JUDGMENT S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellants are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 95 of 2007, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. The respondent filed final report against a total number of four accused, including the appellants herein. One of the accused, by name, Mr. Karthickeyan, was shown to be a juvenile and therefore, his case was split up and referred to the Juvenile Justice Board under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Thus, these three accused, viz. the appellants herein and one Mrs. Vasanthi faced the trial. They stood charged as detailed below:- Charge Accused Penal Provisions 1. 1 & 2 302 IPC 2. 3 302 r/w 109 IPC 2. By Judgment dated 12.04.2010, the Trial Court acquitted the third accused, but convicted the accused Nos. 1 and 2, as detailed below:- Accused No. Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed Fine amount 1 and 2 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs. 500/- in default to undergo imprisonment for two years. As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up with this Criminal Appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The first accused is a resident of Anbu Complex, Karaikudi Town in Sivagangai District. The second accused is his friend. The third accused Mrs. Vasanthi is the aunt of the first accused. The juvenile accused Mr. Karthickeyan is the cousin of the first accused. The first accused had a sister, by name, Ms. Karthika. The first accused, his father Muthukrishnan, his aunt (the third accused) and his sister Karthika were residing in the upstairs portion of Anbu Complex Building. The deceased, in this case, was one Mr. Raja @ Rajamohan PW-1 is his wife and PW-2 is his brother. PW-1 and the deceased were residing in Anbu Complex in the ground floor. 3.1 On 16.02.2007, at 09.00 PM, Ms. Karthika (the sister of the first accused) went to the public tap situated in front of the complex for taking water for drinking purpose. It is alleged that at that time, the deceased went there and accidentally, his hand touched Ms. Karthika. She, immediately, returned to her house and informed the accused Nos. 1 and 3 that the deceased had misbehaved with her. Immediately, the accused Nos. It is alleged that at that time, the deceased went there and accidentally, his hand touched Ms. Karthika. She, immediately, returned to her house and informed the accused Nos. 1 and 3 that the deceased had misbehaved with her. Immediately, the accused Nos. 1 and 3 and the juvenile accused came to the house of the deceased and quarreled with him and returned back. 3.2 On the next day, viz. on 17.02.2007, at about 10.00 AM, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the juvenile accused came to the house of the deceased. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 had each one knife in their hands. On seeing the same, PW-1 cautioned the deceased to escape. The deceased started running from his house towards the nearby main road, viz. Trichy Rameshwaram Bye-pass Road. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the juvenile accused gave a chase. When the deceased was running in front of the shop of one Mr. M. Kaja Mohideen (PW-3), the juvenile accused reached him and caught him hold. Then, the first accused stabbed him with knife, followed by the second accused. The deceased sustained as many as five stab injuries. He fell down in a pool of blood. It is alleged that at that time, the third accused shouted and induced the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to stab the deceased. After the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence, PW-1 to PW-3 found that the accused was struggling for life. Therefore, in an auto, they immediately rushed the deceased to the Government Hospital, at Karaikudi. 3.3 PW-10, Dr. M. Devakumar, examined the deceased, at 10.30 AM, on 17.02.2007, at the Government Hospital at Karaikudi. At that time, the deceased was unconscious (vide EX-P23, the Accident Register). He was told by PW-1 that the deceased was stabbed by two known persons, at about 10.00 AM, on 17.02.2007. PW-10 admitted the deceased in the hospital, as an inpatient. He gave intimation to the police. 3.4 On receiving the said intimation, PW-12, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, rushed to the Government Hospital at Karaikudi and recorded the statement of PW-1, at 11.00 AM. EX-P1 is the said statement. However, before he could reach the hospital, the deceased died. He gave intimation to the police. 3.4 On receiving the said intimation, PW-12, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, rushed to the Government Hospital at Karaikudi and recorded the statement of PW-1, at 11.00 AM. EX-P1 is the said statement. However, before he could reach the hospital, the deceased died. On returning to the Police Station, at 12.00 noon, he registered a case in Crime No. 55 of 2007, under Sections 342 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. EX-P1 is the complaint and EX-P26 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 3.5 Taking up the case for investigation, PW-13, the then Inspector of Police, proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of PW-4 and another witness. He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the hospital, during which he examined PW-1 to PW-3, few more witnesses and recorded their statements. EX-P28 is the inquest report. Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem. 3.6 PW-11 Dr. Shanmugam conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, on 17.02.2007, at 04.30 PM. He noticed the following injuries:- “1. A stab injury seen on the right side of abdomen measuring 2 x 1/2 cm entering inside the abdominal cavity. 2. A stab injury measuring 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm size found on the chest below neck. 3. A stab injury measuring 3 x 1/2 cm on the left loin entering inside the abdominal cavity. 4. A stab injury on the center of back just above the level of hip measuring 3 x 1 cm size with fracture of spine entering inside the abdominal cavity. 5. A stab injury measuring 1 x 1/4 x 1 cm size seen over the center back below the neck.” He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to injuries to the vital organs. He further opined that the said injuries would have been caused by a weapon, like knife. 3.7 Continuing the investigation, PW-13 arranged for taking photographs of the place of occurrence and the dead body. PW-7, accordingly, took photographs, (Ex-P9 series). He further opined that the said injuries would have been caused by a weapon, like knife. 3.7 Continuing the investigation, PW-13 arranged for taking photographs of the place of occurrence and the dead body. PW-7, accordingly, took photographs, (Ex-P9 series). During the course of investigation, on 18.02.2007, at 10.00 AM, PW-13 arrested the third accused and the juvenile accused Mr. Karthickeyan near Karaikudi Old Bus Stand in the presence of PW-5 and another witness. On such arrest, the juvenile accused gave a disclosure statement, wherein he identified the place, where he had hidden a cement colour pant and white colour shirt stained with blood. In pursuance of the same, he took PW-13 and the witnesses to his house and produced the same, which were recovered under a mahazer. Then, he forwarded both the accused to the Court for judicial remand. 3.8 The accused Nos. 1 and 2 had surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Karaikudi, on 01.03.2007. PW-13 took custody of both the accused, on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate. On 02.03.2007, while in custody, at 04.00 PM, the first accused gave a voluntary confession in the presence of PW-6 and another witness, in which he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the knife, a lungi and shirt. In pursuance of the same, from the said place, he produced MO-5 -knife, MO-6 lungi and MO-7 shirt. They were all recovered under a mahazer. Then, the second accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the knife and shirt. In pursuance of the same, he produced MO-2, the knife and MO-8 shirt and MO-9 lungi. They were all recovered under a mahazer. Then, he forwarded the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to the Court for judicial remand. He made a request to the Court to forward the material objects for chemical examination. EXP21 is the chemical analysis report and EX-P22 is the serology report. According to the reports, there was human blood on all the material objects including the knives. Finally, on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 3.9 Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused were questioned in respect of the charges, they pleaded innocence. Finally, on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 3.9 Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused were questioned in respect of the charges, they pleaded innocence. In order to prove the charges on the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined, 28 documents and 11 material objects were marked. Out of the said 13 witnesses, PW-1 to PW-3 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased and PW-2 is the brother of the deceased. PW-3 is an independent witness, in front of whose shop, the occurrence had taken place. All these witnesses have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. PW-4 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazer, the rough sketch and the recovery of the bloodstained earth and sample earth by PW-13. 3.10 PW-5 has spoken about the arrest of the juvenile accused and the third accused and the consequential recovery of the dress materials at the instance of the juvenile accused. PW-6 has spoken about the disclosure statement made by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the consequential recovery of MO-6 to MO-11. PW-7 has spoken about the photographs taken by him on the dead body and from the place of occurrence. PW-8, the learned Judicial Magistrate, has recorded the statements made by PW-1 to PW-3 and he has spoken about the same. PW-9 is the Head Clerk of the Court, who has spoken about the forwarding of the materials objects for chemical examination. PW-10 has spoken about the admission of the deceased at the Government Hospital at Karaikudi and the injuries found on the deceased. PW-11 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. PW-12 has spoken about the registration of the case and PW-13 has spoken about the investigation done by him and the filing of the final report. 3.11 When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against them, they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted the third accused, but convicted the accused Nos. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted the third accused, but convicted the accused Nos. 1 and 2, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and punished them accordingly. That is how, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 the appellants are now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the occurrence would not have happened, as it is projected by PW-1 to PW-3 and they would not have seen the occurrence at all. He would further submit that the First Information Report, in this case, is a doubtful document and the original information to the police has been suppressed. According to the learned Senior Counsel, PW-1 and PW-2 are interested witnesses, whose houses are situated at a far off place and therefore, they would not have seen the occurrence at all. So far as PW-3 is concerned, though the occurrence had taken place in front of his shop, he also cannot be believed, because, he is an interested witness. He would further submit that the discovery of the material objects at the instance of the accused also cannot be believed, as there are lot of contradictions. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove that it was these two accused, who had caused the death of the deceased. He would further submit that even assuming that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the act of the accused would not fall within the ambit of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and instead, it would fall within the ambit of Section 304(i) of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that there are lot of materials available on record to infer that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had acted out of sustained provocation and thus, their act would fall within the ambit of First Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, at the most, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had acted out of sustained provocation and thus, their act would fall within the ambit of First Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, at the most, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 could be convicted under Section 304(i) of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this Criminal Appeal. According to him, the occurrence originated just in front of the house of PW-1 and PW-2. When the deceased ran away from his house to escape from the accused, they gave a chase, reached him near the shop of PW-3 and then, stabbed the deceased. PW-1 and PW-2, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, crying for help, followed him. It was only at that time, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, they had witnessed the occurrence. At any rate, PW-3 is an independent witness and he has also stated about the occurrence. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, absolutely, there is no reason to reject the evidences of PW-1 to PW-3. He would further submit that the medical evidence also duly corroborates the eyewitness account of PW-1 to PW-3. 8. So far as the alternative argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that absolutely, there is no other material to hold that the accused had acted out of sustained provocation. He would further submit that the occurrence had taken place driven by the motive and that the accused had caused the injuries on the deceased with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Trial Court was right in convicting the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 9. We have considered the above submissions and we have also carefully gone through the evidences of PW-1 to PW-3. 10. Of course, PW-1 to PW-3 are interested witnesses, but on that score, their evidences cannot be outright rejected. Prudence requires that their evidences should be closely scrutinized. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, according to PW-1 and PW-2, the accused Nos. 1 and 2, along with the juvenile accused, came to the house of the deceased. Of course, PW-1 to PW-3 are interested witnesses, but on that score, their evidences cannot be outright rejected. Prudence requires that their evidences should be closely scrutinized. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, according to PW-1 and PW-2, the accused Nos. 1 and 2, along with the juvenile accused, came to the house of the deceased. It was only on seeing these accused with knife in their hands, PW-1 cautioned the deceased to escape. When the deceased tried to escape, the accused Nos. 1, 2 and the juvenile accused gave a chase, reached him in front of the shop of PW-3 and then stabbed the deceased. The rough sketch shows that the distance between the shop of PW-3 and the house of the deceased is 150 metres. The occurrence had taken place on the main road, which runs in the north-south direction. The shop of PW-3 is situated on the western side. Just in front of the shop of PW-3, the occurrence had taken place. Since PW-1 and PW-2 were following the deceased crying for help, certainly, they would have witnessed the entire occurrence. Thus, in our considered view, PW-1 and PW-2 are fully believable. 11. Apart from the above, we find no reason to reject the independent evidence of PW-3, in front of whose shop, the occurrence had taken place. He has categorically stated that these two accused had caused the death of the deceased. Thus, from the evidences of PW-1 to PW-3, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has proved that it was these two accused, who alone had caused the injuries on the deceased, which resulted in his death. According to the medical evidence, the said injuries were the direct cause for the death of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has proved that these two accused had caused the death of the deceased. After the occurrence, the deceased was rushed to the Government Hospital at Karaikudi, wherein, at the first instance, PW-1 had told the doctor that the deceased was stabbed by two known persons. This has been spoken to by PW-10 also. This part of the evidence of PW-10 also clearly corroborates the evidence of PW-1. 12. After the occurrence, the deceased was rushed to the Government Hospital at Karaikudi, wherein, at the first instance, PW-1 had told the doctor that the deceased was stabbed by two known persons. This has been spoken to by PW-10 also. This part of the evidence of PW-10 also clearly corroborates the evidence of PW-1. 12. Though it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the original First Information Report has been suppressed, we do not find any evidence at all even to remotely infer that before EX-P1, any other information was passed on to the police, constituting the first information. Therefore, this argument of the learned Senior Counsel is rejected. Similarly, the learned Senior Counsel contended that there are lot of contradictions in respect of the recovery of the material objects on the disclosure statements made by the accused. Though the learned Senior Counsel raised such a point, he was not able to establish any such contradiction so as to disbelieve the story of the prosecution that at the instance of the accused, some material objects were discovered. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has clearly proved that it was these two accused, who caused the death of the deceased by stabbing him repeatedly. 13. Now, the next immediate question, which arises for consideration, is as to what is the offence, that the accused have committed by their act? 14. The very fact that these two accused had gone to the house of the deceased with knives, the very fact that they did not allow the deceased to escape and instead, they chased him and stabbed him, and the very fact that they stabbed repeatedly on the vital parts of his body would all go to show that their intention was only to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, their act would only fall within the first limb of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Now, we have to examine as to whether the act of the accused would fall within the ambit of any one of the Exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that the act of the accused would fall under the First Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that the act of the accused would fall under the First Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. He would further submit that on the previous night, the deceased had misbehaved with the sister of the first accused. This resulted in a quarrel. This was also the provocation for the first accused. For the whole night, the first accused sustained the provocation. On the next day early morning, at the time of occurrence, on seeing the deceased, the accused got provoked further and out of the said provocation, viz. sustained provocation, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the accused had caused the death of the deceased. In our considered view, there is no force in the said argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. We will give our reasons a litter later. 17. The learned Senior Counsel would rely on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 . In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after having dealt with the Indian Scenario relating to the grave and sudden provocation, has concluded in Paragraph No.85 of the Judgment as follows:- “85. The Indian law, relevant to the present enquiry, may be stated thus:- (1) The test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. (2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. (4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation.” 18. The learned Senior Counsel would rely on yet another Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Suyambukkani vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The learned Senior Counsel would rely on yet another Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Suyambukkani vs. State of Tamil Nadu. This Judgment is considered to be a landmark Judgment and a great contribution made by this Court in the development of the Criminal Law. In the said case, Hon'ble Dr. Justice David Annoussamy, while speaking for the Bench, analyzed the entire Indian Scenario and held that the Indian Courts have added one more Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, known as sustained provocation. The Division Bench took into account K.M. Nanavati's case and held that the said decision is not the first one to take into consideration tire situation of sustained provocation. The Division Bench further went on to say on sustained provocation as follows:- “Though there has seen here and there attempts, in those decisions to bring the sustained provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300, I.R.C. there is a cardinal difference between provocation as defined under Exception I and sustained provocation. The only word which is common is provocation. What exception I contemplates is a grave and sudden provocation whereas the ingredient of sustained provocation is a series of acts more or less grave spread over a certain period of time, the last of which acting as the last straw breaking the camel's back may even be a very trifling one. We are therefore far from grave and sudden provocation contemplated under Exception 1 to Section 300, I.R.C. Sustained provocation is undoubtedly an addition by Courts as anticipated by the architects of the I.P.C. In Paragraph No. 22 of the said Judgment, the Division Bench has held as follows:- Now that it is clear that the exceptions under Section 300, IPC are not limitative, we have to examine whether Nallathangal's syndrome can be considered as one of the exceptions. Since the Code in its structure make the exceptions limitative, Courts have to show restraint on circumspection in adding exceptions and such additions should be ejusdem generis. In this connection, it is necessary to examine what is the true nature of the exceptions. The exceptions are in the nature of important excusing circumstances and they have the following characteristics. One thing is clear from the above analysi viz. in all the exceptions either premeditation or ill-will is absent. In this connection, it is necessary to examine what is the true nature of the exceptions. The exceptions are in the nature of important excusing circumstances and they have the following characteristics. One thing is clear from the above analysi viz. in all the exceptions either premeditation or ill-will is absent. Therefore, when both are present, it will be impossible to consider the matter as an exception? 19. The learned Senior Counsel would rely on yet another Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 2 LW (Crl) 689, wherein the Division Bench, after making reliance on Suyambukkani's case and many other subsequent cases, has upheld the sustained provocation as one of the Exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and held that the act of the accused would fall within the ambit of First Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 20. In the instant case, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the act of the deceased in touching the chest of the girl was the cause for provocation. This argument may be accepted, because the first accused would have been provoked, when his sister told him that the deceased had touched her chest. Driven by the said provocation, the first accused, along with his aunt and the juvenile accused had rushed to the house of the deceased and quarreled with him. If the occurrence had taken place at that time, one may even accept that the act of the accused would fall within the First Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. But, the first accused along with his aunt and the juvenile accused returned to their house, after the quarrel. For the whole night, there was no occurrence at all. Thus, there was enough time for the first accused to cool down. The so-called provocation, which the accused had experienced in the said incident, would not have been sustained for the whole night. The occurrence had taken place on the next day early in the morning. Thus, immediately before the occurrence, there was no cause for the accused to get again provoked or to have outburst of the sustained provocation. As has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Suyambukkani's case, the last straw breaking the camel's back may even be a very trifling one. 21. Thus, immediately before the occurrence, there was no cause for the accused to get again provoked or to have outburst of the sustained provocation. As has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Suyambukkani's case, the last straw breaking the camel's back may even be a very trifling one. 21. But, in this case, assuming that the accused had sustained the provocation for the whole night, even then, there was no such event to act as the last straw breaking the camel's back. According to the evidences available on record, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the juvenile accused had gone all the way to the house of the deceased. At that time, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had knives in their hands. It is not as though the first accused alone had gone there having lost his self-control, due to the sustained provocation. The second accused had also gone with him and attacked the deceased with knife. Similarly, the juvenile accused had also gone with them. There was a meeting of minds, which is evident from the fact that both of them had gone to the house of the deceased with knives in their hands. The second accused had no provocation at all. The very fact that both of them had gone to the house of the deceased would go to show that the first accused had not gone there having lost his self-control out of any provocation and instead, he had gone there only with a clear intention to do away with the deceased. Thereafter, when the deceased tried to escape, these two accused did not stop. Both of them gave a chase to a distance of 150 metres and then, on reaching him, stabbed him repeatedly. Thus, it has been proved that the previous day's occurrence became the motive for the first accused, who joined the other accused to rush to the house of the deceased with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, absolutely, there is no material to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that both the accused have acted on account of the loss of self-control due to sustained provocation. Thus, the act of the accused was not either out of grave and sudden or out of sustained provocation. Thus, absolutely, there is no material to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that both the accused have acted on account of the loss of self-control due to sustained provocation. Thus, the act of the accused was not either out of grave and sudden or out of sustained provocation. Thus, the accused are liable to be punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the Trial Court has imposed only a minimum punishment, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 23. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, by Judgment dated 12.04.2010, made in S.C. No. 95 of 2007, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, is confirmed. Bail bond executed by the appellants and the sureties shall stand cancelled. The Trial Court shall take steps to secure the accused Nos. 1 and 2 appellants to commit them in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.