JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.) 1. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 24.8.1983 passed by the IVth Additional Session Judge, Basti in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 1982 (State Vs. Pancham and another) whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I.P.C., five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 325/34 IPC and imprisonment to life for offence under section 302/34 IPC. All the three sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows; 3. The complainant Badlu, P.W. 1 and both the accused appellants No. 1 and 2 namely Pancham & Jaggoo respectively are resident of the village Bagul Hava, Police Station Shohratgarh, District Basti. Four-six days before this incident, the sister of accused Jaggoo disappeared. The accused Jaggoo and his father Pancham had a suspicion that the deceased Chandrika was responsible for the disappearance of the said girl. On 25.5.1982, at about 4.30 P.M, the deceased Chandrika was returning from the shop of a blacksmith where he had gone for the repair of his Kudal. On his way back when he reached near the house of accused Pancham, the accused Jaggoo interrupted him and said that he was responsible for the kidnapping of his sister. The deceased Chandrika replied that he had no knowledge about it. Thereafter, the accused Jaggoo started manhandling the deceased Chandrika. The deceased Chandrika was pushed down on the ground by him. The other accused Pancham also rushed to the spot on the call of his son Jaggoo with a Kudal in his hand. Thereafter, the accused Pancham inflicted four Kudal blows over the body of deceased Chandrika whereas accused Jaggoo held him in his grip. During the tussle, an alarm was raised by the deceased Chandrika which attracted his father Badlu, P.W. 1 and the witnesses Abdul Jabbar, P.W.2 and Abdul Hamid Usmani, P.W.3. The incident was seen by all these witnesses. When Badlu, P.W. 1 attempted to intervene to save his son Chandrika, he was also assaulted by the accused Pancham with the back side of his Kudal as a result of which simple and grievous injuries were sustained even by him. The deceased Chandrika died on the spot as a result of incised wounds sustained by him from the Kudal of accused Pancham. 4. The deceased Chandrika died on the spot as a result of incised wounds sustained by him from the Kudal of accused Pancham. 4. Subsequent thereto, the complainant Badlu P.W.1 got the report Ext. Ka 1 scribed by one Aziz Ahmad. The complainant Badlu affixed his thumb impression on it and lodged the same at Police Station Shohratgarh at 5.30 p.m. The Station Officer Shri Kuber Nath Singh P.W.4 reached the spot and started investigation. He sent the dead body of deceased Chandrika for post mortem examination after preparing the Panchama Ext. Ka-2 and after carrying out the other legal formalities. The blood stained clothes of the deceased and blood stained earth form the spot were taken by him in custody. Wife of the accused Pancham produced before him the blood stained Kudal which was used for committing the offence from her house before him. He sealed the same and took in custody. On the other hand, the injured Badlu was sent by the police to the Hospital of Shohratgarh after registering his F.I.R. Injuries of the complainant Badlu were examined by Dr. Mohammad Ali, P.W.9 at Shohratgarh Hospital on 26.5.1982 at 8 a.m. He was found having eight injuries on his person out of which two were suspected involving the fractures and hence X-ray of the same was advised. His left hand and the right shoulder were X-rayed on 27.5.1982 by the Radiologist Dr. S.K. Srivastava, P.W. 7 who found fractures in his left fifth metacarpal bone and the proximal pharynx of the left little finger as well as in his right clavicle bone and the right scapula. The dead body of deceased Chandrika was subjected to the post mortem examination by Dr. Kuber Nath Pandey on 26.5.1982 at 3 p.m. Four ante-mortem incised wounds were found by him on the dead body. After the investigation both the accused Pancham and Jagat were challaned by the police. 5. Charges under Sections 302/34, 325/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty. 6. Nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution whose names are the complainant Badlu P.W.1, Abdul Jabbar P.W.2, Abdul Hamid P.W.3, S.I. Kuber Nath Singh P.W.4, Constable Mangal Singh Yadav P.W.5, Dr. Kuber Nath Pandey P.W.6, Dr. S.K. Srivastava P.W.7, Constable Virendra Prasad Shukla P.W.8 and Dr. Mohammad Ali P.W.9. 6. Nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution whose names are the complainant Badlu P.W.1, Abdul Jabbar P.W.2, Abdul Hamid P.W.3, S.I. Kuber Nath Singh P.W.4, Constable Mangal Singh Yadav P.W.5, Dr. Kuber Nath Pandey P.W.6, Dr. S.K. Srivastava P.W.7, Constable Virendra Prasad Shukla P.W.8 and Dr. Mohammad Ali P.W.9. The accused persons did not give any evidence in their defence. 7. The complainant Badlu P.W.1 has stated on oath that at the time of this occurrence he was cutting fodder at his house which was adjacent to the house of accused Pancham. When his son Chandrika reached in front of the house of accused Pancham, the accused Jaggoo interrupted him and accused him of having abducted his sister. The deceased Chandrika said that nothing like that was done by him. Thereafter, the accused Jaggoo started manhandling Chandrika. In the meantime, the accused Pancham also came to the spot with a Kudal in his hand, both of them knocked down Chandrika on the ground and Pancham gave four Kudal blows on his person. The accused Jaggoo kept Chandrika in his tight grip during the assault. Chandrika died on the spot. Thereafter, the accused Pancham assaulted him as well with the blunt end of the Kudal. The witnesses Jabbar and Abdul Hamid had also arrived at the spot and saw the occurrence. Thereafter he got the report Ext. Ka1 scribed by one Aziz and affixed his thumb-impression on it. Then he lodged the report Ext. Ka 1 at the police station wherefrom he was sent to the Hospital for his medical examination. 8. Abdul Jabbar P.W.2 belongs to the same village Babulhava. At the time of this occurrence, he was returning from his grove situated in the same village. When he reached near the house of accused Pancham, he saw this occurrence. He has supported the prosecution case as an eye witness of the occurrence. 9. The Police Sub-inspector came to inspect the spot, the Panchama Ext. Ka 2 of the dead body of Chandrika was also signed by him. Clothes of the deceased were taken into custody by the I.O. in his presence for which the memo Ext. Ka 3 was prepared and it was also signed by him. Blood stained earth and the simple earth were also taken in custody in his presence for which the memo Ext. Ka-4 was signed by him. Clothes of the deceased were taken into custody by the I.O. in his presence for which the memo Ext. Ka 3 was prepared and it was also signed by him. Blood stained earth and the simple earth were also taken in custody in his presence for which the memo Ext. Ka-4 was signed by him. He further stated that wife of the accused Pancham produced the blood stained Kudal before the I.O. in his presence and the memo Ext. Ka 5 was also signed by him in this regard. 10. Abdul Hamid Usmani P.W.3 also comes from the same village. At the time of this incident, he was getting his field harrowed at a distance of hardly twenty five paces from the place of occurrence. The entire incident was seen by him and he has supported the prosecution case as an eye witness thereof. 11. S.I. Kuber Nath, P.W. 4 is the police officer who investigated the case. He has proved Ext. Ka 2 the Panchama of the dead body of Chandrika, Ext. Ka 3 the memo prepared by him for taking the blood stained clothes of the deceased in custody, Ext. Ka 4 the memo prepared for taking the blood stained earth and the simple earth in custody from the spot, Ext. Ka 5 the memo prepared by him for the recovery of the blood stained Kudal, Ext. Ka 6 the site-plan prepared by him on the spot and Ext. Ka 7 the charge sheet submitted by him after collecting clinching material against the appellants. 12. Constable Mangal Singh Yadav P.W. 5 is just a formal witness who had brought the dead body of deceased Chandrika for post mortem examination. 13. Dr. Kuber Nath Pandey P.W. 6 is the medical officer who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of Chandrika on 26.5.1982 at 3 p.m. According to him, the death had occurred about twenty four hours back. The age of the deceased was twenty five years. The rigor mortis was present in the lower limbs. The following ante-mortem injuries were found by him on the dead body of Chandrika:- (i) Incised wound 8 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on the right side of face 2 cm.s. below the right lower eyelid. (ii) Incised wound 8 cm. x 2.5 cm. The rigor mortis was present in the lower limbs. The following ante-mortem injuries were found by him on the dead body of Chandrika:- (i) Incised wound 8 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on the right side of face 2 cm.s. below the right lower eyelid. (ii) Incised wound 8 cm. x 2.5 cm. x bone deep on the right side of neck 5 cm.s. below the right eat. All the big blood vessels, nerves, muscles and the third cervical vertebra were found cut through and through under this injury margins of which were clean out. (iii) Incised wound 7 cm. X 2 cm. x muscle deep on the right side of neck 1 cm. below the injury no. 2. Big blood vessels and nerves under this injury were found cut through and through having clean cut margins. (iv) Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. X skin deep on the right side of chest just below the right clavicle having clean out margins. 14. According to him death of Chandrika had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries narrated above. He has proved Ext. Ka 8 to be the post-mortem report which was prepared by him then and there. 15. Constable Virendra Prasad Shukla P.W. 8 is another formal witness who has proved Ext. Ka 10 to be the chik F.I.R, Ext. Ka 11 to be the copy of the G.D. Entry regarding the institution of this case and Ext. Ka 12 to be the G.D. Entry regarding the arrest of the accused persons. 16. Dr. Mohammed Ali P.W. 9 is the medical officer who examined the injuries of complainant Badlu P.W.1 on 26.5.1982 at 8 a.m. At the hospital of Shohratgarh. The following eight injuries were found by him on his persons:- (i) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. at the root and upper back part of the left ear. The margins were irregular and the injury was skin deep. (ii) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep on the left side of skull 2 cms. above injury no.1. The margins were irregular. (iii) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x ½ cm. x scalp deep on the left side of scalp 8 cms. above the left ear. The margins were irregular. (iv) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x ½ cm. x skin deep on the top of head 7 cms. above injury no.1. The margins were irregular. (iii) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x ½ cm. x scalp deep on the left side of scalp 8 cms. above the left ear. The margins were irregular. (iv) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x ½ cm. x skin deep on the top of head 7 cms. above the root of the nose. The margins were irregular. (v) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x ½ cm. on the back of the left palm with marked swelling all around the back and front including the fingers. (vi) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm. x ½ cm. on the top of the right shoulder with swelling all over the top of he right shoulder. (vii) Abraded contusion 8 cm. x 2 cm. on the back of the left shoulder. (viii) Contusion on 6 cm. x 2 cm. on the left side of back 14.5 cm.s, below the injury no.7. 17. All the injuries were caused by a blunt object. X-ray was advised for injury no. 5 and 6. Rest of the injuries were simple. All the injuries were about twelve hours old. He has proved Ext. Ka 13 to be the said injury-report. 18. Dr. S.K. Srivastava P.W.7 is the Radiologist who conducted the X-ray of the left hand and the right shoulder of Badlu P.W.1 on 27.5.1982 at District Hospital, Basti. He has proved Ext. 1 to be the X-ray plat no. 3017 of his left hand and Ext. II to be the X-ray plat no. 3018 of his right shoulder. The results shown by these X-ray plates were mentioned by him in the report Ext. Ka 9 according to which fractures were found in the left fifth metacarpal bone and the proximal pharynx of the left little finger and the right clavicle and the right scapula. However, due to slip of pen right little finger was mentioned by him in his report Ext. Ka 9 in place of left little finger and it was made clear by him during his evidence on oath. That in all is the prosecution evidence of record. 19. However, due to slip of pen right little finger was mentioned by him in his report Ext. Ka 9 in place of left little finger and it was made clear by him during his evidence on oath. That in all is the prosecution evidence of record. 19. The plea of self-defence has been taken by the accused appellants and had stated that the deceased Chandrika was trying to strangulate the accused Jaggoo, the other accused Pancham wielded a spade causing injuries to Chandrika just to save his son Jaggoo, subsequent thereto both the accused then rushed towards the house being chased by the complainant Badlu who was armed with a Lathi, both the accused entered into their own house and the complainant Badlu then tried to put fire to their house whereupon he was belaboured by the neighbours with Dandas. 20. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 CrPC of the accused were recorded. In their statements, the accused took the plea of self defence. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. 21. Trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, and evidence found that the prosecution has fully succeeded in bringing home the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.08.1983 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants under Sections 302/34, 325/34 & 323/34 IPC, hence this appeal. 22. We have heard Sri Shashi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Rajeev Gupta, Sri Rahul Asthana and Sri Amar Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and order dated 24.8.1983 passed by the court below is illegal, erroneous and perverse, and is liable to be set aside. It has further been submitted that the case of the appellants fall under Exception 2 and Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. It was further submitted that the Appellant No. 1, Pancham has exercised the right of private defence in good faith without premeditation. He further submitted that the Appellant No. 1 Pancham has committed the alleged offence without premeditation, in the heat of passion, upon a sudden fight/quarrel, as such, the Appellant No. 1, Pancham is not liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC. He further submitted that the Appellant No. 1 Pancham has committed the alleged offence without premeditation, in the heat of passion, upon a sudden fight/quarrel, as such, the Appellant No. 1, Pancham is not liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC. He further submitted that neither any injury was caused by the appellant No. 2, Jaggoo nor there was any allegation that he had caused any injury or made any exhortation to kill the deceased Chandrika and as such, no offence is made out against the appellant No. 2, Jaggoo. 24. Per contra, learned AGA, Sri Rajiv Gupta has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below and stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below was fully justified in passing the impugned order. It was further submitted that the appellants themselves have admitted the place and time of incident as well as the assault made upon the deceased. It was further submitted that the plea of self defence, is based on surmises and speculation and cannot be given any credence. 25. A perusal of the record shows that the accused appellant No. 2, Jaggoo and the deceased Chandrika, on the fateful day, picked up a fight over the disappearance of his sister holding Chandrika responsible for her disappearance. During the course of the altercation, the appellant No. 2 Jaggoo who was a young boy called out to his father for help upon which the Appellant No. 1 Pancham came along with a Kudal and inflicted repeated blows on Chandrika and thereafter he also inflicted blows on the informant Badlu from the reverse side of Kudal. The deceased Chandrika died on the spot and the informant Badlu suffered several injuries. Details of the injuries sustained by both the persons namely deceased Chandrika and Badlu have already been narrated in detail in the earlier part of this judgment. A perusal of the medical report shows that the deceased Chandrika sustained several incised wounds on his vital parts allegedly caused by a sharp edged weapon i.e. Kudal and had died instantaneously and the informant Badlu also received a number of injuries including fracture in his left fifth metacarpal bone and the proximal pharynx of the left little finger as well as in his right clavicle bone and the right scapula. 26. 26. It is not the case of the appellants that someone else has caused the injuries upon the deceased. The appellant No. 1 Pancham has been specifically assigned the role of causing incised wounds on the vital parts of the deceased resulting into his death. All the eye-witnesses have specifically named the appellant No. 1 Pancham of causing injuries upon the victims. The names of the eye-witness, who had deposed before the trial court, were mentioned in the FIR. Now, the question for determination before this Court is whether the court below have rightly rejected the plea of the appellants with regard to exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the case of the appellant No. 1 falls under Exception 2 of Section 300 IPC. Alternatively, it has also been argued that in case if it does not fall within the ambit of Exception 2 of Section 300 IPC, then it would fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the provisions of Exception 2 and Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which runs as follows; "Exception 2.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence." "Exception 4.-Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner." 27. A perusal of the record shows that the Appellant No. 2 was having altercation with the deceased Chandrika. During the course of altercation, the appellant No. 2 called out to his father Pancham. On hearing him, his father came with a Kudal and inflicted repeated blows on the deceased Chandrika and also caused injuries to the informant P.W. 1, Badlu. A perusal of the injuries sustained by the deceased shows that repeatedly four blows were inflicted by sharp edged weapon i.e. Kudal on his vital parts. On hearing him, his father came with a Kudal and inflicted repeated blows on the deceased Chandrika and also caused injuries to the informant P.W. 1, Badlu. A perusal of the injuries sustained by the deceased shows that repeatedly four blows were inflicted by sharp edged weapon i.e. Kudal on his vital parts. It is notable that the deceased Chandrika and informant P.W. 1, Badlu admittedly were not carrying any arms, not even a Lathi with them. Even if it is presumed that if there was any scuffle between the Appellant No. 2 and the deceased then also the appellant No. 1 had no right to give repeated fatal blows by a deadly weapon Kudal to the deceased on his vital parts including chest and neck. The appellant No. 1 Pancham must have known that such bodily injuries caused by the sharp edged weapon on any vital part of the deceased was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or is likely to cause death. 28. In view of the above, it can be safely inferred that the appellant No. 1 Pancham had the intention as well as the knowledge, that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. Therefore, the case of the Appellant No. 1 Pancham will definitely come within the four corners of Section 300 IPC and not under any of the Exceptions as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 29. Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC clearly, inter alia, provides the condition that the offenders must not have any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. 30. In the present case as already stated herein above the deceased Chandrika and the informant, P.W. 1 Badlu were unarmed and there was definitely no justification to inflict several fatal injuries on the vital parts of the deceased by a deadly weapon. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is also not applicable since the facts of the case clearly indicates that the offender has taken undue advantage and acted in a cruel and unusual manner by inflicting fatal injuries upon the deceased. This apart, the evidence on record clearly shows that the injuries were also caused by the appellant No. 1 to the informant Badlu (injured), who in his testimony has made allegation against the Appellant No. 1. This apart, the evidence on record clearly shows that the injuries were also caused by the appellant No. 1 to the informant Badlu (injured), who in his testimony has made allegation against the Appellant No. 1. The testimony of Badlu, who is an injured witness and has suffered serious injuries, cannot be discarded without any basis. The plea taken by the appellant under Section 313 CrPC does not have any basis that the injuries were inflicted by any villager. No evidence of any nature has been produced by the defence side before the trial court that any such injuries were caused by the villagers, and in the absence of any cogent evidence, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted that the injuries were not caused by the appellant No. 1 Pancham. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is cogent, consistent, trustworthy and reliable against the appellant No. 1 Pancham. 31. A perusal of the evidence of the eye witnesses as well as own admission made by the Appellant No. 1 in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC clearly suggests the injuries upon the deceased Chandrika and the informant, P.W. 1 Badlu were inflicted by him. 32. In the circumstances, we do no see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below convicting and sentencing the accused appellant No. 1 Pancham under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 302/34 IPC. 33. Now, this Court proceeds to examine the case of the Appellant No. 2 Jaggoo who has also been convicted and sentenced under the aforementioned sections. 34. Admittedly the appellant No. 2 Jaggoo has not been assigned any role by the prosecution of inflicting any of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured informant P.W. 1, Badlu. The allegation of causing injuries to them have been made only against the Appellant No. 1 Pancham. There is nothing on record to show that any exhortation was made by the Appellant No. 2 Jaggoo to Pancham to cause any injury to any of the victims. Only this much has been stated by P.W. 1, Badlu that the appellant No. 2 had exhorted Appellant No. 1 Pancham to throw the deceased on the ground. There was no exhortation on his behalf either to kill or to cause any fatal injuries to either of the victims. Only this much has been stated by P.W. 1, Badlu that the appellant No. 2 had exhorted Appellant No. 1 Pancham to throw the deceased on the ground. There was no exhortation on his behalf either to kill or to cause any fatal injuries to either of the victims. There is nothing on record to show that there was any prior meeting of minds between the two accused and it is evident that during the course of scuffle between the appellant No. 2 and the deceased, the appellant No. 1 Pancham rushed to the spot on hearing the cry of the appellant No. 2 and inflicted repeated blows on the victims. In the circumstances, there was no occasion for the accused to have had any meeting of minds or common intention to commit the alleged offence. It could not be presumed that the Appellant No. 2 Jaggoo who was merely a young boy at the time of alleged incident would have been aware that his father would inflict several fatal blows from a sharp edged weapon on the deceased Chandrika causing his instant death. The main allegation against the Appellant No. 2 is that during the course of altercation, he had grappled with the deceased Chandrika. Merely for this act, Section 34 IPC cannot be invoked or constitute the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 35. In view of the above, the appellant No. 2 cannot be held guilty of causing death of the deceased Chandrika or inflicting injuries upon the informant. The case of the Appellant No. 2 is clearly distinguishable from that of Appellant No. 1 Pancham who was the author of the injuries caused to the deceased as well as injured Badlu. There is nothing on record which may suggest that the Appellant No. 2 in any way facilitated his father Appellant No. 1 Pancham to kill the deceased Chandrika and inflict injuries upon the injured P.W. 1, Badlu or was sharing any common intention with the appellant No. 1 Pancham to cause injuries to the victims. 36. No other contention has been made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 37. 36. No other contention has been made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 37. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that so far as the conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant No. 1 Pancham is concerned, the trial court was fully justified in passing the impugned judgment and order, however, the court below has fell in error while convicting and sentencing the Appellant No. 2 Jaggoo under the aforementioned sections. 38. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the trial court has rightly held the accused Appellant No. 1 Pancham guilty for the aforementioned offence committed by him and findings recorded by the trial court against the accused appellant No. 1, Pancham are not liable to be interfered with. Trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused appellant No. 1 Pancham beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is liable to be upheld with respect to Appellant No. 1 Pancham and the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed as against the Appellant No. 1, Pancham only. 39. So far as Appellant No. 2 Jaggoo is concerned, the findings recorded by the trial Court regarding guilt of the Appellant No. 2 Jaggoo are not sustainable. We are of the view, as discussed above, the conviction and sentence recorded by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.8.1983 against the Appellant No. 2 Jaggoo under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 302/34 IPC is illegal and not sustainable, and thus liable to be set aside. 40. Thus, on the basis of foregoing discussions, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part and accordingly the same is partly allowed. 41. Finding of the trial Court regarding guilt of Appellant No. 2 Jaggoo is also hereby set-aside. Appellant No. 2 Jaggoo is acquitted from the charges under Sections 323/34, 325/34 & 302/34 IPC. 42. Appellant No. 2 Jaggoo is on bail. He need not to surrender. His personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties are discharged from their liability. 43.However, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.8.1983 is hereby confirmed as against Appellant No. 1, Pancham who is on bail. 42. Appellant No. 2 Jaggoo is on bail. He need not to surrender. His personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties are discharged from their liability. 43.However, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.8.1983 is hereby confirmed as against Appellant No. 1, Pancham who is on bail. His personal and surety bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned immediately to serve out the remaining sentence imposed upon him by the trial court. In case, he fails to surrender, as directed above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to take coercive action against him in this regard. 44. Copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent immediately to the concerned Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance. Compliance report be also sent to this Court. ———————