Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. This appeal has arisen from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Ramanathapuram, made in S.C.No.16/96 whereby all the appellants in this appeal, ranked as A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-7 respectively, along with others who were ranked as A-3, A-6 and A-8 to A-19, stood charged and tried for the following offences. I. A-3 and A-14 to A-21 – Under Sec.147 of I.P.C. II. A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-13 – under Sec.148 of I.P.C. III. A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-13 - under Sec.302 read with 34 of I.P.C. IV. A-6 and A-14 – under Sec.323 of I.P.C. V. A-7 to A-13 – under Sec.302 read with 34 of I.P.C. VI. A-2 – under Sec.324 of I.P.C. VII. A-6 – under Sec.427 of I.P.C. VIII. A-3 and A-6 to A-21 – under Sec.302 read with 149 of I.P.C. IX. A-1 to A-6 and A-14 to A-21 – under Sec.302 read with 149 of I.P.C. 2. On trial, these appellants were found guilty under Sec.147 of I.P.C. and awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence and also found guilty under Sec.148 of I.P.C., for which they were directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence. They were also convicted by the trial Court under Sec.302 read with 34 of I.P.C. (two counts) and awarded life imprisonment (two counts) along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence, while all other accused namely A-3, A-6 and A-8 to A19, were acquitted of all the charges. 3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) All the accused, both the deceased No.1 Kalyanithevar, and the Deceased No.2 Packiathevar, and all their family members belonged to the same place called Kidarikulam. There was a long pending enmity between the two groups one headed by A-1 and the other headed by the deceased No.1 in respect of the worship in a temple in the village. Two years prior to the occurrence one Alagarsamythevar and Palchamythevar were murdered by the sons of the deceased No.1, the deceased No.2, P.Ws.7, 8 and 14 and others. (b) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased No.1, while P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased No.2. Two years prior to the occurrence one Alagarsamythevar and Palchamythevar were murdered by the sons of the deceased No.1, the deceased No.2, P.Ws.7, 8 and 14 and others. (b) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased No.1, while P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased No.2. P.W.1 at the time of the occurrence, was chatting with her husband Kalyanithevar, in front of the house, while the deceased No.2, Packiathevar, the brother of the deceased No.1, was also chatting with them. P.W.2, the wife of the deceased No.2, was inside the house. The deceased No.1 and all the family members of the deceased No.1 and the deceased No.2 were all living in the row of houses which were situated nearby abutting each other. While they were chatting, 22 persons belonging to the accused party namely A-1 to A-19 arrayed in this case, and 3 others, out of whom 1 died pending investigation and 2 died after the framing of the charges, due to the above motive, have formed an unlawful assembly on 7. 1993 at about 4.45 P.M. in front of the house of the deceased No.1 Kalyanithevrar, and they were armed with deadly weapons. The deceased No.1 sat on the floor. At that time, A-1 was uttering "attack the deceased No.1". So saying, A-1 attacked with velstick on the left side of the stomach of the deceased No.1. A-2 also stabbed him on his left side of the stomach. P.W.1 made a cry. At that time, A-6 beat P.W.1 thrice by stick. Chithiraisamy, one of the accused, who already died, also beat P.W.1 by stick on her back. A-5 stabbed the deceased No.1 by velstick on his wrist and also chest. A-4 cut the deceased No.1 on his wrist and cheek. The deceased No.1 fell down. At that time, A-3 by velstick stabbed him on the throat. During the course of the said transaction, Mayalagu, one of the accused, who already died, by an aruval cut the deceased No.2 Packiathevar, on his leg. A-7 stabbed him on his wrist and cheek by velstick. The deceased No.2 Packiathevar, ran towards his house. The accused chased him and murdered him. Thereafter, they returned to the scene place where the first attack was made. A-2 severed the head of the deceased No.1, Kalyanithevar, and put his head on the entrance of the house. All of them were standing in the place. The deceased No.2 Packiathevar, ran towards his house. The accused chased him and murdered him. Thereafter, they returned to the scene place where the first attack was made. A-2 severed the head of the deceased No.1, Kalyanithevar, and put his head on the entrance of the house. All of them were standing in the place. At that time, A-1 stated that the son of the deceased No.2 Arumugam, was also murdered by them. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the scene. (c) On receipt of the information at 6.30 P.M., P.W.9, the Head Constable, attached to Peraiyoor Police Station, rushed to the scene of occurrence namely Kidarikulam, and recorded the statement of P.W.1, which was attested by P.W.17. Ex.P1 is the complaint given by P.W.1. Then, he returned to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.130 of 1993 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302 of I.P.C. The express First Information Report is marked as Ex.P8, which was despatched to the Court. He returned to the scene of occurrence and handed over the copy of the First Information Report to P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, attached to Parthipanoor Police Station. (d) P.W.18, on receipt of the FIR, took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P18. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased No.1, Kalyanithevar, in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P19. He also conducted inquest on the dead body of Packiathevar, the deceased No.2, in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P20, the inquest report. He recovered the sample earth and bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. Then, he examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, one Muthuramalingam (not examined) and also the Head Constable and recorded their statements. P.W.11, the Doctor, medically examined P.W.1, and the injuries found by him, are noted in Ex.P10, the wound certificate. P.W.12, the Doctor, attached to the said Hospital, examined one Panchavarnam and has given Ex.P11, the wound certificate. The same Doctor medically examined P.W.3 and issued Ex.P12, the wound certificate. Both the dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospital through a Constable along with the requisitions for the purpose of autopsy. P.W.12, the Doctor, attached to the said Hospital, examined one Panchavarnam and has given Ex.P11, the wound certificate. The same Doctor medically examined P.W.3 and issued Ex.P12, the wound certificate. Both the dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospital through a Constable along with the requisitions for the purpose of autopsy. (e) On receipt of the requisition, P.W.11, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Mudhukulathur, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased No.1, Kalyanithevar, and found 10 injuries. The Doctor has issued Ex.P9, the postmortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries. (f) P.W.13, the Doctor, attached to the said hospital, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased No.2, Packiathevar, and found 12 injuries. The Doctor has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P13, with her opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and injuries to the vital organs spinal cord and lever. (g) P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. Pending the investigation, he arrested A-1 on 27. 1993 at 8.30 P.M. A-1 came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded. The admissible part of the same is Ex.P5. One accused by name Mayilvasagam was arrested on the same day at 9.15 P.M. He volunteered to give a confessional statement, which was recorded. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P6. Pursuant to the confessional statements, they produced the weapons of crime, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. They were sent for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, and the weapons of crime recovered from the accused, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department, which resulted in Exs.P23 to P25, the Forensic Report, the Chemical Analysts report and the Serologists report respectively. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report. 4. Originally, the case was registered against 22 accused, and during the investigation, one died. Hence, the final report was filed against 21 accused. The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. After the charges were framed, 2 of the accused died, and thus 19 accused faced the trial. 5. 4. Originally, the case was registered against 22 accused, and during the investigation, one died. Hence, the final report was filed against 21 accused. The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. After the charges were framed, 2 of the accused died, and thus 19 accused faced the trial. 5. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution marched 19 witnesses and also relied on 25 exhibits and 11 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. On completion of the evidence, the trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, found A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-7 guilty and awarded punishment as referred to above, while acquitted A-3, A-6 and A-8 to A-19. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Pending the appeal A-5 died. 6. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Ashok Kumar, would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution rested its case on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4; that P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased No.1, Kalyanithevar, and P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased No.2, Packiathevar; that according to the prosecution, they were eyewitnesses present at the time of the occurrence; that so far as P.W.4 was concerned, she was actually coming after taking bath, and she saw all the accused persons coming from the place of occurrence; that even as per the prosecution case, there was a long pending motive for the accused persons being roped in; that there were two rival groups in respect of the worship in a temple; that one group was headed by the deceased No.1, and the other group was headed by A-1; that the deceased No.2 is the brother of the deceased No.1; that all the other accused are closely related to A-1; that under the circumstances, P.W.1 has got sufficient motive to give a false case; that the prosecution witnesses who have spoken in favour of the prosecution, had sufficient animosity against the accused; and that it can be well stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 have come forward to give a false case. 7. 7. The learned Senior Counsel would further add that in the instant case, the first information is Ex.P1, what is marked by the prosecution; but, it is only a statement recorded subsequently; that the report originally given by P.W.1, has been suppressed; that P.W.1 has well admitted in her evidence that she went to the Police Station along with her son P.W.17 and gave a report to the Police Officer, and the same was also recorded at about 4.45 P.M.; that now, P.W.9, the Head Constable, has been examined to that effect; that according to him, on receipt of the information, he immediately proceeded to the place of occurrence at about 6.30 P.M. and reached the place at 7.00 P.M., where he recorded the statement of P.W.1, which is Ex.P1, and he returned to the Police Station and registered the case, which is in Crime No.130/93; that the first information as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, is the one which, according to her, was given at the Police Station and recorded by the Police Officials at about 4.45 P.M.; and that the said information has been suppressed by the prosecution. 8. The learned Senior Counsel, in order to strengthen his contention, took the Court to the evidence of P.W.9, the Head Constable, according to whom, when he went to the spot, P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, was very well available at the spot; and that this would be indicative of the fact that P.W.18, who actually took up investigation of the instant case, was available at the spot. 9. 9. The learned Senior Counsel would further add that another case in Crime No.129/93 was registered in respect of an occurrence in which the son of the deceased No.2 by name Arumugam was murdered; that the said occurrence has taken place at about 4.15 P.M. on the same day; that the place of occurrence in that case was a burial ground, which was situated opposite to the house of the deceased; that as far as that crime was concerned, the investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police of a particular Police Station within which limit the occurrence has taken place; that so far as the crime No.130/93 was concerned, the investigation was taken up by P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, of a different circle called Parthipanoor; that under the circumstances, it would be quite indicative of the fact that only after the registration of the case on the information given by P.W.1 as claimed by her, P.W.18 would have gone to the scene of occurrence, and thus, the first information given by P.W.1, has been thoroughly suppressed. .10. The learned Senior Counsel would further add that so far as P.Ws.1 and 2 are concerned, they could not have been eyewitnesses at all; that in the instant case, number of accusations were made, and number of charges were also framed; but, it is pertinent to point out that there are only two eyewitnesses, and they are P.Ws.1 and 2; that according to the prosecution, P.W.1 was an injured witness, and A-6 and A-14 caused those injuries, and P.W.1 has spoken to the fact; but, the trial Court has acquitted A-6 and A-14 of the charges levelled against them for the injuries sustained by P.W.1; that further, a charge was framed under Sec.427 of I.P.C. against A-6 for causing damage to the house of P.W.3; but, the lower Court was not prepared to accept the case and acquitted A-6; that as far as A-2 was concerned, a charge under Sec.324 of I.P.C. was framed in respect of causing injuries to one Panchavarnam; but, that panchavarnam was not examined, and the charge ended in acquittal. 11. 11. The learned Senior Counsel would further add that in the instant case, the lower Court was not prepared to accept the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of those charges and recorded an order of acquittal; that if to be so, all these doubts which were attendant over the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the so-called eyewitnesses, were also available for the other charges also as regards the appellants herein. 12. Added further the learned Senior Counsel that in Ex.P1, 15 names were mentioned, and it is also stated as others; that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was completely found to be a developed version at the time of the evidence; that in the instant case, both P.Ws.1 and 2 were the only two womenfolk; that they were the wives of the deceased No.1 and deceased No.2 respectively; that their houses were situated abutting each other; that the occurrence has taken place at about 4.45 P.M.; that if to be so, number of male members would have been present; but, no one male member was examined; that the prosecution has not examined those witnesses who, according to them, were available; that apart from that, no independent witness has been examined in the case; that the lower Court has accepted the evidence in part and rejected the other part; that those benefit must be given to the appellants also; that all would go to show that there was no evidence for the prosecution, and under the circumstances, they are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court. 13. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 14. It is not a fact in controversy that the deceased No.1, Kalyanithevar, and the deceased No.2, Packiathevar, were actually done to death in an incident that took place at 4.45 P.M. on 7. 1993. After the inquest was made by P.W.18 on both the dead bodies, they were subjected to postmortem by P.Ws.11 and 13, the Doctors, and they have also given the postmortem certificates, wherein they opined that both the persons died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. This fact that the deceased No.1 and the deceased No.2 died out of homicidal violence was not questioned by the appellants/accused at any stage of the proceedings. This fact that the deceased No.1 and the deceased No.2 died out of homicidal violence was not questioned by the appellants/accused at any stage of the proceedings. Under the circumstances, without any difficulty, it can be factually recorded that the deceased No.1, Kalyanithevar, and the deceased No.2, Packiathevar, died on account of homicidal violence. .15. In order to substantiate the accusations made against the accused persons, the prosecution had only two eyewitnesses namely P.Ws.1 and 2. It is true that P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased No.1 Kalyanithevar, and P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased No.2 Packiathevar. The other witnesses who were examined, were actually speaking about the circumstances that the accused persons were moving from the place of occurrence, which was noticed by them. It is a case where there were two rival groups, which was headed by the deceased No.1 and A-1 respectively, in respect of worship in a temple. There was rivalry in the past, and Sessions Cases were also pending. It is also pertinent to point out that in the earlier occurrence, which took place two years before, two persons namely Alagarsamythevar and Palchamythevar, were murdered by the sons of the deceased No.1, the deceased No.2 and others. Those persons Alagarsamythevar and Palchamythevar belonged to the other group, and from that time onwards, according to the witnesses, they were on inimical terms, and they were waiting for a time. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses examined. According to the witnesses, at the time of occurrence, P.W.1 was chatting with her husband Kalyanithevar in front of their house, and the husband of P.W.2, Packiathevar, also joined with them, and they were all chatting, and at that time, the accused persons formed into an unlawful assembly, and they armed with deadly weapons, came over there and began to attack, and in that transaction, both Kalyanithevar and Packiathevar met an instantaneous death. Now, the occurrence has been witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2. True it is, they are closely related to both the deceased. They are wives; but, on that ground alone, their evidence cannot be discarded. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the occurrence has taken place at about 4.45 P.M. According to P.W.1, she was sitting in front of the house and chatting with her husband. True it is, they are closely related to both the deceased. They are wives; but, on that ground alone, their evidence cannot be discarded. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the occurrence has taken place at about 4.45 P.M. According to P.W.1, she was sitting in front of the house and chatting with her husband. According to P.W.2, she was inside the house, and she just came out of her house. It is an admitted position that the house of Kalyanithevar and Packiathevar are situated abutting each other. Both these witnesses have narrated how the occurrence had happened. Both of them have also narrated the act of A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5, arming with deadly weapons and how they attacked both Kalyanithevar and Packiathevar. The evidence of one witness stood as a piece of corroboration of the evidence of the other witness. This Court is unable to see any discrepancy as far as this part of the evidence is concerned. That apart, the ocular testimony through P.Ws.1 and 2 stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence put forth by the prosecution through the postmortem Doctors. 16. As far as P.Ws.1 and 2 were concerned, they were womenfolk. Even according to the witnesses, no other members of the family were available at that time. There could not be any reason for the investigating agency not to examine any male member, if he was available at the time of the occurrence. But, the prosecution has chosen to examine only P.Ws.1 and 2, the two womenfolk, as eyewitnesses. This would be indicative of the fact that the prosecution came forward with these witnesses to put forth the truth. Despite the cross-examination in full, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of the overt acts attributed to A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5, remained in tack. They have narrated the incident, and how these accused persons armed with deadly weapons, attacked both the deceased and caused their instantaneous death. As pointed out above, their evidence stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Under the circumstances, the lower Court was perfectly correct in accepting their evidence, since it inspired the confidence of the Court. 17. The first contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that the first information was suppressed. As pointed out above, their evidence stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Under the circumstances, the lower Court was perfectly correct in accepting their evidence, since it inspired the confidence of the Court. 17. The first contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that the first information was suppressed. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the evidence of P.W.1, according to whom, she proceeded to the Police Station immediately after the occurrence, along with P.W.17 and gave an oral complaint to the Police Officer available. The learned Senior Counsel would further add that this contention was strengthened by the evidence of P.W.9, the Head Constable, according to whom, P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, was very well available at the scene of occurrence, when he came to the scene place along with the F.I.R.; that the real first information has been suppressed; and that Ex.P1 before the Court is not the first information at all. This Court is afraid whether it could accept such a contention. This contention cannot be countenanced for more reasons than one. It is true that P.W.1 has stated that immediately after the occurrence was over, she went to the Police Station. It is an admitted fact that the occurrence has taken place at about 4.45 P.M. If to be so, according to P.W.1, she went to the Police Station and gave the complaint at 4.45 P.M., and the distance between the scene of occurrence and the Police Station is 7 kilometers. At no stretch of imagination, one could have covered the distance. Apart from this, P.W.9, the Head Constable, has categorically denied that he received any complaint from P.W.1 at the Police Station; but, he went to the spot only on getting a telephonic information. Further, the witness, who was examined, was a rustic lady, and she was examined about 10 years after the time of occurrence. The occurrence has taken place in the year 1993; but, she was examined in Court of Session in 2003. This part of her evidence was nothing but failure of memory. The same cannot be taken as a reason to suspect the prosecution case. 18. So far as P.W.18 was concerned, he was not the Police Officer of the respective circle; but, he was the Inspector of Police attached to Parthipanoor Police Station. This part of her evidence was nothing but failure of memory. The same cannot be taken as a reason to suspect the prosecution case. 18. So far as P.W.18 was concerned, he was not the Police Officer of the respective circle; but, he was the Inspector of Police attached to Parthipanoor Police Station. Prior to the occurrence, at about 4.15 P.M., another occurrence has taken place on the same day where the son of the deceased No.2 was murdered, which resulted in registration of a case in Crime No.129/93. The Inspector of Police of the concerned circle went over for the investigation of that case, and hence, P.W.18, though from the different circle, was actually under the orders of the higher authorities and proceeded to the spot directly. Thus, it would be clear that when the Head Constable, P.W.9, went over to the scene of occurrence, P.W.18 was present at that time. The fact that P.W.18 is the Inspector of Police from a different circle would be indicative of the fact that he could not have received the copy of the F.I.R. in the instant case and proceeded. Thus, the evidence of P.W.9 that on receipt of the intimation, he proceeded from the Police Station to the scene of occurrence at about 6.30 P.M. and reached the scene place at 7.00 P.M.; that at the place, he recorded the statement of P.W.1 at 8.15 P.M., and then, he came back to the Police Station and registered the case has got to be accepted. 19. In the instant case, these two submissions that the first information is suppressed and P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have seen the occurrence remain to be stated only for the purpose of rejection. It is pertinent to point out that in the earliest document, Ex.P1, the names of A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 were specifically mentioned, and the overt acts attributed, are also clearly mentioned at the earliest. P.Ws.1 and 2 have given cogent and acceptable evidence. It can be well stated that Ex.P1 is the actual first information which has come into existence and on the basis of which a case came to be registered. That apart, the medical evidence was also in support of the prosecution case. Thus, the contentions put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. 20. It can be well stated that Ex.P1 is the actual first information which has come into existence and on the basis of which a case came to be registered. That apart, the medical evidence was also in support of the prosecution case. Thus, the contentions put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. 20. Further, the learned Senior Counsel made a contention that so far as A-7 was concerned, there are so many discrepancies between Ex.P1 the report, Ex.P8 the F.I.R. and also the statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. As far as the availability of A-7 was concerned, at the time of the narration, both P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken about the weapon of crime which was held by A-7 and also the injuries sustained by the deceased. But, they have given a deviating version from Ex.P1 and the statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, it casts a doubt whether A-7 could have been in the place of occurrence. Hence, that benefit should go to A-7, and A-7 is entitled for acquittal in view of the doubts attendant on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 21. For the foregoing reasons, there is no application of Sections 147 and 148 of I.P.C. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1, A-2 and A-4 by the trial Court under Sections 147 and 148 of I.P.C. are set aside, and they are acquitted of those charges. The fine amounts if any paid by them in that regard, will be refunded to them. However, A-1, A-2 and A-4 are to be found guilty under Sec.302 read with 34 of I.P.C. The judgment of the lower Court finding A-1, A-2 and A-4 guilty as per the charge of murder and awarding punishment, does not require any interference in the hands of this Court either factually or legally. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court for the offence under Sec.302 read with 34 of I.P.C. in respect of A-1, A-2 and A-4 is sustained. 22. As regards A-7, he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The bail bond if any executed by him, shall stand terminated. The fine amounts if any paid by A-7, will be refunded to him. 23. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed in respect of A-1, A-2, A-4 and A 7. 22. As regards A-7, he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The bail bond if any executed by him, shall stand terminated. The fine amounts if any paid by A-7, will be refunded to him. 23. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed in respect of A-1, A-2, A-4 and A 7. It is reported that A-1, A-2 and A-4 are on bail. Hence, the Sessions Judge shall take steps to commit them to prison to undergo the sentence awarded by the lower Court. The appeal as against A-5 is dismissed as abated.