Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1140 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Abbasali Sultanali Vora

2015-11-02

G.B.SHAH, K.S.JHAVERI

body2015
JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Present appeals assail the judgment and order dated 28/05/2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No. 4, Vadodara in Sessions Case Nos. 171 and 172 of 2007, whereby, the learned trial Judge, while acquitting all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 189 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC'), was pleased to convict them for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 332 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Saurashtra Felling of Trees (Infliction of Punishment) Act, 1951 (for brevity, 'the Tree Felling Act'). For the offence punishable under Section 332 and 114 of the IPC, accused - Abbasali Sultanali Vora was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months and for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the offence punishable under Section 332 and 114 of the IPC, the rest of the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further imprisonment for 1 1/2 months and for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further imprisonment for 1 1/2 months. However, the trial Court did not pass any order for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7of the Tree Felling Act for want of jurisdiction. All the sentences were to run separately. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1424 of 2010 has been filed by the State for enhancement of sentence of the accused, whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 1425 of 2010 has been filed by the State against acquittal of all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 189 of the IPC and Criminal Appeal Nos. 962 and 963 of 2010 have been filed by the accused against conviction. 2. 962 and 963 of 2010 have been filed by the accused against conviction. 2. As all these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed in Sessions Case Nos. 171 of 2007 and 172 of 2007, they have been heard together and are being decided accordingly, by this common judgment and order. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22/11/2005 at about 6:15 hours at village: Rajpur, the accused persons were found carrying in a Gypsy bearing registration No. GJ-7-AH-1535 about 100 pieces of Kher tree by cutting them, admeasuring 20 Quintals, worth Rs. 40,000/- without any pass or permit and the complainant and other witnesses, being the employees of the Forest Department during patrolling, on checking them, since, found to be stolen, while taking them to the Dabhoi Range Forest Office, near village: Sathod, they stopped the Gypsy and quarrelled with the complainant and other witness and also beat the watchmen and thereafter, drove away Gypsy from the custody of the complainant and thereby, they committed the offence alleged against them for which, a complaint came to be lodged against them for the offence punishable under sections 395, 332 and 189 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Tree Felling Act. 3.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. 3.2 In order to bring home the charge against the original accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and produced following documentary evidence, as under: Sr. No. Name Exh. ORAL EVIDENCE 1. Rajubhai Dalsingbhai Rathva – PW-1 19 2. Maheshbhai Chandubhai Solanki – PW-2 29 3. Ravjibhai Somabhai Tadvi – PW-3 32 4. Kaushikbhai Bhikhabhai Valand – PW-4 17 5. Khusalbhai Karsanbhai Tadvi – PW-5 18 6. Jayantibhai Chandulal Darji – PW-6 20 7. Amitbhai Rammilan Kanojiya – PW-7 23 8. Alpeshkumar Rameshchandra Shah – PW-8 24 9. Dr. Subhashchandra Jayantilal Shah – PW-9 26 10. Narotambhai Muljibhai Vankar – PW-9 26-A 11. Sureshbhai Joitaram Patel – PW-10 31 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1. Police Yadi for treatment 18 2. Compliant given by Rajubhai Dalsinghbhai Rathva 20 3. Panchnama as to physical condition of the accused 21 4. Panchnama for investigation of the accused 22 5. Dr. Subhashchandra Jayantilal Shah – PW-9 26 10. Narotambhai Muljibhai Vankar – PW-9 26-A 11. Sureshbhai Joitaram Patel – PW-10 31 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1. Police Yadi for treatment 18 2. Compliant given by Rajubhai Dalsinghbhai Rathva 20 3. Panchnama as to physical condition of the accused 21 4. Panchnama for investigation of the accused 22 5. Panchnama of Maruti Gypsy 19 6. Panchnama of place of offence 25 7. Police report as to providing treatment 27 8. Certificate of treatment to Ravjibhai Somabhai 28 9. Application to the Forest Officer 27-A 10. Panchnama before Talati 28-A 11. Yadi as to publishing report 32 12. Seizure panchnama of muddamal Kher tree wood 33 13. Receipt of weigh-bridge 34 3.3 At the end of the trial, Further Statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code were recorded in which they denied the evidence forthcoming on the record and stated that false case has been filed against them. Thus, after recording above-referred Further Statements and hearing the arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge came to the aforesaid conclusion by the impugned judgment and order. 3.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court, present appeals have been filed. 4. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that original accused No. 2 - Fakubhai Somabhai Tadvi of Sessions Case No. 171 of 2007 has expired on 19/06/2015. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1424, 1425 and 963 of 2010 stand abated qua him. 5. We have heard Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi and Ms. Mariya M. Dalal, learned advocates appearing for the respective accused. 5.1 Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, contended that the judgment and order of the learned trial Court is against the provisions of law and the evidence on record; the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the offence against the accused, however, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused of the charge levelled against them for the offence punishable under Section 189 of the IPC. Moreover, she took us through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence and contended that for the offence punishable under Section 395, 332 and 114 of the IPC, which was proved by the prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge ought to have awarded just and adequate punishment and accordingly, in her submission, when the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, this Court may enhance the punishment suitably. Making aforesaid submissions, she requested to allow the appeals filed by the State. 5.2 On the other hand, Mr. Qureshi and Ms. Dalal, the learned advocates appearing for the respective accused submitted that though the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Court imposed conviction upon them for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 332 and 114 of the IPC and thereby, has committed an error. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions and improvements in the evidence led by the prosecution, however, the learned trial Judge, without taking into consideration said aspect, has convicted the accused, which is contrary to the evidence on record. However, without prejudice to the rights and contentions to be made on behalf of the accused, they submitted that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge, being just and proper, this Court may not interfere in the appeal. They also submitted that they also requested to convert the sentence for compensation under Section 357 of the Code and further requested to pass the appropriate order to that effect in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. So far as appeal filed by the State against acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 189 of the IPC is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "54. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below." 6.1 Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following principles: "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: [1] An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. [2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. [3] Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. [4] An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. [4] An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. [5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 6.2 Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 6.3 Even in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr., reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision, the Court has observed as under: "16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with." 6.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 6.5 In the case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh and Ors., reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 10 and 11 has held as under: "10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so-called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in a running condition. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence." 6.6 Even in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mookiah and Anr. v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 4 has held as under: "4. v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 4 has held as under: "4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges levelled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal.[Vide State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 : ( AIR 2004 SC 4520 : 2004 AIR SCW 4321)]" 6.7 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under: "...This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93 : ( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice." 6.8 Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary. 7. We have examined the matter carefully and gone through the evidence on record. We have re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We find that the trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has very elaborately discussed the evidence adduced before it. From the evidence of the complainant - Rajubhai Dalsingbhai Rathva, whose deposition is recorded at exh. 19 and the evidence of the other employees of the Forest Department, it is very clear that on the date of the incident, the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were present. The complainant, who was working as Bit Guard for last 24 years and whose duty was to prevent cutting of trees in the forest, was, on the day of incident on his duty and in his deposition, he has narrated the whole incident, as per the complaint. Further, the version of the complainant, gets corroboration from the evidence of PW-2 - Maheshbhai Chandulal Solanki, whose deposition is recorded at exh. 29, evidence of PW-3 - Ravjibhai Somabhai Tadvi, whose deposition is recorded at exh. 32 and the evidence of PW-4 - Kaushikbhai Bhikhabhai Valand, whose deposition is recorded at exh. 17. Moreover, for the alleged offence, the prosecution has also examined Talati-cum-Mantri namely Narotambhai Muljibhai Vankar, whose deposition is recorded at exh. 26-A by which, it was proved that cutting of trees was without permission. The prosecution has also examined Investigating Officer - PW-10 - Sureshbhai Joitaram Patel, whose deposition is recorded at exh. 17. Moreover, for the alleged offence, the prosecution has also examined Talati-cum-Mantri namely Narotambhai Muljibhai Vankar, whose deposition is recorded at exh. 26-A by which, it was proved that cutting of trees was without permission. The prosecution has also examined Investigating Officer - PW-10 - Sureshbhai Joitaram Patel, whose deposition is recorded at exh. 31 and considering the evidence on record, it appears that the offence is of serious in nature and prosecution has proved the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the learned advocates appearing for the accused are not in a position to show anything to take a contrary view in the matter and that the judgment and order of the trial Court is perverse and is suffering from any manifest illegality. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings given and the findings arrived at by the trial Court. However, for the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, in our opinion, the same appears inadequate and contrary to the provisions of law, more particularly, when no cogent reasons have been accorded for awarding lesser punishment and accordingly, in the considered opinion of the Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would meet if, while confirming the conviction, the appeal filed by the State for enhancement is partly allowed qua the offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC is concerned. 7.2 Moreover, recently, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in the case of Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Others etc. etc. in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1049 to 1050 of 2015, decided on 18/08/2015, in para 1 and 2 as under: "1. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakhand, while focusing on the gravity of the crime and the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment, the Court had observed:-- "Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner. We may hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment." [Emphasis added] 2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat, it has been held that:-- "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat, it has been held that:-- "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be--as it should be--a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N." [Emphasis supplied] And again:-- "The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N." [Emphasis supplied] And again:-- "The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal"." 7.3 Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would meet if the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC is enhanced to three years' imprisonment and accordingly, the appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence is allowed. A request is made by the learned advocates for the accused to convert the sentence for suitable compensation. We, after duly taking into consideration facts and circumstances, are of the opinion that the same can be accorded if the accused pay Rs. 5 lac each towards compensation and deposit with the State Government. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Criminal Appeal No. 1424 of 2010 filed by the State for enhancement of sentence of all the accused succeeds in part and the impugned judgment and order dated 28/05/2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No. 4, Vadodara in Sessions Case Nos. 171 and 172 of 2007 is modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC, the accused shall have to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. However, as is requested by the learned advocates appearing for the respective accused to convert the sentence for compensation under Section 357 of the Code and for passing of suitable order to that effect, it is clarified that if the accused pay Rs. However, as is requested by the learned advocates appearing for the respective accused to convert the sentence for compensation under Section 357 of the Code and for passing of suitable order to that effect, it is clarified that if the accused pay Rs. 5 (five) lac each to the State Government within a period of 10 (ten) weeks from today, they need not to undergo the remaining sentence and accordingly, to surrender before the concerned jail authority, save and except they required in any other offence, if any, against them, and if they do not pay such amount within the aforesaid period of 10 (ten) weeks from today, they are directed to surrender before the concerned jail authority to undergo the remaining sentence. The rest of the order shall remain unaltered. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1425 of 2010 filed by the State against acquittal and Criminal Appeal Nos. 962 and 963 of 2010 filed by the respective accused against conviction, are dismissed. Registry to return the R&P, if any, to the trial Court forthwith.