Judgment P.N.Yadav, J. 1. These appeals relate to one and the same judgment and order dated 8th and llth June, 2001 rendered by Sri Rajendra Kumar Mishra, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 422 of 1991 arising out of Sasaram (Town) P.S. Case No. 88/89 and were, therefore, heard together and are going to be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellants Harendra Singh and Ramji Singh suffered conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) while appellants Munji Singh and Sudama Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec. 302/34 of the Code, and appellant Harendra Singh and Munji Singh were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, the sentences having been ordered to run concurrently. 3. It would be relevant and convenient to reproduce, in brief, the factual scenario of the case as highlighted by the prosecution. The informant Ashutosh Sharan Singh (PW 13) and Jai Kumar Singh (PW 12), both of village Kumbhau situated under the jurisdiction of Sheo Sagar police station of Rohtas district happened to go to the Dharmshala near Gandhi Chowk, Sasaram to see the deceased Rang Bahadur Singh alias Bachhu Singh who by agnatic relation was the grand father of the informant at about 8.30 p.m. in the night on 13.3.1989. After washing their hands and face they along with the deceased left Dharamshala for going to their village at about 9.15 p.m. No sooner had they gone out of the Dharmshala and had hardly proceeded ahead of its gate then their co-villager Sudama Singh and Ramji Singh of village Deoparsar, P.S. Karakat District Rohtas, who was the son of the brother-in-law of Sudama Singh along with two young unknown miscreants, all having armed themselves with fire arms arrived there. One of the associates of Sudama Singh was having slightly long beard. Accused Sudama Singh (hereafter accused used for appellant) pointing the deceased to the unknown miscreants asked his associates to kill him. In pursuance of his order and instigation one of the unknown miscreants having slightly developed long beard opened fire upon the deceased Bachnu Singh and soon accused Ramji Singh resorted to firing against him as a result of which he sustained injuries and fell down. In pursuance of his order and instigation one of the unknown miscreants having slightly developed long beard opened fire upon the deceased Bachnu Singh and soon accused Ramji Singh resorted to firing against him as a result of which he sustained injuries and fell down. The other unknown miscreants also opened fire, however, the shot so fired by him did not hit him. All the four accused persons then fled away towards north-east brandishing fire arms which they were having with them. 4. The case further is that Ram Sarekh Singh, Inspector of Police (PW 3), Jai Kishore Singh, Sub- Inspector of Police {PW 6) and Vibhuti Kumar, Inspector of Police were standing and talking to each other near Gandhi Chowk, Sasaram. They heard sound of firing coming from the side of Dharmshala and saw people fleeing away. PW 3 with aid and assistance of Vibhuti Kumar caught hold of one of the miscreants who was fleeing away with fire arm. Certain police personnel including Jai Kishore Singh (PW 6) along with certain members of the public went on chasing the other miscreants. PW 6 succeeded in apprehending one another miscreant who was running away towards Sasaram railway station. The miscreant caught hold of by PW 3 disclosed his name as Munji Singh of village Panjar, P.S. Kargahar District Rohtas while the other miscreant who was apprehended by PW 6 was the bearded accused Harendra Singh of village Deoparsar, PS Karghar, district Rohtas. The other accused Sudama Singh and Ramji Singh made good escape. Both the apprehended accused persons were having country made pistols and cartridges which were recovered and seized by the Police Officers. They were brought near Gandhi Chowk and again to the place of occurrence. In the meanwhile Surendra Kumar, sub-Inspector of Police of Sasaram Town Police Station (CW 1) happened to reach there. He took charge of the apprehended miscreants Munji Singh and Harendra Singh and seized Pistols and cartridges from their possession and prepared seizure list in presence of witnesses and obtained their signatures including that of PW 3. 5. The fardbeyan of the informant Ashutosh Sharan Singh (PW 13) was recorded by Surendra Kumar (CW 1) at about 9.45 p.m. in the night of 13.3.1989 near the aforesaid Dharamshala. 5. The fardbeyan of the informant Ashutosh Sharan Singh (PW 13) was recorded by Surendra Kumar (CW 1) at about 9.45 p.m. in the night of 13.3.1989 near the aforesaid Dharamshala. CW 1 Surendra Kumar transmitted the fardbeyon to the Officer-in-Charge for registering a case and on the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Sasaram (Town) PS Case No. 88/89 was registered. CW 1 took up investigation. He inspected the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report, caused the dead body of the deceased to be sent to mortuary for postmortem examination, seized blood stained earth and an empty cartridge from the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses, sent the pistols and cartridges recovered and seized from possession of the accused Munji Singh and Harendra Singh as well as the cartridge seized from the place of occurrence to the Sergeant Major for examination and report, obtained the report thereon from the Sergeant Major, collected post-mortem examination report and on completion of investigation laid chargesheet against all the four accused persons after complying with certain necessary legal formalities and finally the trial commenced after commitment. 6. The State examined altogether 14 witnesses at trial to establish guilt of the accused persons and though Ram Beyas Singh (PW 1) and Ram Singhasan Dubey (PW 2) turned volte face to the prosecution and Vijay Narairi Singh (PW 7), Ram Charitar Singh (PW 8) Lili Prasad @ Lal Babu (PW 9) and Uma Nath Chaurasia (PW 10) were tendered witnesses while Dhawal Kumar Rai (PW 5) and Liyaquat All Khan (PW 11) were formal witnesses the trial Court placing reliance on the testimony of the two eye-witnesses, namely, Ashutosh Sharan Singh (PW 13) and Jai Kumar Singh (PW 12) and the two police officers, namely, Ram Sarekh Singh (PW 3) and Jai Kishore Singh (PW 6) who on chase caught hold of the accused Munji Singh and Harendra Singh with Pistols and cartridges as well as the medical evidence as gathered from the contents of the post-mortem examination report (Ext. 3) which was proved by Ram Chandra Pandey (PW 4) Head Clerk of Sadar Hospital, Sasaram as Dr. 3) which was proved by Ram Chandra Pandey (PW 4) Head Clerk of Sadar Hospital, Sasaram as Dr. Sheo Shankar Dubey, who in the capacity of the Deputy Superintendent of the aforesaid Hospital conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased could not be examined as he was dead before commencement of the trial and Surendra Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer (CW 1) recorded the findings of guilt and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. 7. The accused persons did not enter into defence, however, as gathered from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and their statements recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. their defence seemed to be that of total denial and false implication out of sheer enmity emanating from long drawn land dispute between the deceased and the accused Sudama Singh. According to the accused the deceased was not eliminated in the manner alleged by the prosecution and, as a matter of fact, he was shot dead by certain unknown miscreants and none could witness commission of his murder nor were accused Munji Singh and Harendra Singh chased and apprehended with fire arms and cartridges by PWs 3 and 6 and the members of the public and the instant case was nothing but a cock and bull story concocted to falsely implicate the accused persons on account of old animosity. 8. Let us now examine and analyse the testimony of the witnesses on the anvil of reliability and broad probability. Though evidence of the prosecution witnesses has been spelt out in details by the trial Court in its judgment, a brief resume of the same may be had at a glance for proper appreciation of rival contentions put forward at the bar. We would begin our exercise with the discussion of evidence of Ashutosh Sharan Singh (PW 13), maker of fardbeyan and his co-villager Jai Kumar Singh (PW 12) who figured as eye-witnesses to the incident leading to the cold blooded and dastardly murder of the deceased. 9. The informant Ashotosh Sharan Singh (PW 13) reiterated his earliest version rendered by him before the police. 9. The informant Ashotosh Sharan Singh (PW 13) reiterated his earliest version rendered by him before the police. He stated that he along with Jai Kumar Singh (PW 12) and the deceased left the Dharamshala at about 9-9.15 p.m. on 13.3.1989 for going to their village Kumbhau and no sooner had they crossed the gate of the Dharamshala and proceeded a little ahead then their co-villager Sudama Singh and Ramji Singh son of his brother-in-law and two unknown youths with fire arms in their hands reached there and in pursuance of order and instigation made by Sudama Singh and the deceased on being pointed out and identified by him, one of the unknown miscreants having slightly developed long beard pumped bullet in the chest of the deceased and soon another shots was fired upon him by Ramji Singh as a result of which he sustained injuries, fell down and breathed his last and subsequently the other unknown youth also resorted to firing however, the shot so fired by him hit none and thereafter all the four miscreants (accused) started fleeing away in the north east direction. PW 13 added he raised alarm and he along with PW 12 and certain members of the public started chasing the miscreants and a little ahead, at a distance of 20-25 yards from the scene of incident certain police officers including Ram Sarekh Singh (PW 3) were present on the grand trunk road near Gandhi Chowk and they also chased them along with members of the public and PW 3 succeeded in apprehending one of the miscreants with Pistols and cartridges, who disclosed his name as Munji Singh and one another police officer with aid and assistance of the members of the public continued to chase the other miscreants and the said police officer (PW 6), Jai Kishore Singh caught hold of one another bearded miscreant who was running away towards Sasaram railway station with pistol and cartridges and on being interrogated he disclosed his name as Harendra Singh. It is in his evidence that accused Sudama Singh and Ramji Singh made good escape and the apprehended accused Munji Singh and Harendra Kumar Singh were brought to Gandhi Chowk and from there to the place of occurrence situated in front of Apna Readymade Garments Store near Dharamshala and by that time Surendra Kumar Singh, the Investigating Officer (CW 1) had also arrived there. Accused Munji Singh and Harendra Singh were handed over to the IO who took charge of them and seized pistols and cartridges recovered from their possession and prepared the seizure list in presence of witnesses. PW 13 got his fardbeyan recorded by the Investigating Officer. Old animosity existing between the deceased and Sudama Singh was said to have acted as motive for eliminating the victim Bachnu Singh. Since narration of the incident occurring at the time and place and in the manner alleged by the prosecution has been made by the other eyewitnesses (PW 12) in exactly similar terms as rendered by PW 13 without detailed evidence of the former (PW 12) having been reproduced, suffice it would be to say that he too described Munji Singh and Ramji Singh as shooters and assailants of the deceased in pursuance of order and instigation made by Sudama Singh. Both PWs 12 and 13 claimed to have identified accused Sudama Singh and Ramji Singh along with two unknown miscreants at the time and place of occurrence in the electric light which was available at the scene of incident. They again identified all the four accused in the dock of the trial Court. 10. The evidence of PWs 12 and 13 was quite consistent and corroborative. Nothing was elicited in their cross examination to impeach their veracity. However, it would be desirable to look to the criticisms levelled against their evidence. Shri Singh, learned Senior Counsel has vehemently submitted that the fardbeyan which is in great detail suffers from several loopholes and falsehood for it is averred therein that the informant (PW 13), Jai Kumar Singh (PW 12) and the deceased Bachnu Singh went to the Dharamshala together but from , the evidence of PWs 12 and 13 it would transpire that they did not leave their village home together and PW 12 and PW 13 happened to meet each other near Sasaram Chaoki No. 2 wherefrom they proceeded to Dharamshalla to meet the deceased and after washing their hands and face they accompanied by the deceased left the Dharamshala for their village (which is situated not far away) and after they went out of the Dharamshalla a few steps away from its gate the gory and heart reading incident occurred; that there was no occasion for PWs. 12 and 13 to go to see the deceased at the Dharamshala; that none of the eye-witnesses could say when the deceased had left his village home for Sasaram; that PWs 12 and 13 cannot be believed to be the eye-witnesses and PW 13 has concocted the entire prosecution story to falsely implicate the accused; that though PW 13 in his examination in chief spoke of existence of animosity between Sudama Singh and the deceased in cross examination he said he did not see any paper which could reveal enmity and he had no knowledge of animosity between them; Sudama Singh perpetrator of the crime was having a rifle with him but he himself did not shoot at the deceased and this also renders prosecution case doubtful; that none of PWs. 12 and 13 said when they were raising alarm and chasing the culprits they uttered the names of the accused Sudama Singh and Ramjee Singh and that PW 12 stated that the gate of the Dharamshalla opened towards south though it situated in the north. The submissions based on surmises and conjectures are devoid of merit and force and the same cannot instill even the slightest suspicion in the prosecution version and hence liable to be discarded. The first information report disclosing the names of the accused and the statements of the witnesses including PWs 3 and 6 who had caught hold of the two culprits after a chase were recorded at the place of occurrence itself within half an hour of the incident. There was no chance or opportunity of concoction or embellishment. Credibility of testimony of witnesses and oral and circumstantial evidence surfacing from their statements is to be judged on a judicial evaluation of totality of materials brought on records and not on isolated scrutiny of some particular oral and circumstantial evidence. 11. The informant (PM 13) who is by agnatic relation grand son of the deceased has been branded as relative and interested witness. The testimony of a related and interested witness cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that he is a close relative of and interested in the deceased if his evidence on a cautious and close scrutiny is found to be worthy of credence and wholly reliable. In the case at hand the evidence of PW 13 satisfied the prescribed test and standard. In the case at hand the evidence of PW 13 satisfied the prescribed test and standard. His evidence on scanning and scrutiny has been found to be above board and wholly reliable. 12. Adverting to the evidence of Ram Sarakh Singh, Inspector of Police (PW 3) and Jai Kishore Singh Sub-Inspector of Police (PW 6) we may observe that they along with Vibhuti Kumar, another Inspector of Police (not examined perhaps on account of his death) and certain junior police personnel were standing at the Grand Trunk Road near Gandhi Chowk situated in the vicinity of Apna Readymade Garments store and the Dharamshalla. They heard the alarm and sound of firing coming from the side of Dharamshala and soon they noticed persons running away and they getting alert looked to and followed the miscreants who were being chased by the members of the public. PW 3 with the aid and assistance of the aforesaid Vibhuti Kumar caught hold of one of the miscreants with Pistol and cartridges while PW 6 with certain members of the public succeeded in apprehending one another culprit with Pistol and cartridges, who had run away a little ahead towards Sasaram railway station. The culprit caught hold of by PW 3 disclosed his name as Munji Singh while the other culprit apprehended by PW 6 described his name as Harendra Singh who was having a bit developed and long beard. Arms and ammunition were recovered from both the apprehended culprits and they were taken to Gandhi Chowk and again to the place of occurrence situated in front of Apna Readymade Garments Store near the Dharmshala where cold blooded and diabolical murder of the deceased was committed. 13. PWs 3 and 6 testified to seizure of Pistols and cartridges from possession of the apprehended culprits and an empty 4 cartridge and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer (CW 1). PW 3 also put his signatures on the seizure lists. PWs 3 and 6 also saw the deceased Bachhu. Singh lying dead in a pool of blood at the place of occurrence in front of Apna Readymade Garments Store near the Dharamshala. Their statements too were recorded then and there by the Investigating Officer. Both the witnesses identified Munji Singh and Harendra Singh in the Court. PWs 3 and 6 also saw the deceased Bachhu. Singh lying dead in a pool of blood at the place of occurrence in front of Apna Readymade Garments Store near the Dharamshala. Their statements too were recorded then and there by the Investigating Officer. Both the witnesses identified Munji Singh and Harendra Singh in the Court. PWs 3 and 6 being public servants were quite independent witnesses, not at all inimical to the accused and there was no reason why they would falsely depose against them. The service and assistance rendered by them to the State and the cause of administration of justice must be said to be of immense value. Had they not chased and caught hold of accused Munji Singh and Harendra Singh, they might have got escort free. PWs 3 and 6 deserve all appreciation for their pivotal role in bringing the culprits to book. Such police officers deserve to be suitably rewarded by the State. 14. Apprehension of the accused Munji Singh and Harendra Singh with fire arms and cartridges after chase soon after the incident leading to the commission of murder of the deceased is eloquent of their involvement and participation in the commission of murder of the deceased. 15. The ocular evidence on the point of infliction of fire arm injuries on the person of the deceased is consistent with medical evidence as gathered from the post mortem examination report (Ext. 3) Dr. Sheo Shankar Dubey, the then Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Sasaram conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased at about 6.30 a.m. on 14.3.1989. He died on 4.4.1989, that is, before the commencement of trial as per statement of Ram Chandra Pandey (PW 4), Head Clerk of Sadar Hospital, Sasaram, who proved the post mortem examination report (Ext. 3). 16. As the doctor who conducted autopsy and is the marker of the post-mortem examination report the contents thereof is admissible and the same may be looked into under Sec. 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3). 16. As the doctor who conducted autopsy and is the marker of the post-mortem examination report the contents thereof is admissible and the same may be looked into under Sec. 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. The post mortem examination report would reveal that the doctor conducting autopsy found (i) A circular wound over the lower portion of right margin of sternal region with inverted, irregular and charred margin going deep into the chest cavity medially, of diameter of half inch, being wound of entry, (ii) A circular wound below the angle of left scapula over the back with irregular margin, of diameter of 3/4 inch, being wound of exit and (iii) lower portion of right side of neck and medical portion of right shoulder in an area of 4 inch diameter was carved with multiple lacerated wounds with inverted and charred margin of size varying from 1/10" to 1/8" in diameter from which blood was oozing. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the aforesaid fire arm injuries and time elapsed since death was 24 hours. The doctor recovered as many as 8 embedded pellets which were handed over to the police official accompanying the dead body of the deceased. 17. Injury No. (i) had charred margin. PW 12 stated that shot hitting the deceased was fired from a distance of about 10 feet. Charring is generally caused by shot fired from a close range and not from a distance of 10 feet. But it is to be borne in mind that PW 12 spoke of distance according to his estimation which could not be said to be correct and accurate. Again mere reference in post mortem report of charred/blackened margin of injury does not lead to an inference that firing was resorted to from a close range vide Mohan Singh and another V/s. State of M.P.1 . The injury likely to be caused from a close range may also be inflicted from a considerable distance if a substantial wad or occluding object has been placed on the top of the propellant vide Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology of Cox 5th Edition 1987. 18. The injury likely to be caused from a close range may also be inflicted from a considerable distance if a substantial wad or occluding object has been placed on the top of the propellant vide Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology of Cox 5th Edition 1987. 18. The Investigating Officer Surendra Kumar (CW 1) stated that on getting telephonic message regarding the incident he rushed to the place of occurrence near Gandhi Chowk and the Dharamshala where he recorded the fardbeyan of Ashutosh Sharan Singh (PW 13) in presence of Jai Kumar Singh (PW 12) and transmitted the fardbeyan to the Officer-in-Charge of Sasaram Town Police Station for registration of a case. He took up investigation, inspected the place of occurrence situated 5-6ft. away from the northern main gate of the Dharamshala, saw the dead body of the deceased with blood oozing out from his injuries, seized an empty cartridge and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report, caused the dead body of the deceased to be sent to mortuary for post-mortem examination, was handed over two country made pistols and five cartridges recovered by PWs 3 and 6 from possession of Munji Singh and Harendra Singh and he prepared seizure list in respect thereof in presence of witness on which Ram Saresh Singh (PW 3), Liaquat Ali Khan (PW 11) and Pradip Singh (not examined on account of his death) put their signatures. CW 1 sent the seized fire arms and cartridges to the Sergeant Major for their examination and report. 19. The materials on record abundantly established that Munji Singh and Harendra Singh were chased and arrested by PWs 3 and 6 and from possession of the former a country made pistol of .315 bore and four cartridges of .315 bore were recovered while a country made pistol of 12 bore and a cartridge of the same bore were recovered from possession of the latter and one cartridge of 315 bore was recovered and seized from the place of occurrence and they were all sent to the Sergeant Major who after examining and testing the same submitted his report (Ext. 6) to the effect that both the Pistols and the five live cartridges were affective and the empty cartridge could have been fired by the aforesaid .315 bore Pistol but the contents of the report cannot be used against the accused on account of non-examination of the Sergeant Major. 20. The blood stained earth did not appear to have been sent to chemical analyst but on that account and defective investigation the entire prosecution case which is quite probable and otherwise proved by ample, cogent and reliable evidence cannot be thrown overboard. 21. It has also been contended with persuasiveness on behalf of the accused that several shops and residential houses situated in the vicinity of the place of occurrence but none of the shop keepers and persons residing there was examined and hence adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution case. The contention is non-merritous and the same must be rejected outright. The case is to be decided on testimony and merit of oral and circumstantial evidence brought on record and not on conjecture and surmises that had the shop keepers and independent persons residing in the neighbour of the scene of incident been examined they might not have supported the prosecution version. Besides, it is also a matter of common experience that independent witness seldom dares depose against the culprits even if he witnessed them committing the heinous crime of murder for fear that giving evidence might invite the wrath of the assailants and he might be exposed to serious risk. 22. Ram Beyas Singh (PW 1), care taker of the Dharamshala and Ram Singhasan Dubey (PW 2) were present in the Dharamshala and they heard sound of firing resorted to outside the Dharamshalla causing the death of the deceased but they did not say that PWs 12 and 13 were raising alarm that Sudama Singh and Ramjee Singh along with two unknown culprits after killing the deceased fled away and hence they were declared hostile by the prosecution. They had made such statement before the Investigating Officer (CW 1) who contradicted their statements made in the Court. Both the witnesses appear to have turned hostile, to the truth. 23. Dhawal Kumar Rai, constable (PW 5) and Liyaquat Ali Khan (PW 11) were formal witnesses. They had made such statement before the Investigating Officer (CW 1) who contradicted their statements made in the Court. Both the witnesses appear to have turned hostile, to the truth. 23. Dhawal Kumar Rai, constable (PW 5) and Liyaquat Ali Khan (PW 11) were formal witnesses. PW 5 produced material exhibits, to wit pistols and cartridges before the trial Court while PW 11 proved his signatures on the seizure lists in respect of seizure of pistols, cartridges and blood stained earth. 24. The two independent and responsible police officers (PWs 3 and 6) having no animus against the accused caught hold of Munji Singh and Harendra Singh with fire arms after a chase soon after the occurrence and that too, not far away from the scene of incident PWs 12 and 13 witnessed a bearded unknown miscreant opening fire causing injury to the deceased. Harendra Singh was the bearded miscreant. The evidence of PWs 12 and 13 would also reveal that the shot fired by Ramjee Singh had also hit the deceased while one another miscreant though resorted firing the shot fired by him hit none and that unknown miscreant was none but Munji Singh. All the accused, namely, Sudama Singh, Ramjee Singh, Harendra Singh and Munji Singh had arrived at the scene with fire arms and the shots were fired at the target in pursuance of order of Sudama Singh and after the deceased was shot dead they all fled away together but Sudama Singh and Ramjee Singh made good escape and the other two caught hold of. Under the circumstance the accused Sudama Singh and Munji Singh must be said to share common intention to kill the deceased. 25. The evidence and the circumstances attending to the case having been critically analysed and regard being had to the contentions raised at the bar it would appear that the prosecution has brought home the charges levelled against the accused and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below warrants no interference save and except a minor modification which has been effected in the succeeding paragraph of this judgment. 26. All the four accused persons were armed with fire arms for using the same for unlawful purpose. There was also abundance of evidence on this point. 26. All the four accused persons were armed with fire arms for using the same for unlawful purpose. There was also abundance of evidence on this point. The charge under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, was also framed against them all but though the accused Harendra Singh and Munji Singh were convicted and sentended under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, the accused Sudama Singh and Ramjee Singh were not convicted thereunder. They are also now convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. These sentences imposed on them shall run concurrently with sentences awarded under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 and Sec. 302 of the Code to Sudama Singh and Ramjee Singh respectively. 27. In the result, there is no merit in the appeals which must fail and accordingly all the three appeals are dismissed. The accused Ramjee Singh is in jail custody. Let him serve the remainder of sentence. The other three accused are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender themselves in the Court below for serving out sentences awarded to them within four weeks failing which coercive steps shall be taken against them for procuring their arrest. Mridula Mishra, J. 28 I agree.