Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1423 (ALL)

HASRAT ALI v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-05-30

OM PRAKASH VII

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants Hasarat Ali, Asafaq Ali alias Chand Munna, Khalik and Shaukat Ali against the judgement and order dated 28.9.1988 passed by Special Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1984 (State Versus Hasarat Ali and Others), Police Station Mughalsarai, District Varanasi convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, appellants were directed to undergo additional imprisonment. 2. In this appeal, out of four accused-appellants, accused-appellant no.1 Hasarat Ali was reported to have died pending appeal so appeal has been ordered to have abated in respect of appellant no.1 Hasarat Ali vide order dated 27.2.2017. Thus, the appeal is being decided against appellants no.2, 3 & 4 namely Asafaq Ali alias Chand Munna, Khalik and Shaukat Ali. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarized as under. 4. A report (Ex.Ka.-1) written by Jagdish Kumar on 14.9.1983 was lodged by Triloki Nath (P.W.1) at the police station concerned mentioning therein that on 14.9.1983 at about 10:00 A.M., soil was lying in front of the door of the informant, which was for the purpose of constructing bylane. When the informant (P.W.1) started throwing soil in the pond situated in front of his house, accused Asafaq Ali alias Chand Munna, whose house was also situated near the said pond, came with a spade in his hand and started removing the soil from that place. When the informant objected Asafaq Ali from doing so, an altercation and scuffling took place between them. In the meantime, the remaining accused persons namely, Hasarat Ali, Shaukat Ali and Khalik armed with lathis also arrived there. When Shankar Prasad, the father of the informant Triloki Nath (P.W.1) asked the accused Asafaq Ali not to remove the soil from there, he was assaulted by the accused Hasarat Ali with a lohaband lathi. Shankar Prasad after receiving head injury from that blow fell down on the ground, on which accused Asafaq Ali gave a spade blow on the head of Shankar Prasad. Khalik and Shaukat Ali also beat Shankar Prasad with lathis. On alarm being raised by the informant, Shiv Ram (P.W.2), Lallan, Jagdish and Shivdas and other villagers assembled at the place of occurrence. Khalik and Shaukat Ali also beat Shankar Prasad with lathis. On alarm being raised by the informant, Shiv Ram (P.W.2), Lallan, Jagdish and Shivdas and other villagers assembled at the place of occurrence. The assailants made their escape good from the spot. Shankar Prasad on account of these injuries became unconscious. Blood was oozing from the head. Shankar Prasad was taken to the concerned police station on a cot. Request was made for lodging the report and taking appropriate action. The written report is Ex. Ka.-1. On the basis of written report lodged by Triloki Nath (P.W.1), head constable Mukharam Yadav (P.W.4) registered the case at the police station concerned. 5. Injured Shankar Prasad was taken to Government Hospital, Mughalsarai for medical aid. Dr. V. S. Singh (P.W.3), posted as Medical Officer in Government Hospital, examined Shankar Prasad on 14.9.1983 at about 11:30 A.M. and found the following injuries on his body : 1. Lacerated wound on left side of head size 0.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x 1 cm. situated 8 cm. above the root of left ear. 2. Lacerated wound on left side of head size 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. situated 10 cm. above the root of left ear. 3. Incised wound on left side of head, margins are clean, elliptical cut ends of hair, size 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. x 0.3 cm. situated 9 cm. above the root of left year. 4. Contusion on medial side of right leg size 3 cm. x 1 cm. situated 3 cm. above the right ankle joint. 5. Contusion on right side of nose size 1 cm. x 1 cm. situated 2 cm. above root of nose. 6. Contusion on left side of nose size 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. situated 1.5 cm. below root of nose. 6. Doctor also opined that injury no.3 was caused by some sharp edged weapon while remaining injuries were caused by some blunt object. Injuries were fresh at the time of examination. The injury report is Ex.Ka.-2. 7. Since injured Shankar Prasad was a Railway employee, he was shifted to Railway Hospital, Mughalsarai from where he was referred to S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi. Since the condition of Shankar Prasad was serious and he was unconscious, therefore, he was referred to B.H.U. Hospital, where he took his last breathe on 17.9.1983. The injury report is Ex.Ka.-2. 7. Since injured Shankar Prasad was a Railway employee, he was shifted to Railway Hospital, Mughalsarai from where he was referred to S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi. Since the condition of Shankar Prasad was serious and he was unconscious, therefore, he was referred to B.H.U. Hospital, where he took his last breathe on 17.9.1983. S.I. Rajendra Prasad Pathak (P.W.7), who was posted as Sub Inspector at the police station concerned had prepared the inquest of the dead body of the deceased Shankar Prasad and sent the dead body through constables for postmortem examination. The case was converted under section 304 IPC. 8. Dr. C.B. Tripathi (P.W.6), posted as a Lecturer in the Department of Indian Institute of Medical Science, B.H.U., conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased Shankar Prasad on 18.9.1983 at about 3:45 P.M. and found the following ante-mortem injuries : 1. Four stitched wounds in an area of 3 cm. x 5 cm. over left side frontal region of head 6 cm. above eyebrow and 4 cm. Outer to mid-line. Individually length of each wound varying from 1 cm. to 3 cm. Long, on removing stitches, the wounds are lacerated. On reflection of scalp, there is contusion of scalp 17 cm. x 12 cm. over left side frontal temporal and parietal regions. Underneath left side frontal, temporal and parietal bones being depressed commuted fracture and radiating fissured fracture of temporal and parietal bones. 2. Abraded contusion ½ cm. over right of occipital region. 3. Contusion 1½ cm. x 1½ cm. over front of left side chest 8 cm. From mid-line and 8 cm. from below nipple. 4. Multiple contusions in an area of 17 cm. x 4 cm. Over outer aspect and back of left shoulder and upper half of left arm. 5. Contusion 4 cm. x 1½ cm. Over front of upper part of left forearm 2 cm. Below elbow joint. 6. Contusion 3 cm. x 2 cm. Over front of right elbow joint. 9. P.W.6 Dr. C.B. Tripathi opined that cause of death was coma as a result of head injury and intervenial haemorrhage. He further stated that injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient to cause death. Postmortem examination report is Ex.Ka.-6. 10. Initially, the case was investigated by S.I. Altaf Hussain (P.W.9) and later on investigation was handed over to S.I. Kameshwar Chaube (P.W.8). He further stated that injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient to cause death. Postmortem examination report is Ex.Ka.-6. 10. Initially, the case was investigated by S.I. Altaf Hussain (P.W.9) and later on investigation was handed over to S.I. Kameshwar Chaube (P.W.8). The investigating officer, after fulfilling the entire formalities and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet under sections 323, 324, 304 IPC against the accused persons. 11. Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate concerned and case was committed to the Court of Session being exclusively triable by it. 12. Accused persons appeared before the court and charges for the offence under sections 323 read with 34 IPC and sections 304 read with 34 IPC were framed against all accused persons. Accused Hasarat Ali (since deceased), Khalik and Shaukat Ali were further charged under sections 324 read with 34 IPC. Accused Asafaq Ali was also charged under sections 324 IPC. All the persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried. 13. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. P.W.1 Triloki Nath is the informant of the case, P.W.2 Shiv Ram, who had witnessed the incident, P.W.3 Dr. V.S. Singh, is the then medical officer, who had examined the injuries of the deceased, P.W.4 Mukharam Yadav is the then head constable posted at police station concerned, who had prepared the chik report on the basis of written report and made G.D. Entry, P.W.5 Dr. Sidha Gopal is the then Surgeon who had admitted the injured in the S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi for treatment, P.W.6 Dr. C.B. Tripathi, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, P.W. 7 Rajesh Prasad Pathak is the then S.I. who had prepared the inquest of the dead body and sent it to B.H.U. Hospital through constables for postmortem examination, P.W. 8 Kameshwar Chaube and P.W.9 Altaf Hussain are the S.I.s who had investigated the case. 14. After closing of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they denied the prosecution allegations levelled against them and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case on account of animosity. Accused also denied their presence in the village at the time of incident. 15. 14. After closing of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they denied the prosecution allegations levelled against them and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case on account of animosity. Accused also denied their presence in the village at the time of incident. 15. Trial court after hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as has already been mentioned above, hence, this appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and order. 16. I have heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Samit Gopal, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R.D. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State. 17. Assailing the findings of learned Trial Court, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence. Trial court, misinterpreting the prosecution evidence, illegally convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence under section 304 IPC. Motive to commit the offence is also not established nor it is clear from the first information report. There was no previous enmity nor any occasion to cause injuries to the deceased by the appellants. Appellants were falsely implicated in this case. Incident took place in otherwise manner at some other place, but the prosecution, suppressing the material facts, falsely implicated the appellants in this matter. Referring to the injury-sheet, it was further submitted that appellant no.2 Asafaq Ali alias Chand Munna was assi ned spade (phawada), which is used for the purpose of digging. Injuries said to have been caused by spade cannot occur with it. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the incised wound found on the body of the deceased and specifically argued that this injury could not be caused with spade. It was further submitted that appellant no.2 Asafaq Ali alias Chand Munna was not present on the spot. He was on duty, as is clear from the defence evidence. Trial court has wrongly appreciated the defence evidence. Appellants no. 3 and 4 namely, Khalik and Shaukat Ali, at the most, may be convicted for the offence under section 323 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to the opinion expressed by the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, and submitted that cause of death of the deceased was the result of head injury. Appellants no. 3 and 4 namely, Khalik and Shaukat Ali, at the most, may be convicted for the offence under section 323 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to the opinion expressed by the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, and submitted that cause of death of the deceased was the result of head injury. Injuries caused by these two appellants were not on the head of the deceased. Since incident took place all of a sudden, there was no prior meeting of minds nor any attending circumstances were there on the spot of such nature which lead to the conclusion that there was common intention of the appellants to commit the offence. Hence, appellants no. 2 & 3 could not be convicted taking recourse to the provisions of section 34 IPC. It was further argued that initially scuffle between P.W.1 Triloki and appellant no.2 Asafaq Ali started. Other appellants had come after scuffle. It was submitted that prosecution was not able to prove the date, time and place of occurrence. Prosecution case is also not supported by medical evidence or any independent evidence. P.W.1 Triloki and P.W.2 Shiv Ram both are the interested witnesses. Investigation was also not done impartially. There are major contradictions in the statement of witnesses on material point, which are fatal to the prosecution case. Thus, prayer was made to admit and allow the appeal. 18. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State argued that prosecution case is supported by medical evidence. Place of occurrence is the courtyard of P.W.1 and the deceased. Hence, P.W.1 is the natural witness. P.W.2 is also the neighbour, hence presence of this witness at the spot at the time of occurrence cannot be disbelieved. Besides this, it was further argued that P.W.2 Shiv Ram is an independent witness. Deceased died during treatment due to injuries sustained by him in the said incident. Injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused with the weapons assigned to the appellants. Minor contradictions on point of place of occurrence have come in the prosecution evidence due to unfair investigation by the first investigating officer. Since first investigating officer was not investigating the matter fairly, therefore, investigation was handed over to other investigating officer. It was further submitted that deceased died during treatment. Prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Since first investigating officer was not investigating the matter fairly, therefore, investigation was handed over to other investigating officer. It was further submitted that deceased died during treatment. Prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment of the trial court. 19. I have considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. 20. In this matter, as is evidence from the record that offence is said to have been committed on 14.9.1983 at about 10:00 A.M. First information report was lodged on the same day at 11:00 A.M. Deceased Shankar Prasad was initially admitted in District Hospital, Mughalsarai and then he was shifted to Railway Hospital. Again deceased was taken to S.S.P.G. Hospital, Kabir Chaura, Varanasi and from there he was referred to S.S.L. Hospital, B.H.U., Varanasi, where he took his last breathe on 17.9.1983 during treatment. Prosecution case is that deceased was unconscious from the very beginning. First investigating officer has stated that he recorded the statement of the deceased in S.S.P.G. Hospital, Kabir Chaura, Varanasi. Appellant Hasarat Ali (since deceased) was assigned with lohbanda, appellant Asafaq Ali was assigned with spade and appellants Khalik and Shaukat Ali were assigned with lathis in their hands. One injury, out of total number of injuries found on the body of the deceased at the time of preparing the injury report, was found in the form of incised wound on the head of the deceased. As per opinion of the doctor, it could be caused by sharp edged weapon. Death of the deceased was a result of head injury, which are three in numbers including an incised wound. Trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants taking recourse to the provisions of section 304 IPC read with section 34 IPC. 21. Trial court was also of the view that place of occurrence is the place which the prosecution has described in the first information report and in the statement made by the witnesses. Place of occurrence shifted during the course of investigation by the first investigating officer was not found correct. Trial court also did not believe the plea of alibi taken by appellant Hasarat Ali (since deceased) and appellant Asafaq Ali. Origin and genesis of the incident narrated by the prosecution was also found correct. Place of occurrence shifted during the course of investigation by the first investigating officer was not found correct. Trial court also did not believe the plea of alibi taken by appellant Hasarat Ali (since deceased) and appellant Asafaq Ali. Origin and genesis of the incident narrated by the prosecution was also found correct. Trial court also believed the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the ground that they were eyewitness account and there was no animosity against them to falsely implicate the appellants. They were also not found interested / partisan witnesses. Thus, in the above background, submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties have to be analyzed in the light of evidence available on record. 22. First information report was lodged on the very same day after a gap of about one hour from the incident, distance between the police station and place of occurrence is only 2 kilometers, initially the first information report was lodged under section 323, 324 IPC and it was converted into offence under section 304 IPC during investigation. Thus, there is no need to discuss on point of lodging of the first information report because it was lodged promptly within one hour of the incident. 23. As far as the injuries found on the body of the deceased are concerned, it is clear that incised wound was of the size of 1 cm. X 0.5 cm. X 0.3 cm. Other injuries in the form of contusions were of different sizes. So far as the presence of P.W.1 Triloki Nath is concerned, prosecution case is that this witness was removing the soil kept by the Nagar Palika in the lane. Appellant Asafaq Ali objected him. Thereafter, scuffle started between them and then appellants Hasarat Ali (since deceased), Shaukat Ali and Khalik came there with the respective weapons assigned to them. No injury was received by Triloki Nath (P.W.1) in the said incident. As per this witness, first injury was caused to the deceased by appellant Hasarat Ali (since deceased) and due to that injury, deceased fell down on the ground and thereafter appellants Asafaq Ali caused injury to the deceased on his head with spade. Other appellants Khalik and Shaukat Ali caused injuries to the deceased with lathis. P.W.2 Shiv Ram also reached on the spot hearing the shrieks and saw the incident. Other appellants Khalik and Shaukat Ali caused injuries to the deceased with lathis. P.W.2 Shiv Ram also reached on the spot hearing the shrieks and saw the incident. He also described the same role of the appellants as has been described by P.W. 1 Triloki Nath. Since genesis and origin of the incident started with scuffle between P.W.1 Triloki and appellant Asafaq Ali and there is no strong reason exists to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on this point, thus the presence of P.W.1 Triloki Nath and P.W.2 Shiv Ram on the spot at the time of incident cannot be doubted. Presence of P.W.1 can also not be doubted on the ground that he had not received injuries. It is the case of the prosecution from the very inception that appellants caused injuries to the deceased. No injury was received by P.W.1 Triloki Nath in the said scuffle. Although P.W.1 is the son of deceased, but on the ground of interested witnesses, in the facts and circumstances of the case, testimony of this witness cannot be disbelieved. P.W.1 and P.W.2 both also cannot be termed to be the partisan witnesses because there was no any previous enmity. Both the witnesses can also be not termed to be the partisan witnesses because their objective was not only to obtain conviction of the appellants, but they were eye account witnesses and had seen the occurrence. What facts have been narrated by them before the court during trial were the facts happened at the place of occurrence. Only requirement under law is that testimony of such witnesses shall be scrutinized carefully. Findings recorded by the trial court on the point of presence of P.W.1 Triloki Nath and P.W.2 Sri Ram at the time of incident are not liable to be interfered with. 24. Since deceased died during treatment on 17.9.1983 at Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, B.H.U. and cause of death was head injury, hence Court proceeds to analyze the role of the appellants, who were responsible to cause the injuries found on the body of the deceased. 25. As has been discussed here-in-above, appellant Hasarat Ali (since deceased) was assigned with lohbanda (iron bound cudgel), which can inflict injuries. 25. As has been discussed here-in-above, appellant Hasarat Ali (since deceased) was assigned with lohbanda (iron bound cudgel), which can inflict injuries. If any injury is caused by lohbanda on the head of any person, it might be possible that injury caused on the head of the person may be contusion or of incised in nature. It is clear from the prosecution evidence that appellant Hasarat Ali (since deceased) was assigned with lohbanda. He caused injury on the head of the deceased. Thus, role assigned to the appellant Asafaq Ali is to be scrutinized in the light of role assigned to the appellant Hasarat Ali (since deceased) comparing the injuries found on the head of the deceased. It is made clear here that doctor conducting the postmortem has clearly stated that incised wound could only be caused by sharp edged weapon. Here it is made clear that incised wound found on the head of the deceased was in size of 1 cm. x 0.5. cm. x 0.3 cm. Spade assigned to the appellant Asafaq Ali is normally used as digging tool. It is used to dig or loosen ground, or to break up lumps in the soil. Certainly, in any case, breadth of the blade of spade would be more than four inches i.e. 10 cms. If injury was caused with this tool, then in no case injury would be in the size of only in 1 cm. X 0.5 cm. Injury no. 3 i.e. incised wound is not in triangular shape. Prosecution case is also not that injury was caused from the edge (corner) of the spade. Only one injury is said to be caused by the appellant Asafaq Ali with the tool spade. If the finding recorded by the trial court about the involvement of appellant Asafaq Ali in causing the incised wound on the head of the deceased is minutely analyzed, as discussed above, with the evidence available on record, the finding recorded by the trial court is not correct. In the opinion of the Court, incised wound was not caused by appellant Asafaq Ali. It is also made clear that if the plea of alibi taken by the appellant Asafaq Ali is also not taken into consideration or is taken as not proved, then also involvement of the appellant Asafaq Ali in this case regarding inflicting of injuries on the head of the deceased is doubtful. It is also made clear that if the plea of alibi taken by the appellant Asafaq Ali is also not taken into consideration or is taken as not proved, then also involvement of the appellant Asafaq Ali in this case regarding inflicting of injuries on the head of the deceased is doubtful. Injuries found on other part of the body of the deceased were also not caused by appellant Asafaq Ali. 26. As far as the role assigned to the appellants Khalik and Shaukat Ali is concerned, first blow on the head of the deceased was caused by appellant Hasarat Ali (since deceased), who was assigned with lohbanda, which is a lathi covered by iron rings. Incised wound or other injuries found on the body of the deceased may occur with lohbanda depending the shape and size of lohbanda. Prosecution case is also that appellants Khalik and Shaukat Ali caused injuries to the deceased when he fell down on the earth. Injuries found on other parts of the body of the deceased were simple in nature. No injury is said to be caused by appellants Khalik and Shaukat Ali on the head of the deceased. Hence, findings recorded by the trial court regarding involvement of Khalik and Shaukat Ali committing the offence under section 304/34 IPC is also not found correct. Scuffle between appellant Asafaq Ali and P.W.1 Triloki started instantaneously. Appellants Khalik and Shaukat Ali were not present on the spot at that time. They reached there later on. No premeditated talks were made between the accused persons who came on the spot nor there is any evidence that there was common intention of all the accused to cause the death of the deceased Shankar Prasad nor the attending circumstances emerged on the spot reveal this fact. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, death of the deceased Shankar Prasad was the result of injuries caused on his head. Injuries caused by the appellants Shaukat Ali and Khalik were simple in nature and were not intended to cause death of the deceased nor there was any knowledge / intention on the part of the appellants Shaukat Ali and Khalik to cause such injuries, which were likely to cause death of the deceased. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, trial court has illegally convicted and sentenced the appellants Shaukat Ali and Khalik for the offence under section 304/34 IPC. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, trial court has illegally convicted and sentenced the appellants Shaukat Ali and Khalik for the offence under section 304/34 IPC. At the most, they can be convicted only for the offence under section 323/34 IPC. 27. Thus, on the basis of above discussions, appeal having some merit is liable to be partly allowed. 28. Since appellant Asafaq Ali is not found guilty for the offence under section 304/34 IPC, no injury was found to have been caused by him on the head of the deceased Shankar Prasad, hence appeal in respect of appellant Asafaq Ali is liable to be allowed as his involvement in the present matter is doubtful, thus he is liable to be acquitted for the offence under section 304/34 IPC. 29. As far as appellants Khalik and Shaukat Ali are concerned, they are also not found guilty for committing the offence under sections 304/34 IPC for the reasons discussed here-in-above. Thus, appeal in their respect is also liable to be allowed in part. They are also entitled to be acquitted for the charge under sections 304/34 IPC, but they are found guilty for committing the offence under sections 323/34 IPC. 30. It is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. 31. Since incident is said to have taken on 14.9.1983, appeal is pending since 1988, appellants Shaukat Ali and Khalik have served out some time in jail in this matter during trial and till granting of the bail in the appeal, thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the role assigned to them, this Court is of the opinion that if the appellants Shaukat Ali and Khalik are sentenced for the imprisonment already undergone by them, the purpose of imposing proper and adequate sentence to these appellants would subserve and would also meet the ends of justice. 32. Resultantly, the Appeal is allowed in part. 33. 32. Resultantly, the Appeal is allowed in part. 33. Conviction and sentence of the appellants Asafaq Ali, Khalik and Shaukat Ali through impugned judgement and order dated 28.9.1988 passed by Special Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1984 (State Versus Hasarat Ali and Others) under section 304/34 IPC are hereby set aside. Appellants Asafaq Ali, Khalik and Shaukat Ali are acquitted of the charges under section 304/34 IPC. 34. Since accused-appellants Khalik and Shaukat Ali are found guilty for committing the offence under sections 323/34 IPC, they are convicted / punished for the offence under section 323/34 IPC. However, looking to the fact that appellants Khalik and Shaukat Ali have already served out some time in jail in this matter during trial and during pendency of appeal, they are punished under sections 323/34 IPC for the period already undergone by them in this matter. 35. Appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 36. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court record be sent to the court concerned for compliance.