Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 938 (MP)

Sanjay Kumar v. State Of M. P.

2007-08-29

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2007
JUDGMENT : This criminal appeal has been preferred under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 9-4-1991 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No. 63/89 whereby the appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra has been convicted under sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and appellant Shrinath Mishra under sections 307/34 and 324/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them for 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 1 year R.I. and 1 year R.I. respectively and the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The admitted facts are that Shrinath Mishra was the son of complainant Trilokinath. Ramesh Prasad is also the son of complainant Trilokinath. Sanjay Kumar Mishra is the son of Shrinath Mishra and grandson of Trilokinath. They were residing in the same old house but in different portions separately. There were tense relations in between them. They have received the injuries. Both the parties lodged the report and cases were registered against each other. 3. The prosecution case is that complainant Trilokinath lodged the report at police station Chorahta on 19-2-1988 at 9:00 a.m. that a day before this incident the appellants were constructing their house on the government land which was previously owned by him and now in public use. He asked them not to construct the house on the government land bearing Khasra No. 442 but they did not adhere to it. On the day of incident in the morning he was sitting on puja at the same time the appellants were abusing him. On hearing the abuses, he got up from the puja and refused not to abuse. On this, the appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra armed with Farsa ran to struck him. Ramesh Prasad the son of complainant rushed to save him. Sanjay Kumar Mishra tried to inflict Farsa blow at the neck of Ramesh Prasad but struck his head consequently he fell down and became unconscious. When the complainant tried to catch the Farsa, it struck on his shoulder and on the dorsum aspect of palm. Shrinath Mishra was beating by Bedna (wooden stick) but the same struck on his son Sanjay Kumar Mishra. The incident was witnessed by Alua Mudha @ Triveni Kewat and by the women of complainant's family. When the complainant tried to catch the Farsa, it struck on his shoulder and on the dorsum aspect of palm. Shrinath Mishra was beating by Bedna (wooden stick) but the same struck on his son Sanjay Kumar Mishra. The incident was witnessed by Alua Mudha @ Triveni Kewat and by the women of complainant's family. On this report Crime No. 22/88 was registered under section 307/34 at police station Chorahta at 9:45 p.m. Trilokinath and his son Ramesh Prasad were referred for medical examination. Dr. Y. S. Tiwari medically examined them. Looking to the serious condition, Ramesh Prasad was admitted in hospital. Dr. D. S. Kapur took x-ray of his head and found the fracture in the right temporal bone. The spot map was prepared. The blood stained soil, controlled soil and one towel were seized from the spot. The accused persons were arrested. The memorandum of Sanjay Kumar Mishra was recorded under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and in consequence thereof Farsa was recovered. The statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the competent Court from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court. 4. The appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra was charged under sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code to the effect that on 19-2-1988 at village Ruhiya he assaulted the Farsa blow at the head of Ramesh Prasad with such intention or (knowledge) and under such circumstances that if by that act he has caused his death, he would have been guilty of murder and caused grievous hurt to him and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. He was further charged that on the same date, time and place he voluntarily caused the hurt to Trilokinath by means of Farsa- a sharp cutting object. Similarly Shrinath Mishra was also charged under the same sections with the aid of section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Accused persons abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and the accused persons only three witnesses. Similarly Shrinath Mishra was also charged under the same sections with the aid of section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Accused persons abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and the accused persons only three witnesses. After considering the evidence, the trial Court found appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra guilty under sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and Shrinath Mishra under sections 307/34 and 324/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder as stated in para 1 of this judgment. 7. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, finding and sentence the appellants preferred the appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 8. The learned counsel of the appellants has submitted that appellant Shrinath Mishra has expired during the pendency of this appeal which also finds the support from the record. Therefore, the appeal against Shrinath Mishra has been abated. This appeal is to be considered with respect to appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra only. 9. Learned Counsel of the appellants has further submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and committed an illegality in holding that the appellants were aggressor. It is apparent from the record that the appellants also sustained the grievous injuries which has not been explained by the prosecution, therefore, the appellants ought not to have been convicted. The appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra was physically handicapped therefore, the head injury of Ramesh Prasad could not have been inflicted by him. He has further submitted that the incident took place at the house of appellants, therefore, the right of private defence accrued to them hence appellant deserves to be acquitted. 10. On the other hand, Shri T. K. Modh, learned Dy. A. G. appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has submitted that the complainant promptly lodged the report. The ocular evidence given by the witnesses finds support from the medical evidence. He has further submitted that the right of private defence of causing fatal injury is not accrued till their life is in danger. In the circumstances of this case, no right of private defence accrued in favour of appellants. The appellant invited the quarrel by abusing the complainant hence there is no question to exercise the right of private defence. He has further submitted that the right of private defence of causing fatal injury is not accrued till their life is in danger. In the circumstances of this case, no right of private defence accrued in favour of appellants. The appellant invited the quarrel by abusing the complainant hence there is no question to exercise the right of private defence. He has further submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt hence does not call for interference. 11. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder of Ramesh Prasad and for causing the hurt to Trilokinath by means of Farsa. 12. I have perused the entire case and evidence recorded therein. 13. Trilokinath (PW-1) has deposed that a day before the incident the appellants were constructing the house on the way, he prevented but they did not adhere to. On 19-2-1988 when he was performing Puja, Sanjay Kumar Mishra was abusing him. He went there to refuse such abusing but Sanjay Kumar Mishra brought Farsa and when he was inflicting upon him his son Ramesh Prasad came there to save him, Sanjay Kumar Mishra inflicted Farsa blow on his head resulting into profused bleeding. He fell down and became unconscious. One Farsa blow was inflicted on the hand of complainant also. Ramesh Prasad was brought to police station Chorahta where the report Ex.P/1 was lodged. Ramesh Prasad was admitted in hospital and they both were medically examined. He has denied the suggestion that the appellants were beaten by Lathi and Danda by them. 14. Ramesh Prasad (PW-5) has also deposed that the appellants were abusing, his father asked them not to abuse. On this, the appellants threw his father on the ground. His father cried to save, therefore, he rushed there. Sanjay Kumar Mishra tried to struck Farsa blow at his neck but he bowed down and the Farsa blow inflicted on the right side of his head. Consequently, he fell down and became unconscious. When his father tried to lift him, Sanjay Kumar Mishra inflicted Farsa blow on his father by which he sustained the injuries at shoulder and dorsum aspect of palm. Consequently, he fell down and became unconscious. When his father tried to lift him, Sanjay Kumar Mishra inflicted Farsa blow on his father by which he sustained the injuries at shoulder and dorsum aspect of palm. In cross-examination, some contradictions and omissions have been brought from his previous police statement Ex.D-2/Ex.D-3 but not so important as to discredit his testimony. 15. Triveni @ Algua (PW-3) has deposed that appellants were abusing filthy languages to complainant Trilokinath and his son Ramesh Prasad at that time Trilokinath was performing puja. He came out and asked not to abuse. They threw him on the ground. Ramesh Prasad came there. Sanjay Kumar Mishra struck Farsa blow on his neck but he bowed down, as a result thereof, the Farsa blow fell on his head and started bleeding. Ramesh Prasad fell down and when Trilokinath tried to lift him Sanjay Kumar Mishra also inflicted Farsa blow on Trilokinath thereby he sustained the injuries on his shoulder and dorsum aspect of the palm. Ramesh Prasad was brought to hospital by Tractor, admitted in hospital and remained there for 10 days. 16. Smt. Sandhya (PW-2) has also supported the version of Trilokinath and Ramesh Prasad mainly stating that Sanjay Kumar Mishra inflicted Farsa blow on the head of her husband Ramesh Prasad as a result of which he fell down, bleeding started and when his father-in-law tried to lift him Sanjay Kumar Mishra inflicted Farsa blow which struck on his shoulder and dorsum aspect of the palm. 17. These witnesses have stated the manner and method in which the incident occurred. They have clearly stated that appellant Sanjay Kumar inflicted Farsa blow on the head of Ramesh Prasad and also on the shoulder and dorsum aspect of palm of Trilokinath. 18. The F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) of the incident was lodged promptly which was recorded by Abhiram Singh Tiwari (PW-7) and then he referred the injured persons to Civil Hospital, Rewa. Dr. Y. S. Tiwari (PW-4) examined the injured persons on the same day. On medical examination of Ramesh Prasad he found an incised wound on the right side of skull measuring 5" x "¼" x bone involvement starting from margin of right eyebrow and was upwards the posterior part of right pinna causing cutting of skull, muscle, frontal and temporal region of skull with profuse bleeding and clotted bleeding caused by sharp cutting weapon. The case was referred to R.S.O. and also advised x-ray of skull. He also found the sub conjuctival haemorrhage of right eye with swelling lateral and below of right orbit 2" x 1" radish blue that was due to collection of blood. The injuries were caused within 12 hours. 19. He has further deposed that the injury No. 1 of Ramesh Prasad may be caused by Farsa and this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. He has submitted the medical report Ex.P/3. 20. Dr. D. S. Kapur (PW-8) has taken two x-rays of head of Ramesh Prasad and found that there was fracture of right parietal bone. X-ray report is Ex.P/2 which contains his signature. 21. Dr. Y. S. Tiwari (PW-4) has also examined Trilokinath at about 10.30 p.m. on the same date and found the following injuries : (i) bruise on the dorsum of right hand measuring 1" x "¼" distal half region corresponding to 4th and 5th metacarpal bone. (ii) Incised wound on the back right side axilla (4" x 1/8" x skin deep) and lateral aspect of arm upper part bleeding with clotted blood present. (iii) Incised wound on the right shoulder top 1"¾" x "¼" x skin deep, oblique bleeding and clotted blood present. (iv) Black discolouration of distal part of thumb right including nail with swelling around, in the length of nail. (v) Incised wound on the dorsum aspect of hand right above 4th finger top "¾" x 1/8 " bleeding and clotted blood. Injury No. 2, 3 and 5 were caused by sharp edged weapon and injury No. 1, 4 by hard and blunt object simple in nature duration within 6 hours. Report Ex.P/2 has been submitted by him which contains his signature. 22. Thus the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding the injuries of Ramesh Prasad and Trilokinath further find support from the medical evidence. 23. Abhiram Singh Tiwari (PW-7) has prepared the spot map Ex.P/4, he has seized the blood stained and controlled soil vide Ex.p/8. He has also arrested appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra and recorded the statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.P/9, in pursuance thereof he has seized Farsa at the instance of appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra vide Ex.P/5. 24. Abhiram Singh Tiwari (PW-7) has prepared the spot map Ex.P/4, he has seized the blood stained and controlled soil vide Ex.p/8. He has also arrested appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra and recorded the statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.P/9, in pursuance thereof he has seized Farsa at the instance of appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra vide Ex.P/5. 24. The prosecution has tried to establish that the appellant attempted to murder of Ramesh Prasad and also to cause the voluntary hurt to Trilokinath by the Farsa- sharp cutting aspect. 25. On the other hand, the appellants have also adduced the defence evidence that the complainant and his son caused the marpeet to the appellants. Urmila Prasad (DW-1) has deposed in this regard but he does not belong to this village. His village is four kilometres away from the place of incident. He was serving in the Excise Department at that time. It has been shown that the litigation is going on in between him and Umesh Prasad Pandey and complainant Trilokinath has given evidence in favour of Umesh Prasad Pandey, therefore, it may be the possibility that he is giving evidence against Trilokinath and in favour of the appellant. Moreover, his presence on the spot has not been admitted by any of the prosecution witnesses. His presence at the spot is doubtful. 26. Suresh Kumar Chaturvedi (DW-2) has admitted that he reached there when quarrel was over, therefore, his evidence regarding the incident cannot be accepted. Moreover, he also seems to be the interested witness because some complaints were made against his father regarding some corruption in constructing the well and school and Trilokinath was one of the complainants in that matter. He also belongs to another village Bela. Therefore, his evidence is of no consequence. 27. Rajrup Tiwari (DW-3) had deposed that Sanjay Kumar Mishra had lodged the report on Rojnamcha Sanha No. 704 dated 19-2-1988 (Ex.D/4). 28. Dr. Y. S. Tiwari (PW-4) has also examined Sanjay Kumar Mishra on 19-2-1988 at 12.25 p.m. and found the injuries mentioned in the medical report (Ex.D/4). He was also admitted in the medical surgical ward and was advised to x-ray of head and scapula bone. He has also medically examined Shrinath Mishra and found injuries on his person as mentioned in medical report enclosed with the record of counter case. He was also admitted in the medical surgical ward and was advised to x-ray of head and scapula bone. He has also medically examined Shrinath Mishra and found injuries on his person as mentioned in medical report enclosed with the record of counter case. Thus, by this evidence the appellants have tried to establish that they also received the injuries in this incident. 29. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution has not explained the injuries found on the person of the appellants hence it is fatal to the prosecution. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Laxmi Singh and others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 it has been held that : "In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow : (1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. The facts of the present case clearly fall within the four corners of either of the first two principles laid down by this judgment. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. The facts of the present case clearly fall within the four corners of either of the first two principles laid down by this judgment. In the instant case, either the accused were fully justified in causing the death of the deceased and were protected by the right of private defence or that if the prosecution does not explain the injuries on the person of the deceased the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in deep mystery, which is sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case." It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences : (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the Court to rely on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and 6 more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. 1 to 4 and 6 more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State of Gujarat vs. Bai Fatima, Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1971 decided on March 19, 1975: (reported in AIR 1975 SC 1478 ) there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly no such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises." 30. On the other hand, Shri T. K. Modh, learned Dy. A. G. appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that prosecution has tried to explain the injuries found on the persons of appellants, therefore, this circumstance is not fatal to the prosecution. He has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Takhaji Hiraji vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and others, AIR 2001 SC 2328 the Apex Court has held thus : "17. The first question which arises for consideration is what is the effect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused persons. In Rajendra Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 298 : (2000 AIR SCW 1314 : AIR 2000 SC 1779 : 2000 Cri.L.J. 2199); Ram Sunder Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 365 : (1998 AIR SCW 3030 AIR 1998 SC 3117 : 1998 Cri LJ 4558) and Vijayee Singh vs. State of U. P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 : ( AIR 1990 SC 1459 : 1990 Cri. L.J. 1510) all 3-Judges Bench decisions, the view taken consistently is that it cannot be held as a matter of law or invariably a rule that whenever accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved. Before non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused persons by the prosecution witnesses may affect the prosecution case, the Court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions: (i) that the injury on the person of the accused was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. Non-explanation of injuries assumes greater significance when the evidence consists of interested or partisan witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Where the evidence is clear cogent and creditworthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries on the side of the accused persons are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently the whole of the prosecution case." 31. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Sukumar Roy vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2006 SC 3406 , the Apex Court has held thus : "16. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there were unexplained injuries on Urmila and Tarani. It is well settled that minor unexplained injuries will not help the case of the accused. Moreover, the nature of alleged injuries on Urmila and Tarani has neither been stated by the accused persons nor have any injury reports of any doctor been produced, and no doctor has been examined as a witness in support of such injuries." 32. So far as the present case is concerned, the complainant Trilokinath has tried to explain the injury found on the person of the appellant from the very beginning. He has mentioned in F.I.R. Ex.P/1 that Shrinath Mishra tried to inflict Bedna (wooden stick) upon him but he obstructed which fell on the head of Sanjay Kumar Mishra. So far as the present case is concerned, the complainant Trilokinath has tried to explain the injury found on the person of the appellant from the very beginning. He has mentioned in F.I.R. Ex.P/1 that Shrinath Mishra tried to inflict Bedna (wooden stick) upon him but he obstructed which fell on the head of Sanjay Kumar Mishra. Almost all of the prosecution witnesses who have witnessed the incident have deposed in the like manner but it is fact that there were seven injuries on the person of Sanjay Kumar Mishra and four injuries to Shrinath Mishra. Most of the injuries are bruises in nature but on x-ray of Sanjay Kumar Mishra the fracture of scapular bone was found but the x-ray of Shrinath Mishra has been done very late i.e. to say on 2-5-1988 near about 2 "½ months of the incident. Since the appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra was having seven injuries, therefore, it cannot be said that they might have been caused by Bedna of his father Shrinath Mishra. How the appellant sustained the injury could not well be explained by the prosecution but it appears that they received the injuries in the same incident. 33. Now the question is who was aggressor? As it is manifestly clear that appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra invited the quarrel by using filthy languages against his grandfather Trilokinath and when he asked not to abuse Sanjay Kumar Mishra brought Farsa and inflicted on the head of Ramesh Prasad as described earlier. He also inflicted the injuries to his grandfather Trilokinath. As it is manifestly clear that complainant and appellants are residing in the same old house and Sanjay Kumar Mishra was abusing standing on his door. Keeping in view of the location of the house of both the parties it cannot be said that the complainant party went there to quarrel with appellants. It is clearly established that appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra himself invited this quarrel and attacked on the complainant party. In saving themselves the injuries might have been caused to appellants. Since the appellants were aggressor, therefore, no right of private defence accrued to them. 34. As it is manifestly clear that the complainant lodged the report immediately wherein the overt acts of the appellants were mentioned. The complainant Trilokinath and his son Ramesh Prasad are the injured witnesses. They have deposed against the appellants. Since the appellants were aggressor, therefore, no right of private defence accrued to them. 34. As it is manifestly clear that the complainant lodged the report immediately wherein the overt acts of the appellants were mentioned. The complainant Trilokinath and his son Ramesh Prasad are the injured witnesses. They have deposed against the appellants. Their presence on the spot cannot be doubted in any manner. Likewise presence of Smt. Sandhya also cannot be doubted because the quarrel was near to the residential house and there was every possibility to see the incident. It is clearly mentioned in F.I.R. that Triveni @ Algua witnessed the incident and he has also given the evidence in support of the prosecution, therefore, his presence also cannot be doubted. There is overwhelming evidence against the appellants. The ocular evidence is sufficiently corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, from the evidence of prosecution, it has clearly been established that appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra inflicted Farsa-sharp cutting object on the vital part of the head of Ramesh Prasad resulting into fracture of parietal bone as a result of which he became unconscious at the spot and was also remained in the same condition when he was examined by doctor at 10:30 p.m. At that time also, there was profused bleeding on his head which clearly indicates the seriousness of the injury caused by appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra. 35. The argument on behalf of appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra has been put forth that he is a handicapped person and comes on clutches. But the evidence clearly shows that he was the author of this crime. He has inflicted the Farsa blows on the head of Ramesh Prasad and also caused the voluntary hurt to Trilokinath. No any convincing evidence has been adduced on behalf of the appellant that he was not capable of inflicting such injuries. Moreover, the evidence is adduced on behalf of the prosecution that previously appellant Sanjay Kumar Mishra was also prosecuted under section 324, Indian Penal Code for causing voluntarily hurt to Ramesh Prasad, which was culminated in compromise between injured and accused person. 36. On appraisal of evidence it is found that prosecution has established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. 37. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the trial Court. 36. On appraisal of evidence it is found that prosecution has established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. 37. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the trial Court. The trial Court has rightly convicted him under sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder, hence finding of conviction and sentence confirmed. The appeal is merit-less and deserves to be dismissed. 38. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He be directed to surrender before C.J.M., Rewa on 28-9-2007 to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. 39. The appeal against Shrinath Mishra abated on account of his death during the pendency of this appeal. 40. The order regarding the disposal of criminal properties passed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed.