Judgment Sadanand Mukherjee, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11-10-2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 327 of 1989/155 of 2001 arising out of Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 118 of 1988 passed by 1st Additional Fast Track Court, Siwan, wherein and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Secs. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine each of them has been sentenced to suffer further imprisonment of two years R.I. 2. In course of trial four accused persons, namely, Mehi Lal Sharma. Radheshyam Sharma, both the appellants, Manoj Sharma and Rajpati Devi were sent up for trial for the offence under Secs. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 In course of trial both Manoj Sharma and Rajpati Devi were found to be entitled for benefit of doubt and they were not found guilty u/s. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 They were accordingly acquitted and discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. The present appellants, namely, Mahilal Sharma and Radheyshyam Sharma were however found guilty u/s. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as stated above. 3. Prosecution case is that all the four accused persons who were charged for commission of the offence under Secs. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 allegedly inflicted fatal injuries. The case of the prosecution is that on 29-8-1988 the informant had come to his village home from Calcutta, the wife of own brother of the informant, namely, Dhanilal complained against conduct of Gorakhnath, the deceased, over a quarrel which took place two days prior to the occurrence concerning Nali or Mori (drain) in between wife of Dhanilal and Gorakhnath Sharma, the deceased. The wife of Dhanilal had complained that Gorakhnath had abused her without any fault, whereupon the informant assured that he would take the deceased, his own son, to task. Thereafter on 30-8 1988 the deceased Gorakhnath went to "Bathan" (Cattle yard) of Dhanilal and protested against the complaint made to his father against him. The wife of Dhanilal had complained that Gorakhnath had abused her without any fault, whereupon the informant assured that he would take the deceased, his own son, to task. Thereafter on 30-8 1988 the deceased Gorakhnath went to "Bathan" (Cattle yard) of Dhanilal and protested against the complaint made to his father against him. Thereupon the accused Mehilal Sharma son of Raghunandan Sharma armed with lathi, Radheyshyam Sharma son of Mehi Lal Sharma armed with dagger, Manoj Sharma son of Dhani Lal Sharma armed with lathi and Rajapati Devi wife of Dhani Lal Sharma armed with brick bats surrounded the deceased Gorakhnath Sharma. It Is further alleged that accused Radheyshayrn Sharma gave a dagger blow on the shoulder blade (Pakhura) of the deceased Gorakhnath Sharma. Accused Mehilal Sharma gave severe lathi blow on head of the deceased Gorakhnath Sharma, accused Gorakhnath Sharma fell down. Accused Manoj Sharma assaulted the deceased Gorakhnath Sharma with lathi, wife of Dhanilal Sharma, namely, Rajpati Devi assaulted him with brick bats, the deceased Gorakhnath Sharma was severely injured. Alarm was raised, The informant, his daughter-in-law and his grand son Sanjay and villager Ramadhar Choudhary and others reached there and witnessed the occurrence, They wanted to save Gorakhnath Sharma but as he was severely injured, he succumbed to the Injury within ten minutes. All the four accused persons fled away from there. 4. The defence case is denial of the charge and the defence also alleged false implication. 5. On behalf of prosecution eight wit nesses have been examined. P.W. 1 Dr. Tribhuwan Narain Singh, former C.A.S. Sadar Hospital, Siwan who held postmor tem examination at 2 p.m. on 30-8-1988 on the dead body of Gorakhnath Sharma. The postmortem report has been proved by him and the same is marked as Ext. 1, P.W. 2 Sanjay Sharma is an eye witness. P.W. 3 Bhuneshwar Sharma is the informant and father of the deceased, P.W. 4 Abdul Quadir, is Chaukidar, who is said to have gone to the police station. P.W. 5 Raj Kumari Devi, is an eye witness and widow of the deceased, now she has been remarried. P.W. 6 Haresh Rai is a formal witness who proved seizure list with regard to blood stained earth. P.W. 7 is Lalan Prasad, a formal witness who proved carbon copy of inquest report which is marked as Ext. 4. P.W. 5 Raj Kumari Devi, is an eye witness and widow of the deceased, now she has been remarried. P.W. 6 Haresh Rai is a formal witness who proved seizure list with regard to blood stained earth. P.W. 7 is Lalan Prasad, a formal witness who proved carbon copy of inquest report which is marked as Ext. 4. P.W. 8 is I.O. of the case, who recorded fardbeyan of the informant (Bhuneshwar Sharma) which is marked as Ext. 5. The defence has examined four witnesses. 6. D.W. 1 Dr. Hari Kishssore Sah, is witness on the point that the accused appellant Radheyshyam Sharma was compounder in his clinic and at the relevant point of time he was on duty in his clinic. His signature on affidavit regarding the plea of alibi has been marked as Ext. A. The signature of Advocate has also been put and the same has been marked as Ext. A/2. The signature of Oath Commissioner, Sheeoashrya Singh on the affidavit has been marked as Ext. A/1. The affidavit itself has been marked as Ext. B.D.W. 4 Ramadhar Choudhary, was the Mukhiya of Habib Nagar Panchayat and has become defence witness. He is the witness mainly on the point that the informant did not name the assailants. He has also stated that he does not know as to what statement was given by Bhuneshwar, the informant to the police. The inquest report (Ext. 7) bears his signature (Ext. 7/1). Although he was charge sheeted witness he did not appear as the prosecution witness. 7. P.W. 3 Bhuneshwar Sharma is the informant. He was working at Calcutta. He had come from Calcutta on 29-8-1988. On the date of occurrence, i.e. 30-8-1988 the wife of Dhanilal, namely, Rajpati Devi came with a complaint against the deceased that the deceased had abused her without any fault. This witness assured that he would take the deceased to task. There was some dispute over the Nali (drain of water) between Rajpati Devi and the deceased Gorakhnath. On the same day while this witness had gone to the back of his house for natural call he found accused Mehilal Sharma, Radheyshyam, Manoj, Rajpati Devi and his son Gorakhnath Sharma the deceased. They were engaged in altercation with the deceased Gorakhnath Sharma. In the meantime the grand son of the informant, namely, Sanjay (PW 2) and his mother (PW 5) also reached there. They were engaged in altercation with the deceased Gorakhnath Sharma. In the meantime the grand son of the informant, namely, Sanjay (PW 2) and his mother (PW 5) also reached there. Thereafter, Mehilal gave a lathi blow on the head of the deceased. Radheyshyam Sharma also assaulted the deceased with dagger on his right Panjara (rib) as a result of which the deceased fell down. He has not attributed any overt act to Rajpati Devi and Manoj although Manoj was armed with lathi and Rajpati Devi with brick. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The informant made fardbeyan before the police (Ext. 5). In his cross-examination this witness stated about the genesis of the occurrence. His evidence clearly indicates that there was misunderstanding over drain water from the drain belonging to the accused persons which caused damage to the foundation of the house of the informant. It appears that the accused persons are close agnates of the informant and there was dispute over the drain water between the parties. This witness in his cross examination stated that Mehilal had dealt lathi blow on the head of the deceased. His evidence clearly shows that Chhura blow was inflicted. Earlier this witness stated that in his presence the accused Mehilal gave lathi blow on the head of the deceased and Radheyshyam inflicted dagger blow. The deceased had died before the S.I. of police came. It has been stated that he had informed the police after the Mukhiya had told him to do so and after that his statement was recorded at the place of occurrence. P.W. 3 has been cross examined at length. In his statement before police as in Examination in chief, he stated that he had gone for natural call behind the house where he found accused Mehilal, Radheyshyam, Manoj, Rajpati Devi and the deceased Gorakhnath. He also did not remember that the altercation took place on high pitch whereupon this witness, Sanjay and his mother reached there. He also asserted before police that Radheyshyam had assaulted Gorakhnath the deceased with the dagger on the ribs. In his evidence in cross-examination the informant does not say whether he had told the police that he had gone behind the house and found the accused persons as well as the deceased engaged in altercation and that other witnesses, namely, Sanjay and his mother had reached the place of occurrence. In his evidence in cross-examination the informant does not say whether he had told the police that he had gone behind the house and found the accused persons as well as the deceased engaged in altercation and that other witnesses, namely, Sanjay and his mother had reached the place of occurrence. But he has categorically stated about his statement before the S.I. of police that accused Radheyshyam had assaulted the deceased by knife on the ribs but he had not stated that Radheyshyam had assaulted on the shoulder blade. Hence his evidence regarding assault by Mehilal and Radheyshyam, the appellants remains intact. 8. P.W. 8 the I.O. in course of his cross-examination had denied that the informant (PW 5) had stated before him that he had gone behind the house for natural call and heard sound of altercation. In his evidence P.W. 8 the I.O. had stated that the informant had told him on the statement on repetition in continuation with his narration that Radheyshyam had assaulted the deceased Gorakhnath by dagger on the shoulder blade. The evidence of the informant may have minor discrepancy in the context of statement before police but the informant appears to be consistent in his statement about the assault on the deceased in the manner that Mehilal (appellant No. 1) had assaulted the deceased by lathi on his head and Radheyshyam by sharp cutting weapons on the ribs/shoulder blade (Pankhura). The evidence of this witness appears to be trustworthy which is also supported by the medical evidence of the doctor. 9. P.W. 2 Sanjay Sharma, the son of the deceased is another eye witness. His evidence is that there was quarrel between the deceased, father of this witness and appellant Mehilal Sharma. His evidence as an eye witness is that accused Mehilal Sharma with lathi, accused Radheyshyam with Chhura (dagger), accused Manoj with lathi and mother of accused Manoj, namely, Rajapati Devi with bricks were engaged in altercation. Accused Mehilal Sharma dealt a lathi blow on the head of his father and accused Radheyshyam had inflicted Chhura (dagger) blow on Pankhura (shoulder blade). Father of this witness fell down and the accused person escaped. His evidence further indicates that the appellants were agnates of the prosecution party. Accused Mehilal Sharma dealt a lathi blow on the head of his father and accused Radheyshyam had inflicted Chhura (dagger) blow on Pankhura (shoulder blade). Father of this witness fell down and the accused person escaped. His evidence further indicates that the appellants were agnates of the prosecution party. In his cross examination this witness has stated that his grand-father Bhuneshwar Sharma (the informant) and Khedaru had kept the dead body of his father to the east of palani (thatch) where blood had fallen. It is apparent that the dead body of the deceased has been lifted and kept near palani. The statement of this eye witness concerning displacement of the dead body and keeping the same in a close proximity does not damage the credibility. The description of the place of occurrence in his evidence appears to have supported the prosecution case that the occurrence must have occurred in close proximity of bathan (Cattle shed) of the accused persons where the deceased had gone to raise grievance regarding the complaint made against him to his father. This witness has also stated about arrival of Mukhiya Ramadhar Choudhary and Parshuram Singh and their conversation with S.I. of police. He had stated before police about Parshuram Singh reaching the place of occurrence. Although this witness was not confronted with his statement before police whether he had told the police about Mehilal Sharma, the appellant, assaulting the deceased with lathi on his head. It was taken by the defence from I.O. (P.W. 8) that Sanjay, this witness, had not stated before police that Mehilal had assaulted the deceased on head with lathi. 10. In view of the consistent evidence of P.W. 2 and since no suggestion was given to this witness that he had not stated about assault by Mehilal on the head by lathi and since the place of occurrence does not appear to be disturbed in the evidence of this witness and no suggestion was given that his father was murdered somewhere else, the denial of this witness that unknown persons had killed his father appears to be well placed. At the time of occurrence this witness was of tender age but his evidence appears to be reliable supporting the prosecution case. 11. P.W. 5 wife of the deceased has corroborated the statement of both the informant (PW 3) and Sanjay (PW 2) on the occurrence. At the time of occurrence this witness was of tender age but his evidence appears to be reliable supporting the prosecution case. 11. P.W. 5 wife of the deceased has corroborated the statement of both the informant (PW 3) and Sanjay (PW 2) on the occurrence. Her evidence is that the altercation between her husband and the accused persons prompted her to go to the place of occurrence. This witness found that the non-appellants, namely, Rajpati Devi and Manoj were armed with bricks and lathi. She noticed that Mehilal had given lathi blow on the head of her husband and appellant Radheyshyam gave Chhura blow on the pankhura (shoulder blade) of her husband. Her evidence also indicates about genesis of the occurrence that before two days of the occurrence there was a quarrel between her husband and Rajpati Devi and Rajpati Devi, non appellant, also made complaint before her father-in-law (PW 3). After death of the deceased this witness had remarried. Her evidence categorically indicates that Mehilal Sharma, the appellant had assaulted from behind and Radheyshyam (appellant No. 2) had assaulted from the front. Although, this witness had stated that her husband was not lifted by any one, the removal of the dead body by keeping it at the short distance does not render the prosecution case doubtful. No contradiction was indicated from her statement, vis-a-vis, from the evidence of P.W. 8 the I.O. no contradictions seem to have been elicited so far as the statement of this witness before police is concerned. Her evidence is cogent, clear and trustworthy on the point of occurrence. 12. P.W. 4 Abdul Quadeer is Chaukidar who had gone to the police station for giving information to the police about the incident. He was not told about the names of the assailants by the informant (PW 5). In his cross examination the evidence of this witness is that he had met Bhuneshwar Sharma (PW 5) near Terighat. Bhuneshwar Sharma had also gone to the police station which lies at the distance of 8 k.m. from the P.O. This witness who is chaukidar has stated that the dead body was kept on the cot and again the dead body was kept at the place where the deceased had fallen. He does not know about the details of the occurrence. He does not know about the details of the occurrence. It is manifest that the statement of the informant was taken at the P.O. Itself and since the aforesaid statement contains the description of the facts for constituting the offence, the same has rightly been treated as F.I.R. (Ext. 5) and any station diary entry made at the instance of this witness who was said to have given information regarding the occurrence cannot be treated as F.I.R. as all cryptic informations cannot be treated as F.I.R. The place of occurrence which was consistently fixed by the witnesses is disturbed because the dead body was kept near the place of fall of the deceased. This witness is not an eye witness. His evidence however is relevant on the point of place of occurrence as well as giving the information to the police. 13. P.W. Dr. Tribhuwan Narain Singh found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased: i) One sharp cut wound on the occipital region of the scalp 1" x 1/2 x scalp deed. ii) There was penetrating wound on the lateral side of the right scapula in the third itnercostal space, the margin of which was ragged and irregular 1" x 1/4" x thorasic cavity deep. The doctor has opined that death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries. The doctor has written in postmortem examination report (Ext. 1) that penetrating weapon might have caused the injuries. In court the doctor has opined that injury No. 1 is possible by lathi and injury No. 2 is possible by Chhura. The doctor has stated that even by a blunt weapon wound caused on skin over a bony surface such as scalp may look like a wound which may be caused by a sharp cutting weapon. This way the injury No. 1 is said to have been caused on the person of the deceased at the hands of accused Mehilal by lathi and injury No. 2 is said to have been caused on the person of the deceased at the hands of Radheyshyam. The description of the injuries in the postmortem report fits in with the evidence of the eye witnesses. 14. P.W. 8 Bindhyachal Singh is the I.O. of the case. He inspected the place of occurrence. The description of the injuries in the postmortem report fits in with the evidence of the eye witnesses. 14. P.W. 8 Bindhyachal Singh is the I.O. of the case. He inspected the place of occurrence. The I.O. has given the description of the P.O. by indicating that the P.O. lies in village Misrauli at a distance of 100 yards to the north of main canal which is near the village Terighat. The I.O. has given evidence to the effect that near the P.O. lies a village road running east to west. The house of the informant and the accused persons are lying to the south of that road. The I.O. has also stated about one Nali (drainage of water) crossing through the road by the side of the road. In the north, drainage was blocked and drain water was found directed towards east, i.e., towards house of the informant which had caused blocking of the drainage near the door of the informant. It may be mentioned that the damage caused by the drain water of the accused persons to the informant was the genesis of the occurrence. The I.O. has also found a palani (thatch) facing east belonging to the accused persons. The I.O. found that the eastern part of the palani was used for sleeping purpose and western part was used for bathan (cattle yard) for keeping fodder etc. The place of occurrence was said to be in between the place where blood had fallen and the palani (thatch) of Dhanilal. The P.O. description by the I.O. (PW 8) was consistent with the versions of the prosecution witnesses. The blood stained earth was seized but no report was brought on record. There was discrepancy between the evidence of Sanjoy (PW 2) vis-a-vis statement before police, inasmuch as, he had not told the police that Mehilal assaulted his father with lathi on his head. However, P.W. 2 Sanjoy had not been confronted with his statement before the I.O. on this aspect. The evidence of the I.O. does not assail the credit worthiness of the witnesses and the minor discrepancy which appears in the statement u/s. 161 of the Cr.P.C. of P.W. 2 before police in course of investigation is not enough to demolish the prosecution case. The evidence of the I.O. does not assail the credit worthiness of the witnesses and the minor discrepancy which appears in the statement u/s. 161 of the Cr.P.C. of P.W. 2 before police in course of investigation is not enough to demolish the prosecution case. The description of the P.O. by P.W. 8, the I.O. also takes care of the defence contention that the P.O. has not been fixed, not affecting worth of the prosecution case. 15. On behalf of the defence D.W. 1 is Dr. Hari Kishore Sah. Accused Radheyshyam Sharma used to work with him as a compounder. Evidence of D.W. 1 Dr. Hari Kishore Shah is on the point of alibi. He has proved signature on the affidavit (Ext. A) in which he has stated that from 29-8-1988 to 30-8-1988 till night at 4 p.m. Radheyshyam Snarma was on duty in his clinic. In his cross-examination he has categorically stated that the accused had got the affidavit typed and took the same to him. In view of cogent and reliable evidence by the eye witnesses the plea of alibi of accused Radheyshyam Sharma does not appear to be credible. 16. D.W. 2 Paras Nath Sah had also proved the aforesaid affidavit having been typed by him (Ext. B). 17. D.W. 3 an Advocate also testifies on the point of the said affidavit in which the Commissioner of Oath put his signature (Ext. A/1) and this witness has also put his signature (Ext. A/2). 18. D.W. 4 who had gone to the place of occurrence after the incident had figured as a charge sheet witness, but he has deposed on behalf of the defence. He was a witness on inquest report and also on the seizure of blood stained earth. The only evidence which is of importance in the version of this witness that the informant had not told him the names of the accused. He had proved his signature on the inquest report (Ext. 7) and also his signature on the seizure list of blood stained earth by the police (Ext. 7/1). He has found wailing wife of the deceased. The testimony of this witness does not in any way help the defence as there is credible version of the witnesses on the point of assault by the accused persons. 19. 7) and also his signature on the seizure list of blood stained earth by the police (Ext. 7/1). He has found wailing wife of the deceased. The testimony of this witness does not in any way help the defence as there is credible version of the witnesses on the point of assault by the accused persons. 19. On behalf of the defence it has been contended that the genesis of the alleged occurrence has not been satisfactorily proved but the evidence of the witnesses as stated above clearly established the genesis, inasmuch as, wordy duel between the deceased and the accused persons arose due to complaint made to the father of the deceased from the defence side on the conduct of the deceased in a quarrel over drainage of water in the evidence earlier. This wordy duel resulted in the aforesaid fatal incident. Hence the genesis of occurrence has been well established. As regards the place of occurrence in view of the evidence of the I.O. (PW 8) as also the eye witnesses namely P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 3 it cannot be said that prosecution has based his case on different places of occurrence and the learned trial Court has rightly found that the aforesaid P.O. was in proximity of the Bathan (cattle yard) and palani as the deceased had gone to Bathan at the first instance and there was wordy duel, whereupon, the main assailants and other two accused persons were said to have reached. The learned trial Court had rightly ruled out the possibility of other places of occurrence as in view of prosecution evidence the P.O. seems to have been established. 20. As regard manner of occurrence it has been contended that the witnesses as relied upon by the prosecution, were all related witnesses and they were interested, the learned Counsel for the defence relied on 1981 Criminal Law Journal page 484 : AIR 1981 SC 942 in which the Supreme Court held as follows: When all the material witnesses in a murder case were either related or otherwise interested in the prosecution, their testimony had to pass the test of close and severe scrutiny before their testimony could be safely acted upon. In the absence of corroboration to a material extent in all material particulars, it was extremely hazardous to convict the accused persons on the basis of the testimony of these highly interested, inimical and partisan witnesses, particularly when it bristles with improbable versions and material infirmities. 21. In the present case there is consistent and reliable evidence on the part of the witnesses and there is corroboration of the material particulars by the medical evidence. It may be mentioned that the evidences of the eye witnesses are reliable although they were related witnesses. It was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that if there is plea of false implication the Court has to adopt careful approach and analyse to find out whether there is cogent and credible evidence Rizan V/s. State of Chhattisgarh -. Likewise the evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased. It was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that normally close relations of the deceased are likely to falsely implicate the person in the incident leading to the death of the relation unless there are very strong and cogent reasons to accept the said criticism AIR 2001 SC 282 : 2001 Cri LJ 485. There is catena of decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court that merely because eye witnesses were close relations to the deceased cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving their testimony in a murder case. It was also held that merely being relatives of the deceased is not a ground to reject the testimony of the witnesses who are otherwise found to be trustworthy and reliable Bijoy Singh V/s. State of Bihar -. Another ground taken by the defence is the evidence of P.W. 2 aged about 12 years who had given eye witness testimony of the occurrence, the Hon ble Supreme Court held in a catena of decisions that the testimony of a child witness should not be rejected only on the ground of the witness being to tender age and the Court may seek corroboration of such testimony not a relation but by way of caution. while discussing worth of a child witness aged about 12 years it was held that when the trial Court found the testimony of a child to be reliable who stood the test of searching, cross examination and even otherwise his evidence was supported by number of other circumstances which have been proved by the prosecution, the High Court erred in disbelieving the evidence of such witness. 22. Learned Counsel for the defence has urged that Abdul Quadir, the Chaukidar (PW 4) had gone to the police station and informed about murder of the deceased. The statement of the aforesaid chaukidar does not indicate that there was occasion for him to have collected details of the occurrence. Learned Counsel for the defence stated that the F.I.R. (Ext. 5) drawn on the statement of the information at the place of the occurrence, is hit u/s. 162 of the Cr.P.C. as earlier itself the information was given by Abdul Quadir, the Chaukidar. Sofar F.I.R. is concerned, although legal position is that there cannot be two F.I. Rs. against the same accused in respect of the same case, but it is well settled that any cryptic information given to the police cannot be treated as F.I.R. The object of the F.I.R. is only to set the criminal law in motion. It was held in a number of decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court that the first information report is the report giving information of the commission of cognizable crime which may be made by the complainant or by other person knowing about commission of such offence. It is intended to set the criminal law in motion. Therefore, it is well settled that any cryptic information received and recorded in the daily diary regarding commission of offence cannot be treated as an F.I.R. Hence, the learned trial Court rightly came to the finding that recording of the fardbeyan will be treated as having been recorded in normal course as F.I.R. 23. In view of the discussions made above, the learned trial Court rightly found the prosecution, evidence to be cogent and reliable, although there are some discrepancy in the prosecution case relating to the minute details. In view of the discussions made above, the learned trial Court rightly found the prosecution, evidence to be cogent and reliable, although there are some discrepancy in the prosecution case relating to the minute details. The omission and improvements made by the prosecution in course of trial did not amount to contradictions and in view of settled principles laid down, such discrepancy would not weigh in the Court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. 24. In the present case in view of credible nature of evidence which appears to be cogent and reliable, the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Court below. 25. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. We dismiss the appeal and maintain the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Appellant Mehilal Sharma is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. He is directed to surrender to undergo sentence without delay and within one month from the date of the Courts orders. In case he does not surrender, the trial Court shall take steps to ensure that appellant No. 1 Mehilal Sharma who is on bail be sent to custody to serve the sentences. 26. Manohar Lal Visa, J. I agree.