JUDGMENT : - Rathore, J. The accused appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.04.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar in Sessions Case No.18/2002, whereby he has convicted and sentenced them as under: “Appellants No.1 to 3, namely Bhagirath, Ramniwas and Ghisaram: For the offence under Section 148 IPC to 6 months S.I. each. They were though convicted for the offence under Section 147 IPC also but no sentence was awarded in view of awarding sentence for the offence under Section 148 IPC. For the offence under Section 364 IPC to 5 years' imprisonment each with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, one year additional S.I. each. For the offence under Section 302 IPC to Life Imprisonment each with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, 2 years' additional S.I. each. Appellants No.4 to 7, namely Ramjilal, Hardayal, Girraj and Kajod: For the offence under Section 148 IPC to 6 months S.I. each. For the offence under Section 364 IPC to 5 years imprisonment each with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, one year additional S.I. each. For the offence under Section 302/149 IPC to life imprisonment each with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine 2 years' additional S.I. each.” 2. Instant criminal case arises out of a report lodged by one Mohar Singh Yadav son of Mitthan Lal Yadav. It is alleged in the report that he alongwith his brother Ranjeet had gone to Rajgarh. In Machri Chowk, they had met Ghisaram, Bhagirath, Kala, Kajodmal, Ramjilal, Hardayal and Giriraj Jogi, all resident of Baad Doroli. These persons are said to have told the informant and his brother that the girl is not changing her statement and therefore let us go to the village and collect some respectable persons so as to have the matter compromised. The informant and his brother replied that they may proceed for the village and they would be coming in a jeep. Thereafter, near the Gole Chakkar, they had met Smt. Kishni, a resident of their village and she had come to the market for selling vegitable (Tinda). While the informant and his brother were talking to the said lady, the aforesaid persons belonging to the accused party had come also there. Thereafter, near the Gole Chakkar, they had met Smt. Kishni, a resident of their village and she had come to the market for selling vegitable (Tinda). While the informant and his brother were talking to the said lady, the aforesaid persons belonging to the accused party had come also there. They had asked the informant and his brother to come with them on their motorcycle so as to reach the village early. Accordingly, the deceased Ranjeet sat on one of the motorcycle alongwith the accused Bhagirath, Ghisaram and Kala and then they proceeded to their village. Later on, the informant Mohar Singh and Smt. Kishni boarded a bus and reached the village. The informant had then gone to his house and inquired from his family members about Ranjeet. He was informed that he had not reached so far. The informant had then thought that Ranjeet may be busy in collecting some elderly people of the village to call a meeting for settling the issue about the girl who was in custody of the brother of the deceased, namely Vijay Singh. When the informant had gone towards the village and reached the house of Lalaram, the Sarpanch, a jeep belonging to the Cooperative Bank had come to the house of the accused Ghisa Jogi. The bank employees had then informed that a person was being given beating in the house of Ghisa Jogi. Thereafter, the complainant rushed to the house of Ghisa and found that the accused persons had assembled and his brother was lying on the ground with profuse bleeding. On the aforesaid report, a regular FIR (106/2002) came to be registered at Police Station Rajgarh at about 02.30 pm. On 13.05.2002, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 364 IPC. Thereafter, the usual investigation commenced and the police, after reaching the place of incident, prepared the site plan; collected blood stained and ordinary mud; recorded the statements of the informant and other persons; arrested the accused and on their information and at their instance, recovered weapon of offence and blood stained clothes, which they were wearing. The blood stained weapons and clothes were sent to the FSL for serological examination. The postmortem of the deceased was got conducted, according to which death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury and bilateral upper limb injury. The blood stained weapons and clothes were sent to the FSL for serological examination. The postmortem of the deceased was got conducted, according to which death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury and bilateral upper limb injury. On completion of the investigation, challan was filed against eight accused persons which included accused Smt. Chhoti, other than the present accused appellants for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 364, 302 and 120B IPC. 3. The concerning Magistrate had thereafter committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court had then transferred the same to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar. The trial commenced in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh with framing of charges against the accused appellants. The charges against Bhagirath, Ramniwas and Ghisaram were framed for the offences under Section 147, 148, 364, 302 and 120-B IPC and against the accused appellants Ramjilal, Hardayal, Giriraj and Kajod were framed for the offences under Section 147, 364, 302/149 and 120-B IPC. Similarly, the charges against the accused Smt. Chhoti were framed for the offences under Section 147, 302/149 and 120-B IPC. All the accused persons denied the charges and claimed for trial. In support of its case, the prosecution had produced 29 witnesses and submitted 41 documents which were duly exhibited by the trial court. Subsequently, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in support of their defence, they had produced four documents. The trial court had concluded the trial by passing the judgment, on hearing the final arguments of the parties, whereby it had acquitted the accused Smt. Chhoti of all the charges levelled against her. Similarly, the accused appellants were acquitted for the offences under Section 120-B IPC. But they were convicted and sentenced on 15.04.2006 by the learned trial court, for the offences aforementioned. Hence, the present appeal was filed which has come for hearing before us. 4. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has submitted that the trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgment as the present case is not a one which is based on the testimony of eye witnesses but that of circumstantial evidence, wherein the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances so as to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has further submitted that the prosecution has come with an unbelievable story that it was the accused persons who had gone to the informant and the deceased suggesting them that the matter with regard to the girl, who had been taken away by Vijay Singh, may be settled through elderly people of the village as she is not changing her statement. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, when the girl in question was the daughter of the accused Smt. Chhoti then the accused party would not have taken the initiative and proposed for compromise to the accused persons of that case. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the accused appellants that the case of the prosecution is mainly based on the information which was received from the statements of the bank employees. But the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case while deposing on oath before the trial court and they had to be declared hostile. Even the manner in which the investigation has been conducted by the investigation officer, is assailed by the counsel for the accused appellants by inviting our attention to the relevant documents collected/prepared during the course of investigation, as for instance, the site plan. The counsel for the accused appellants has also submitted that there is major inconsistency and contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and as such they are not worthy of reliance. Therefore, the learned counsel for the accused appellants has submitted that the trial court has committed serious illegality in passing the impugned judgment in a case where the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances so as to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 5. The prosecution has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court, with full force. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the circumstances of the case itself goes to show that it was the accused party who had themselves gone to the deceased and the informant was present from where the deceased was carried to the village on a motorcycle. Further, he has submitted that the marks on the place of incident, including the blood stains establishes that the occurrence had taken place in the house of the accused party and the dead body was also found there. Further, he has submitted that the marks on the place of incident, including the blood stains establishes that the occurrence had taken place in the house of the accused party and the dead body was also found there. He has submitted that though some of the prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile but reading of their statement goes to show that they have stated the material facts in respect of the incident which had taken place in the present case. He has invited our attention, in detail, to the statement of the informant Mohar Singh (PW-8) and many other statements of the prosecution witnesses, such as that of the investigation officers, statements of the medical jurist and the witnesses of recovery of weapon, etc. In the last, he has submitted that the FSL report clearly shows that the blood found on the weapon of offence, the cloths worn by the accused, etc., had the same blood group. Therefore, he has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is based on evidence produced by the prosecution by which it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused appellants alone who had committed the crime. 6. We have given our thoughtful and anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and have also carefully perused the material on record of the learned trial court. The incident in the present case had taken place in the afternoon of 13.05.2002. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons, after having brought the deceased from Rajgarh, gave severe beating to him at their residence. The deceased succumbed to his injuries and died. These circumstances are revealed from the evidence led by the prosecution by way of the testimony of its witnesses and other material on record. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons, after having brought the deceased from Rajgarh, gave severe beating to him at their residence. The deceased succumbed to his injuries and died. These circumstances are revealed from the evidence led by the prosecution by way of the testimony of its witnesses and other material on record. As for instance, Mohar Singh (PW-8) had deposed that: ^^--------cSad okyks us eq>s crk;k fd ?khlk tksxh ds ?kj ,d vkneh dks dkV jgs gSA eS ;g lqudj ?khlk tksxh ds ?kj ij Hkkx dj x;kA ogka eSus ?khlk] HkkxhjFk] dkyk] jkethyky] gjn;ky] dtksM] fxjkZt] NksVh o nks rhu vkSjrks dks ns[kk tks eqyfteku ds ?kj ls gh FkhA eSus esjs HkkbZ j.kthrk dks uhps tehu ij iMk gqvk ns[kk FkkA ?khlk ds ikl eksxjh] dkyk ds ikl VkP;k] HkkxhjFk ds ikl VkaP;k] gjn;ky ds ikl dqYgkMh] jkethyky ds ikl cjNh] dtksM ds gkFk es VkaP;k] fxjkst ds gkFk es ryokj dk lk VqdM+k Fkk A vkSjrks ds gkFk es fdlh ds gkFk es M.Mk vkSj fdlh ds gkFk es dqN FkkA esjs igqaprs gh ?khlk o mldh ?kjokyh us dgk fd ,d vkSj vk x;kA jkethyky] gjn;ky] HkkxhjFk] fxjkZt o dkyk us dgk fd bls Hkh fBdkus yxk nksA j.kthrk ds cqjh rjg ls [kwu cg jgs FksA-----------^^ Further, he had stated that: ^^---------eSus esjs HkkbZ dh yk’k eqyfte ?khlk ds edku ds pkSd es iM+h gq;h ns[kh FkhA iqfyl ekSds ij vk;h rc Hkh esjs HkkbZ dh yk’k ?khlk tksxh ds ?kj ds pkSd es iM+h FkhA---------^^ Similarly, in the cross-examination, he had stated that: ^^--------eSus esjs HkkbZ j.kthrk dks o eqyfteku dks djhc 50&60 QhV nwjh ls ns[kk FkkA eSus HkkxhjFk o dkyk dks j.kthrk ds iM+s gq;s ds nsrk ns[kk FkkA eSus ns[kk rc HkkxhjFk j.kthrk ds flj es ekj jgk FkkA eSus HkkxhjFk dks j.kthrk ds pksV ekjrs gq, ns[kk FkkA eSus dkyk dks Hkh j.kthrk ds pksV ekjrs gq, ns[kk FkkA dkyk us j.kthrk ds nka;s dku ds uhps xnZu ij pksV ekjh FkhA---------^^ Another material prosecution witnesses Chhutan Lal (PW10) had also given similar evidence by stating as under: ^^-------xkao es x;k rc ykyk ljiap ds edku ds vkxs cSad dh thi [kM+h gq;h FkhA ckM+ Mksjksyh es ukFku dk ckl es fdlh vkneh dk dRy gks x;kA eS ckl es x;kA eSus ?khlk ds edku ds dejs ds vkxs pkSd es j.kthr dh yk’k ns[kh FkhA j.kthr feÎu yky dk yM+dk gSA j.kthr dh yk’k [kwuks ls yFkiFk Fkh vkSj dVh gq;h FkhA mlds flj ij] gkFk o iSjks dVs gq;s FksA iqfyl vk x;h FkhA iqfyl us j.kthr dh yk’k dh fy[kki<+h dh FkhA iqfyl us esjk vaxwBk ogka ugh djk;k Fkk] vLirky es djk;k FkkA eS j.kthr dh yk’k ds lkFk jktx<+ vk x;k FkkA iqfyl us ?kVukLFky dh fy[kki<+h dh FkhA iqfyl us ekSds ls [kwu vkywnk o lknk feVVh yh FkhA----------^^ 7. Apart from it, it has come in the evidence on record that there was blood on the ground where the deadbody was lying and stains of the blood all around. This further establishes that the incident had taken place at the house of the accused and they had given beating to the deceased Ranjeet with sharp edged weapon as well as blunt object. It is to be noted that soon after arrival of the police in the village, the accused persons were arrested from their house where the incident had taken place. Moreover, the police had seized various weapons from the accused which were blood stained. The blood stained clothes of the accused were also recovered. The report obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory establishes the fact that there was human blood on all the article seized and the same was of one blood group. 8. It is also apparent from the material on record that the informant Mohar Singh and his brother Ranjeet had gone to Rajgarh, District Alwar in the morning of 13.05.2002 and had meet Smt. Kishni, a co-villager who had gone to sell vegetable produced in her field. It was at that time that the accused persons had come on two motorcycles. The accused Bhagirath, Ghisa and Kala were on one motorcycle and the rest of them were on the other. All these accused persons had come near the water-hut where the informant, deceased and Smt. Kishni were standing. After some conversation with regard to arriving at a compromise in the case where Vijay Singh, another brother of the deceased, had abducted the daughter of the accused Smt. Chhoti. The accused Bhagirath, Ghisa and Kala took the deceased Ranjeet on their motorcycle after leaving behind Kajod. Thereafter, the informant Mohar Singh and Smt. Kishni came to the village by a Tata bus. These facts are also corroborated by the testimony of Smt. Kishni (PW-7). 9. After arriving at the village, Mohar Singh (PW-8) went to his residence and inquired about the deceased Ranjeet from his family members. In view of the fact that the accused persons had talked about the settlement between the parties in respect of earlier incident of kidnapping, Mohar Singh (PW-8) had then gone in the village so as to find out his brother Ranjeet. In view of the fact that the accused persons had talked about the settlement between the parties in respect of earlier incident of kidnapping, Mohar Singh (PW-8) had then gone in the village so as to find out his brother Ranjeet. As he reached near the house of Lalaram, the Sarpanch and was going towards the house of the accused Ghisa, a jeep belonging to the bank came with a speed. The bank employees in the jeep had informed Mohar Singh (PW-8) that one person is being beaten in the house of Ghisa Jogi. Thereafter, he went towards the house of the accused Ghisa and found that the accused persons were giving beating to his brother Ranjeet and blood was oozing out from his body. Soon, the wife of the accused Ghisa asked the accused persons to give beating to Mohar Singh who has also arrived at the place of incident. He got feared and ran towards the village. Soon, the wife of the accused Ghisa asked the accused persons to give beating to Mohar Singh who has also arrived at the place of incident. He got feared and ran towards the village. The relevant extract of the statement of Mohar Singh (PW-8) is as under: ^^------------eSus ?kj tkdj esjs ?kj okyks ls iwNk fd j.kthr vk;k gS D;k rks ?kj okyks us dgk fd j.kthr ;gka ij ugh vk;kA esjs ?kj okyks us eq>ls j.kthr ds ckjs es iwNk rks eSus crk;k fd ?khlk] HkkxhjFk oxSjg xkao es fefVax dh ckr dg dj j.kthrk dks lkFk yk;s FksA xkao es fefVax gksus dh lksp dj eS Hkh xkao dh rjQ vk;kA eS ykyk ljiap ds ?kj ds ikl igqapk gh Fkk fd ?khlk tksxh dh ?kj dh rjQ ls cSad okyks dh thi rst pyrh gqbZ vk;hA cSad okyks us eq>s crk;k fd ?khlk tksxh ds ?kj ,d vkneh dks dkV jgs gSA eS ;g lqudj ?khlk tksxh ds ?kj ij Hkkx dj x;kA ogak eSus ?khlk] HkkxhjFk] dkyk] jkethyky] gjn;ky] dtksM] fxjkZt] NksVh o nks rhu vkSjrks dks ns[kk tks eqyfteku ds ?kj ls gh FkhA eSus esjs HkkbZ j.kthrk dks uhps tehu ij iM+k gqvk ns[kk FkkA ?khlk ds ikl eksxjh] dkyk ds ikl VkaP;k] HkkxhjFk ds ikl VkaP;k] gjn;ky ds ikl dqYgkM+h] jkethyky ds ikl cjNh] dtksM+ ds gkFk es VkaP;k] fxjkZt ds gkFk es ryokj dk lk VqdM+k FkkA vkSjrks ds gkFk es fdlh ds gkFk es M.Mk vkSj fdlh ds gkFk es dqN FkkA esjs igqaprs gh ?khlk o mldh ?kjokyh us dgk fd ,d vkSj vk x;kA jkethyky] gjn;ky] HkkxhjFk] fxjkZt o dkyk us dgk fd bls Hkh fBdkus yxk nksA j.kthrk ds cqjh rjg ls [kwu cg jgs FksA-----------^^ 10. Another important piece of evidence on record is that it was only from the accused Bhagirath, Ghisa and Kala that sharp edged weapon as well as blunt weapon were recovered by the police. The said weapons were blood stained and the same were used in giving beating to the deceased was fully established from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. No weapon was recovered from the remaining accused persons. 11. A bare look to the postmortem report, which elaborately gives out the injuries sustained by the deceased, further establishes the case of the prosecution. No weapon was recovered from the remaining accused persons. 11. A bare look to the postmortem report, which elaborately gives out the injuries sustained by the deceased, further establishes the case of the prosecution. The injuries found on the body of the deceased are as under: “External injury:-Bleeding per nose & mouth clotted blood present on nose & mouth. 1. Incised would 12 X 1 cm & bone deep Rt. Parietal region of scalp. 4 cm away from Rt. ear. Clotted blood present. 2. Incised wound 7 X 1 cm & bone deep occipitoparietal region of scalp rt. side. Clotted blood present. 3. Lacerated wound 10 X 3 cm & muscle deep on mastoid prices to mid of rt. Lower border of mandible. Clotted blood present. 4. Lacerated wound 3 X 1 cm & bone deep on Rt. Shoulder (coracoid) present Rt. Side. Clotted blood present. 5. Incised would 10 X 3 cm & bone deep dorsal side Rt. hand. 6. Incised wound 6 X 3 cm & bone deep 1/3rd post side lt.F.A. Clotted blood present. 7. Lacerated would 7 X 2 cm & bone deep mid of occipital region. All injury are ante mortem in nature. The pupils dilated & fixed. 8. Lacerated would 7 X 2 cm & bone deep 1/3rd lt. foot posterior side. Clotted blood present. As per the deposition of the medical jurist Dr. C.L. Meena (PW-21), the primary cause of death was haemorrhagic shock as a result of head injury. The injuries on the head were sustained by sharp edeged weapon as well as blunt object weapon. 12. On perusal of the evidence on record as well as a close look to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the accused persons had carried away the deceased from Rajgarh on the pretext of arriving at a settlement in the village after calling some elderly persons in respect of earlier incident where Vijay Singh, another brother of the deceased, had kidnapped the daughter of the accused Smt. Chhoti. They had taken the deceased to their residence and started beating him. The said fact is corroborated by the statements of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Smt. Kishni (PW-7), Mohar Singh (PW-8), Chhuttan Lal (PW-10) and Hari (PW-11). The accused Ghisa had taken loan from a bank for purchase of a tractor. They had taken the deceased to their residence and started beating him. The said fact is corroborated by the statements of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Smt. Kishni (PW-7), Mohar Singh (PW-8), Chhuttan Lal (PW-10) and Hari (PW-11). The accused Ghisa had taken loan from a bank for purchase of a tractor. Simultaneously, the employees of the bank had come to the residence of the accused Ghisa for collecting the dues and recovery of the loan. Though later on the bank employees did not support the prosecution story, but a bare reading of their statements, namely Radheshyam (PW-1)- driver of the bank jeep and Jagdish Prasad Gurjar (PW-2), - a clerk of the bank, shows that they had deposed about going to recover the dues from Ghisa Jogi of Bans Doroli, who had taken a loan for purchase of a tractor. Moreover, a letter dated 27.05.2002 (Ex.P/6) given by the bank in response to the query made by the Circle Officer, Rajgarh also proves that the employees of the bank had gone to various places, on that day, including Bans Doroli, for recovery of the bank loan. This fact has also been substantiated by the testimony of Lallu Singh (PW-5), who is also a bank employee. Therefore, the prosecution case, particularly the statement of Mohar Singh for having been informed by the bank employee, is corroborated to the extent that the employees of the bank had gone to the village in the jeep for recovery of the dues from the accused Ghisa and when they reached his house, they saw that the accused were giving beating to the deceased Ranjeet. Therefore, from the evidence on record produced by the prosecution, the material facts of the case of the prosecution is proved. 13. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident, the accused Bhagirath, Ramniwas @ Kala and Ghisa had gone to Rajgarh and met the deceased and the informant Mohar Singh. All three of them had accompanied the deceased Ranjeet in the village. They had beaten the deceased by Tanchya and Mogri, a blunt object which was in possession of the accused Ghisa. The place of incident as revealed from the Naksha Mauka and other impressions at the nearby places, particularly the stains of blood, also establishes that the incident had taken place at the house of the accused. They had beaten the deceased by Tanchya and Mogri, a blunt object which was in possession of the accused Ghisa. The place of incident as revealed from the Naksha Mauka and other impressions at the nearby places, particularly the stains of blood, also establishes that the incident had taken place at the house of the accused. Besides, the accused were very much present at the place of incident, that is to say in their house when the police had arrested them. The police had also recovered weapon of offence, clothes of all three accused persons from their houses, which is also corroborated from the statements of Omprakash (PW-29)-Investigating Officer and Hansraj (PW-22)- subsequent Investigating Officer. The Forensic Science Laboratory report also establishes that the group of the human blood on the clothes as well as weapon of offence was one and the same. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Bhagirath, Ramnias @ Kala and Ghisa had committed the offence alleged. 14. However, so far as the other accused persons, namely Ramjilal, Hardayal, Girraj and Kajod are concerned, neither from the statement of the material prosecution witness nor from the chain of circumstances, it is proved that they were connected with the commission of crime, much less to say that they have participated in the same. Neither there is any direct evidence against them nor by way of testimony of the prosecution witnesses in respect of recovery of weapon, etc., it is proved that they had committed murder of the deceased Ranjeet. All the witnesses of recovery had proved the fact with regard to the weapon which was carried by Bhagirath, Ramniwas @ Kala and Ghisa. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Ramjilal, Hardayal, Girraj and Kajod. 15. In the result, the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellants Ramjilal, Hardayal, Girraj and Kajod deserves to be quashed. The impugned judgment dated 15.04.2006, qua them, deserves to be set aside. The conviction awarded to the accused appellants Bhagirath, Ramniwas @ Kala and Ghisa for the offences under Section 147 and 148 IPC are also quashed. However, their conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 364 and 302 IPC are maintained. 16. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 15.04.2006, qua them, deserves to be set aside. The conviction awarded to the accused appellants Bhagirath, Ramniwas @ Kala and Ghisa for the offences under Section 147 and 148 IPC are also quashed. However, their conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 364 and 302 IPC are maintained. 16. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar in Sessions Case No.18/2002, qua the accused appellants Bhagirath, Ramniwas and Ghisaram, is affirmed to the extent mentioned above. The conviction and sentence awarded to them, for the offences aforesaid, are maintained. The accused appellants Bhagirath and Ramniwas are in jail and they shall serve the remaining sentence. The accused appellant Ghisaram son of Gabduram is on bail and he shall surrender before the authorities for serving the remaining sentence. His bail bonds stand cancelled. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar in Sessions Case No.18/2002, qua the accused appellants Ramjilal, Hardayal, Girraj and Kajod, is modified to that extent. They are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.