Darshan Singh, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.08.2002 vide which all the three appellants have been held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C. (for short 'I.P.C.'). Appellants Rala Singh and Gora Singh have also been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and order of sentence of the even date vide which all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ` 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for offence punishable under Section 120-B I.P.C. Appellant Gora Singh and Kala Singh have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ` 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The sentences awarded to appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh were ordered to run concurrently. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Jaspal Singh made his statement Ex. PA to Inspector Harcharan Singh, SHO Police Station Joga alleging therein that he is an agriculturist by profession. They are three brothers. Eldest is Kulwant Singh, who is serving in the Army and younger to him is Sandeep Singh. They have taken the land of Bikkar Singh on lease/share basis and have transplanted the paddy crop in that field. Teja Singh (deceased), father of the complainant aged about 60 years use to stay in the field for guarding the electric motor. On 08.08.2001, complainant Jaspal Singh and Bikkar Singh went to the field for installation of the electric motor after getting the same repaired. His father Teja Singh was present near the tubewell room. They returned to their village at about 9.30 p.m. after having fitted the motor leaving behind Teja Singh (deceased) in the field. In the morning of 09.08.2001, when Teja Singh did not return to the house, Jaspal Singh complainant went to the field and found the dead body of his father lying on the cot having injuries on his neck and face with sharp edged weapon. He went to the village and informed about it to Gursewak Singh and Avtar Singh. In the morning of 09.08.2001, when Teja Singh did not return to the house, Jaspal Singh complainant went to the field and found the dead body of his father lying on the cot having injuries on his neck and face with sharp edged weapon. He went to the village and informed about it to Gursewak Singh and Avtar Singh. He sent his brother Sandeep Singh at the spot. Thereafter, he along with Gursewak Singh and Avtar Singh started for the police station to lodge the report. The SHO met them in the way and recorded the statement. Complainant also stated that his father has been killed by some unknown persons with sharp edged weapons. On the statement of complainant-Jaspal Singh Ex. PA, formal F.I.R. Ex. PA/2 was registered and investigation was started. 2. Inspector Harcharan Singh, the Investigating Officer along with complainant Jaspal Singh and others reached the spot, where the dead body of Teja Singh was lying on the cot. He carried out the inquest proceedings and prepared the inquest report Ex. PM. He sent the dead body along with request Ex. PL for postmortem examination through HC Bant Singh and Major Singh, Punjab Home Guard volunteer. He lifted the blood stained earth which were kept in the sealed parcel Ex. P-2 as well as the simple earth which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PE. He also took into possession piece of blanket stitched on the cot, blood stained 'Baan' of the cot by converting them into sealed parcel vide memo Ex. PF. The Investigating Officer prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. PG. HC Bant Singh handed over the parcels to the Investigating Officer after the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Teja Singh. 3. On 18.08.2001, appellants Gora Singh, Kala Singh and Jagtar Singh (non-appellants) were produced before the Investigating Officer by PW-7 Mandar Singh. On interrogation, appellant Gora Singh suffered the disclosure statement Ex. PC and in pursuance thereof he got recovered the Kasia. Similarly, appellant Kala Singh suffered the disclosure statement Ex. PD and got recovered the Kahi. These articles were also taken into possession after preparing their sketches vide separate memos. 4. On 21.08.2001, appellant Darshan Singh was also arrested. The Investigating Officer carried out other formalities of the investigation and presented the report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court. 5. PD and got recovered the Kahi. These articles were also taken into possession after preparing their sketches vide separate memos. 4. On 21.08.2001, appellant Darshan Singh was also arrested. The Investigating Officer carried out other formalities of the investigation and presented the report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa vide order dated 05.10.2001. All the accused were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. Learned public prosecutor also brought on record the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PU/1. 7. When examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants pleaded false implication. Appellant Gora Singh pleaded that he was servant with Roop Singh and was irrigating the field at the relevant time. Appellant Kala Singh pleaded that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. He and Darshan Singh were servants with Bir Singh, who was constructing his house and they were present at his house at the relevant time. Appellant Darshan Singh also raised the same plea. Accused Jagtar Singh (since acquitted) pleaded that he has been falsely implicated as Kala Singh was his servant. 8. The accused-appellants did not lead any evidence in their defence. 9. On appreciating the evidence on record and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment held guilty and convicted all the three appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B I.P.C. Appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh were also held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Accused Jagtar Singh was acquitted of all the charges. Appellant Darshan Singh was also acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. They were awarded the sentence as mentioned in the upper part of the judgment. 10. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously examined the record of the case. 12. 10. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously examined the record of the case. 12. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellants contended that as per the F.I.R., the murder of Teja Singh has been committed by the unknown persons. Nobody was named in the FIR. Thereafter, the improvements were made by the prosecution witnesses to rope in the appellants. By making material improvement in their statements, they attributed the motive to the present appellants that appellant Darshan Singh @ Leela had a dispute with the deceased on account of distilling the illicit liquor in their field. The remaining prosecution witnesses have also made the material improvements in their testimonies. Such witnesses can not be relied upon. 13. He further contended that PW-3 Nahar Singh has also built up a false story by making improvement in his testimony. PW-4-Babu Singh is alleged to have received the information from the accused-appellants about their grievance against deceased-Teja Singh. It is not probable that he will remain silent and will not bring the matter to the notice of the deceased or his family members. Most of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution are the chance witnesses. Their presence at the spot is not explained. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the theory of last seen is not established. PW-3 Nahar Singh has categorically stated that appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh has left the place, where they were having altercations with the deceased. There is no evidence that they again came to the field of the deceased. So, the last seen theory is not established. 15. He further contended that the evidence of extra judicial confession is always treated to be a weak type of evidence. PW-7 Mandar Singh, before whom the extra judicial confession is alleged to have been made, relates to another village. He had remained member Panchayat with the brother-in-law of the deceased, who was the Sarpanch of village Anupgarh. It is not believable that the appellants will contact such a stranger for making extra judicial confession. He is only a procured witness to create evidence. The testimony of such a witness can not be relied upon. 16. He further contended that the recoveries have also been planted just to create evidence. It is not believable that the appellants will contact such a stranger for making extra judicial confession. He is only a procured witness to create evidence. The testimony of such a witness can not be relied upon. 16. He further contended that the recoveries have also been planted just to create evidence. The only independent witness of recovery Baldev Singh has not been examined. The disclosure statements of the appellants are delayed one and have been recorded after several days of their arrest. It shows that they were compelled to suffer such disclosure statements. There are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses as to whether the weapons were blood stained or not. He further contended that moreover, in the report of chemical examiner no blood group is mentioned. Thus, it can not be stated that the weapons allegedly recovered from the appellants were the weapons of offence. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that appellant Darshan Singh @ Leela has been convicted under Section 120-B I.P.C., but there is absolutely no evidence to establish any conspiracy between appellant Darshan Singh @ Leela and the remaining appellants. PW-4 Babu Singh had no occasion to visit the house of Darshan Singh @ Leela. Moreover, if he had come to know the intention of the appellants to commit the murder of Teja Sing, he was duty bound to inform the police as well as the family members. His statement has been recorded by the police after 8-9 days of the occurrence. Section 120-B of the 'I.P.C.' has been added after 11 days of the occurrence just to involve the appellants. He further contended that the motive for the commission of offence qua the appellants is also not established. 18. On the other hand learned State Counsel contended that the case of the prosecution is well established from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He contended that the accused were seen near the scene of crime before and after the commission of the offence. They have made the extra judicial confession before PW-7 Mandar Singh, which is proved to be voluntarily in nature. The weapons of offence have also been recovered from the possession of accused Gora Singh and Kala Singh. Thus, he pleaded that there is no infirmity in the conviction of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court. 19. They have made the extra judicial confession before PW-7 Mandar Singh, which is proved to be voluntarily in nature. The weapons of offence have also been recovered from the possession of accused Gora Singh and Kala Singh. Thus, he pleaded that there is no infirmity in the conviction of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court. 19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions. 20. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence about the commission of the offence and the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The golden principles which constitute 'panchshel' in respect of a case based on circumstantial evidence which the prosecution is obliged to establish to prove the culpability of a person are as follows:- (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, must or should be, and not merely 'may be', fully established, (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 21. In the instant case, the prosecution is relying upon various incriminating circumstances to contact the appellants with the commission of the offence. Accused-appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh were seen quarrelling with the deceased immediately before the occurrence, they were seen near the place of occurrence armed with weapons after the occurrence, they suffered the extra judicial confession admitting their guilt, the weapons of offence were recovered from the possession of appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh. The criminal conspiracy, motive and medical evidence are also the other incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants has pleaded that the prosecution witnesses have made the material improvements in their statements and are not reliable, but this plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants carries no substance. The criminal conspiracy, motive and medical evidence are also the other incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants has pleaded that the prosecution witnesses have made the material improvements in their statements and are not reliable, but this plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants carries no substance. He has not been able to point out any material improvement in their statements. Some explanations and elaborations given by the witnesses at the time of making the statements in the Court can not be considered to be the improvements making the witnesses unreliable. 23. PW-3 Nahar Singh has stated that about six months back, he was returning to village Ralla from Jhabran on cycle via Kacha Path. He reached near field of Bikkar Singh at about 10.00 p.m. He saw deceased Teja Singh, appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh altercating with each other. Appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh were saying to Teja Singh that he had given abuses to their parental uncle Leela Singh. Gora Singh and Kala Singh both were under the influence of liquor. Teja Singh stayed back in the field and the said accused were sent by him towards the village. After short while, he started from that place on his cycle. On the next day at about 4-5 p.m., he learnt that Teja Singh had been murdered. The statement of this witness is very material, which shows that on the night of occurrence, he found appellants Kala Singh and Gora Singh quarrelling with deceased Teja Singh and they were under the influence of liquor at that time. He pacified them and sent them to the village. 24. PW-6 Bhura Singh is another material witness of the prosecution. He deposed that on 08.08.2001, he went to Devi Temple at village Ubha. He started from village Ubha at 11.00 a.m. (it should be 11.00 p.m., there appears to be typographical mistake). When he reached the turning point of village Jhabran near water pond, accused Gora Singh and Kala Singh now present in the Court with another met him. He was on cycle. He further deposed that Gora Singh was duly armed with Kasia and Kala Singh was armed with Kahi (spade). Jagtar Singh accused was empty handed. On being asked, they told him that they were returning after having watered the field of Teja Singh. He was on cycle. He further deposed that Gora Singh was duly armed with Kasia and Kala Singh was armed with Kahi (spade). Jagtar Singh accused was empty handed. On being asked, they told him that they were returning after having watered the field of Teja Singh. He further deposed that they all three were in frightened state. Thereafter, he reached his house. On the next morning, he went to meet his brother at Barnala. When he came back from Barnala at 7-8.00 p.m., he saw certain persons sitting outside the house of Teja Singh deceased. On being asked, those persons told that Teja Singh has been murdered. As per the statement of this witness, he has seen appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh armed with weapons along with their co-accused Jagtar Singh (since acquitted) immediately after the occurrence near the scene of crime. They were in frightened state. On inquiry made by this-witness, they admitted that they were returning from the field of Teja Singh, though they falsely claimed that they were returning after irrigating his fields. It is very surprising that this witness has not been effectively cross examined by the learned defence counsel. The material facts disclosed by him has totally gone unchallenged in the cross examination. So, there is nothing to dispute the veracity of the facts disclosed by this witness. 25. From the statement of PW-7 Mandar Singh, it comes out that appellant Gora Singh and Kala Singh along with their co-accused Jagtar Singh (since acquitted) have made the extra judicial confession of their guilt before him. PW-7 Mandar Singh has stated that at about 8 = months ago, Gora Singh and Kala Singh and Tari accused present in the Court came to his house. As they being bootleggers, they used to purchase illicit liquor from them and in this manner they knew them earlier. They confessed before him that about 5-7 days prior to that, they had committed the murder of Teja Singh with sharp edged weapons. They further told that their houses were being raided by the police and asked him to produce them before the police. He assured them to produce them before the police. They further told him that they will visit him after a day or two. They came to him after four days. He took them to Joga and when they reached grain market Joga, police met them. He assured them to produce them before the police. They further told him that they will visit him after a day or two. They came to him after four days. He took them to Joga and when they reached grain market Joga, police met them. He produced the aforesaid accused to the police and they were arrested by the police. This witness is member Panchayat of village Anupgarh. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to assail his testimony on the ground that he has remained Panch with Tota Singh Sarpanch, who happens to be the brother-in-law of deceased Teja Singh. But that is not a ground to discard his testimony. PW-7 Mandar Singh has categorically deposed that accused-appellants were earlier known to him as they have been purchasing illicit liquor from them. This witness was the member Panchayat, so he was the most appropriate person before whom the appellants could have made the extra judicial confession. Learned defence counsel could not shatter his testimony and it appears that the appellants have voluntarily and truly made the extra judicial confession before him. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 122, has laid down that extra judicial confession is a available (reliable?) piece of evidence. If the extra judicial confession is true and voluntarily, it can be relied upon by the Court to convict the accused for the commission of offence despite inherent weaknesses of the extra judicial confession as an item of evidence. It was further laid down in this authority that if the Court believes and is satisfied that confession was true and voluntarily made, then conviction can be found on such evidence alone. In case State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 238, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that if the evidence of extra judicial confession is reliable, it can solely form the basis of conviction as requirement of corroboration is a matter of prudence and invariable rule of law. In the instant case, extra judicial confession suffered by appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh is further corroborated from other circumstantial evidence available on record. 27. Accused-appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh were produced by PW-7 Mandar Singh before the police on 18.08.2001. In the instant case, extra judicial confession suffered by appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh is further corroborated from other circumstantial evidence available on record. 27. Accused-appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh were produced by PW-7 Mandar Singh before the police on 18.08.2001. From the statements of PW-8 HC Gurdeep Singh and PW-14 Inspector Harcharan Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case, it comes out that on 20.08.2001, on interrogation both appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh suffered the disclosure statements Ex. PC and Ex. PD respectively. In pursuance of these disclosure statements accused-appellant Gora Singh got recovered a Kasia stained with blood and accused-appellant Kala Singh got recovered the Kahi (spade). Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any material contradictions in their statements on the point of recovery. Mere, this fact that Baldev Singh a public witness associated at the time of disclosure statements and recoveries, has not been examined, is no ground to disbelieve the consistent testimonies of PW-8 and PW-14 on the point of recovery. In case Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, 2010 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 807, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the public servants must be presumed to act honestly and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and can not be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case. It was further laid down that the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who has recovered the material objects of convincing, the evidence as to recovery can not be rejected on the ground that the seizure witness did not support the prosecution witness. So, in that case the recoveries were believed on the statement of the Investigating Officer. 28. Thus, from the statements of PW-8 HC Gurdeep Singh and PW-14 Harcharan Singh, the Investigating Officer, it is established that in pursuance of their disclosure statements, a Kasia was recovered from the possession of accused-appellant Gora Singh and a Kahi (spade) was recovered from the possession of accused Kala Singh. 29. From the statement of PW-10 Dr. Kulwant Singh, who has carried the postmortem examination on the dead body of Teja Singh, it comes out that both these weapons were produced before him for seeking his opinion as to whether the injuries on the person of deceased are possible with these weapons or not. 29. From the statement of PW-10 Dr. Kulwant Singh, who has carried the postmortem examination on the dead body of Teja Singh, it comes out that both these weapons were produced before him for seeking his opinion as to whether the injuries on the person of deceased are possible with these weapons or not. He has given his opinion Ex. PK/1 that possibility of injuries being caused on the dead body of Teja Singh with Kahi and Kasia could not be ruled out. 30. The aforesaid Kasia and Kahi (spade) were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab, Chandigarh. As per report of the FSL Ex. PW/1, the human blood was found on the Kasia. The presence of human blood on the weapons of offence recovered from the possession of accused-appellant Gora Singh is again a strong circumstantial evidence. To support this view, reference can be made to cases Ramesh and others v. State of Rajasthan, 2011 (2) S.C.C. (Criminal) 54, Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 516 : 2012 (6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 491 : AIR 2012 S.C. 2600 and R. Chaji v. State of Kerala, 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 964 : 2013 (1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 435 : AIR 2013 S.C. 651 . Thus, the weapons of offence have also been recovered from the possession of appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh in pursuance of their disclosure statements, which is another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. 31. From the statement of PW-10 Dr. Kulwant Singh and the copy of postmortem report Ex. PH, it comes out that total six injuries were found on the person of the deceased Teja Singh. Out of those, five injuries were incised wounds. Doctor has given a categoric opinion that the cause of death in this case was due to shock and hemorrhage due to combined effect of above said injuries which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. As already mentioned PW-10 Dr. Kulwant Singh has also given the opinion that the injuries on the person of deceased were possible with the Kahi (spade) and Kasia shown to him by the Investigating Officer. Thus, the injuries found on the body of deceased-Teja Singh, is another incriminating circumstance against the accused. 32. As already mentioned PW-10 Dr. Kulwant Singh has also given the opinion that the injuries on the person of deceased were possible with the Kahi (spade) and Kasia shown to him by the Investigating Officer. Thus, the injuries found on the body of deceased-Teja Singh, is another incriminating circumstance against the accused. 32. From the statements of PW-1 Jaspal Singh, PW-2 Karamjit Kaur and PW-4 Babu Singh, it comes out that the accused was having grudge against the deceased. Appellant Darshan Singh used to distil illicit liquor in their fields, which was being objected to by the deceased. From the statement of PW-12 Mohinder Singh, it comes out that appellant-Darshan Singh was employed as a "Siri" with complainant Jaspal Singh. Thus, that was the motive for the commission of the offence. 33. Appellant Darshan Singh has been convicted under Section 120-B I.P.C. It is settled principle of law that the conspiracies are always hatched in secrecy and there can be no direct evidence to establish the criminal conspiracy. The conspiracy can be established by way of the circumstantial evidence. In the instant case, as per the evidence on record, the motive for the commission of offence was that appellant-Darshan Singh was employed as "Siri" for doing agriculture work by the complainant. He used to distil the illicit liquor in their field. Deceased Teja Singh used to raise the objection. So the motive for commission of offence as per the prosecution was against appellant - Darshan Singh. 34. PW-2 Karamjit Kaur, daughter of the deceased deposed that on the day of occurrence, Leela Singh had not come since morning. When he inquired from him as to why he had not come in the morning, he told that he was not feeling well. He called him at 9.30 p.m. Appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh also came with him to their house. She handed over the Jhola (bag) containing the meals of the deceased Teja Singh. But Darshan Singh told her that Gora Singh and Kala Singh will deliver to her father-in-law in the field as he himself was indisposed. This fact clearly indicates that something was going on in the minds of the accused and as per their planning appellant Darshan Singh had sent appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh to the fields of Teja Singh-deceased carrying his meals. This fact clearly indicates that something was going on in the minds of the accused and as per their planning appellant Darshan Singh had sent appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh to the fields of Teja Singh-deceased carrying his meals. Then, there is a statement of PW-4 Babu Singh, which shows that he had gone to the locality of the accused for engaging the labourers. Darshan Singh called him. His house was not having boundary wall. Gora Singh, Kala Singh, Jagtar Singh and Darshan Singh accused were sitting there on the cots and were taking the liquor. Leela Singh told him that Teja Singh deceased gave abuses to him and also harassed him and he should make him understand. He asked that he will make Teja Singh understand the things. Appellant Gora Singh remarked that he will not make Teja Singh to understand the things and they will finish Teja Singh within a day or so. Gora Singh, Jagtar Singh and Kala Singh told Leela Singh accused that he should conduct the pairvi after the murder. The aforesaid statement of PW-4 Babu Singh shows that the accused-appellants have planned to commit the murder of Teja Singh as he used to harass and abuse appellant Darshan Singh @ Leela Singh. This evidence shows the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused to murder Teja Singh. 35. Thus, keeping in view our aforesaid discussion, the incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are fully established. These, facts are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and are totally inconsistent with their innocence. These, circumstances in all human probability established that the murder of Teja Singh has been committed by appellants Gora Singh and Kala Singh as a result of conspiracy hatched by all the three appellants. Thus, we did not find any illegality in the conviction of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court and the sentence awarded to them. Resultantly, the present appeal has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. The accused-appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. They shall surrender within 15 days from the date of this judgment before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, who shall send them to jail to undergo the remaining part of their sentence. Resultantly, the present appeal has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. The accused-appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. They shall surrender within 15 days from the date of this judgment before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, who shall send them to jail to undergo the remaining part of their sentence. If, they fail to surrender, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, shall take coercive steps to secure their presence and send them to jail to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.