Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 558 (PAT)

Kedar Rai v. State of Bihar

2005-06-24

body2005
JUDGMENT Aftab Alam, J 1. There are fourteen appellants before this Court. Each of them was convicted by the trial court under sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and five years respectively for committing murder and for causing disappearance of evidence by carrying away the body of their victim. The two sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case against the appellants was instituted on the basis of a written report (Ext. 1) handed over to the Officer Incharge of Danapur P.S. at 10 A.M. on 22.8.1980 by one Rajnath Singh (informant PW 3). In the written report it was stated that on the previous day (21.8.1980) at about 4 in the afternoon the informant alongwith his brother Baijnath Singh (the deceased) was at their plot of land situated by the side of the Dhab (Dhab is the local word for a large pool of water formed as a result of a sand bar or a land coming out due to the alluvial action of the river separating it from the man stream river) in the north of their village Dudhiyan. They had gone there for cutting some Masuriya crops (cattle fodder) grown on the piece of land, They had been on their land for a little while when the fourteen appellants arrived there variously armed; two of the appellants were carrying country made pistols while the rest were armed with spears, Garansas and lathies. Threatening them with their arms the accused forcibly took them on a boat to the Dhab and (on reaching there) let the boat move freely. After the boat had proceeded to a little distance, all the accused started assaulting Baijnath Singh with their respective weapons. At this point the informant found an opportunity and he jumped from the boat into the water and started swimming towards the higher grounds, shouting and crying for help. The accused tried to hit him also but be was able to escape. His brother died as a result of the assault and the accused carried away his body on their boat. It was also said in the report that the occurrence was seen by some other villages, namely, Satyanand Singh (PW 1), Kameshwar Singh (PW 2) and Panchanand Singh (PW 5). His brother died as a result of the assault and the accused carried away his body on their boat. It was also said in the report that the occurrence was seen by some other villages, namely, Satyanand Singh (PW 1), Kameshwar Singh (PW 2) and Panchanand Singh (PW 5). It was further stated that due to night fall and the flood conditions the report was being made in the following morning. 3. Coming next to the cause of the occurrence the written report said that Baijnath Singh had a piece of land near the house of the accused and they repeatedly used to pluck the maize and cut away the Masuriya crop grown on that land. For this, quarrels had taken place between Baijnath Singh and the accused a number of times. Prior to the occurrence Baijnath Singh had caught the accused cutting away his Masuriya crop and he had abused and roughed them up on that occasion. The accused who belonged to one family had formed a gang of criminals in the village and they indulged in commission of theft and dacoity etc. They killed Baijnath Singh in retaliation of that incident. 4. The written report was signed by the informant Rajnath Singh from before but at the time of taking it from him the Officer Incharge made him put another signature on it. On accepting the written report the Officer Incharge made an endorsement on it indicating the registration of the case and its investigation being assigned to S.I., Laxman Prasad. The endorsement was identified by him in court and it was then marked as Ext. 3. 5. The written report submitted by Rajnath Singh was incorporated in a formal FIR on which too the Officer Incharge, Danapur P.S. put his signature. The formal F.I.R. was marked as Ext. 5 and his signature on it as Ext. 4. 6. Before proceeding further it will be useful to have some idea about the place where the occurrence took place, the manner in which the matter was reported to the police and the way the police investigation was made in the case. The place of occurrence is a plot of land belonging to the informant and his deceased brother Bainjath Singh situated in the north of their village Dudhiyan. Village Dudhiyan is situate between small branches/channels and a Dhab formed by the rivers. The place of occurrence is a plot of land belonging to the informant and his deceased brother Bainjath Singh situated in the north of their village Dudhiyan. Village Dudhiyan is situate between small branches/channels and a Dhab formed by the rivers. The river channel in the local language is called as Soti. At the material times village Dudhiyan fell under Danapur. P.S. which was at a distance of 10 K.Ms. from it. Nearer to the village, however, was Akilpur out-post under Danapur P.S. The occurrence had taken place at a time when flood waters were spread all over and the plot of land where the occurrence took place and the adjoining lands were under waist to chest deep water. In his deposition before the court the informant (PW 3) stated that after the occurrence, that is to say, after his brother was killed by the accused and his body was taken away by them in the boat, he came to his house in the village. From there he alongwith some villagers (including Satyanarain Singh, PW 1) went to Akilpur out-post for reporting the matter. They went to Akilpur out-post by wading through waist-deep water. On reaching there they found that the Officer Incharge was not present. They waited for him till 6.30 P.M. and then came back to their village since he did not come by that time. In the village they arranged for a boat and at about 9-10 P.M. proceeded Danapur on the boat. Rowing through the night they arrived at Danapur in the morning and handed over the written report to the Officer Incharge at the P.S. there. 7. From a perusal of the materials on record and on hearing counsel for the parties; it appears to us that on receipt of the written report not much was done by the police by way of investigation until the body of the deceased was found on 26.8.90. The body was found at the Khanda (outlying agricultural lands of a village) of village Banwarichak at a distance of over one mile from the place from where the victim had been picked up by the accused. From the deposition of PW 3 it appears that one Ram Swaroop Singh (not examined) first found the body and identified it as that of the victim Baijnath Singh. He informed PW 3 Rajnath Singh. From the deposition of PW 3 it appears that one Ram Swaroop Singh (not examined) first found the body and identified it as that of the victim Baijnath Singh. He informed PW 3 Rajnath Singh. Then he alongwith others went there and identified the body. The matter was then reported to Akilpur out-post but like the previous occasion the Officer Incharge was not present there. The Officer Incharge Danapur P.S. (PW 7) stated before the court that two constables from Akilpur out-post came to Danapur P.S. and reported to him about the discovery of the body. He then proceeded from Danapur and reached Banwarichak where the body lay at about 12 in the night. Due to darkness and lack of any lighting facility nothing was done in the night. He prepared the inquest report (Ext. 6) in the morning of 27.8.80 on which he obtained the signatures of Manindra Singh and Harendra Pd. (both not examined in court). According to PW 7, the body was identified by Chowkidar Ram Swaroop Singh (not examined), Raghunandan Paswan (not examined), Ganga Paswan (PW 4), and Kameshwar Singh (PW 2). 8. Since the investigation of the case was assigned to S.I., Laxman Prasad who was not available at that time, he (PW 7) opened a supplementary case diary and recorded the statements of Pancham Singh (PW 5), Satyanand Singh (PW 1), Rajnath Singh (the informant PW 3), Ram Swarrop Singh (not examined), Raghunandan Paswan (not examined), Kameshwar Singh (PW 2) and Ram Ekbal Khan (not examined). The supplementary case diary is on record and it contains the statements of the aforesaid witnesses recorded by PW 7 on 27.8.80. He then came to the land of the informant at village Dudhiyan from where he and the deceased had been picked up by the accused and recorded his findings in the supplementary case diary. 9. From the supplementary case diary prepared by PW 7, the Officer Incharge, Danapur P.S. and the case diary written by Laxman Prasad, the Officer Incharge, Akilpur out-post, to whom the investigation of the case was formally assigned by the former, it appears that the investigation of the case was being made by the two officers simultaneously inasmuch as the case diary of Laxman Prasad indicates that he had recorded the statements of witnesses on 22.8.1980 itself. But what is shown in the case diary of Laxman Prasad is disputed and denied by the members of the prosecution party and their denial finds support by the deposition of PW 7. 10. It may be noted here that the informant Rajnath Singh had filed a protest-cum-complaint petition (Ext. 8) in the court of Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate. Danapur on 9.10.1980. In the protest petition it was alleged that Laxman Prasad was in collusion with the accused; that he had neither visited the place of occurrence nor recorded the statements of witnesses. It was further stated in the petition that Laxman Prasad was out of station from 22.8.1980 to 18.9.1980 and in his absence the entire investigation was made by R.N. Shukla, the Officer Incharge, Danapur P.S. (PW 7). 11. Be that as it may, at the conclusion of the investigation, in whatever way it might have been held Laxman Prasad submitted charge sheet against the accused on the basis of which they were put on trial. In the charge sheet, apart from those examined before the court a number of other witnesses were named but after examining some of the charge sheet witnesses a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution stating its intent not to examine the rest of the witnesses on the ground that they were enmical to the family of the victim and hence, were not likely to support the prosecution case. 12. In support of the charges the prosecution examined ten witnesses, PW 3 as noted above is the informant and PWs 1, 2 and 5 are the other eye witnesses who claim to have seen the occurrence. PW 4 was examined as one of the persons who identified the body found after five days of the occurrence as that of the victim Baijnath Singh. PW 6 is the doctor who held post mortem on the body. PW 7 is the Officer Incharge of Danapur P.S. who received the written report from the informant, got the case instituted and recorded his investigations in the supplementary case diary. PW 8 Laxman Prasad is the Officer Incharge of Akilpur out-post to whom the investigation of the case was formally entrusted and who apparently made the investigation and submitted the charge sheet in the case. PWs 9 and 10 formal witnesses. PW 9 who is an Advocate formally proved the protest petition that was marked as Ext. PW 8 Laxman Prasad is the Officer Incharge of Akilpur out-post to whom the investigation of the case was formally entrusted and who apparently made the investigation and submitted the charge sheet in the case. PWs 9 and 10 formal witnesses. PW 9 who is an Advocate formally proved the protest petition that was marked as Ext. 8 and PW 10, a police constable formally proved a station diary entry. 13. PW 3 in his deposition reiterated what was said by him in the written report (Ext. 1). He said that on 21.8.80 at about 4 in the evening he alongwith his brother Baijnath Singh had gone to their plot of land for cutting Masuriya crop. That was flood time and their land was under water. Around their plot of land were lands of Satyanand Singh (PW 1), Kameshwar Singh (PW 2), Pancham Singh (PW 5) etc. bearing maiz and Masuriya crops. In their (the witnesses) lands they had set up Machans (raised platforms) for keeping watch over the crops. They (the informant and his brother) were cutting Masuriya when the accused arrived there in a boat. They were armed with Lathies, spears, Garansas and pistols. They forcibly picked them up on the boat at moved it in the direction of the Dhab. On reaching the Dhab the accused started assaulting his brother with their respective weapons. He (the informant) jumped into the water and came out on reaching the plot of land of Satyanand Singh. The accused had tried to hit him also but he somehow escaped. The accused killed his brother and carried away his body on the boat. He narrated the occurrence before Satyanand Singh, Pancham Singh and Kameshwar Singh who had themselves witnessed the whole occurrence. They went to Danapur and reached the police station in the morning. While waiting there Manindra Singh (not examined) wrote out the written report as stated by him (PW 3). The report was read out to him and on finding it correctly written he put his signature on it. In court he identified the written report which was marked as Ext. 1. He next stated about the recovery of the body at the Khanda of village Banwarichak on 26.8.1980 and its identification, as being that of his brother Baijnath Singh by himself and others. 14. In court he identified the written report which was marked as Ext. 1. He next stated about the recovery of the body at the Khanda of village Banwarichak on 26.8.1980 and its identification, as being that of his brother Baijnath Singh by himself and others. 14. Since the prosecution case is that it was flood-time and the plot of land of the informant and the adjoining lands were under waist to chest-deep water and since PW 3 stated before the court that he had gone to the land for cutting Masuriya crops, it may be noted that in course of his deposition he further said that the height of maiz crops was 6-7' and of Masuriya crops 9-10'. It may here be added that maiz was sown in the middle of the land and Masuriya, which is used as cattle fodder, was sown on the boundries of the plot. This explanation was perhaps needed to understand the informant's statements that he and his brother were on the land cutting crops there even while the land was under waist to chest-deep water. 15. The informant was cross-examined at length but nothing of any significance seems to have been elicited from him. 16. The other three eye witnesses, PWs 1, 2 and 5 similarly fully supported the prosecution case. PW 1 said that at the time of the occurrence he was on the Machan on his piece of land. The flood water was spread all around. The plot of land of the informant and his brother was at a distance of 70-75 laggies towards south-west from his land. He further stated that one Laggi was equal to, 5 ½ hands. The Dhab was towards north from their (informant and his brother) plot. In answer to a court question he said that the Dhab was at a distance of 20-25 Laggies from his plot and it was clearly visible from there. He further stated before the court that he was on the Machan on his piece of land when he heard some hulla and saw that the accused came to the land of the informant on a boat. They were variously armed. They forcibly picked up the informant and his brother and moved the boat in the direction of the Dhab. The accused assaulted Baijnath Singh while the informant was able to escape by jumping into the water. They were variously armed. They forcibly picked up the informant and his brother and moved the boat in the direction of the Dhab. The accused assaulted Baijnath Singh while the informant was able to escape by jumping into the water. The informant came swimming to his land while his brother was killed by the accused and his body was taken away on the boat. PW 2 similarly stated that he was on the Machan on his land which was at a distance of 25-30 laggies towards east from the land of the informant. He also claimed to have witnessed the entire occurrence and so did PW 5. 17. Apart from the ocular evidence the medical evidence, namely, the deposition of the doctor, PW 6 who held post mortem on the body of the deceased and his post mortem report tend to support the prosecution case. The relevant findings in the post mortem report are as follows : "Rt hand-cut from the wrist level; bones divided at the level of wrist Lt hand-cut from the mid palm. Bones exposed. "Left foot-cut from the ankle; bones sharply divided". As regards the cause of death, the doctor said that "death might have been due to amputation of hands and left foot leading to haemorrhage and shock." 18. The objective findings at the place of occurrence recorded by the I.O., PW 7 also supports the prosecution case. He stated before the court (Para 11 of the deposition) that the place of occurrence was a plot of land which was under water. There were maiz stalks in the middle of the plot and Masuriya crops were standing on its boundries. Towards the north of the land was a river channel (Dhab) which ran from west to east. Towards east it joined the river Gangas. There were no houses situate near the place of occurrence. To wards its north and east were the lands of Pancham Singh (PW 5) and Satyanand Singh (PW 1) in which maiz was grown and Machans were set up. The Dhab was full of water. 19. All the prosecution witnesses, the ocular ones, the doctor and the I.O. were cross-examined by the defence at length. But it appears that no serious endeavour was made to discredit the testimonies of the ocular witnesses (PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5) with regard to the actual occurrence. The Dhab was full of water. 19. All the prosecution witnesses, the ocular ones, the doctor and the I.O. were cross-examined by the defence at length. But it appears that no serious endeavour was made to discredit the testimonies of the ocular witnesses (PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5) with regard to the actual occurrence. The emphasis seems to be on the point that the deceased had criminal antecedents and he was accused in cases at Sonepur and Chapra (on the northern side of river Gangas). It might have been the object to suggest that he was killed by someone else in some other manner but even this suggestion is not clearly spelled out and needless to say that there is not an scrap of evidence for even considering such a suggestion. The doctor was cross-examined mainly on the point that the body was in a state in which its identification was not possible. As it would be seen later in this judgment we fail to appreciate how and to what extent that would help the defence. 20. Apart from some other minor point Mr. Nagendra Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants tried to assail the prosecution case mainly on three planks. He first submitted that there was a complete change of version with regard to the occurrence as stated in the written report and as deposed by the witnesses, including the informant before the court. He next submitted that the medical evidence would make it plain and clear that it was impossible to identify the body found at Banwarichak as that of the informant's brother Baijnath Singh and there was no satisfactory evidence on the question of identification of the body. Thirdly, he strongly relied upon the evidence of the main investigator of the case, the Officer Incharge of Akilpur P.S. (PW 8). 21. We propose to take up the submissions made by Mr. Roy one by one. 22. Mr. Roy submitted that in their depositions before the court the informant and the other three eye witnesses stated that the accused came to the plot of land of the informant and his brother where they were cutting Masuriya crop on a boat but, according to him, in the written report submitted by the informant there was no such statement and in the written report the boat was mentioned only when they had reached the Dhab. Mr. Mr. Roy submitted that the prosecution had thus introduced a completely different and new story at the stage of the trial. 23. We are unable to accept the submission and on a careful examination of the written report and the depositions of all the witnesses, including the informant, PW 3, we find no inconsistency in those statements. In the written report, it is stated that while the informant and his brother Baijnath Singh were cutting Masuriya crop on their plot of land, the accused arrived there variously armed and threatening them with their arms, they forcibly took him and his brother to the Dhab on a boat. We are unable to read the statement in the written report to mean that the accused had come to the land, where the informant was there with his brother, on foot and they took them along on foot upto the Dhab where they boarded the boat that was waiting there. The statement in the written report on a careful reading plainly means that the accused arrived there on a boat and forcibly picked up the informant and his brother on it and took them in the direction of the Dhab. We, thus, find no inconsistency, much less, any contradiction in the prosecution story as stated in the written report and as deposed before the court by the witnesses. 24. Mr. Roy next submitted that there was no evidence to suggest that the body found on 26.8.80 at the Khanda of village Banwarichak was that of Baijnath Singh. In support of his submission he heavily relied upon the evidence of the doctor, PW 6. 25. It is true that from the medical evidence it appears that there was hardly any soft tissues left on the body, including the face and, therefore, it might have been difficult to identify it by anyone not closely acquainted with the deceased. To be fair to the appellants counsel we must refer to the portions of the medical evidence relied upon by him. The doctor stated before the court that the body was decomposed, the hairs of scalp were intact; almost whole vertebral columns was exposed; only bones were visible. Dura-matter was intact at places but no brain tissue was found. In Para 7 of the deposition he stted that the face was smeared with mud, neck bone was exposed and no soft part was present. Dura-matter was intact at places but no brain tissue was found. In Para 7 of the deposition he stted that the face was smeared with mud, neck bone was exposed and no soft part was present. In Para 9 he said that the body appeared to have been thrown in water where all the soft parts had been eaten away. 26. As observed above the body was clearly in a state where it would have been difficult for anyone not closely associated or acquainted with him to identify the dead persons. But it may be noted that for relatives, such as a brother and close associates there may be several means of identifying a person other than his facial features. 27. From the materials on record, it appears that at no stage there was any confusion or doubt regarding the identification of the body. According to PW 3 (Para 6) the body was first seen by one Ram Swaroop Singh who identified it as that of Baijnath Singh. He informed the informant who went to the spot where it lay alongwith others and immediately identified it as that of his brother Baijnath Singh. PW 7 also stated that the body was identified before him as that of Baijnath Singh by Ram Swaroop Singh, Raghunandan Paswan, Ganga Paswan, PW 4 and Kameshwar Singh, PW 2. The most significant on this issue is the deposition of PW 4, the village Chowkidar. In the medical evidence it is seen that the hairs of the scalp were intact. PW 4 stated that there was a patch of white hairs 1" in diameter on the right side of the head of Baijnath Singh and that was one of the means for identification of the body as that of Baijnath Singh. He referred to yet another means for identification and stated that from his childhood days Baijnath Singh used to wear around his waist a one paisa coin with a whole in the middle strung through a back string. The I.O. (PW 7) in his deposition confirmed that there was a back string with a one paisa coin with a whole at its centre around the waist of the body found at Banwarichak. 28. The I.O. (PW 7) in his deposition confirmed that there was a back string with a one paisa coin with a whole at its centre around the waist of the body found at Banwarichak. 28. On the basis of the materials on record we are satisfied that at no stage there was any doubt or confusion regarding the identification of the body as being that of Baijnath Singh and there is sufficient evidence to show that the body found five days after the occurrence was that of the victim Baijnath Singh. 29. But there is another aspect of the matter and to us it appears that the question of identification of the body is hardly of such great relevance as it being sought to be made out by the counsel for the appellants. There is consistent ocular evidence that Baijnath Singh was assaulted by the accused and he had died in the boat itself and further that the accused had carried away his body in the boat. That evidence, which seems unimpeachable to us, appears to be quite sufficient to bring home the charges of commission of murder and causing disappearance of evidence by carrying away the body. 30. Coming next to the third point strenuously urged by Mr. Roy, he strongly relied upon the evidence of Laxman Prasad, the I.O., PW 8 to assail the prosecution case. It is true that on going through the deposition of PW 8 it appears that he appeared before the court with the intent to damage the prosecution case as much as possible. In Para 3 of his deposition he stated that he visited the P.O. (the plot of land from where the victim was picked up) in the evening of 22.8.80. According to him through the piece of land was full of mud, the water had dried up. He also found dried and rotten stalks of maize upon the height of the thigh. He also deposed about the criminal antecedents of Baijnath Singh and stated that in the records of the police station his name was entered as one of the members of a criminal gang. He was also one of the accused in a case at Sonepur police station under Section 395 of the Penal Code. He also deposed about the criminal antecedents of Baijnath Singh and stated that in the records of the police station his name was entered as one of the members of a criminal gang. He was also one of the accused in a case at Sonepur police station under Section 395 of the Penal Code. With regard to the depositions of PWs 1 and 3 he stated that they had not said before him that they had seen the accused coming from the direction of north-east. He also stated that he had not taken the statement of Kameshwar Singh, PW 2 He further said that Pancham Singh in his statement had not taken the names of Sabha Rai, Hirday Rai, Sahdeo Rai and Ramjee Rai among the accused. 31. As noted above PW 8 appears to be quite determined to damage the prosecution case as far as possible. Many things said by him are not quite relevant though those are intended to put the prosecution case in a bad light. But his statement that in the evening of 22.8.80 there was only mud and no water in the plot of land of the informant and his another Baijnath Singh, would cast serious doubt on the prosecution story that just 24 hours ago the accused came there on a boat, picked them up and took them on the boat towards the Dhab. We, however, find it difficult to accept the statement of PW 8, specially in the light of the evidence of PW 7 who was the Officer Incharge of Danapur P.S. and was, thus, a completely neutral witness. He took up the matter and held partial investigation of the case since PW 8 was not available when the body was discovered five days after the occurrence. He came to the spot where the body was found. He recorded the statements of witnesses, including Kameshwar Singh, PW 2 whose statement PW 8 never cared to record. He came to the P.O., the piece of land from where the informant and his brother were picked up by the appellants and found that the land was in fact under waist-deep water. He inspected the land in the neighourhood and found that there were in fact Machans in the lands of PWs 1 and 5. He found that Dhab was full of water. He inspected the land in the neighourhood and found that there were in fact Machans in the lands of PWs 1 and 5. He found that Dhab was full of water. He also stated in Para 21 that on the date this case was registered PW 8 had gone to Chapra in connection with some investigation and he was not available for the next twenty days. He further stated that while taking the evidence of the witnesses (on 27.8.80) he was told by those witnesses that Laxman Prasad (PW 8) had not taken their statements till then. 32. P.W. 8 in Para 14 of his deposition admitted that in connection with some investigation he had gone to Sonepur and had remained out of his police station for ten to twelve days. The admission of PW 8 taken together with the statement of PW 7 that he had gone away on the very same day this case was registered and had remained absent for twenty days and the statement of the informant in the protest petition that Laxman Prasad had gone out of station from 22.8.1980 to 18.9.1980 makes it appear to us that Laxman Prasad was in fact not present atleast during the initial few days of the case and he was definitely not available when the body was found and hence, this court views with great suspicion the record of investigation made by him in the case diary and this court is not willing to put any reliance on his statement before the court. 33. As regards the statement of PW 8 with regard to omission of four names by Pancham Singh (PW 5) in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., that is worthless for the simple reason that the attention of PW 5 himself was not drawn to his statement made before PW 8. Moreover, we find that Pancham Singh had named all the fourteen appellants as accused in his statement before PW 7 on whose investigation the court is placing far greater reliance. 34. Apart from the three points discussed above, Mr. Roy also sought to challenge the testimonies of the ocular witnesses on some other relatively minor points. He submitted that it would be impossible for PW 1 to see the occurrence from a distance of 70-75 Laggies which, according to him, would be no less than 700. 34. Apart from the three points discussed above, Mr. Roy also sought to challenge the testimonies of the ocular witnesses on some other relatively minor points. He submitted that it would be impossible for PW 1 to see the occurrence from a distance of 70-75 Laggies which, according to him, would be no less than 700. We are unable to agree to his calculation and the conversion of the distance into yards. We are more inclined to take the view that the distance between the two pieces of land was such that s person sitting on a raised Machan would be in a position to easily and naturally witness what was happening there. Mr. Roy further submitted that there was no occasion for those witnesses, PWs 1, 2 and 5 to be present there at that time and they were, therefore, falsely deposing before the court. We do not accept this submission either. They were in their respective fields. It was flood time and it was natural for them to be keeping a watch over their crops. They were present at the P.O. in the natural course of events and we find absolutely no abnormality in their presence at the P.O. 35. Mr. Roy next submitted that some of the witnesses stated that on hearing hulla they came running to the P.O. He meant that since the whole area was under waist to chest deep water, it would not be possible for anyone to come running. We do not see anything in this submission either. On hearing hulla and on seeing something shocking 'running' to the place of occurrence is simply a figure of speech. It simply means that they tried to reach the place as quickly as they could. 36. No other submission was advanced on behalf of the appellants. 37. On examination of the materials on record and on a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we find no merit in this appeal. We find and hold that the trial court rightly passed the judgment of conviction and sentence and the trial courts judgment does not merit any interference in this appeal. This appeal is dismissed. 38. The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled and they are directed to surrender to undergo their sentences without any delay and not later than one month from today. This appeal is dismissed. 38. The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled and they are directed to surrender to undergo their sentences without any delay and not later than one month from today. In case they fail to surrender within one month, the trial court shall take all steps to take them in custody so as to make them undergo their sentences.