JUDGMENT REKHA KUMARI, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 22.12.1987 passed by Shri John Dhan, 8th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Munger in S.Tr. No. 122/82/57/85 under which he has convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and has further convicted the appellants Deep Lal Yadav and Naresh Singh under Section 148, I.P.C. and the appellants Yamuna Yadav, Hiya Lal Yadav and Nepali Yadav @ Rameshwar Yadav under Section 147, I.P.C. but has not passed any sentence against them for these offences. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed, from the Fard beyan (Ext.2) of the informant Sukar Yadav of village Mananpur, P.S. Lakhisarai, District Munger is that one Jib Lal Yadav of his village, the father in-law of Ino Devi, had transferred almost all the property belonging to him to his sister's sons, Budhun Yadav (father of the appellants, Nepali Yadav, Yamuna Yadav, Deep Lal Yadav) and Garho Yadav sons of Sumer Yadav of his village. Hence, lno Devi had filed a partition suit in Munger Court Yogendra Yadav (deceased). the son of the informant, used to make Pairvi in that case on behalf of Ino Devi. On 18.9.1980 Yogendra Yadav had also gone to Munger court with Ino Devi and returned from there with her on 19.9.1980. The appellant Naresh Singh had also land dispute with his maternal uncle Harikishun Singh for which litigation was going on. The deceased Yogendra Yadav used to help Harikishun Singh in that litigation. The deceased also used to raise voice against the misdeeds of the appellant Bhuneshwar Yadav who was then the PanchayatMukhiya. The appellants hence were aggrieved with Yogendra Yadav (deceased), on 29.9.1980, at about 10.00 a.m. Yogendra . Yadav had gone to take bath at the canal situated in his village and he (informant) was also taking bath in the same canal, at a short distance from his son when he heard the cries of his son. On this he looked towards the side from where sound was coming and saw that the appellant Bhuneshwar Yadavordered to kill his son abusing ironically that he (deceased) had become helper of all. On this he looked towards the side from where sound was coming and saw that the appellant Bhuneshwar Yadavordered to kill his son abusing ironically that he (deceased) had become helper of all. On that order, co-villagers appellants, Nepali Yadav @ Rameshwar Yadav, Yamuna Yadav, Hiya Lal Yadav, all armed with lathi, Deep Lal Yadav, armed with pistol, Naresh Singh, armed with Bhala, who had gathered there assaulted Yogendra Yadav with their respective weapons and Yogendra Yadav died. The informant in the meantime, raised alarm and the witnesses arrived and saw the occurrence. The appellants then fled away. 3. On the same date at 3.00 p.m. the Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the S.I., J.K. Ambastha of Chananpur Subsidiary P.S. of Lakhisarai. The Fardbeyan was forwarded to the Lakhisarai P.S. where cases of Chananpur Subsidiary P.S. were registered. On the basis of that Fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. (Ext. 1) was drawn up at Lakhisarai P.S. The police investigated the case and after completing investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants and also against the non-F.I.R. accused Peyare and Girja Yadav. 4. The defence of the appellants is a total denial of the whole occurrence. Their further defence is that the deceased was a criminal and he was assaulted elsewhere while committing crime, and that the appellants have been falsely implicated. 5. The prosecution, in order to establish the chareges against the accused persons including the appellants, examined altogether 12 witnesses. Among them, P.W.1 Sukar Yadav is the informant. P.W.2 Bideshi Yadav has been tendered for cross-examination P.W.3 Borahn Yadav. P.W.4 Ino Devi and P.W.5 Chathia Devi claim to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.6 Sabo Devi claims to have seen the accused persons running away from the P.O. P.W.7 Ram Sharan Singh, Officer Incharge of Lakhisarai P.S., is a formal witness and has proved the formal F.I.R. (Ext.1) and Fardbeyan (Ext.2). P.W.5 constable 1119, Sheodhar Singh who had taken the dead body for postmortem has been tendered for cross-examination P.W.9 is Dr. Suchit Prasad, who had conducted the Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Yogendra Yadav of this case. P.W.10 Rajendra Bind, who according to the Fard-beyan had also witnessed the occurrence, has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Suchit Prasad, who had conducted the Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Yogendra Yadav of this case. P.W.10 Rajendra Bind, who according to the Fard-beyan had also witnessed the occurrence, has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. P.W.11 Jugal Kishore Ambastha is the main I.O. of the case P.W.12 Mahendra Singh is part I.O. of the case who had simply recorded the statement of Rajendra Bind (P.W.10) and had submitted charge sheet in this case. 6. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after considenng the evidence of the above witnesses convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34. 148. 147, I.P.C. for which they were charged, and sentenced them as mentioned above, and acquitted the non-F.I.R. accused persons Peyare and Girja Yadav. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the appellants filed this appeal. 7. The point for determination in this appeal is whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the appellants and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was justified in convicting them under Sections 302/34, 147 and 148, I.P.C. as mentioned above. 8. In order to determine the above points I have gone through the entire evidence on record. 9. P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that on the alleged date at about 10.00 a.m. he was taking bath in the canal and his son Yogendra Yadav was also taking bath in the same canal at a distance of about 40-50 cubits away from him when he heard cries of his son that he was dying, and on this he went to his son and saw the appellants and the accused Peyare and Girja Yadav and among them, the appellants Nepali Yadav, Jamuna Yadav. Girja Yadav. Peyare, Bhuneshwar Yadav, Hiya Lal Yadav, were armed with lathi, appellant Deep Lal Yadav was armed with pistol and Naresh Singh was armed with Bhala and they were assaulting his• son Yogendra Yadav. He has further stated that when he was rushing toward his son, he also heard the sound of firing and after reaching the P.O. he raised alarm and the witnesses arrived and the appellants fled away and that at th2.t time, his son was groaning and he along with Bornan Yadav (P.W3), Bideshi Yadav (P.W2), Rajendra Bind (P.W10) was then taking him to Lakhisarai hospital, but on the way he died. 10. 10. P.W 3 has stated that on the alleged date at about 10.30 a.m. he was in his Rahar field by the side of the canal when he heard the alarm raised by Yogendra Yadav, and he rushed to the canal and saw the appellants Naresh Singh armed with Bhala, Deep Lal Yadav armed with pistol and the other appellants armed with lathi and the other accused persons (since acquitted) also armed with lathi, and they were assaulting Yogendra Yadav and when they reached the P.O. the appellants fled away. He has further stated that Yogendra Yadav was groaning and was alive, and they took Yogendra Yadav on cot to Mahui halt Station, and from there Yogendra Yadav was being taken by Mugalsarai passenger, when he died. 11. P.W4 has also stated that on the alleged date she was washing clothes at a distance of 10 yards west of the P.O. when on hearing the hulla of Yogendra Yadav, she saw that the appellants were assaulting Yogendra Yadav with lathi, bhala. She has further stated that the witnesses then arrived and the appellants fled away and then she went to the deceased. She has also stated that Yogendra Yadav at that time had not died, and when he was being taken to Lakhisarai on Mugalsarai passenger, he died. 12. P.W5 stated that on the alleged date at 10.30 a.m. she was in her Rahar field, when on the alarm raised by her son Yogendra Yadav from the canal, she went there and saw the appellants and other accused assaulting Yogendra Yadav with lathi, pistol, and in the meantime, the witnesses arrived and all the accused persons fled away. She has also stated that at that time her son was alive and on the way to Lakhisarai, he died. 13. P.W 6 has stated that on the alleged date at about 10.00 a.m. she was at her house, when she heard hulla that her brother Yogendra Yadav had been murdered and on hulla she went to the bank of canal and saw the appellants and other accused fleeing. 14. Thus, from the evidence of the above witnesses it appears that they have corroborated each other and have supported the prosecution case. 15. Among the above witnesses P.W.1 is the informant himself. So he is, of course, an interested witness, but there is nothing material in his evidence to disbelieve his testimony. 14. Thus, from the evidence of the above witnesses it appears that they have corroborated each other and have supported the prosecution case. 15. Among the above witnesses P.W.1 is the informant himself. So he is, of course, an interested witness, but there is nothing material in his evidence to disbelieve his testimony. He was present near the place of occurrence and therefore, he had occasion to see the occurrence. The Fardbeyan (Ext.2) corroborates his testimony in material particulars. The Fardbeyan was recorded on the date of occurrence, that is on 20.9.1980 at 3.00 p.m. at Lakhisarai, when the occurrence took place at 10.00 a.m. and the formal F.I.R. shows that the distance of Lakhisarai from the P.O. is 18 K.Ms. Therefore, there was no delay in recording the Fardbeyan, and so there was no chance of concoction in it. It may be mentioned here that in the Fardbeyan though it is mentioned that the same was recorded at Lakhisarai, it is not mentioned therein, as to at what particular place at Lakhisarai, the Fardbeyan was recorded, but from this it cannot be said that the Fardbeyan is ante-dated. The evidence of P.W.11 who had recorded the Fardbeyan shows that he was posted at Chanan Subsidiary P.S. (under which the P.O. is situated) under Lakhisarai P.S. and had come to Lakhisarai on that date. His evidence further shows that he had recorded the Fardbeyan and the statements of the other witnesses, who had come wit) the dead body at the same place where he had prepared the inquest report and the inquest report (Ext4) shows that the dead body was inspected within Lakhisarai P.S. premises at 4.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence. So it appears that the Fardbeyan was also recorded at the premises of Lakhisarai P.S. and at the time mentioned therein and is not ante-dated. 16. This witness (P.W.1) of course has stated in the Fard beyan that the accused BhuneshwarYadav had no weapon in his hand, whereas in his evidence he has stated that he was armed with lathi. But this is a minor discrepancy and it does not disprove the presence of the appellant. Again, in his evidence he has stated that when he was going to the P.O., he heard the sound of firing, whereas he has not given such statement before the police. But this is a minor discrepancy and it does not disprove the presence of the appellant. Again, in his evidence he has stated that when he was going to the P.O., he heard the sound of firing, whereas he has not given such statement before the police. But it is also a minor contradiction and does not affect the testimony of the witness. Then the evidence of the witness shows that though he has named the accused Peyare Yadav and Girja Yadav also taking part in the assault, he has admitted that he did not name them before police. The judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge also shows that these two accused have been acquitted. But only because some part of the evidence of this witness has been disbelieved the entire evidence of the witness cannot be discarded. Then, though the prosecution case is that the appellants were aggrieved with his son Yogendra Yadav (deceased), there is nothing to show that any conflict had taken place between this witness or the deceased and the appellants prior to the occurrence. So it cannot be said that the witness falsely implicated the appellant. The deceased was the son of this witness, and hence, it is not expected that he would leave the real culprits and falsely implicate the innocent persons, however, inimical they may be. 17. Hence, though there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 I find him to be a competent witness and his evidence to be quite reliable and trust-worthy. 18. P.W.3 appears to be an independent witness. According to him, he was in his Rahar field at a distance of 125 yards from the P.O. Therefore, he had also opportunity to come to the P.O. He is named in the Fardbeyan as witness. The evidence of the informant shows that from the P.O. itself they took his son to Lakhisarai and this witness was with him. So, the presence of this witness at the P.O. cannot be doubted. The evidence of P.W.1 also shows that this witness was examined by him alongwith the informant at Lakhisarai. So, he was also' examined by the police very promptly and there was no chance of concoction in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The evidence of this witness in Court also shows that there is no material contradiction in the evidence• of this witness and his statement before police. So, he was also' examined by the police very promptly and there was no chance of concoction in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The evidence of this witness in Court also shows that there is no material contradiction in the evidence• of this witness and his statement before police. In his evidence, of course, he has stated that he was in his, Rahar field and on hulla of Yogendra Yadav (deceased) he went to the P.O., whereas in his statement before police he has stated that on hulla he went to the P.O., but this is no contradiction. Again, he has stated in his evidence that he had seen the appellant Naresh Singh assaulting the deceased with bhala, whereas in his statement before police, he had stated that he had seen the appellant coming from side of Nahar. But this contradiction is also not very material, as from this it can at best be said that the witness did not see the appellant assaulting the deceased. But as he had seen the appellants coming from Nahar, the evidence of this witness also proves the presence of the appellants at the P.O. and the evidence of this witness coupled with the evidence of other eye witnesses proves the participation of the appellant in the crime. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that Marpit took place in the canal 4 to 5 cubits away from the water of the canal. The I.O. (P.W. 11) has stated that the bank of the canal is 40 ft. higher than the bed, arid if anyone takes bath in the canal, he cannot be seen from the bank P.W.1 in his evidence has also stated that on the alarm raised by him, the witnesses including this witness (P.W.3) came. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in view of there evidence, has stated that the witness (P.W.3) could not see the occurrence. But the evidence of P.W.3 shows that on hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, he had gone to the P.O., where the deceased was lying. Therefore, it cannot be said that the witness did not see the occurrence. 19. P.W.4 was washing clothes in the same canal, near the P.O. Her presence at the P.O. at the time of occurrence hence was natural. She is also named in the FardBeyan as eye witness. Therefore, it cannot be said that the witness did not see the occurrence. 19. P.W.4 was washing clothes in the same canal, near the P.O. Her presence at the P.O. at the time of occurrence hence was natural. She is also named in the FardBeyan as eye witness. The evidence of the I.O. shows that she was examined along with the informant at Lakhisarai. She was, hence, examined promptly by police. There is no material contradiction in her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and her evidence in Court. The evidence of the I.O. shows that she did not state before him that she was washing cloth; in the canal. She had also not stated that the appellant Naresh Singh was armed with Bhala and Deep Lal Yadav was armed with pistol. But these are minor contradictions and do not affect the credibility of the witness. Again the evidence of the I.O. shows that this witness had stated before him that the appellant Naresh Singh was returning towards his house when she saw him, whereas in her evidence she has stated that she saw all the appellants assaulting the deceased. There is, thus, some contradiction in the two versions of this witness, in this regard. But I have already mentioned that this contradiction also does not affect the credibility of the witness and on the basis of this contradiction the complicity of the appellant cannot be ruled out. The evidence of this witness, however, shows that her father-in-law had transferred his property to his sister's son Budhan and Barho, for which she had filed a case in Munger Court. It appears that the appellants Nepali Yadav and Deep Lal Yadav and Jamuna Yaoav are the sons of Budhan. So, admittedly this witness had animosity against these appellants. But when the evidence of the witness is other-wise reliable, only because of this animosity, she cannot be disbelieved. 20. As regards P.W.5, though she has claimed to have seen the occurrence, she is the mother of the deceased and as such, is also a highly interested witness. The Fardbeyan shows that the informant has given the names of the witnesses including his own son, who had arrived at the P.O. and seen the occurrence, but the name of the witness does not find place there. The Fardbeyan shows that the informant has given the names of the witnesses including his own son, who had arrived at the P.O. and seen the occurrence, but the name of the witness does not find place there. This witness is the wife of the informant and so, if she would hare been present at the time of occurrence, I do not think that the informant would have omitted to mention her name. Therefore, I do not put reliance on the evidence of this witness. Similarly, though P.W.6 has stated that she had seen the appellants fleeing from the P.O., she is a sister of the deceased and as such, is also an interested witness. More over, her evidence is that on hulla that her brother was killed, she had gone to the P.O. from her house. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that his village is at a distance of 500 yards from the P.O. so it does not look probable that this witness could see the appellants fleeing from the P.O. Hence, I agree with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence. 21. Thus, on an analysis of the evidences of the above witnesses I find that though the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 do not inspire confidence, the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 4 who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, are quite trustworthy. 22. The evidence of P.W.1 also is that 2-3 years prior to the occurrence, Toofani, the husband of Ino Devi (P.W.4), had died and after his death Jiyalal Yadav, her father-in-law, transferred all his property to his Bhagina Budhan Yadav and Garho Yadav and for that Ino Devi had filed a case and the deceased used Jo make Pairvi on behalf of Ino Devi in that case and that the appellants Nepali Yadav, Deep Lal Yadav and Yamuna Yadav are the sons of Budhan Yadav. His evidence also is that the appellant Bhuneshwor Yadav was Mukhiya of the village and in election Rajendra had contested against him and the deceased had supported Rajendra and that on account of enmity, his son was murdered. P.W.3 has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and has stated that Ino Devi had filed a case in which the deceased used to make Pairvi on behalf of Ino Devi. P.W.3 has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and has stated that Ino Devi had filed a case in which the deceased used to make Pairvi on behalf of Ino Devi. P.W.4 has also stated that the deceased had gone with her to Munger for taking necessary steps in her case, and one day prior to the date of occurrence they had returned to their village. 23. The above evidence of P.Ws. thus show that some of the appellants bore grude against the deceased. Hence, there was also motive for the appellants to commit the murder. It may be mentioned here that in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellants were not asked any question regarding motive. But, if the evidence of other witnesses are acceptable, such omission does not affect the prosecution case unless it is demonstrated that the prejudice has been caused to the appellants; and nothing has been shown by the learned lawyer for the appellants that any prejudice has been caused to the appellants on account of not putting necessary questions in this regard to the appellants. 24. P.W.9 the doctor, has deposed mat on 21.8.1980 at 9.20 a.m. he performed postmortem examination on the dead body of Yogendra Yadav and found the following antimortem injuries: (i) Left eye ball was gauged out. (ii) punctured wound 1/1 /2"x1"x2/1/2" in the left eye with left eye ball gauged out. (iii) Bruises all over in the upper arms. " (iv) Punctured wound 11"x1/2"x1/1/2" over lateral surface of left elbow margin of wound sharp. (v) Punctured wound 1"x3/4"x2 on the left fore-arm posteriorly margin clear. (vi) Punctured wound 3/4"x1/2"x1/1/2" on left forearm. (vii) Punctured wound 3/4"x3/4"x1/ 2" on right leg in front. (viii) Punctured wound 1 "x3/4"x3/ 4" in front of right leg. (ix) Punctured wound 3/4"x1/2"x3/4" in front of right leg, (x) Punctured wound 1/1/2"x1/2"x1" in front of left leg. (xi) Punctured wound 1"x1/2"x3/4" in front of left leg above injury No.x (wrongly noted injury no. XII in the deposition). (xii) Lacerated wound 3/4"x1/1/2x skull bone deep on the upper part of the head. (xiii) Several bruises 6"x1/2"x across back. His evidence further shows that on dissection he had found frontal and both parietal bones fractured and had further found blood clots below the scalp over skull bone around the injury. The doctor has opined that injuries no. (xii) Lacerated wound 3/4"x1/1/2x skull bone deep on the upper part of the head. (xiii) Several bruises 6"x1/2"x across back. His evidence further shows that on dissection he had found frontal and both parietal bones fractured and had further found blood clots below the scalp over skull bone around the injury. The doctor has opined that injuries no. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 were caused by sharp pointed weapon, such as Bhala and other injuries were caused by lathi and that the death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage and injury to brain. According to him, injury no.2 was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death and that in the absence of injury no.2 the other injuries might also cause death. He has also stated that injury no.1 was result of injury no.2. 25. Thus, the evidence of this witness shows that he had found injuries caused by lathi and Bhala on the deceased and on account of these injuries death was caused. His evidence also shows that he had conducted the postmortem examination on 21.9.1980 at 9.20 a.m. and the time elapsed since death was within 24 hours of his examination. It is not denied that the dead body examined by the doctor is of the deceased Yogendra Yadav of this case. 26. The evidence of the eye witnesses also is that the appellants had assaulted the deceased with lathl, Bhala and the occurrence had taken place on 20.9.1980 at about 10.00 a.m. and the deceased died soon thereafter. The evidence of the doctor hence corroborates the testimony of the eye witnesses. 27. The evidence of the I.O. (P.W.11) is that on 21.9.1980 at 9.00 a.m. he inspected the P.O. shown by Chohathia Devi (P.W.5) and the P.O. was Kudar river, 1/2 K.M. from Mananpur village and there was a ghat for bathing and there were bridges of canal situated on both the outer sides. The evidence of this witness, of course, is that he did not find any blood mark at the P.O., when the evidence' of the doctor is that there must have been profuse bleeding from the punctured wound, But the evidence of P.W.1 is that there was rain after the occurrence. The I.O. has also stated that there had been rain in the night of occurrence. Hence, the learned Addl. The I.O. has also stated that there had been rain in the night of occurrence. Hence, the learned Addl. Sessions judge has rightly observed that the blood must have washed away. So, only because no blood was found at the P.O. it cannot be said that no occurrence had taken place there specially when the evidence of P.W.5 and 3 is that the occurrence had taken place there. 28. It may be mentioned that P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that near Mananpur Railway Station there is a police outpost but admittedly he did not go there after the occurrence. But from this no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case because the evidence shows that the deceased had not died at the P.O. It is; hence, obvious that the informant instead of going to police outpost, took the deceased to lakhisarai for treatment. So this is most natural conduct. 29. Then the formal F.I.R. (Ext.1) shows that it was drawn on 20.9.1980 at 4P.M and said to have been sent to the Magistrate on the same date. The endorsement thereon however, shows that the S.D.J.M., Lakhisarai had put his signature on 25.9.1980. It is, hence, apparent that the F.I.R. was received by the Magistrate after sufficient delay. It is indeed true that the F.I.R. should be sent to the Magistrate within a reasonable possible time. But, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Alla China Apparao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2003(1) PCCR 94 (SC) that if the delay is caused, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out, if the same is trustworthy upon appreciation of evidence. It has also beet) shown above that the prosecution case is quite trustworthy. So, the delay in sending the F.I.R. does not affect the prosecution case. 30. The appellants have proved the signature Ext. 'A' of Rajendra Bind on an affidavit and Ext. "B' is said to be supervision note mentioned in paragraph 35 of the case diary (not legible now). But the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly held that these documents are of no help of the appellants. 31. 30. The appellants have proved the signature Ext. 'A' of Rajendra Bind on an affidavit and Ext. "B' is said to be supervision note mentioned in paragraph 35 of the case diary (not legible now). But the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly held that these documents are of no help of the appellants. 31. Thus, considering the evidence on record, I find that the informant (P.W.1) is a truthful witness and his evidence is corroborated by the eye witnesses, i.e. P.Ws.3 and 4, and the medical evidence and the I.O. and that the evidence of these witnesses prove beyond reasonable doubts that on the date, time, place of occurrence, the appellants in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted the deceased with lathi, Bhala as a result of which the deceased died. The evidence also proves that the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly to assault the deceased and the appellants Naresh Singh was armed with bhala and Deep Lal Yadav was armed with pistol which are deadly weapon. The Addl. Sessions Judge was thus justified in convicting all the appellants under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and the appellants Naresh Singh and Deep Lal Yadav under Section 148, I.P.C. and the appellants Yamuna Yadav, Hiya Lal Yadav and Nepali Yadav under Section 147, I.P.C. The sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge against the appellants for the offence under Section 302/34, I.P.C. is also proper. 32. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 33. The appellants appear to be on bail during the pendenoy of this criminal appeal and so their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Court below to serve out the sentence imposed upon them. In case appellants do not surrender before the Court below the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, In-charge of the case shall take immediately all such steps so as to take all the appellants into custody for serving out the sentence imposed upon them.