case of the prosecution. According to prosecution, A-1 to A-3 attacked the deceased and A-2 Sasi attacked P.W.2 Ex.D-1 is the earliest document. In Ex.P-1, it is mentioned that ten persons are involved, but as per the prosecution case, only A-1 to A-5 participated in the occurrence. Since this is contradictory to the prosecution case, the entire prosecution case has to be rejected. (iii) The occurrence had taken place at 12.15 mid-night. The F.I.R. was registered at 12.30 mid-might. But, the documents Ex.P-1 complaint and Ex.P-26 F.I.R. reached the Court only at 1.30 a.m. This delay must have been used by the investigating officer to put up a case against the accused persons by getting statement giving various overt acts as against A-1 to A-5 with reference to the injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured persons. 4. Mr.R.Sitharaman, learned counsel appearing for fourth appellant/A-4, while endorsing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for A-1 to A-3, would submit that though the knives had been recovered from A-2 to A-4, the knives did not contain blood. Further, according to prosecution, the fingers of P.W.3 Venkatesan have been chopped off by A-4, but the fingers have not been produced. At any rate, A-4 has to be convicted only for his individual act, as there is no common object of committing the murder of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel Mr.A.Shivakumar appearing for the fifth appellant/A-5 would submit that though Ex.P-1 complaint had been prepared at about 12.30 mid-night, the documents along with the altered report, namely Ex.P-28 reached the Magistrate only at 1.30 a.m. and those documents have been prepared without knowing the contents of Ex.P-1 complaint and as such, the "benefit of doubt" should be given to all the accused, including A-5. Further, even according to prosecution, A-5 caused injury only on P.W.10 Pushpa which is a simple injury. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a common object of committing the murder of the deceased. 6. In order to substantiate these contentions, learned counsel for the parties cited several judgments. 7. In reply to the above submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.E.Raja, while referring to the various authorities, would contend that though Ex.D-1 is admissible under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, the entire prosecution case projected through the evidence of injured witnesses, namely P.Ws.1,2,3 and 10 and the other witnesses, namely P.Ws.4,5,6,7 and 8, cannot be rejected, especially when their evidence is cogent and is in consonance with Ex.P-1 complaint, which is the earliest document and also corroborated by medical testimony. Mere variations contained in Ex.D-1 statement would not be given more weight in order to reject the ocular testimony tendered before the Court, which has been tested by cross-examination through the injured witnesses and the other independent witnesses. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the records. 9. With regard to motive aspect, there is no serious challenge on the part of the accused. According to prosecution, there was a dispute with reference to the chit transaction between the family of Jayalakshmi and the deceased. P.W.4 Balamani, the wife of the deceased joined as a chit subscriber with Jayalakshmi and she did not pay the amount regularly. Further, two other subscribers introduced by P.W.4 Balamani, have also not paid the amount, though they have obtained the amount. Due to this, there used to be frequent quarrels between them. Further, the accused family was under the impression that the marriage proposal for A-1 Selvam was stopped because of the wrong information given by the deceased Babu Naidu to the girl's family. This was the motive for the occurrence. 10. About this motive, we have got the evidence of P.Ws.1,2, the brothers, P.W.4, the mother, P.W.3, the brother of the deceased and P.W.10, the wife of P.W.3. In view of these materials relating to the motive, which are not seriously challenged, the same can be accepted to hold that there was misunderstanding between these two families. 11. 10. About this motive, we have got the evidence of P.Ws.1,2, the brothers, P.W.4, the mother, P.W.3, the brother of the deceased and P.W.10, the wife of P.W.3. In view of these materials relating to the motive, which are not seriously challenged, the same can be accepted to hold that there was misunderstanding between these two families. 11. There is also no serious challenge to the fact that A-3 to A-5 are the close associates of A-1 and A-2. Therefore, the motive for A-1 and A-2 with the assistance of the other accused to cause harm to the family of the deceased, is fairly apparent. But, the question which has to be considered is as to whether the occurrence had taken place as alleged by the prosecution. 12. According to prosecution, P.W.2 Kannan went to the shop of P.W.1 Raja and took him to the house at about 12.00 mid-night. When they were about to reach their house, A-1 to A-5 came with weapons like knives in their hands and A-1 began to shout at P.Ws.1 and 2, stating that their image of the entire family has been spoiled by their father's act and therefore, their family has to be done away with. At that juncture, A-2 attacked P.W.2 and caused injury on the left hip. Due to the injury, the intestines of P.W.2 came out. P.W.1 cried aloud and informed this incident by entering into the house to the parents. The deceased, even without a shirt, came down from the stair-case from the first floor and saw the accused with weapons. On seeing the deceased, A-1 and A-3 attacked and caused injury. On hearing the noise, P.W.3, the brother of the deceased and the wife of P.W.3, P.W.10, who were staying in the same area, came out of their house and saw these persons attacking. When they came nearer to the scene, A-4 attacked P.W.3 and A-5 attacked P.W.10. 13. With reference to the injuries sustained by P.W.2, we have got the medical evidence through P.Ws.11 and 12, the Doctors. Ex.P-4 is the accident register relating to P.W.2 Kannan. Ex.P-8 is the case sheet issued by P.W.12 Doctor who conducted surgery on P.W.2. 14. About the injury on the deceased caused by A-1 and A-3, we have got the evidence of P.W.13, the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem, who referred to those particulars in Ex.P-10 post-mortem certificate. 15. Ex.P-4 is the accident register relating to P.W.2 Kannan. Ex.P-8 is the case sheet issued by P.W.12 Doctor who conducted surgery on P.W.2. 14. About the injury on the deceased caused by A-1 and A-3, we have got the evidence of P.W.13, the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem, who referred to those particulars in Ex.P-10 post-mortem certificate. 15. With reference to the injuries sustained by P.W.3 Venkatesan caused by A-4 on the back and hand, he has been treated by P.W.11 Doctor, who issued Ex.P-5 accident register, which contains the details of the injuries on the respective parts of the body of P.W.3. 16. With regard to the injuries caused on P.W.10 Pushpa by A-5, we have got the evidence of P.W.11 Doctor, who issued Ex.P-6 accident register, according to which, P.W.10 sustained injuries on the left ring finger and the right finger. 17. There is no dispute in the fact that there is consistency in the evidence of the eye-witnesses. But, all the three counsel, who appeared for the respective accused, would uniformly submit that though there is a consistency, it is like a parrot-like evidence and therefore, their evidence cannot be acted upon blindly. But, the main aspect of the argument advanced by learned counsel for the accused is that Ex.P-1, which is the earliest document in this case, would give completely contrary version to the prosecution case and as such, the prosecution case has to be rejected. 18. It is strenuously contended that P.W.2 himself has admitted that Ex.D-1 statement has been given by him to the Magistrate. In such an event, it has to be considered as to whether the prosecution case could be accepted to confirm the conviction imposed by the trial Court on the accused. 19. Though this argument at the first blush looks attractive, a thorough probe would make it clear that in the light of Ex.D-1 statement, we cannot outrightly reject the other evidence of the prosecution case, projected through the injured, relative and independent eye-witnesses. 20. Of course, as per Ex.D-1 given by P.W.2 to the Magistrate, A-1 Selvam, A-2 Sasi and Jaya's group of 10 persons came and one Raja Badar attacked P.W.1 Raja and P.W.2 Kannan and the deceased Babu Naidu. 20. Of course, as per Ex.D-1 given by P.W.2 to the Magistrate, A-1 Selvam, A-2 Sasi and Jaya's group of 10 persons came and one Raja Badar attacked P.W.1 Raja and P.W.2 Kannan and the deceased Babu Naidu. But, it is to be noticed that while this document has been shown to and confronted, P.W.2 Kannan has specifically stated that those particulars have not been given by him and those particulars contained in Ex.D-1 are said to be wrong. Though P.W.2 did not disown the recording of the statement, it is clear that he disowned the contents of Ex.D-1. If really the prosecution wanted to implicate the family of Raja Badar, then there is no difficulty for them to implicate the said Raja Badar and Jalalakshmi also, in view of the fact that Ex.D-1 would indicate that ten persons are involved in the offences. The very fact that they have chosen only five persons, namely A-1 to A-5, without making any effort to implicate the other persons in the family, would show that the case projected by the prosecution must be true. 21. Further, Ex.P-1 complaint is the earliest document in this case. Ex.P-1 complaint has been given by P.W.1 to P.W.19 Inspector of Police at about 12.15 mid-night. Only after registration of the F.I.R., the injured witnesses were sent to Hospital for treatment. Exs.P-4 to P-6 were prepared by P.W.11 Doctor between 12.50 a.m. and 1.05 a.m. on 16/17.3.1994. There is evidence to show to the Police Constable P.W.18 also accompanied the injured witnesses along with the deceased to the Hospital. This shows that Ex.P-1 complaint must have been prepared prior to the examination of these witnesses by the Doctor. So, in that fact situation, we are to hold that the earliest document in this case is Ex.P-1, which has been registered by P.W.19 Inspector of Police. 22. It is said that P.W.18 Police Constable would say that one Head Constable registered the case and not P.W.19 Inspector of Police. P.W.19 would assertively say that he only registered the case and signed the said document at the relevant time. It may be that P.W.19 would have got the assistance of P.W.18 Police Constable or any Head Constable to draft the complaint. It does not mean that it was registered only by P.W.18 or the Head Constable and not by P.W.19 Inspector of Police. It may be that P.W.19 would have got the assistance of P.W.18 Police Constable or any Head Constable to draft the complaint. It does not mean that it was registered only by P.W.18 or the Head Constable and not by P.W.19 Inspector of Police. Therefore, it is futile to contend that one other complaint was registered by the Head Constable and the same has been suppressed. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 is in consonance with Ex.P-1 and his statement is corroborated by the other injured witnesses, namely P.Ws.2,3 and 10. 23. Apart from these witnesses, we have got the evidence of the other eye-witness, P.W.4, the wife of the deceased. In addition to that, we have also got the evidence of independent witnesses, namely P.W.5 Leela and P.W.6 Gandhimathi, the daughters of the deceased. P.Ws.5 and 6 are natural witnesses, who were present in the house. P.W.7 Srinivasan and P.W.8 Panneer Selvam are staying in the same area and there is no reason to reject their evidence also. 24. Even assuming that P.W.2 Kannan has given a version before the Court which is completely contrary to Ex.D-1, at the most, we can say that P.Ws.2's evidence is to be eschewed from the scrutiny. However, the other evidence adduced by the injured witnesses and other independent witnesses which are natural, cogent and consistent, would show that the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 25. Hence, we have no reason to reject the prosecution case in view of the fact that some of the particulars given in Ex.D-1 statement given by P.W.2 are wrong. If Ex.D-1 is to be accepted as true, then it has to be stated that one Raja Badar, the father of A-1 and A-2, attacked the deceased and one Raja (P.W.1) also was attacked. But, this is not the prosecution case. As stated above, P.W.1 Raja, who was not injured, went to the Police Station along with the injured persons and gave a complaint. In Ex.P-1 complaint, there is no reference about the injury on P.W.1 Raja. Nobody would state anything about Raja Badar or his wife Jayalakshmi. Under those circumstances, we do not want to attach any importance to Ex.D-1 statement and at the same time, we have no reluctance to place reliance on the evidence of the other eye-witnesses, whose evidence, in our view, are above suspicion and beyond reproach. 26. Nobody would state anything about Raja Badar or his wife Jayalakshmi. Under those circumstances, we do not want to attach any importance to Ex.D-1 statement and at the same time, we have no reluctance to place reliance on the evidence of the other eye-witnesses, whose evidence, in our view, are above suspicion and beyond reproach. 26. With reference to the nature of offences, it is strenuously contended by the counsel concerned that Section 149 IPC cannot be invoked and only the accused persons are liable to be convicted for their individual acts. 27. With reference to this, there is a judgment cited by one of the counsel in 2002 Crl.L.J. 560 (SC) (Sukhan Raut vs. State of Bihar). Relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the said case are as follows: "6. Section 149 of the Code makes the members of an unlawful assembly vicariously liable where it is proved that the offence is committed in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly which the members of the unlawful assembly knew that such offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the object of the unlawful assembly. Once it is established that the unlawful assembly had common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act for the purposes of incurring the vicarious liability for the offence committed by a member of such unlawful assembly. Under this section the liability of the other members of the unlawful assembly for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence, rests upon the fact whether the other members knew before hand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. Common object has to be distinguished from the common intention. There is no question of common intention in Section 149 of the Code. ..." 28. The abovesaid observations of the Supreme Court would not be of any help to the defence, in view of the present facts of the case. According to prosecution, there was enmity between the family of Jayalakshmi and the deceased. There is no question of common intention in Section 149 of the Code. ..." 28. The abovesaid observations of the Supreme Court would not be of any help to the defence, in view of the present facts of the case. According to prosecution, there was enmity between the family of Jayalakshmi and the deceased. All the accused persons came with the weapons, that too in the mid-night hours, to the house of the deceased and shouted at P.W.2 that his father was the only cause for the damage of their family's name and therefore, his entire family has to be done away with. By so saying, the attack was commenced. Firstly, A-2 attacked P.W.2. A-1 and A-3 attacked the deceased, who came out of the house. In the course of the occurrence, P.Ws.3 and 10 came to the scene of occurrence and they were also attacked by A-4 and A-5. So, there was common object. 29. Thus, the fact that all the accused, with the knives, appeared at the scene of occurrence and attacked P.W.2 and the deceased, with the words uttered as referred to above, would indicate that the accused persons came with the common object of committing the murder of the deceased. As such, all the persons, even though some of the accused have not attacked the deceased, would be liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 149 IPC, since the object of all the accused, who came with the weapons to the house of the deceased, would be to do away with the deceased. 30. Under those circumstances, the conviction imposed by the trial Court on A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC, is perfectly correct. But, a slight modification could be made as regards A-1 and A-2. In this case, A-3 has been convicted only for Section 302 IPC simpliciter. A-1 has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. But, both A-1 and A-3 have attacked the deceased and caused injuries. Though the injury caused by A-1 is not fatal, it would be appropriate to convict A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. A-1 has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. But, both A-1 and A-3 have attacked the deceased and caused injuries. Though the injury caused by A-1 is not fatal, it would be appropriate to convict A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Therefore, the conviction imposed on A-1 and A-2 is modified to the extent that they are convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, instead of Section 302 read with 149 IPC. However, A-2's conviction for the offence under Section 307 IPC is confirmed. 31. In respect of the other offences on the other accused, namely A-3, A-4 and A-5 for the offences under Sections 302, 326, 324 and 302 read with 149 IPC respectively, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court shall stand confirmed. 32. There shall be no change with regard to the imposition of sentence on all the accused by the trial Court, for the offences stated above, by the trial Court. The sentences imposed on all the accused by the trial Court with regard to the above offences, shall stand confirmed. The sentences imposed on the accused shall run concurrently. 33. With the above modification in the conviction alone, the appeal is dismissed. Since all the accused are on bail, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure their custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence.