Judgment Per: U.C. Dhyani, J. Criminal Law was set into motion at the instance of complainant PW1 Narendra Singh s/o Bhorum Singh, resident of village Narsan Kala, P.S. Manglore, District Haridwar in the instant case. The complaint (Ext.Ka-1) was scribbled by one Pradeep Kumar. The backdrop of crime was that informant’s son Parul looted motorcycle along with two accomplices on 23.04.2008 in jungle Gramkhera Jat and came to co-accused Sushil s/o Mahendra. They had quarrel in the evening around 8–9 p.m. Monu s/o Jaspal of village Brahmpur Jat (Haridwar) was found in injured condition near tube well of Kharak Singh in village Lalchandwala along with looted motorcycle. Monu was admitted in hospital by the police. Informant’s son Parul was missing since 23.04.2008. On 02.05.2008, the day complaint was written, Parul’s dead body was found in decomposed condition in a nala near fields in village Lalchandwala. Parul was killed by Sushil and his companions might be involved in the same. The dead body was lying on the spot, according to the informant. 2. On the complaint of Narendra Singh, chik FIR (Ext. Ka-10) was lodged in P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar on 02.05.2008 at 11:55 pm. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 5 Kms. The First Information Report was registered as case crime no. 26 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC. 3. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 201 IPC was submitted against the accused-appellants Sushil Kumar, Sandeep and Manoj Kumar. When the trial began, charges for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the accused appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 13 prosecution witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Statements of the accused persons were taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. One witness DW1 SI B.L. Bharti was examined on behalf of the defence. 4. After conclusion of the trial, accused appellants Sushil Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Sandeep were convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 / 34 IPC and section 323 / 34 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 2008 on 18.07.2009. 4. After conclusion of the trial, accused appellants Sushil Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Sandeep were convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 / 34 IPC and section 323 / 34 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 2008 on 18.07.2009. All the three accused were awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and were directed to pay a fine of ‘20,000/- each, in default of payment of which they were directed to further undergo a year’s imprisonment as regards the offence punishable under Section 302 / 34 IPC. They were also awarded one year’s rigorous imprisonment in connection with the offence punishable under section 323 / 34 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the trial court. Aggrieved against the aforesaid conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, accused / appellants preferred present appeals. 5. When PW1 Narendra Singh entered into the witness box he supported prosecution story and said that on 23.04.2008 his son went to Lalchandwala along with two boys. Narendra Singh had talks with his son on telephone. His son told him that he was with Sushil (co-accused) in Lalchandwala. He did not return in the evening. The next day informant came to know that Monu, who accompanied Parul to Lalchandwala, was found in unconscious state by police, who took him to hospital. Informant met Monu on 25.04.2008 in hospital and enquired about his son Parul. Monu told that Sushil and his companions assaulted Parul and him (Monu). Monu said that he became unconscious. Informant made a search for his son Parul along with his relatives. On 02.05.2008 dead body of Parul was found in village Lalchandwala, a report whereof was got scribbled by one Pradeep on the same day. PW1 Narendra Singh proved complaint (Ext.Ka-1). 6. In cross-examination, he said that Monu met him in Dehradun hospital on 25.04.2008. Monu was in a position to talk. FIR was written in P.S. Khanpur. The FIR was read over to him. The third boy (Manoj) who accompanied his son Parul never met him till date. When dead body of Parul was found, he lodged FIR. He admitted that criminal cases were pending against his son Parul. The dead body was found at a distance of half a kilometer from Lalchandwala. On being questioned, he also replied that he continued to make a search for his son from 23.04.2008 to 02.05.2008. When dead body of Parul was found, he lodged FIR. He admitted that criminal cases were pending against his son Parul. The dead body was found at a distance of half a kilometer from Lalchandwala. On being questioned, he also replied that he continued to make a search for his son from 23.04.2008 to 02.05.2008. He came to know about looted motorcycle through newspaper. He denied the suggestion that Parul did not talk to him on telephone. He admitted that harvesting season (of wheat) was over when Parul’s dead body was found in the field. 7. When Monu entered into the witness box as PW10 he supported prosecution story. Much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR was delayed. They pleaded that Parul was missing since 23.04.2008 and FIR was lodged on 02.05.2008. We do not agree with the said contention of learned counsel for the appellants, in as much as it has come in evidence of PW1 Narendra Singh that after meeting PW10 Monu in hospital on 25.04.2008, he made a frantic search for Parul and he lodged FIR only when his dead body was found. He has explained in the cross-examination that he continued to take rounds of police station from 23.04.2008 to 02.05.2008 and also continued to make a search for his missing son till then. He lodged complaint only after ascertaining the truth in Monu’s statement. Thus the delay, if any, in lodging FIR was properly explained. There was no justification on the part of informant to lodge FIR only on the basis of suspicion. Although PW10 Monu told him in hospital that Sushil along with his companions assaulted Parul (and Monu), yet there was no occasion for him to lodge FIR against Sushil and his companions till he made sure that the same, in fact, happened. He wanted to make sure whether the information provided by PW10 Monu had some substance or not? The culmination of the story was discovery of dead body of Parul. Although informant approached police, took rounds of police station and simultaneously made a search for his missing son but he lodged FIR only when the curtains were drawn. 8. PW11 Doctor Ajay Mohan Agarwal found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of Parul: (i) Lacerated wound 5 cm × 3 cm frontal region of scalp, midline, 7 cm above glabella, bone deep. 8. PW11 Doctor Ajay Mohan Agarwal found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of Parul: (i) Lacerated wound 5 cm × 3 cm frontal region of scalp, midline, 7 cm above glabella, bone deep. (ii) Contusion with abnormal bony movements, left side scalp 12 cm × 8 cm, occipito-parieto-temporal region. (iii) Long thick rope is tied over mouth and neck (with two rounds around) while other end of rope is tied loosely to right thigh, middle part, and upper part of right leg. The first round of the rope is passing through mouth, (both angle of mouth and lower lip), just below right and left ear and 4 cm below occipital protuberance while second round is passing through right side 3 cm below angle of mandible to 5 cm below angle of left mandible, through just above adam’s apple in midline. Length of first round is 41 cm, second round is 39 cm. Total length of rope is about 515 cm (rope is sealed). 9. The cause of death of Parul was asphyxia due to strangulation. PW11 Doctor Ajay Mohan Agarwal proved the report (Ext.Ka-9) prepared by him. Post mortem was conducted on 03.05.2008 at 1:00 p.m. According to the doctor, the death of victim could have been caused between five to ten days before the post mortem. Injury nos.1 & 2 were caused by sticks (blunt object). 10. Learned counsel for accused / appellant Manoj submitted that the informant did not say anything about Manoj. It has come in the cross-examination of PW1 Narendra Singh that he never met the third boy (co-accused Manoj) who was with Parul. We will have to look into the evidence of PW10 Monu to find out the role and involvement, if any, of co-appellant Manoj. 11. PW7 Kuldeep Bhardwaj was a friend of Parul. Kuldeep said that on 23.04.2008 at 5:00 p.m. he received a telephone call from Parul whereby Parul informed that he was with his friend Sushil in village Lalchandwala. Parul informed him on telephone that he would be coming back after two hours. PW7 Kuldeep Bhardwaj did not receive any call from Parul thereafter. In cross-examination, he said that there was no telephone connection at Parul’s residence. Thus PW7 Kuldeep’s evidence was directed against appellant Sushil but not against others. Parul informed him on telephone that he would be coming back after two hours. PW7 Kuldeep Bhardwaj did not receive any call from Parul thereafter. In cross-examination, he said that there was no telephone connection at Parul’s residence. Thus PW7 Kuldeep’s evidence was directed against appellant Sushil but not against others. We will have to fall back upon the testimony of PW10 Monu in respect of appellants Manoj and Sandeep. 12. PW8 Mahipal saw deceased last in the company of co-accused Sushil. He said that when he was going to village Padowali on 23.04.2008, he met Sushil and Parul at 6 – 6 ½ p.m. They were talking to each other and with other 6–7 persons on road. He had informed Parul’s father that Parul met him on 23.04.2008 with Sushil at 6 – 6 ½ p.m. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the accused wherein he denied the suggestion that he never saw Sushil in the company of Parul. Thus it may be said at the very outset that there is evidence against Sushil. We will have to refer back to the evidence of PW10 Monu to understand the role, if any, of co-appellants Manoj and Sandeep. His testimony is a very important piece of evidence for proper appreciation of prosecution case. The most important piece of evidence 13. PW10 Monu in his examination-in-chief said that he lived in Muzaffarnagar earlier. Parul was related to him (as his brother-in-law). The daughter of Monu’s maternal uncle Veer Singh was married to Parul. Parul had a friend named Satyendra. He knew Sushil Gujjar because he used to come to meet Parul in Roorkee jail. On 23.04.2008, he along with Parul and Satyendra looted a motorcycle on way to Khedajat. All of them went to village Lalchandwala on that motorcycle. Sushil met them at home (in village Lalchandwala). Sushil welcomed them in the village. They were seated comfortably in the outskirt of village and were served with liquor and chicken (by Sushil). He called Manoj of Rahmadpur and Sandeep Gujjar of Lalchandwala on telephone. All of them (viz., Sushil, Manoj and Sandeep) took liquor and ate chicken. Sushil kept them busy in conversation. He also took little liquor with them but allowed them to take more. Parul went away from there at 7:30 p.m. PW10 Monu followed him on motorcycle. Monu parked motorcycle in Ravidas Mandir. All of them (viz., Sushil, Manoj and Sandeep) took liquor and ate chicken. Sushil kept them busy in conversation. He also took little liquor with them but allowed them to take more. Parul went away from there at 7:30 p.m. PW10 Monu followed him on motorcycle. Monu parked motorcycle in Ravidas Mandir. No sooner they reached there, Sushil called Parul for some talks behind Ravidas Mandir. Manoj and Sandeep also came there. Manoj inflicted blow of blunt object and Sandeep, Sushil inflicted blows of sticks on Parul’s head. Parul fell down. PW10 Monu was also standing there. He got scared after witnessing the same. Monu fled away towards jungle. Sandeep, Sushil and Manoj chased him. They caught hold of him near tube well. They started beating Monu with sticks. Monu fell unconscious. PW10 Monu said that he did not know what happened thereafter. There was some money due to Parul against Sushil. Parul had gone there to demand money. Sushil did not pay money and promised to pay the same within one-two days. PW10 Monu identified accused Sushil, Manoj and Sandeep Gujjar before the trial court. 14. In his cross-examination, he expressed his inability to tell about the residence of Satyendra. He said that he looted motorcycle with Satyendra. He was brought to hospital in unconscious state. He admitted that it was dark when the incident took place. When he became conscious after a few days, Narendra (father of Parul) and other villagers came to meet him. He disclosed the incident of marpeet with him as well as with Parul (to villagers). When the Investigating Officer came to enquire about the incident, he was apprised with the same. He met Manoj at the place where they consumed liquor. He did not meet Manoj before that. He along with Parul came to temple to take motorcycle. After looting motorcycle they reached Lalchandwala straight away. They did not stop anywhere. Parul was having a country made pistol. He himself (Monu) and Satyendra were empty handed. He (Monu) fled to jungle from temple. PW10 Monu admitted that two cases were pending against him. Parul was having a mobile. He along with Satyendra didn’t have mobile. Satyendra never met him before this incident. Satyendra, who belongs to Muzaffarnagar, meets him on the dates fixed by the court, PW10 Monu said. 15. He (Monu) fled to jungle from temple. PW10 Monu admitted that two cases were pending against him. Parul was having a mobile. He along with Satyendra didn’t have mobile. Satyendra never met him before this incident. Satyendra, who belongs to Muzaffarnagar, meets him on the dates fixed by the court, PW10 Monu said. 15. PW10 Monu denied the suggestion that they had a quarrel over distribution of booty. Parul had a brother named Deepak Pahalwan. Many a cases were pending against Deepak. He admitted that Parul’s father was doing pairavi in criminal cases pending against Parul and himself (Monu). He denied that he was telling a lie on this count. 16. On further cross-examination by one of the appellant (Sandeep), PW10 Monu said that he was a resident of Nagla (Muzaffarnagar). His family sold the property in Muzaffarnagar and started residing in village Brahmpur which was situated at a distance of 15-20 kms from Lalchandwala. He had been to Sushil’s house with Parul earlier also. He saw Sandeep on the date of incident for the first time. Police did not call him for the test identification parade of Sandeep or Manoj. He admitted that he along with Sandeep were lodged in Roorkee jail together. He saw Manoj and Sandeep for the first time on the day the incident took place and subsequently in Roorkee jail. When Parul’s father Narendra met him in the hospital after 3-4 days of the incident, then PW10 Monu apprised him with the whole incident disclosing the names of accused persons. He told that the Investigating Officer had taken his statement. Certain omissions were referred to PW10 Monu suggesting the correctness of some of his statements given to Investigating Officer. This witness said that he cannot assign any reason if the Investigating Officer did not record such things in his statement. The witness admitted that a case of abduction was pending against him. The incident in the abduction case was of the year 2003 pertaining to P.S. Bhagwanpur. Parul was not the co-accused in that case. He also said that there were many a cases of loot pending against Parul. The criminal case relating to loot of motorcycle was pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. He denied various suggestions put forward by learned counsel for the appellants. 17. PW10 Monu received injuries and Parul was done away with. He also said that there were many a cases of loot pending against Parul. The criminal case relating to loot of motorcycle was pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. He denied various suggestions put forward by learned counsel for the appellants. 17. PW10 Monu received injuries and Parul was done away with. FIR was lodged after dead body of Parul was found. Accused / appellant Manoj Kumar belonged to Rahmadpur and co-accused Sandeep belonged to Lalchandwala. Name of appellant Sushil figured in the statement of PW1 Narendra Singh as well as in the statement of PW10 Monu. Name of other appellants figured in the testimony of PW10 Monu alone. The cause of incident was loot of motorcycle. They were enjoying fortunes of robbery. 18. PW10 Monu never said what was the outcome of assault. Thieves / robbers will not mind little bit of assault. Monu’s evidence is only last seen. Whole story is last seen. Monu never said that he saw killing of Parul. He stole a bike. Sushil wanted a cut out of it. Marpeet took place. If the court believes last seen evidence, since appellants did not say anything under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the court will presume that such an incident took place. Monu’s evidence is to be considered in the background that he was a robber and a thief. If the court could ignore the evidence of Monu nothing was left. When dead body was found only then the FIR was lodged. It was murder by strangulation. Monu’s last seen evidence was there. The moment it was seen, accused had a duty to speak. Accused persons did not discharge their duties. Monu’s evidence (as regards his injury) is supported by doctor. The chain was not required to be completed. The case is based entirely on adverse presumption. Thieves are accustomed to beating in public. There was deficiency on the part of police in admitting Monu. There was deficiency on the part of doctor in admitting Monu in hospital. Society cannot be blamed for it. Monu said about share and commotion. He has not said that thrashing resulted in victim’s death. He only said that victim was last seen in the company of accused persons. Dead body if recovered 10 days later, really does not matter. A person who is fixed ‘last seen’ is required to give explanation. Society cannot be blamed for it. Monu said about share and commotion. He has not said that thrashing resulted in victim’s death. He only said that victim was last seen in the company of accused persons. Dead body if recovered 10 days later, really does not matter. A person who is fixed ‘last seen’ is required to give explanation. Accused was called upon to explain and they did not explain. Adverse inference will be drawn against them as it was their duty to speak. The only logical conclusion is that they don’t get out. Chain is complete by adverse inference. 19. Monu got injured and was admitted in Civil Hospital, Roorkee. This fact was evidenced in the testimony of PW6 Doctor Raj Kumar, who was posted in the said hospital on 28.04.2008 as Emergency Medical Officer. He examined Monu on 28.04.2008 at 7:20 p.m. and found various injuries on his body. Doctor Raj Kumar proved injury report (Ext. Ka-3) of injured Monu. Thus it was established that Monu sustained injuries. He remained admitted in the hospital from 24.04.2008 to 27.04.2008. There is sense in the statement of PW1 Narendra Singh that he met Monu in the hospital on 25.04.2008. 20. PW9 SI D.C. Gupta was posted as Second Officer in P.S. Khanpur on 23.04.2008. Village Pradhan of village Lalchandwala (PW4 Harikrishan) informed him telephonically that a young man was lying unconscious on the field and a Glamour motorcycle (without number) was also lying besides the road. An entry in the G.D. was made to this effect. 21. Among other witnesses, PW2 Sohanveer was signatory to inquest report (Ext.Ka-2); PW3 Pradeep Kumar was the scribe of complaint (Ext.Ka-1); PW4 Harikrishan, Village Pradhan saw PW10 Monu in injured condition and in unconscious state on the field. An unnumbered motorcycle was found lying besides the road, according to him. PW5 Dharmpal did not support prosecution story and he was declared hostile. PW12 Constable Kunwar Singh was the author of chik FIR (Ext.Ka-10) and entry thus made in G.D. (Ext.Ka-11). PW13 SI Govind Singh Manola was the Investigating Officer who proved site plans (Ext.Ka-12 & Ext.Ka-13) and submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-15), among other things. 22. PW10 Monu was not only an eyewitness of thrashing of Parul but he himself was injured. He has criminal background. His brother Deepak was also having criminal background, as was admitted by PW10 Monu. PW13 SI Govind Singh Manola was the Investigating Officer who proved site plans (Ext.Ka-12 & Ext.Ka-13) and submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-15), among other things. 22. PW10 Monu was not only an eyewitness of thrashing of Parul but he himself was injured. He has criminal background. His brother Deepak was also having criminal background, as was admitted by PW10 Monu. He also admitted that deceased Parul was also a person of criminal background. He appears to be a natural witness. He admitted in his cross-examination that he saw co-accused Sandeep and Manoj for the first time when the incident took place. He was forthright in his admission that he met co-accused Sushil only once before this incident and it was his second meeting with said co-accused. A witness may be called interested witness only when he derives some benefits from result of litigation i.e. in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in circumstances of a case cannot be said to be interested witness. 23. DW1 SI B.L. Bharti was the Investigating Officer of case crime no. 136 of 2008 under section 392 IPC P.S. Manglore, District Haridwar. He arrested accused of that case (Monu) on 27.04.2008 and made an entry in G.D. to this effect. DW1 SI B.L. Bharti recorded statement of PW10 Monu in a case of loot initiated against him. DW1 SI B.L. Bharti said that Monu did not name Sandeep and Manoj as the persons who assaulted. It is to be noted here that DW1 SI B.L. Bharti uttered these words in reference to a case of loot pending against Monu. The same had no connection with the case which is presently in hand before us. He however admitted in his testimony that those who looted motorcycle came to Lalchandwala via Purkaji. They had marpeet with Sushil. The testimony of DW1 SI B.L. Bharti is of no help to the appellant(s). The eyewitness account given by PW10 Monu is natural and trustworthy. It inspires confidence. There is no reason to feel that he was an interested witness. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant Manoj Kumar submitted that the only circumstance suggested against the appellant is ‘last seen’ with the deceased on 23.04.2008. It was submitted that even this circumstance was not proved. It inspires confidence. There is no reason to feel that he was an interested witness. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant Manoj Kumar submitted that the only circumstance suggested against the appellant is ‘last seen’ with the deceased on 23.04.2008. It was submitted that even this circumstance was not proved. PW10 Monu said that he saw the appellant for the first time on that very day when it was quite dark. The centre of discussion was distribution of booty i.e. looted motorcycle between Parul and Sushil. The ‘last seen’ evidence of PW10 Monu is not trustworthy, according to learned counsel defending appellant. 25. There is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for Manoj. Last seen evidence was of utmost importance. Meeting of deceased and appellant when PW10 Monu saw them together for the last time was trustworthy. The sequence of events as narrated by PW10 Monu suggested that they were there (on the place of occurrence) for reasonably good period of time. There was no reason to disbelieve PW10 Monu, for why will he implicate Manoj Kumar unnecessarily? He was last seen with victim on 23.04.2008, dead body was found on 02.05.2008 and the post mortem was conducted on 03.05.2008. Since the dead body was found in decomposed condition therefore, the date when he was last seen and the time of death must be in close proximity. In other words, time of death was in close proximity with the last seen event. 26. If the appellant Manoj was not put to identification parade, that itself does not discredit the prosecution evidence. It has come in evidence that Monu, Manoj and Sandeep were lodged in Roorkee jail. The prisoners find plenty of opportunities to meet other inmates inside the jail. Test Identification Parade, if conducted, would have become a futile exercise in the given circumstances. There was no question mark on the identity of appellant Manoj Kumar otherwise also. 27. There is no doubt that PW10 Monu is a man of criminal antecedents, he was related to the deceased and his criminal cases were being looked after by father of deceased. But these facts do not discredit prosecution case because there appears to be no reason why will he implicate appellants (three in number)? The evidentiary value of testimony of PW10 Monu cannot be discredited only because he is a man of criminal antecedents. But these facts do not discredit prosecution case because there appears to be no reason why will he implicate appellants (three in number)? The evidentiary value of testimony of PW10 Monu cannot be discredited only because he is a man of criminal antecedents. The testimony of a related witness should be scrutinized with vengeance. The evidence of PW10 Monu emerged with flying colours even after having closest scrutiny. 28. Learned counsel for appellant Sandeep submitted that FIR was delayed. Learned counsel pointed out that PW1 Narendra Singh, father of deceased Parul lodged complaint on 02.05.2002 after the dead body of victim was discovered by him. He said that he met PW10 Monu on 25.04.2008 in the hospital. Monu told him that deceased Parul was assaulted. PW10 Monu said that he narrated entire story to PW1 Narendra Singh, when he came to visit him in hospital. It is the argument of learned counsel for Sandeep that if PW10 Monu narrated entire story to PW1 Narendra Singh when he came to visit him in hospital, then why appellant was not named in FIR? 29. We have already discussed in one of the foregoing paragraph that there was proper explanation of delay in lodging FIR. That was the reason why half-baked story was not served in the plate by informant. 30. Learned counsel for Sandeep also argued that PW10 Monu was an interested witness. We have also dealt with this aspect of the matter earlier. It was also submitted that PW10 Monu was found in injured condition and on the information of PW4 Harikrishan, PW9 SI D.C. Gupta posted at Police Station Khanpur took Monu into police custody on 23.04.2008. He was brought to Community Health Centre, Laksar. It is the argument that PW10 Monu did not speak to the Police or the Medical Officer as to how he received injuries and who caused these injuries? We are not convinced with the said argument of learned counsel for the appellant because the same was not the subject matter of this case, that might be the subject matter of criminal case pending against Monu (in the capacity of accused). They are altogether different issues. One issue is related to Monu in the capacity of accused and the other issue is related to PW10 Monu in the capacity of prosecution witness. They are altogether different issues. One issue is related to Monu in the capacity of accused and the other issue is related to PW10 Monu in the capacity of prosecution witness. Even if it was otherwise, we have observed above that the Police / Medical Officer committed mistake in admitting accused Monu in hospital and for that society can not be blamed. Impeccable testimony of PW1 Narendra Singh and PW10 Monu duly corroborated by medical evidence and receiving peripheral support from other prosecution witnesses have brought home guilt to the accused/appellants to the hilt. 31. Since the prosecution has been able to prove the case against accused/appellants beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the judgment and order passed by learned trial court deserves to be affirmed. 32. For the foregoing reasons as discussed above, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment and order. Impugned judgment and order does not require interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The same are accordingly dismissed. The conviction of appellants Manoj, Sandeep and Sushil and the sentence thus awarded to them are affirmed. The accused/appellants are in jail. The Registry is directed to send the lower court record back to the trial court to make the appellants (convicts) serve out the sentence awarded against them. An information to this effect be also sent to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellants/convicts are currently serving out the sentence.