Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.- Present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants Sardar Mohan Singh and Sardar Ajit Singh who were convicted by the learned Session Judge, Brahraich in Session Trial No. 105 of 1988 relating to Case Crime No. 130 of 1987, P.S. Gilaula, District Brahraich State v. Sardar Mohan Singh and another, under sections 302/34 201 394, 404 IPC. Accused-appellant Sardar Mohan Singh was held guilty for the of­fences under sections 302/34, 201, 394 397 IPC and accused-appellant Sardar Ajit Singh was convicted and sentenced for the offence under sections 304/34 and 201 IPC and he was acquitted from the charges lev­elled against him for the offence under sec­tions 394/397 and 404 IPC. They both were sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence under section 302/34 IPC and also for the other offences as detailed in the judgment of the Trial Court. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run con­currently. They were also sentenced for payment of fine and also in default of payment of fine for different periods. 2. The brief facts of the case are that both the accused persons Sardar Mohan Singh and Sardar Ajit Singh were driver and conductor respectively employed by owner of the Truck No. PCL 9973 named Sukhdeo Singh (deceased). They all three were going by the aforesaid truck in the intervening night of 21/22.11.1987 with luggage on hire to drop the same some­where beyond the limit of District Bah-raich. Some dispute between owner and driver, conductor broke out in the way and Sukhdeo Singh threatened them that he will see them in Meerut on return. Thereaf­ter, showing some mechanical defect in the truck, the truck was stopped by the driver Sardar Mohan Singh within the limit of Village Tilakpur, P.S. Gilaula, District Bah-raich and where both the accused in fur­therance of common intention given blow of "daab" (sharp edged weapon) on the body of Sukhdeo Singh and inflicted inju­ries to him and due to injuries, he suc­cumbed there. After committing the mur­der, they have hidden/thrown his dead body behind the bushes in the nearby field of one Chedi having mustered crop and they both escaped from there with the truck. They have also robbed the movables belonging to the deceased including his wrist watch and cloths etc. In the next morning one Bindeswari Prasad saw the dead body there. He informed the police in writing. They have also robbed the movables belonging to the deceased including his wrist watch and cloths etc. In the next morning one Bindeswari Prasad saw the dead body there. He informed the police in writing. A cognizable case was registered against unknown person for the murder of unknown person. Investigation of the case was started. The dead body was recovered by the police of police station of area con­cerned on the pointing of informant Bindeswari. When the police persons were on the road, a truck being driven by one Sardar Lakkha Singh reached on the road. Lakkha Singh was also Sardar. S.H.O. of police station concerned who was there get stopped the truck and asked the driver Sardar Lakkha Singh to identify the dead body of a Sardar laying in the field. On his request after going to the place where dead body was lying, Sardar Lakkha Singh iden­tified the same and stated that dead body is of Sukhdeo Singh owner of Truck No. PCL 9973 and he also informed the investigating officer that Sardar Mohan Singh and Sardar Ajit Singh were driver and conductor of the said truck respectively. He also promised with the SHO/Investigating Officer that he will inform about the murder of Sukhdeo Singh to his family members. Photographs of dead body were also snatched and shoes of deceased were also recovered from that place. Inquest report and allied papers i.e. photo lash, challan lash of dead body etc. were if prepared. Dead body was sealed and sent for post-mortem. The post­mortem of the dead body was conducted by the doctor who found ante-mortem in­juries and he confirmed that cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. 3. The driver of the other truck namely Sardar Lakkha Singh informed the owner of Jai Hind Transport Company, Meerut about the murder of Sukhdeo Singh and the owner of this Transport Company informed the owner of Ludhi-yana Transport Company about this occur­rence and in the same process they in­formed the family members of Sukhdeo. 3. The driver of the other truck namely Sardar Lakkha Singh informed the owner of Jai Hind Transport Company, Meerut about the murder of Sukhdeo Singh and the owner of this Transport Company informed the owner of Ludhi-yana Transport Company about this occur­rence and in the same process they in­formed the family members of Sukhdeo. Later on, Randir Singh brother of the de­ceased along with Gurdayal and Ujjagar came at police station Gilaula and he saw the photographs of the dead body as well as shoes seized and identified them of the Sukhdeo Singh and they also confirmed that the truck was being driven by Sardar Mohan Singh and Sardar Ajit Singh was the cleaner of the same. Later on, investigating officer after re­ceiving information about accused went to the village of the deceased where he re­corded the statement of the witnesses and widow of the deceased etc. He was in­formed that deceased was having a wrist watch and a receipt of the same was handed over to him by widow of the de­ceased. Statement of brother of the de­ceased was also recorded. Again on the information, he raided the houses of the accused-persons, but they were not there. 4. On the information on 7.12.1987 that accused persons have gone with the truck towards Raikot (in Punjab), he ar­ranged the witnesses and came near Pond of Baba Roop Narayan and stay there in wait of the truck. At about 1.30 p.m., Truck No. PCL 9973 was seen on the road. Police persons get stopped the said truck. The driver and the cleaner of the same tried to escape from there after jumping from the truck, but they were apprehended after a chase. On inquiry they disclosed their name as Sardar Mohan Singh and Sardar Ajit Singh as driver and conductor of the truck respectively. A wrist watch was on the hand of Sardar Mohan Singh, the same was identified of the deceased by the witnesses. From the search of the truck, registration certificate, insurance policy, permit, etc. were recovered. On inquiry, both the ac­cused confessed their guilt and stated that ataichi containing cloths of deceased was kept at the house of Sardar Mohan Singh and he can get the same recovered. From the search of the truck, registration certificate, insurance policy, permit, etc. were recovered. On inquiry, both the ac­cused confessed their guilt and stated that ataichi containing cloths of deceased was kept at the house of Sardar Mohan Singh and he can get the same recovered. Investi­gating Officer on the pointing of the accused Sardar Mohan Singh along with witnesses, came at his house from where he brought the ataichi having blanket, lungi and shirt of the deceased Sukhdeo Singh. Driving li­cense of Sukhdeo was also recovered from the ataichi. These were identified by Surjeet Singh and witness Ujjagar Singh who were also on the spot saying these are of deceased Sukhdeo Singh. Later on, remand of both the accused was sought from the Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon, District Ludhiyana to bring the accused persons at Bahraich. On 12.12.1987 on the information and pointing of accused Sardar Ajit Singh weapon used in the murder (daab) and shirt of Sukhdeo Singh having blood stained hidden in the bushes were recov­ered in the presence of the witnesses by police. The shirt was identified by the wit­nesses belonging to the deceased. 5. During the course of investigation, it was also found by the investigating offi­cer that accused Sardar Mohan Singh has confessed his guilt before one Manmeet Singh. His statement was also recorded. After completing the investigation and ar­riving at the conclusion that against both the accused persons is made out, Investi­gating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against both the accused for their trial in Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session so the same was committed to the Court of Sessibn by the learned Magistrate. Both the accused persons were charged for the offences under sections 302/34, 201, 394 read with section 397 IPC and section 404 IPC, but they have pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial. 6. On behalf of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined. Both the accused persons were charged for the offences under sections 302/34, 201, 394 read with section 397 IPC and section 404 IPC, but they have pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial. 6. On behalf of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined. PW-1 Sardar Lakkha Singh, who has identified the dead body of Sukhdeo laying in the field of Chedi within the limit of P.S. Gilaula, Dis­trict Brahraich; PW-2, witness and brother of the deceased, Surjeet Singh stated that both the accused along with Truck No. PCL 9973 were apprehended by the police in his presence and H.M.T. Watch was re­covered from accused Sardar Mohan Singh which belongs to Sukhdeo Singh and on the information and pointing of Sardar Mohan Singh, an ataichi having lungi, shirt and blanket of Sukhdeo was recovered from his house; PW-3 Ujjagar Singh is wit­ness almost of the same facts as was stated by PW-2 Surjeet Singh in his statement; PW-4 Bindeswari Prasad is the witness who firstly informed the police station Gi­laula by written report Exhibit-Ka-3 about the dead body lying in the field of one Chedi; PW-5 Manmeet Singh is witness of the fact that accused Sardar Mohan Singh has confessed his guilt (extra-judicial con­fession) before him; PW-6 Harcharan Singh identified the watch saying that he sold it to Sukhdeo Singh and proved the receipt of the same which is Exhibit-Ka-4; PW-7 Doc­tor B.B. Singh conducted the post-mortem of the dead body and proved the post­mortem report Exhibit-Ka-5 and given de­tail of the injuries found by him on the dead body of the deceased and Stated that cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries; PW-8 Sub-hash Chandra Yadav is the Munshi of Gangdhat Toll Bridge, P.S. Mahar, District Ajamgarh stated that Truck No. PCL 9973 had crossed the bridge in the intervening night of 21/22.11.1987 and Toll-Tax paid. He also identified the receipt Exhibit-Ka-6; PW-9 (by affidavit) Constable Motilal who stated that the sealed cover dead body of the deceased was handed over to him for post-mortem purposes; PW-10 Dhanl Ram another witness Munshi of the Toll bridge of District Balrampur who stated that the Truck No. PCL 9973 had crossed the bridge 21.11.1987 Toll-Tax was paid and he proved the receipt of Toll-Tax payment Exhibit-Ka-9; PW-11 Constable Anjani Kumar who prepared the chik report as Exhibit-Ka-10 and proved entry of G.D. Exhibit-Ka-7 about registration of the case; PW-12 Ramachal Singh who stated that police persons in the company of two ac­cused Sardar Mohan Singh and Sardar Ajit Singh and on the pointing of Sardar Ajit Singh recovered "daab" (weapon used in the offence) as well as one shirt and he identified his signatures on the memo pre­pared on the spot; PW-13 S.I. Badan Singh Investigating Officer who had given the details of investigation in his statement and proved the documents prepared by him during the course of investigation and also given other details of the investigation. Shyam Kishore Pandey Sub-Inspector filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of the prosecution showing that that sealed bun­dles of blood-stained and "Sada-Mitti" col­lected from the spot and other articles col­lected during the course of investigation including sealed weapon of assault were deposited by Constable Moti lal in the "Malkhana" and on the same day, the arti­cles for chemical examination in laboratory were handed over to Moti lal by him and entries made in the register in this regard. Another affidavit was filed by Constable Moti lal confirming the statement made by .Shyam Kishore Pandey in his affidavit about the fact that he deposited this sealed bundles of articles at "Malkhana" from Po­lice Station Gilaula and he had handed over this bundles in the laboratory at Lucknow for the purpose of chemical examination. Constable Indra Kumar filed affidavit that he brought the sealed bundles from the laboratory, Lucknow and deposited the same in "Malkhana"', Bahraich. 7. In their statement under section 313 CrPC both the accused persons have denied the correctness of the prosecution case and evidence. They have also claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. Sardar Mohan Singh further stated that he was in his "Sasooral", from where he was appre­hended by the police. 7. In their statement under section 313 CrPC both the accused persons have denied the correctness of the prosecution case and evidence. They have also claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. Sardar Mohan Singh further stated that he was in his "Sasooral", from where he was appre­hended by the police. It is wrong to say that he was apprehended along with truck belonging to Sukhdeo Singh and he did not got discovered ataichi containing the clothes of Sukhdeo from his house. Sardar Ajit Singh stated that he went to the village of Sardar Mohan Singh one of his relation from where police has apprehended him and falsely implicated in this case. No evi­dence either by documentary or oral in de­fence was adduced. After hearing the Counsel for the ac­cused (Amiens Curiae) and State and perus­ing the record, learned Session Judge by its impugned judgment and order found guilty and sentenced them as above. Aggrieved by the judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused persons. As both the accused persons were not represented by counsel, in argument, on their request Amicus Curiae was appointed. On the request of Amicus Curiae Sri Amit Choudhary, Advocate dur­ing the course of arguments, both the ac­cused were summoned from the jail as he wants to consult them on certain points. On their appearance, Sri Amit Choudhary, Advocate was permitted to consult with them. Arguments of Sri Amit Choudhary as well as learned Additional Government Advocate Mrs. Smity Sahay were heard and record was perused by us. Undisputedly this case is based on cir­cumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence of the fact of murder of Sukhdeo Singh by the accused persons. Nobody had also seen them throwing the dead body of Sukhdeo Singh in the field of Chedi which situate within the limit of P.S. Gilaula, Dis­trict Bahraich. Learned Counsel for the ap­pellants argued that in case of circumstan­tial evidence it should be such which may lead to the only conclusion of the guilt of the accused and every other hypothesis is ruled out. It was further argued that if any link in the chain of the circumstances is missing the prosecution story become sus­picious and cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction of accused persons. It was further argued that if any link in the chain of the circumstances is missing the prosecution story become sus­picious and cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction of accused persons. It was further argued that judgment of the Trial Court is neither based on law nor on facts and evidence was not properly con­sidered. Most material defence of the ac­cused persons was also not taken into con­sideration. Sentence is too severe and prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State supported the judgment of the Trial Court saying that there was sufficient evidence on the record and chain of the circumstances was com­plete in the matter and no illegality, inva­lidity and improbability was committed by the Trial Court in convicting the accused persons for the charges. 8. Evidence on record is there that dead body of Sukhdeo Singh was recov­ered from the field of one Chedi which was behind the .bushes and mustered crop was there in the field, in the morning of 22.11.1987, which was identified by one witness PW-1 Lakkha Singh. From the statement of PW-1 Lakkha Singh, it is clear that he has given detail as to how he was knowing Sukhdeo Singh. He claimed that for certain period, he was appointed driver at the truck of Sukhdeo Singh. As per prosecution case when he was returning from Siligudi by driving another truck and reached nearby the place from where the dead body was recovered and on the re­quest of police officer to identify the dead body of one Sardar, he went at the place where the dead body was lying and he identified the same. He was cross-examined at length on behalf of both accused but nothing came out from his statement to disbelieve. No unnaturality and improbability was also shown on be­half of the appellant in the statement of this witness. Moreover, PW-13 Investigating Officer Sri Shyam Badan Singh had also stated that on 30.11.1987 brother of Sukh-deo Singh along with Gurdayal Singh and Ujjagar Singh came at the police station and he saw the photographs of the dead body and shoes recovered from the place from where dead body was seized and identified that these photographs and shoes belongs to his brother Sukhdeo Singh. Moreover, from the record, it re­veals that nowhere it has been disputed on behalf of the accused-appellants that the dead body seized by the police from the field of Chedi as detailed above is not of Sukhdeo Singh brother of PW-2 Surjeet Singh. Dead body was sealed on the spot and sent for post-mortem through Constable Motil lal whose affidavit as PW-9 is avail­able on the record. PW-7 Doctor B.B. Singh stated that he had conducted the post­mortem of dead body received on 23.11.1987. He had given the details of inju­ries found by him on the dead body and further stated that cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased. This shows that Sukhdeo Singh has not died natural death, but he succumbed to the injuries found by the doctor on his body. Post-mortem report prepared by the doctor Exhibit-Ka-5 is also available on the record. , Truck No. PCL 9973 was owned by Sukhdeo Singh (deceased) as stated by PW-2 Surjeet Singh who is real brother of the deceased in his statement on oath, which is also clear from the documentary evidence-available on the record which was recov­ered from the truck and this is also not dis­puted on behalf of the accused, which is also clear from the record. 9. Both the accused-appellants Sardar Mohan Singh and Sardar Ajit Singh were employed by Sukhdeo Singh as driver and conductor respectively as per prosecution case. Although, they both have denied the correctness of these facts in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. but PW-2 Surjeet Singh brother of the deceased Sukhdeo Singh has confirmed the correctness of this fact in his on oath statement. Learned AGA argued that PW-13 Investigating Officer had stated in his on oath statement that Sardar Lakkha Singh PW-1 whose truck was got stopped by him nearby the place from where the dead body was recovered, told him that Sardar Mohan Singh and Sardar Ajit Singh were driver and conduc­tor of this truck of Sukhdeo Singh and one of the brother Randhir Singh who came at police station after receiving the informa­tion of murder of Sukhdeo Singh con­firmed the correctness of this fact that Sardar Mohan Singh and Sardar Ajit Singh were driver and conductor of the truck and on this information he went for their search in the village of accused persons. Moreover as per prosecution case on the information of some informant when this truck was seized on the road in Punjab both the ac­cused persons tried to escape after jumping from the truck but they were apprehended after a chase. Any other person was also there in truck it is no where stated on their behalf. Although both the accused persons in their statement under section 313 CrPC have stated that they were not appre­hended by the police as such, and they were apprehended from other places, but no evidence in support of their this case was adduced on their behalf. They made any complaint to any authority of the po­lice or district immediately after their arrest and also before the Magistrate concerned before whom they were produced for the purpose of remand, it is nowhere claimed by the accused persons. PW-2 Surjeet Singh and PW-3 Ujjagar Singh have stated in their oath statement .about the arrest of both these accused persons when they tried to escape after jumping from the same truck. PW-13 Investigating Officer of the case has also stated so in his statement. All the three witnesses were cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused persons, but no material contradiction, discrepan­cies, unnaturality and improbability in their statement has been pointed out on behalf of the accused-appellants during the course of arguments. Watch owned by de­ceased Sukhdeo Singh Exhibit-Ka-5 was recovered from the wrist of accused Sardar Mohan Singh at the time of his arrest, it is also clear from the statement of all these three witnesses for which he failed to give any sufficient explanation. Documents re­lating to the ownership of the truck i.e. reg­istration certificate, insurance policy, per­mit, etc. were also recovered from the search of the truck seized from the posses­sion of both the accused. This all cannot be said insufficient to hold in the facts and circumstance of the case that truck was re­covered from the possession of the accused persons which belongs to Sukhdeo Singh (deceased) and they have not given any sufficient explanation for the recovery of this truck from their possession and they were employed as driver and cleaner on the truck. 10. 10. When Sardar Mohan Singh was taken into custody and he was inquired by the police as per prosecution case, he con­fessed his guilt and stated that he can get recovered the ataichi of the deceased Sukhdeo Singh which was in the truck and he had misappropriated the same and kept the same at his house. On his this informa-tpn, when he was brought by the police persons and witnesses at his house, he was permitted to go inside the house from where he came out with the ataichi having blanket, shirt and lungi of the deceased Sukhdeo Singh which were identified on the spot by PW-2 Surjeet Singh and PW-3 Ujjagar Singh. After lengthy cross-examination with these three witnesses of the fact of recovery i.e. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-13 nothing was shown on behalf of the accused that there was anything in the cross-examination to disbelieve their testi­mony about this recovery of the belongings of Sukhdeo Singh (deceased) which con­nects the case prosecution of murder of Sukhdeo Singh and misappropriation of his property by the accused. Statement of PW-5 Manmeet Singh was also recorded during the course of investi­gation by the investigating officer who had stated in the Court as PW-5 that he is lum-berdar of the village and accused Sardar Mohan Singh approached/requested to him to save him and to get compromised the matter and he had confessed his guilt before him that some dispute between him and Sukhdeo Singh arose when they were in the truck and Sukhdeo Singh has threat­ened him that he will see him in Meerut on return and only then he committed this murder. He was also cross-examined on behalf of the accused and nothing is pointed in his cross-examination to disbe­lieve his on oath 'version. No sufficient cause has been shown why this witness is implicating him in this case. Although accused persons have claimed their false implication in this case due to enmity, but no oral or documentary evidence was adduced in their defence showing the cause of false implication. No sufficient cause has been shown why this witness is implicating him in this case. Although accused persons have claimed their false implication in this case due to enmity, but no oral or documentary evidence was adduced in their defence showing the cause of false implication. It may be correct that in case of circumstan­tial evidence motive has its own impor­tance and in the present case, no convinc­ing evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution that accused persons were having motive to commit the murder of Sukhdeo Singh side by side, it is also established law that if cause of false impli­cation is not brought on behalf of the ac­cused, on the record, as motive always re­mains in the mind of the accused persons which may not be known to other persons except the deceased who is now no more in the world to state the same, if it is not es­tablished and from the other evidence on record, it is established beyond all doubt that it is the accused persons who have committed the offence then motive losses its importance. 11. In Paragraphs 52 and 53 of the judgment, learned Session Judge had fi­nally observed that after considering the entire circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution he arrived at a irresistible conclusion that in furtherance of the com­mon intention both the accused have committed the murder of Sukhdeo Singh. Ajit Singh remain all time in company of Mohan Singh co-accused as cleaner of truck. He was not a silent spectator. He had not shown any sympathy with his master namely Sukhdeo Singh. He got recovered "daab" weapon used in the occurrence and blood stained shirt of the deceased which were placed by them there after commit­ting crime which shows his complicity in the crime. Injuries caused by sharp edged weapon were found on the body of de­ceased, clear from the Exhibit-Ka-5 post­mortem report. He was arrested when they both were on the same truck of Sukhdeo Singh in Punjab. His presence in the truck was also stated by Mohan Singh in his ex­tra-judicial confession to PW-5 Manmeet Singh. It was concluded that in his opinion circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent, reliable and believ­able and prosecution has succeeded in es­tablishing its case beyond doubt and charges under sections 302/34 and 201 IPC are fully established against both the ac­cused. It was concluded that in his opinion circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent, reliable and believ­able and prosecution has succeeded in es­tablishing its case beyond doubt and charges under sections 302/34 and 201 IPC are fully established against both the ac­cused. Learned Session Judge also held guilty to Sardar Mohan Singh only for the offence under section 394 read with sec­tions 397 and 404 IPC. In arriving the aforesaid findings, learned Session Judge, Bahraich held that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent, reliable and believ­able and also given details as how he con­cluded that both the accused are found guilty for committing the offence of mur­der of Sardar Sukhdeo Singh and also for disappearing the evidence of the offence to screen themselves from the punishment. It was also said on behalf of the accused-appellants that Investigating Officer has not made efforts to collect more evidence to complete the chain and so investigation can be said faulty but it is established law that were fault in investigation by the In­vestigating Officer cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. For the fault of the prosecution the perpetrators of crime i.e. gruesome murder cannot be allowed to go scot-free specially when from the testi­mony of the witnesses case is established beyond reasonable doubt. It is not the mat­ter of hit and run affair and the commis­sion of murder by some unknown persons. On the close analysis of evidence of prose­cution it is obvious that the testimony of the witnesses is credible. Witnesses are unanimous on the facts how the occurrence has taken place and their testimony found corroboration from the medical evidence and circumstances brought on record on behalf of the prosecution. In Allarakha v. State, 2002 (44) ACC 778 (SC) = 2002 Cr.LJ. 1489 the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that miscarriage of justice from acquittal of a guilt is no less than from convicting an innocent. 12. From the above all discussions, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking arguments of learned Counsel for the parties into consideration as well as going through the judgment de­livered by the Trial Court, we are also of the definite opinion that there is no illegal­ity, invalidity and impropriety in the im­pugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants for the charges as re­ferred above. At the end of his arguments learned Counsel for the accused-appellants (amicus curiae) after consultation with the appellants had also not pressed the appeal of the accused-appellants on merit and prayed for a lenient view in awarding the sentence to the accused-appellants. In the aforesaid circumstances findings of Trial Court to held guilty to the accused-appellants and sentencing them are hereby confirmed and appeal filed on their behalf is hereby dismissed. Learned Amicus Curiae Sri Amit Choudhary on behalf of the accused-appellants, after consultation with their clients who were summoned from the Cen­tral Jail, Varanasi for the purpose of consul­tation on the request of their counsel, sub­mitted before us that both the accused-appellants are in custody and are in jail since very beginning from the time of ar­rest and they remain in jail during the pe­riod of trial and also now during the pend­ency of this appeal. It is further said that they are in jail for last more than 22 years without taking into consideration the re­mission. It is not on the record that they are of dangerous character. No one from their family remained present in the Court dur­ing the pendency of the appeal even their wife, brother and other near relative are not coming for their help in the case. They are suffering aloneness in jail. They are be­ing neglected even by their own family members and society which can be said their social death. They have lost love and affection and service of their family mem­bers during this period and since then their family members are also suffering because no other earning members in their family. No previous conviction of any of the ac­cused ,and their involvement in crime is brought on record on behalf of the prosecu­tion. Citing the law of Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhyan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1986 STPL (LE) 12720 SC = 1987 Cr.L.R. 280 learned Counsel for the accused-appellants prayed forwarding their case for remission of rest part of their punishment to the State Government with reference to sections 432 and 433-A of CrPC. Before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the atoresaid said case the accused persons were undergoing the sen­tence of life imprisonment imposed by the competent Court. They were in jail for more than 22 years without taking into ac­count the remission. Before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the atoresaid said case the accused persons were undergoing the sen­tence of life imprisonment imposed by the competent Court. They were in jail for more than 22 years without taking into ac­count the remission. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that: "The period already spent is long enough to entitle him to avail of the provisions for securing his premature release as per the rele­vant rules......... We would have straightway proceeded to direct the State Government to release him but for the fact that we are not sure whether the averments made in the petition are correct, under the circumstances, we direct the State Government to consider the case of convict, Dhyan Singh, for premature release, within four weeks from today and pass appro­priate orders by a reasoned order in any case within eight weeks from today. We would impress upon the State Government the ne­cessity to consider the case of the convict with expedition and pass appropriate orders in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.......... The respondent shall place on record the outcome of the proceedings by filing a note before 13.1.1987. In the case convict is not released latest by 20.12.1986, the matter will be listed before the Court on 13.1.1987 upon learned Counsel for the petitioner filing a note in this behalf if convict is not "f released.........." 13. Moreover from the perusal of the record of the appeal, it reveals that already steps have been taken by the jail authorities for the purpose of remission of the rest sen­tence of the accused-appellants and a letter was received by this Court from the jail authorities that matter is pending before the State Government for remission of the sentence and inquiry was made from this Court whether appeal is still pending or disposed of earlier. In the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, if we go through the facts and circumstances of the case, we also find that both the accused are in jail for more than 22 years without considering the period of remission and in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that their matter should also be considered by the State Govern­ment for taking proper decision in the mat­ter of remission for the rest part of sentence of both the accused-appellants under sec­tions 432 and 433-A, CrPC and the State Government shall supply them fresh "Form-A" if they have yet not been re­leased under section 2, Rule 4 of U.P. Pris­oners Act and the State Government shall decide their "Form-A" within six months from the date of supply of a certified copy of this order. Appeal Disposed Of.