Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 58 (RAJ)

Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-08

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, P.K.LOHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant cr. appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the appellants against the judgment dated 27.6.2011 passed in Sessions Case NO. 48/2010 (30/2007) by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu whereby all the accused appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 302/34, 323/34 and 341 IPC and following punishments were awarded to them, which reads as under: Offences Sentenced Fine In default Under Section 302/34 IPC Imprisonment of life Rs.5,000/- 6 month SI Under Section 323/34 IPC 6 months SI Rs. 500/- 15 days SI Under Section 341 IPC 1 month SI Rs.250/- 7 days SI 2. As per the brief facts of the case, a written report was submitted by the complainant PW-1 Dharmpal at Police Station Taranagar, District Churu, upon which FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered on 28.8.2007 at 5.15 pm. In the complaint it was alleged that on 24.8.2007 at 11.00 pm when complainant PW-1 Dharmpal was sleeping in his house, he heard noise of shouting from the house of Ramswroop. The complainant PW-1 Dharmpal went on spot and saw that accused appellants Ram Chandra, Shubhash, Balbeer and Satbeer were causing injuries by Kassi and Lathi to the deceased Ramswaroop and it was specifically mentioned in the complaint that Ram Chandra and Subhash were having Lathis in their hands and Satbeer and Balbeer were having Kassi in their hands and they were repeatedly causing injuries to the deceased Ram Swaroop. It is also stated in the FIR that Amar Singh and Narendra Singh also came on spot and they tried to intervened. Upon intervention, the accused persons caused number of injuries to the complainant PW-1 Dharmpal and went towards their house and thereafter, injured Ramswaroop was taken to the Hisar Hospital for treatment, therefore, FIR was filed after delay of 4 days. 3. On the basis of above report, the SHO, Police Station Taranagar, District Churu registered FIR no.180/2007 for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 307/34 IPC and commenced investigation. 4. During the course of investigation, the police inspected the site and prepared site inspection map (Ex.P/3) and site inspection memo (Ex.P/3A). The injured Ramswaroop was got medically examined by medical officer at Hisar and prepared the injury reports Ex.P/9. The investigating agency also obtained injury/X-ray reports but during the course of treatment, Ramswaroop expired on 29.8.2007. 4. During the course of investigation, the police inspected the site and prepared site inspection map (Ex.P/3) and site inspection memo (Ex.P/3A). The injured Ramswaroop was got medically examined by medical officer at Hisar and prepared the injury reports Ex.P/9. The investigating agency also obtained injury/X-ray reports but during the course of treatment, Ramswaroop expired on 29.8.2007. Thereafter, his body was taken to the Government Hospital at Taranagar, District Churu where the post mortem was conducted and medical jurist give its post mortem report Ex.P/29 on 29.8.2007 and gave to the investigation officer. 5. In the investigation statements of witnesses were recorded and weapons were recovered upon information given by the accused appellants, therefore, the challan was filed against Ram Chandra, Satbeer and Balbeer in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar under Section 325/34, 341 and 302 IP d 302 IPC. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar committed the case for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu but it was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu under the orders of the learned Sessions Judge for trial. 7. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu after hearing parties framed charge against the accused appellants for offence under Section 302/34, 341 and 323/34 IPC. The accused appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial. 8. In the trial, statements of 9 prosecution witnesses were recorded including injured eye witnesses PW-1 Dharmpal, PW-3 Amar Singh, PW-8 Nirmla w/o deceased Ramswaroop, so also, the statements of PW-2 Sharwan Kumar, driver of the vehicle by which the injured Ramswaroop was taken to the hospital at Hisar, PW-4 Dr. Vijay Kumar who examined the injured eye witness Dharmpal and gave injury report, PW-9 Dr. Jai Narayan Khatri. In support of the prosecution case, 29 documents were exhibited. After recording statement of prosecution statements, the learned trial court recorded statements of accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which all the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses were denied by the accused appellants and in spite of granting them opportunity to lead evidence in their defence, no evidence was produced by them in defence. However, it is stated in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that no recovery was made from them and they are implicated falsely in this case. 9. However, it is stated in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that no recovery was made from them and they are implicated falsely in this case. 9. The learned trial court heard the final arguments of the case and vide judgment dated 27.6.2011 convicted all the three accused appellants for alleged offence under Section 302/34, 323/34 and 341 IPC and passed the sentence mentioned above. 10. In this appeal, appellants the appellants are challenging the validity of the judgment on various grounds. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for offence under Section 302/34 IPC because admittedly, the incident took place on 24.8.2007 whereas the written report was submitted by the injured PW-1 Dharmpalon 28.8.2007 at about 5.15 pm at Police Station Taranagar in which allegations were levelled against the appellants and one Subhash for inflicting injuries by sharp edged weapon and blunt weapon which is Kassi and Lathi by the four persons including accused appellants and one more person Subhash but after investigation the police filed challan against the accused appellants Ram Chandra, Balbeer and Satbeer. Meaning thereby, in the investigation, the investigating officer find that case against Subhash is false. It is also submitted that there is no reasonable explanation for filing FIR after delay of four days. The only assertion is made in the written complaint that injured was taken to the hospital immediately at Hisar, therefore, FIR was not filed immediately, but this argument is not acceptable because soon after the occurrence if severe beating is given then obviously, a prudent man first give report to the concerned Police Station for taking action against culprits but in this case, not only the deceased received injuries but complainant himself received number of injuries but incident was not reported to the Police Station immediately. Therefore, the finding given by the learned trial court to hold accused appellants guilty on the basis of false and fabricated story deserves to be quashed. 12. Therefore, the finding given by the learned trial court to hold accused appellants guilty on the basis of false and fabricated story deserves to be quashed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that all the eye witnesses complainant PW-1 Dharmpal, PW-3 Amar Singh and PW-8 Nirmla stated in their statements that all the accused appellants inflicted number of injuries to the deceased, but this fact is not corroborated by the medical evidence because in the post mortem report (Ex.P/29) only two injuries were found upon the body of the deceased, out of which, one was contusion, therefore, on this count also, it is obvious that totally false and fabricated case was registered by the police upon false complaint made by the complainant PW-1 Dharmpal. According to the learned counsel for the appellants it is the duty of the prosecution to come out with clean hands and laid trustworthy evidence before the court for conviction but there is no corroboration of the allegation of inflicting number of injuries as per the post mortem report (Ex.P/29). Therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 13. While inviting attention towards the cross-examination of the investigating officer PW-7 Sanjay Sharma it is submitted that in the cross-examination the investigating officer admitted that before filing written complaint (Ex.P/1) on 28.9.2007 no oral or written information was given to the Police Station by the complainant party nor any blood was found upon the weapon recovered as per the information given by the accused appellants, so also, at the time of site inspection no symptoms were found with regard to any incident upon the place of occurrence. Meaning thereby, it is a case in which the complainant party put false story so as to involve the accused appellants in the alleged crime. Therefore, the judgment impugned passed by the learned trial court is based on erroneous findings deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that even if the statement of complainant PW-1 Dharmpal, author of the FIR is accepted, then also, it is not a case for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. More so, offence cannot travel beyond Section 325/34 IPC. Therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 15. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that even if the statement of complainant PW-1 Dharmpal, author of the FIR is accepted, then also, it is not a case for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. More so, offence cannot travel beyond Section 325/34 IPC. Therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 15. Alternatively, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that even if the whole evidence with regard to incident is accepted on the basis of testimony of eye witnesses then also, it is not a case for offence under Section 302/34 IPC because as per the prosecution case, incident took place on 24.9.2007 at Taranagar and injured Ram Swarooop was not immediately brought to the hospital at Taranagar on the contrary taken to the Hospital at Hisar in the State of Haryana where he died after 5 days on 29.9.2007, therefore, the conviction of appellants for offence under Section 302/34 IPC may kindly be quashed and it may be altered appropriately. 16. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant argued that it is a case in which injuries were inflicted by sharp edged and blunt weapon upon the head of the deceased which is evident from the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report (Ex.P/29) duly proved by the medical jurist PW-9 Dr. Jai Narayan Khatri and as per opinion of the doctor, the deceased died due to the head injury, therefore, the finding given by the learned trial court to hold accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302/34 IPC does not require any interference. 17. Jai Narayan Khatri and as per opinion of the doctor, the deceased died due to the head injury, therefore, the finding given by the learned trial court to hold accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302/34 IPC does not require any interference. 17. With regard to ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellants that no reasonable explanation has bee given for delay in filing FIR after four days, it is submitted that after the incident when condition of the deceased became serious, then obviously it was felt necessary by the complainant party and his family members to take the injured first to the hospital in which appropriate medical assistance can be provided, therefore, first of all, the injured Ramswaroop was taken to the hospital at Hisar without filing any FIR immediately and during treatment written complaint was filed by complainant PW-1 Dharmpal, so also, Dharmpal himself was examined by the medical jurist on 28.8.2009 at Taranagar Government Hospital in which number of injuries were found upon the body of the complainant PW-1 Dharmpal, therefore, delay in filing the FIR is not fatal, so also, all the eye witnesses complainant PW-1 Dharmpal, PW-3 Amar Singh and PW- 8 Nirmla categorically stated before the court that appellants gave severe beatings to the deceased as well as to the complainant, due to those injuries caused by weapon Kassi and Lathi, the deceased became unconscious on spot, thereafter, he was taken to the hospital at Hisar by Deep Chand, Indraj and Sharwan. Therefore, the instant appeal filed by the appellants may be dismissed. 18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties in the light of the finding given by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence on record. PW-1 Dharmpal is injured eye witness categorically stated in his statement that on the date of incident when he was in his home, heard noise of violence from the house of the deceased Ramswaroop where he immediately went and saw that four persons Ram Chandra, Satbeer, Balbeer and Subhash were causing injuries. He has specifically stated that accused appellants were having Kassi and Lathis in their hands. He has specifically stated that accused appellants were having Kassi and Lathis in their hands. At that time, he intervened, but he was also given beatings by Balbeer, Subhash and Ram Chandra, at that time, three persons Amar Singh, Deepa Ram and Narendra Kumar came on spot and all the accused appellants left the place of occurrence. The injured Ramswarooop was taken to the hospital at Hisar. It is further stated that injuries was caused upon the head of Ramswaroop, but he has no knowledge who has inflicted the injury upon the head of deceased Ramswaroop, but stated that Ramswroop was admitted to the Private Hospital at Hisar, at that time, he was unconscious and his condition was deteriorating, therefore, the written report (Ex.P/1) was submitted by him on 28.8.2007 to the Police Station, Taranagar. 19. The same statement is given by PW-3 Amar Singh and supported the statement of complainant PW-1 Dharmpal. Similarly, PW-8 Nirmla wife of the deceased stated before the court that in her presence, appellants caused injuries to her husband Ramswaroop and due to those injuries he became unconscious therefore, he was taken to the Jindal Hospital, Hisar in the vehicle of PW-2 Sharawan (driver). PW-2 Sharwan also corroborated the fact that he took Ramswaroop to the hospital on the relevant date for treatment to the Jindal Hospital, Hisar. 20. We have perused the statements of PW-2 Sharwan in which the said witness stated that my vehicle jeep was hired by one Deepa Ram, brother of the deceased, while saying that my brother's condition is very serious, therefore, he may be taken to the Jindal Hospital, Hisar in your vehicle and in the night I took Ramswaroop injured to the Jindal Hospital, Hissar. Meaning thereby, upon assessment of the entire evidence it is established that on 24.8.2007 incident took place near the house of the deceased in which injuries were caused by the appellants to the deceased as well as to the injured eye witness PW-1 Dharmpal. 21. It is also admitted position of the case that FIR was filed after delay of 4 days and no blood was found upon the weapon recovered upon information given by the accused appellants, so also it is not established by the prosecution evidence that who was the author of head injury to the deceased. 21. It is also admitted position of the case that FIR was filed after delay of 4 days and no blood was found upon the weapon recovered upon information given by the accused appellants, so also it is not established by the prosecution evidence that who was the author of head injury to the deceased. Further, all the eye witnesses stated that number of injuries were inflicted to the deceased by the appellants, but this allegation is not corroborated by the trustworthy evidence because upon perusal of the post mortem report only two injuries were found upon the body of the deceased, out of which, one was contusion and other was stitching wound of 25 cm and cause of death was head injury which is caused by sharp edge weapon. 22. In view of the fact that only one injury was found upon the head of the deceased and allegation of prosecution is against 3 persons, therefore, obviously, prosecution has failed to establish that all the appellants inflicted injuries to the deceased. However, upon perusal of injury report of injured eye witness PW-1 Dharmpal we find that there were 5 injuries upon his body caused by blunt weapon. The said injuries were received by him upon intervention. 23. In view of the fact that there is no evidence of motive and only one injury was found upon the head of the deceased, which is cause of death after five days of the incident, therefore, obviously, the finding of the learned trial court to held accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302/34 IPC is not sustainable in law. 24. We have considered the entire evidence in the light of alternate argument made by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder even if the prosecution evidence is accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dayanand v. State of Haryana reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 2975 considering the identical issue that in absence of motive or intention and upon the fact that there was no repeated blow upon the vital part of the body, made following adjudication which reads as under:- "10. The crucial question is as to which was the appropriate provision to be applied. In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. The crucial question is as to which was the appropriate provision to be applied. In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, 'culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304. 11. The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences. Section 299 Section 300 A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which the death is caused is done Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done - Intention (a) with the intention of causing (1) with the intention of death; or causing death; or (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or (2) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; or - (3) With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or Knowledge (c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. (4) with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above. 12. Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or condition. It is noteworthy that the 'intention to cause death' is not an essential requirement of clause (2). Only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. This aspect of clause (2) is borne out by illustration (b) appended to Section 300. Only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. This aspect of clause (2) is borne out by illustration (b) appended to Section 300. 13. Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge on the part of the offender. Instances of cases falling under clause (2) of Section 300 can be where the assailant causes death by a fist blow intentionally given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause death of that particular person as a result of the rupture of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart, as the case may be. If the assailant had no such knowledge about the disease or special frailty of the victim, nor an intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence will not be murder, even if the injury which caused the death, was intentionally given. In clause (3) of Section 300, instead of the words 'likely to cause death' occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of Section 299, the words "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" have been used. Obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but real and if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The difference between clause (b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word 'likely' in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily injury.......sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature." 25. The word 'likely' in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily injury.......sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature." 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Sarkar v. State of Tripura (Cr. Appeal No. 1247/2015) decided on 23.9.2015 held that PW-2 Anil Das also does not state about more than one blow given by the appellant on the head of the deceased with wooden file. The injury on the dorsum of the left wrist joint could have been caused when the injured fell down on the ground. The paras nos.10 to 12 of the judgment in the case of Ranjit Sarkar are as follows: "10. We have carefully gone through the statement of PW-15 Dr. Ranjit Kumar Das, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Anil Das on 18.6.2007 .6.2007. In fact, first four ante mortem injuries mentioned by the Medical Officer relate to single injury. The first one is stitched wound. The second is haematoma on the deeper layer of scalp over right parietal region. The third injury also relates to the same as it discloses fracture on the depressed bone of the head on anterior part of right parietal bone. The fourth ante mortem injury also relates to above three injuries, which discloses subdural haemorrhage present over cerebral hemispheres. The only ante mortem injury No. 5 is actually the second injury which is an abrasion measuring 3cm x 2cm over the dorsum of left wrist joint. 11. PW-2 Anil Das also does not state about more than one blow given by the appellant on the head of the deceased with wooden file. The injury on the dorsum of left wrist joint could have been caused when the injured fell down on the ground. As such, in substance the evidence on record suggests only one blow given by the appellant on the head of the deceased which appears to have been given with full force. 12. In the above facts and circumstances, having re-assessed the depositions of witnesses and other evidence on record, we are of considered opinion that the act on the part of the appellant is covered by Part I of Section 304 IPC. 12. In the above facts and circumstances, having re-assessed the depositions of witnesses and other evidence on record, we are of considered opinion that the act on the part of the appellant is covered by Part I of Section 304 IPC. Therefore, we set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. Instead, the appellant Ranjit Sarkar is convicted under Section 304 Part I, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. With this modification in the conviction and sentence, the appeal stands disposed of." 26. In the present case, as per the statements of all the eye witness PW-1 Dharmpal, PW-3 Amar Singh and PW8 Nirmla number of injuries were caused by the accused appellants to the deceased, whereas the medical evidence is not supporting the allegation of eye witnesses because only two injuries were found upon the body of the deceased, one being contusion and second being stitched wound and the cause of death was found to be head injury. In the light of the above verdicts given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have examined the entire evidence of the instant case. 27. It is obvious from the evidence that there is no specific evidence on record of motive. None of the witnesses specifically said or prosecution has led any evidence to establish motive/intention. Further, it is admitted position of the case that deceased Ramswaroop died after 4 days, so also, he was not brought to the Hospital at Taranagar for immediate treatment. Meaning thereby, the injuries which are alleged to be sustained to the deceased Ramswaroop were not so serious to cause death immediately. All these facts clearly speaks that it is a case in which prosecution has failed to establish motive. As per the statement of eye witness PW-1 Dharmpal, PW-3 Amar Singh and PW-8 Nirmla, all the three accused appellants along with Subhash inflicted number of injuries to the deceased, but this fact is not corroborated by the medical evidence which is post mortem report (Ex.P/29) and injury report (Ex.P/28) of the injured eye witness PW-1 Dharmpal. 28. The Dr. As per the statement of eye witness PW-1 Dharmpal, PW-3 Amar Singh and PW-8 Nirmla, all the three accused appellants along with Subhash inflicted number of injuries to the deceased, but this fact is not corroborated by the medical evidence which is post mortem report (Ex.P/29) and injury report (Ex.P/28) of the injured eye witness PW-1 Dharmpal. 28. The Dr. Jai Narayan Khatri (PW-9) stated before the court that 9 injuries were found upon the body of the injured eye witness, out of which 7 injuries were abrasions and two injuries were incised wound and upon the body of the deceased Ramswaroop only two injuries were found. Meaning thereby, it is a case in which motive is absent, FIR was also filed after delay of 4 days, therefore, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case for offence under Section 302 IPC because allegation are based upon omnibus statement. 29. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that conviction of the accused appellants under Section 302/34 IPC is not maintainable and it is fit case to alter the conviction of the accused appellants from the offence under Section 302/34 IPC to under Section 304 part II IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC while maintaining conviction of other offences under Section 323/34 and 341 IPC d 341 IPC. 30. Consequently, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. The conviction of the accused appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC is hereby altered to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and the accused appellants Ram Chandra and Balbeer are behind the bars since August, 2007 and accused Satbeer served sentence w.e.f. 31.8.2007 to 17.10.2011 against whom no specific allegation for causing particular injury is on record, therefore, the sentences of all the accused appellants are hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The accused appellant Satbeer is already on bail, therefore, his bail bonds are hereby discharged and the accused appellants Ram Chandra and Balbeer may be released forthwith if not needed in any case.