Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 560 (ALL)

Jangi Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-02-17

PRATYUSH KUMAR, SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE

body2016
JUDGMENT Pratyush Kumar, J. The instant criminal appeal, filed on behalf of the accused-appellants, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.1984 passed by the then Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in S.T. No. 335 of 1983 thereby convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo 2 years RI under Section 148 IPC and imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 IPC. 2. In the present case, facts of the prosecution may be summarised as under: 3. That on 07.03.1983 at 8.55 AM Shri Krishan, resident of Sadulipur gave a written report at P.S. Lonar mentioning therein that Jangi Singh, bore enmity with his brother Radhey Shyam on account of election, Sureshpal Singh and Nareshpal Singh were sons of Jangi Singh and other two Ram Babu and Jageshwar were his party men. That day at 7.00 AM his brother Radhey Shyam had gone to ease himself on the side of the road, at that time he was giving fodder to the animals and saw Jangi Singh and four others named above, came out of Chhappar of Siya Ram carrying firearms in their hands, when they headed towards Radhey Shyam, he guessed their intention that they would kill Radhey Shyam. He loudly warned Radhey Shyam to run from there, at his shout Urmila wife of Radhey Shyam, Guddi daughter of Radhey Shyam, Chandra Pal, Ram Lakhan, Ram Ratan, of the village and Brij Kishore, resident of Barsoiya, Shankar Singh, resident of Soneypur, who were passing through the road, came there. Radhey Shyam hearing his shout, stood up, all the five assailants reached near Radhey Shyam and fired on him, sustaining gun shot injuries Radhey Shyam fell in a pit nearby the road and died. The assailants departed from the scene of occurrence towards west. 4. At this, chick FIR was scribed, Case Crime No. 40 of 1983 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC was registered and requisite entry was made in the report of the general diary of the police. Investigation was taken over by Sri J.P. Singh Station Officer himself, who on conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against all named accused persons. 5. In the Court of Session, all the five accused were charged under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC to which they denied and claimed to be tried. 6. Investigation was taken over by Sri J.P. Singh Station Officer himself, who on conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against all named accused persons. 5. In the Court of Session, all the five accused were charged under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC to which they denied and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove charges, besides documentary evidence, the prosecution examined six witnesses, thereafter, statements of all the accused persons were recorded, except appellant Jageshwar, relationship of deceased Radhey Shyam with the first informant, appellant Jangi Singh (since deceased) with Nareshpal Singh and Sureshpal Singh by other appellants were admitted. It was also admitted that before the occurrence, Jangi Singh was the pradhan of the village and fought election against Munshi Singh, who won the election. They also admitted pendency of the proceedings under Sections 107/116 CrPC. Rest of the facts stated by the witnesses were denied. They pleaded ignorance about the medical evidence and steps taken during the course of investigation. According to them, they were falsely implicated and witnesses had given their evidence on the pressure of Shri Krishan P.W.1. According to appellant Jangi Singh (since deceased) on that day, he had gone to Hardoi to take injection for dog bite, he had also denied the topography stated by Shri Krishan P.W.1. 7. In the defence, documentary evidence was filed and three witnesses were examined. 8. The learned trial Judge after hearing the arguments found the prosecution case trustworthy and convicted all the five accused persons and sentenced them as above. 9. Feeling aggrieved the accused appellants have filed the present appeal. 10. During the pendency of the instant appeal, appellant no. 1-Jangi Singh has died, his appeal stood abated vide order dated 10.07.2014. 11. Heard Sri Nagendra Mohan and Sri A.P. Mishra, Advocates appearing for the surviving appellants, Sri Umesh Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and Sri Bhagwati Prasad Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the record. 12. On behalf of the surviving appellants it has been argued that FIR was anti timed, eye witnesses are planted, there is contradiction between medical evidence and ocular version of the occurrence. According to learned counsel for the surviving appellants on all three grounds the learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and recorded erroneous findings of facts and interpreted the legal position in incorrect perspective. 13. According to learned counsel for the surviving appellants on all three grounds the learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and recorded erroneous findings of facts and interpreted the legal position in incorrect perspective. 13. On behalf of the State learned Additional Government Advocate has repelled these arguments. 14. Details of respective arguments will be discussed hereinafter before that we would like to have a glance on the prosecution evidence. 15. Shri Krishan P.W.1 is the first informant and brother of the deceased. He has supported the prosecution version contained in the FIR and proved Ext. Ka-1. 16. Chandra Pal P.W.2 is the other eye witness. He has also supported the prosecution version. 17. Head Constable Girdhar Singh P.W.3 is the scribe of the chick FIR. He has proved the chick FIR Ext. Ka-2, copy of report no. 10 of the general diary dated 07.03.1983 Ext. Ka-3. During the cross-examination he has admitted that on that day no other report was lodged. He could not tell that on chick FIR, who wrote 16.03.1983. The cross-examination of this witness is confined only on the point of ante timing of FIR, it will be discussed in detail while considering his argument on behalf of the surviving appellants. 18. C.P. Om Prakash P.W. 4 is the constable, who brought the dead body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the mortuary. He was suggested that he has brought the dead body on 08.03.1983. 19. In the present case, medical evidence consists of postmortem report Ext. Ka-14 and statement of Dr. T.P. Singh P.W.5. Dr. T.P. Singh, has stated on oath that on 08.03.1983 at 12.45 PM he received the papers and at 1.00 PM he performed the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Radhey Shyam. According to him, time since death was one day. During the internal examination he found 7th rib bones fractured, in his opinion Radhey Shyam had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. His death could have occurred on 07.03.1983 at 7.00 AM. He has found 14 ante mortem injuries on the body of Radhey Shyam, these injuries have been recorded in the postmortem report Ext. Ka-14. They are as under: 1. Firearm wound of entry 3 cm x 2.5 cm x buccal cavity deep on left side face. Margins were inverted, lacerated and blackened. He has found 14 ante mortem injuries on the body of Radhey Shyam, these injuries have been recorded in the postmortem report Ext. Ka-14. They are as under: 1. Firearm wound of entry 3 cm x 2.5 cm x buccal cavity deep on left side face. Margins were inverted, lacerated and blackened. Underlying bones were fractured. 2. Firearm wound of exit 7 cm x 5 cm x bone deep through and through in injury no. 1 on right side face. Direction was left to right. 3. Multiple firearm wounds of entry on left side face in the area of 10 cm x 7 cm including left ear each measuring 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x skin to muscle deep. 4. Firearm wound of entry and exit at left angle of mandible 6.5 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep. Entry margins (sic) 2.5 cm. Lateral (sic). Exit medial remaining 4 cm. Margins evert ed. Direction left to right. 5. Firearm wound of entry 7 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on medial side of top of left shoulder. 6. Firearm wound of entry 13 cm x 9 cm on front of middle upper chest including front of neck and cavity deep around the super sternal notch. Direction downwards and backwards. 7. Firearm wound of entry 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm x cavity deep on front of chest middle 8 cm medial to right nipple. Direction backward. 8. Firearm wound of exit 3 cm x 3cm x cavity deep on right side back through and through to injury no.7, 10 cm below inner end of right scapula. 9. Firearm wound of exit 2 cm x 1.5 cm x cavity deep through and through to injury no.6, 20 cm below right axilla. 10. Five firearm wounds of entry in an area of 10 cm x 5 cm on right side of abdomen through and through to injury no. 11 each measuring 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep. Direction was right to left. 11. Five firearm wounds of exit in an area of 11 cm x 6 cm each measuring 1.5 cm x'1.5 cm through and through to injury no. 10 on left side of abdomen 7 cm lateral to umbilicus. Direction was right to left and upwards. 12. Firearm wound of entry 15 cm x 10 cm x bone deep through and through to injury no. 10 on left side of abdomen 7 cm lateral to umbilicus. Direction was right to left and upwards. 12. Firearm wound of entry 15 cm x 10 cm x bone deep through and through to injury no. 13 on right lower medial side of thigh. Two wadding pieces (sic) and 31 small pellets were recovered. Direction was left to right. 13. Multiple firearm wounds of exit on lateral side of right thigh, each measuring 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm through and through to injury no. 12. 14. Abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm on back of right upper leg. 20. During the cross-examination the death of Radhey Shyam and its cause was not disputed. He was cross-examined on the point at what distance blackening would be found on the body of the person shot by firearm, when whole of the shot would enter the body, directions of the gun shot wound, on all these questions, he expressed his agreement with the opinion of Dr. Modi that blackening would be found if shot was fired at the distance of 3-4 fit. According to him, if it was fired from 12 fit, dispersal of the shot would be greater. In reference to injury no. 5 he did not find any pellets or wad. Except injury no. 6 no gun shot wound was found of downward and backward direction. According to him, he received copy of FIR in two leaves, he accepted the suggestion that death could have occurred on 07.03.1983 at 5-6 AM also. 21. Leaving aside his opinion, facts stated by him, are not disputed. We hold on the basis of his testimony duly corroborated by the postmortem report Ext. Ka-14 that on the stated date and time due to gun shot injuries, death of Radhey Shyam could have occurred. 22. SI J.P. (Singh) Vishnoi P.W.6 has given details of steps taken by him during the investigation and he proved police papers. He has stated that he took samples of blood stained earth and simple earth also found one LOTA from the scene of occurrence and prepared recovery memo Ext. Ka-10 and Ka-11, he also recovered two empty cartridges and one wad. One pair of SHOES worn by the deceased. He proved recovery memo Ext. Ka-12 and Ka-13. During the cross examination he has admitted written report Ext. Ka-10 and Ka-11, he also recovered two empty cartridges and one wad. One pair of SHOES worn by the deceased. He proved recovery memo Ext. Ka-12 and Ka-13. During the cross examination he has admitted written report Ext. Ka-1 had no fold,he also admitted that in the chick FIR distance from the place of occurrence to the police station has been entered 8 Miles whereas in the inquest report Ext. Ka-5 such distance has been entered 10 Kms., he was further suggested that at the time of holding of inquest proceedings he did not have a copy of the chick FIR. He was also cross-examined about the writing of challan las and recovery memo of LOATA Ext. Ka-11. 23. Mostly the cross-examination was directed to show that at the time of inquest proceedings FIR was not lodged and it was subsequently ante timed. It has not been disputed on behalf of the defence that he did not take steps in the course of investigation as claimed by him. Leaving aside his testimony about ante timing of FIR we find that mostly his evidence is of formal in nature. It needs not further discussion. 24. The case of prosecution rests on direct eye witness account given by Sri Krishna P.W.1 and Chandrapal P.W.2 and their testimonies have been found trustworthy by the learned trial Judge. Now we will re-examine and reevaluate the eye witness account given these two eye witnesses namely, Shri Krishan P.W.1 and Chandra Pal P.W.2 at the same time taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the respective parties and grounds taken in the appeal. 25. The thrust of the arguments advanced on behalf of the surviving appellants is that none had seen the occurrence, eye witnesses are planted, FIR is ante timed. Since all these arguments touch the credibility of the eye witness account, we first propose to re-examine and re-evaluate intrinsically and extrinsically probative force of the testimonies of the eye witnesses, at this juncture we would like to recall the observation of the Apex Court made in the case of Krishnan and another v. State [AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2978 : 2003 (47) ACC 497 (SC)]. The relevant para-21 of the report on reproduction reads as under: "21. It is trite that where the eye-witnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. The relevant para-21 of the report on reproduction reads as under: "21. It is trite that where the eye-witnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation." 26. We have perused the testimony of eye witness Shri Krishan P.W.1, who is the first informant and brother of the deceased. He has narrated the version contained in the FIR wherein he has explained his presence at his Gonda at the relevant time from where he claims to have seen the occurrence. Time of occurrence is 7.00 AM, it is usual for farmers to give fodder to their cattle in the morning, therefore, his presence in his Gonda (where the cattle are tied) at the relevant time is natural and probable. 27. The second question arises whether from that place he could see the incident. Site plan Ext. Ka-9 reveals that from his Gonda place of occurrence directly lies towards the north side. In between these two places there is an empty field of the complainant at place marked as 'A' and place marked as 'C' in the site plan is the place where the deceased was shot, in between there is Chhappar of the complainant. Ka-9 reveals that from his Gonda place of occurrence directly lies towards the north side. In between these two places there is an empty field of the complainant at place marked as 'A' and place marked as 'C' in the site plan is the place where the deceased was shot, in between there is Chhappar of the complainant. The question arises whether existence of Chhappar would have obstructed the vision of the first informant, we have gone through the cross-examination of this witness, he has been cross-examined about the topography of his Chhappar and Gonda but he was not asked any question about the southern side of his Chhappar and Gonda, he has been suggested that on the south of his Gonda there are shrubs (besharam) and mango trees but he has not been suggested that on the northern side of his Chhappar and Gonda there existed any tree or shrubs. During the cross-examination it has come out that the Gonda of this witness was at that time in ruin condition, thus, we find that he had every opportunity to see the occurrence as it was morning hours in the month of March. We find that he has been cross-examined at length. His cross-examination runs into 11 pages but no substantive discrepancy or contradiction could be extracted. We find that he was cross-examined at very delicate issues but each time he replied very frankly and he admitted that eye witness of this case Chandrapal P.W.2 is the nephew of Ram Prakash, who was murdered and in that case he was an eye witness. He has also admitted the acrimony arose due to election of pradhen. He has also admitted that in between his Gonda and Gonda of Ganga Ram and there were Guava and Mango trees. He has also admitted that he did not mention in his report that empty cartridges were lying 4-5 steps away from the dead body. His relation, acrimonious atmosphere of the village does not affect the credibility of this witness adversely. More so, we find that this witness had not evaded answers to difficult questions. He preferred to narrate correct facts in his deposition. 28. On behalf of the surviving appellants it has been argued that the witness has lodged the FIR with delay. 29. His relation, acrimonious atmosphere of the village does not affect the credibility of this witness adversely. More so, we find that this witness had not evaded answers to difficult questions. He preferred to narrate correct facts in his deposition. 28. On behalf of the surviving appellants it has been argued that the witness has lodged the FIR with delay. 29. We think this argument does not affect the credibility of testimony of this witness because being first informant he is only required to furnish information about the occurrence to the police authorities. From his testimony we find that this witness appears to be a truthful witness even he has not evaded the question whether scribe of the FIR was resident of his village or another village. He frankly stated that he was resident of village Barwan, situate at the distance of 3-4 miles from his village, although he is a related witness and while scrutinising his testimony we have exercised great care keeping in view his relationship and controversy raised due to election of village pradhan on the whole we find his testimony to be trustworthy. 30. Chandra Pal P.W.2 has explained reason, for his presence at the spot, at the relevant time that he was going to ease himself towards north, when he reached near the banyan tree he heard shouts of Shri Krishan P.W.1, reached in his field and saw the occurrence. In the morning hours it is common for the villagers to go outside to relieve themselves. He has reached near the place of occurrence on the shouts of Shri Krishan, thus, he has given reason for his presence. He is a natural and probable witness of the occurrence. In the site plan his location at the time of occurrence has been shown at a place marked as 'I' from there place 'C' is directly visible. Since it was morning hours the witness had every opportunity to see the occurrence. During the cross-examination, he has given frank answers. He frankly admitted that he could not tell whether at the time of shouts barrels of the firearms of the assailants were downward or upward. Since it was morning hours the witness had every opportunity to see the occurrence. During the cross-examination, he has given frank answers. He frankly admitted that he could not tell whether at the time of shouts barrels of the firearms of the assailants were downward or upward. The only contradiction in his testimony is that he had not stated to the Investigating Officer that he saw the assailants leaving Chhappar of Shiya Ram and proceeding towards Radhey Shyam and he could not tell how the Investigating Officer had recorded such a statement. In the examination-in-chief, he has claimed that he heard the shouts of Shri Krishan and when he reached in his field saw the occurrence, thus, there is a variation to the effect that he had seen the assailants leaving Chhappar of Shiya Ram or not. In his statement on oath there is variation with his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but the additional facts written in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC cannot be taken to have discredited the witness on the point that on hearing the shouts of Shri Krishan he reached to his field. Except this his testimony is intact. Though about his impartiality suggestion has been made that he belonged to the party of Shri Krishan and on whose pressure he was giving the evidence but only on the basis of suggestion veracity of his statement cannot be doubted upon, specially when he is natural and probable witness and had passed the test of cross-examination successfully. 31. After finding the eye witness account to be trustworthy, we have considered the arguments regarding ante timing of FIR. On behalf of the surviving appellants, it has been argued that the scribe of chick FIR in the column of distance from place of occurrence to police station has recorded to be 8 miles whereas in the inquest report it has been recorded 10 Kms. 32. The discrepancy about unit of measurement occurring in Chik F.I.R. and the inquest report; in Chik F.I.R., it has been written ''eight miles' and in the inquest report it has been written ''ten kilo-meters' is also of no consequence. This discrepancy appears to have occurred due to introduction of metric system of measurement from the year 1958. Experience would show that educated persons adopted new system more readily than less educated one. This discrepancy appears to have occurred due to introduction of metric system of measurement from the year 1958. Experience would show that educated persons adopted new system more readily than less educated one. Distance in Chik F.I.R. is always written with the help of a map kept in a police station, use of metric system by human beings was speedier than replacement of documents specially maps kept in the police stations. We find no substance in the argument that this discrepancy is an indication that copy of Chik F.I.R. was not with the police officer who conducted the inquest proceedings. 33. The second ground is that in the inquest report copy of chick FIR has been shown to be of one leaf whereas chick FIR is of two leaves. According to the learned counsel for the surviving appellants at that time FIR was not written for that reason this discrepancy had occurred. Dr. T.P. Singh P.W.5 was cross-examined at this point. He conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. According to him, he received the copy of FIR in two leaves whereas in the inquest report it was written to be one leaf. From his testimony we come to the conclusion that in the inquest report Ext. Ka-5, copy of chick FIR one leaf has been incorrectly written due to inadvertence and actually two leaves were received by the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination, therefore, this point also does not survive. 34. Nanhey Lal, who is the scribe of the written report Ext. Ka-1 is the resident of village Barwan, P.S. Lonar, situated at the distance of 3-4 miles from village Sadullipur, thus, learned counsel for the appellant argued that after the occurrence Nanhey Lal was called from village Barwan and FIR was prepared thereafter. Shri Krishan P.W.1 was cross-examined at this point, who has stated in the cross-examination at para 21 that scribe had come to his village one day ago, since he had come near the dead body, he had taken his help in writing the FIR, considering this statement we think that argument advanced on behalf of the surviving appellants also does not survive. 35. One other argument in this regard is that at one place Sri Krishan P.W.1 has stated that paper was taken from his house and at another place he has stated that it was borrowed from school going children. 35. One other argument in this regard is that at one place Sri Krishan P.W.1 has stated that paper was taken from his house and at another place he has stated that it was borrowed from school going children. This argument is misconceived as the witness has stated that paper was obtained from his house but pen and ink were borrowed from the students. 36. It has been argued that the dead body had reached late at mortuary, this is an indication that at the time of inquest chick FIR was not scribed, for that reason constable Om Prakash P.W.4 had to stay at Hardoi in the night. Om Prakash P.W.4 has categorically stated that he reached Hardoi at 8.00 PM, in the morning he handed over papers to the Doctor at 7.00 AM. Postmortem examination was conducted at 12.45 PM. Dr. T.P. Singh P.W.5 has stated in his examination-in-chief that he received the papers on 08.03.1983 at 11.00 AM and conducted postmortem examination on that day at 12.45 PM, thus, there is discrepancy that whether the papers were received at 7.00 AM or 11.00 AM. It is not expected for the Doctor to sit at mortuary and receive papers, whenever need arises he goes to mortuary and conduct postmortem examination, for this reason we find no discrepancy about the time of receiving of papers. 37. Now question remains that whether constable Om Prakash P.W.4 waited in the night to receive the copy of chick FIR or mortuary to be opened. In absence of any other indication we opt for the second reason that he waited in the night for the mortuary to be opened. For this reason, this ground also does not survive. 38. One other ground has been taken that chick FIR was received in the office of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned on 16.03.1983, this fact has been stated by Sadashiv Yadav D.W.1. In the present case accused were arrested on 09.03.1983 at 6.30 AM at Hardoi and on the same day they were produced before the Magistrate concerned with the copy of chick FIR and the copy of the report of the general diary about the registration of the case crime no. 40 of 1983. This fact shows that late receiving of chick FIR on 16.03.1983 bears no significance, the Investigating Officer had produced the copy of chick FIR before the Magistrate on 09.03.1983. 39. 40 of 1983. This fact shows that late receiving of chick FIR on 16.03.1983 bears no significance, the Investigating Officer had produced the copy of chick FIR before the Magistrate on 09.03.1983. 39. In view of above, we find that on the basis of evidence of Shri Krishan P.W.1 and Girdhar Singh P.W.3 that the FIR was not ante timed and it was promptly lodged. 40. Contradiction between medical evidence and ocular version has been made a ground to challenge the correctness of the impugned judgment, however, the contradiction indicated by the learned counsel for the surviving appellants relates to the opinion of the Doctor and not to the facts stated by him. The Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that ocular version of the occurrence, if found reliable would have primacy on the opinion of the Doctor, since in the present case facts stated by the Doctor which he perceived during the postmortem examination are not in contradiction with the ocular version. We do not think that the contradictions pointed by the learned counsel for the surviving appellants can be made a ground to discard the truthful account of the occurrence given by two eye witnesses. Before we leave this ground of attack we would like to quote the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Singh v. State of U.P. [2008 (3) JIC 520 (SC) : 2009 (64) ACC 576 (SC)]. In para-41 of the report the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the following observation: "41. It is trite that where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eyewitnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts, the "credit" of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation etc. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts, the "credit" of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation." 41. Sada Shiv Yadav D.W.1 is a witness that chick FIR reached the office of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 16.03.1983. His evidence has been already taken into consideration. HC 17 Yadu Nath Shukla D.W.2 and HC 40 Durga Prasad Pandey have been examined to show that deceased Radhey Shyam and Shri Krishna P.W.1 had criminal cases registered against them. During cross-examination it has come out that one case was not investigated and in other final report was submitted. Thus, defence evidence does not help cause of the surviving appellants. 42. No other argument has been advanced on behalf of the surviving appellants. The arguments advanced in support of the appeal have been found to be devoid of merit. They have no substance. Consequently the grounds taken in the appeal are also not substantiated from the record, therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed. We affirm the findings recorded by the learned trial judge and also conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants. 43. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. All the appellants, namely, Sureshpal Singh, Nareshpal Singh, Ram Babu and Jageshwar are on bail. They are directed to surrender their bail before the Sessions Judge, Hardoi, who shall take them into custody and send them to jail to serve their sentences. In case, surviving appellants do not surrender within the stipulated time, the Sessions Judge, Hardoi, shall take appropriate steps to procure their attendance so that they will serve the sentences awarded to them. Office is directed to certify this order to the court concerned forthwith for compliance and to send back the lower court record. Appeal Dismissed.