JUDGMENT : (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.) 1. Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for appellant Nawab Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1983, Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for appellant-Ram Chandra in Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 1983 and Sri Ajeet Ray, learned AGA for State. 2. Present appeals were filed in the year 1983 against the judgment and order dated 12.1.1983 and they have come up for hearing before us after the lapse of a period of about 35 years. 3. Four accused persons were originally tried by Sessions Court and were sentenced for life. During these 35 years of pendency of this appeal two died as narrated below. We are concerned with Nawab Singh and Ramchandra in these appeals. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1983 filed by appellant no. 2 Virendra Singh stands abated qua him, in view of order dated 19.08.2016 passed by this Court. Similarly, Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 1983 filed by appellant Pyare has already been abated vide order dated 08.03.2017 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court. 5. Both the aforementioned connected appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.1.1983 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bandaun in Sessions Trial No. 429 of 1982 (State vs. Nawab Singh and Others). Since both appeals have been heard together, we proceed to decide the same by this common judgment. 6. The surviving appellants two in number, were facing trial for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) before learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bandaun. Learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bandaun convicted all the accused and sentenced them for commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to life imprisonment. 7. The facts in brief of the present case are that accused persons Nawab Singh, Virendra Singh, Ram Chandra and Pyare were committed to the Court of Sessions, IInd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Badaun by order dated 6.9.1982 for their trial under Section 302 IPC. Charge against these accused persons was framed on 21.10.1982. 7. The facts in brief of the present case are that accused persons Nawab Singh, Virendra Singh, Ram Chandra and Pyare were committed to the Court of Sessions, IInd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Badaun by order dated 6.9.1982 for their trial under Section 302 IPC. Charge against these accused persons was framed on 21.10.1982. This charge recites that on or about 20th day of May, 1982 at about 7.00 p.m. at the field of Hirey, son of Chandey, resident of Village Khitaura, P.S. Qadarchowk, District Budaun two of them namely Nawab Singh and Ram Chandra fired from their country made pistols at the said Chandrapal Singh, caused gun shot injuries to him and Virendra Singh and Pyare caused injuries with Lathis and committed his murder and thereby they committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They have been tried accordingly in Sessions Trial. Accused Nawab Singh and Virendra Singh are real brothers being the sons of Bahadur Singh of Village Kachaura. They are 'Thakur' by caste. Accused Ram Chandra is Jatay by caste and is a resident of the said village. Accused Pyare is a resident of Sahawan town. He is son-in-law of Himmi Kumhar of village Kachaura. Deceased Chandrapal Singh was also Thakur by caste. Accused persons Ram Chandra and Pyare are said the persons and friends of Nawab Singh. 8. Prosecution story of the present case is that one Champa Kunwar was the widow of the elder brother of Kunswer Bahadur, the father of accused persons Nawab Singh and Virendra Singh. This widow had no issue and on her death, her entire agricultural land would have gone to Kunwhar Bahadur Singh by inheretance. Champa had executed a sale deed of her agricultural land in favour of Chandra Pal Singh prior to the incident and this was not liked by the accused Nawab Singh and others. Virendra Singh son of Kunwar Bahadur Singh had also filed a litigation in respect of the said sale deed. On account of the transfer of land by Champa in favour of the deceased Chandrapal Singh, accused persons had started having enmity with him. 9. Virendra Singh son of Kunwar Bahadur Singh had also filed a litigation in respect of the said sale deed. On account of the transfer of land by Champa in favour of the deceased Chandrapal Singh, accused persons had started having enmity with him. 9. The prosecution further unfurls the additional facts that on 20th May, 1982 deceased Chandrapal Singh his nephew Sureshpal Singh PW-1 Padam Singh and Ram Singh PW-2, were returning to their village Kachaura from the market of village Ramzanpur. When these persons reached near the field of one Shri Hirey of village Khitaulia on the way from Ramzanpur to Kachaura at about 7 p.m. the aforesaid accused persons emerged from the Sada Bahar existing in the north of the road. Nawab Singh and Ram Chandra had country made pistol and Pyare and Virendra Singh had lathis. Pyare and Virendra Singh started breating Chandrapal Singh with lathis. Other two accused persons namely Nawab Singh and Ram Chandra Singh fired at Chandrapal Singh. Chandrapal Singh fell down while running towards the field of Hirey he got injured and succumbed to the injuries. It further gets revealed that Surendra Singh PW-1 remained with the dead body. Two persons Padam Singh and Ram Singh went away to the village to inform about the incident. Some persons of village along with the family members of Chandrapal Singh alongwith Sureshpal Singh reached the place of occurrence. None went to the police station to lodge FIR because it was night and these persons remained with the dead body during night and were scared of accused. Police Station Qadarchowk is about 10 or 11 miles from the place of occurrence. Early in the morning, Sureshpal Singh and his brother Kishanpal Singh went to his house where Sureshpal Singh wrote down a report of the incident Ex. Ka. 1. Both of them went to P.S. Qadarchowk where the said written report Ex. Ka.1 was handed over at 9.00 a.m. to clerk, constable, Kirpal Singh prepared FIR Ex.KA. 3 and having made entries in the G.D. entry being Ex. Ka. 4 a case of murder against the accused persons was registered. This FIR was lodged in the presence of S.I. Ranvir Singh of police station Qadarchowk, who was entrusted with the investigation. Ka.1 was handed over at 9.00 a.m. to clerk, constable, Kirpal Singh prepared FIR Ex.KA. 3 and having made entries in the G.D. entry being Ex. Ka. 4 a case of murder against the accused persons was registered. This FIR was lodged in the presence of S.I. Ranvir Singh of police station Qadarchowk, who was entrusted with the investigation. At the police station, the I.O. recorded the statement of clerk constable Kirpal Singh and the complainant Sureshpal Singh P.W. 1 and then he proceeded to the place of occurrence. He carried out inquest of the dead body, and prepared inquest report produced as Ex. Ka. 5. He also prepared challan Nassh Ex. Ka. 6 and photo Naash Ex. Ka. 7 and sealed the dead body in a piece of cloth having prepared sample seal Ex. Ka. 8. He entrusted the dead body to constables Ram Chandra Singh and Ram Kishore for escorting it to the District Head Quarters for postmortem examination. 10. On the basis of evidences available on record, charges for commission of offence u/s 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC were framed against accused persons. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and prayed for being tried. 11. The witnesses whom the prosecution examined to bring home the charges are as follows:- 1. Suresh Pal Singh PW-1 2. Ram Singh PW-2 3. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-3 4. Kripal Singh PW-4 5. Ranvir Singh PW-5 6. A.N. Ansari DW-1 7. Puse Lal DW-2 8. Karan Singh DW-3 12. To bring home the charge levelled against the appellants-accused, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence before the trial Court. 1. FIR Ex. Ka 3 2. Written Report Ex.Ka 1 3. Recovery Memo & Palin Earth Ex.Ka 10 4. Search Memo of House Ex. Kh 1 5. P.M. Report Ex. Ka.2 6. Panchayatnama Ex. Ka 5 7. Charge Sheet Mool Ex. Ka 11 13. Autopsy on the dead body was conducted by Dr. R.K. Verma PW-2 on 22.5.1982 at 12.30 noon. He found the following antemortem injuries on the dead body:- (i) Lacerated wound 6 cm. X bone deep , 6 cm. Above left ear, left temporal, and adjacent frontal and occipital bones found fractured. (ii) Lacerated wound 5 cm. X 3 cm. X bone deep, 4 cm. Below injury no. 1. (iii) Lacerated wound 3 cm. X ½ cm. He found the following antemortem injuries on the dead body:- (i) Lacerated wound 6 cm. X bone deep , 6 cm. Above left ear, left temporal, and adjacent frontal and occipital bones found fractured. (ii) Lacerated wound 5 cm. X 3 cm. X bone deep, 4 cm. Below injury no. 1. (iii) Lacerated wound 3 cm. X ½ cm. x bone deep on back of head on disection the bone occipital bound fractured. (iv) Lacerated 2 cm. X ½ cm. X skin keep on middle of left ear. (v) Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm. On left temporal region, 1 cm. Below the left eye brew. (vi) Contusion 6 cm x 1-1/2 cm. On left side of frontal bone. (vii) Lacerated 2 cm x ½ cm on right side fo fack of head below right ear. (viii) Contused traumatic blunt injury swelling 5 cm x 1 cm on the right eye with blackening of skin present. (ix) Contused swelling on right for head 2 cm. X 1-1/2 cm. , 1 cm. Above right eye brow. (x) Gunshot wound of entry 2 cm. X 2 cm. With blackening measuring 6 cm. Encirculing the wound, 4 cm. Away and left to the umbilicus. (xi) Gunshot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm. With 9 cm. Blackening present around the wound, 8 cm. Below the gun shot injury no. 10. (xii) Gun shot abrasion on right side of abdomen with measurement 3 cm. X 2 cm. And 5 cm. Blackening present around the abrasion 11 cm. Below the unbilicus on right side of abdomen. 14. On internal examination the Medical Officer found the large and small intestines lacerated, bladder and rectum also lacerated due to gun shot. Two pints of looted blood was found in the lower abdominal cavity. Peritoneum, momentum and viscera were also damaged due to antemortem injuries. The stomach was empty, small amount of facial matter was found stitching of the walls of large intestine. According to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid ante mortem injuries, death occurred. The Medical Officer also took off the dead body one shirt, one Baniyan, Tahmand underwear and shoes, sealed them in a bundle and handed over this bundle to the police constable deserting the dead body. According to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid ante mortem injuries, death occurred. The Medical Officer also took off the dead body one shirt, one Baniyan, Tahmand underwear and shoes, sealed them in a bundle and handed over this bundle to the police constable deserting the dead body. There big pellets, 44 small pellets, two tiklies and two corle pieces recovered from the dead body were also sealed in separate bundle and were handed over to the police constables. The Medical Officer also prepared post mortem examination report Ex.Ka.2. 15. The testimony of witnesses, medical evidence and other relevant factors considered by the Sessions Court are considered by this Court also in light of the latest decisions of the Apex Court. The evidences are being re-appreciated and reevaluated by us. The evidence of all the witness have been discussed by the trial court in detail. We have sifted the evidences very closely. As far as all the witnesses are concerned who have identified the accused. The evidences are not reproduced here but as a discussion goes on with a view to see that the judgment does not become bulky. The testimonies are not reproduced verbatim but the same have been read over again and again by us. 16. Learned counsel for appellant has relied on the decisions of Apex Court in State of T.N. vs. Seeni Ambalam alias Veeranan Ambalam (dead) and Others (1990) AIR (SC) 2133 and Alim Ullah vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2003) 46 All Cri. 1151 and has submitted that in the light of the said decisions conviction requires to be up turn. 17. It is submitted by learned Advocate for appellants that accused Ram Chandra has alleged that witness Sureshpal Singh was inimical to Ram Chandra. It is submitted that one Panna Lal of this village was murdered prior to this incident. The accused Ram Chandra was prosecuted for the murder of Panna lal and in that case Dharampal Singh was a witness. This Dharampal Singh is a cousin of Sureshpal Singh PW-1. On account of this fact the learned counsel for the defence argued that as regards Ram Chandra accused is concerned witness Sureshpal Singh is not an independent witness. It is a finding of fact by Trial Court in this case that Sureshpal Singh was not a witness in the said murder trial going against Ram Chandra. On account of this fact the learned counsel for the defence argued that as regards Ram Chandra accused is concerned witness Sureshpal Singh is not an independent witness. It is a finding of fact by Trial Court in this case that Sureshpal Singh was not a witness in the said murder trial going against Ram Chandra. His cousin Dharampal Singh may have been a witness but this would not lead to inference that Suresh Pal Singh was inimical to Ram Chandra. There is a suggestion that Himmi Kumar had stopped supplying earthen pots to Sureshpal Singh and others and, therefore, they had enmity. Even if Himmi Kumar was not supplying earthen pots to Sureshpal Singh, Sureshpal Singh is not expected to go to such an extent as to involve Pyare son-in-law of Himmi Kumar in a heinous crime of murder. Moreover if Himmi Kumar had a stopped supplying earthen pots, his son-in-law Pyare was not at any fault so as to give an occasion to Sureshpal Singh and others to have enmity against Pyare. 18. We have gone through the record and postmortem report, it cannot be said that the said decisions would apply to the facts of this case. The autopsy in the present case was immediately done. Witness who were present near the dead body were examined by prosecution and nothing has been shown or proved that the deceased was not known to the accused. In the case of Alim Ullah vs State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) the accused was known to the deceased or not was not proved. The authorship of the crime is proved in our case and, therefore, we do not think that any other view then that taken by Trial Judge, can be taken. The fact that the accused Nawab Singh was nabbed from Bus station on 22.5.1982 from Asrasi police station also shown his conduct of fleeing. 19. As regards Ram Singh PW-2 he also appears to be an independent witness of course it has come in the testimony that there is a Tondi Pradhan in the village and his son-in-law is Nathoo, who is also residing at the house of Tondi Pradhan, Tondi Pradhan has given his entire property to his son-in-law. 19. As regards Ram Singh PW-2 he also appears to be an independent witness of course it has come in the testimony that there is a Tondi Pradhan in the village and his son-in-law is Nathoo, who is also residing at the house of Tondi Pradhan, Tondi Pradhan has given his entire property to his son-in-law. The accused Ram Chandra had lodged FIR under Section 307 IPC against Mohan Lal, Sohan Lal and one other person Ram Singh has denied that Mohan Lal had an alias name Nathoo. The learned counsel argued that this Mohan Lal is also called Nathoo and son-in-law of Tondi Pradhan. We have looked into the report Ex. Kha 3 which was lodged by Ram Chandra against Mohan Lal, Sohan Lal and another. In that report also Mohan Lal has not been described having an alias name Nathoo. This Tondi Pradhan is uncle of Ram Singh. It is said that Mohan has kept a woman, who was the mother of Ram Chandra accused and Ram Chandra had come with her. Madho gave his entire property to the accused Ram Chandra. This Madho belonged to the family of Ram Singh and Tondi Pradhan. The learned counsel has suggested that if Madho had not given his property to Ram Chandra, his property would have come to Tondi Pradhan. Therefore, Tondi Pradhan and his nephew Ram Singh had enmity with Ram Chandra and they wanted to put him to maximum harassment so as to compel him to leave the village. Ram Singh has clearly stated in the cross examination that the mother of Ram Chandra was not kept by Madho but Ram Chandra is the son of Madho. In a report Ex. Ka. 2 which was lodged by Ram Chandra against Tondi, Ram Singh PW-2 and Rakshpal, Ram Chandra had described himself to be the son of Madho. If Ram Chandra was the son of Madho, the property of Madho must have come to him and, therefore, Tondi Pradhan and Ram Singh could not have any grudge against Ram Chandra getting property of his father Madho. Thus, as regards Ram Chandra and Ram Singh, they are independent witness. On the basis of the report Ex. Kha. 2 lodged by Ram Chandra against Tondi Pradhan, Ram Singh and Rakshpal under Sections 506 IPC, on 15.8.1980, it is alleged that Ram Singh had enmity against Ram Chandra. Thus, as regards Ram Chandra and Ram Singh, they are independent witness. On the basis of the report Ex. Kha. 2 lodged by Ram Chandra against Tondi Pradhan, Ram Singh and Rakshpal under Sections 506 IPC, on 15.8.1980, it is alleged that Ram Singh had enmity against Ram Chandra. This report was never lodged by Ram Singh. If a report of non conginizable miner offence was lodged by Ram Chandra, naming Ram Singh also as an accused, it cannot be said that Ram Singh had enmity against Ram Chandra. If this report had been lodged by Ram Singh for a moment it could be said that he had atleast some ill will against Ram Chandra. I, therefore, fined that these two witnesses Suresh Pal Singh and Ram Singh are quite independent persons as regards all the accused persons and they have no enmity with any of the aforesaid accused persons. 20. Both these witnesses have deposed about the incident of murder of deceased Chandrapal Singh. According to both these witnesses Chandrapal Singh was returning from the market. The market is at a distance of about three miles from village Kachaura. Ram Singh P.W.2 has stated that he was also returning from the market and deceased Chandrapal Singh, Sureshpal Singh and Padam Singh were also returning to the village with him. Chandrapal Singh was ahead and when they reached on the DAGRA (Rasta) near the filed of Hirey, the accused persons emerged from the SADA BAHAR bushes. He has further stated that Virendra Singh and Pyare had lathis and Ram Chandra and Nawab Singh had country made pistols. When Chandrapal Singh was going on the PAGADANDI situating very close to the south of DAGRA in the field of Herey, Pyare and Virendra singhs Singh started beating him with lathis and the accused persons Nawab Singh and Ram Chandra fired from their country made pistols at Chandrapal Singh. Chandrapal Singh fell down very close to the paved side of road (Pagdandi) in the field belongs to Hirey and died there on the spot. This witness has stated that he and Padam Singh a little after the incident went to the village to inform about the murder of Chandrapal Singh and Sureshpal Singh stayed with the dead body. 21. Chandrapal Singh fell down very close to the paved side of road (Pagdandi) in the field belongs to Hirey and died there on the spot. This witness has stated that he and Padam Singh a little after the incident went to the village to inform about the murder of Chandrapal Singh and Sureshpal Singh stayed with the dead body. 21. Submission is that FIR is belatedly lodged, namely 10 hours delayed, learned Judge in paragraph 19 has relying of authoritative pronouncement held in favour of prosecution even before us this findings not been dislodged. It is true and common knowledge that villagers do not care to go to the police station situating at a distance place during night to lodge FIR The family members of Chandrapal Singh and Sureshpal Singh were weeping at the dead body and among the villagers such weeping is not uncommon. It takes a lot of time and villagers do not dare to go to the police station during dark night because of fear. Under all these facts and circumstances, it must be said that the delay in lodging FIR of this case must be condoned under the aforesaid circumstances, and such delay stands explained by the testimony of Suresh Pal Singh satisfactorily. 22. We are fortified in our view by the decision on which reliance is placed by learned Trial Judge and in the case of Narsingh vs. State of Punjab, 1981 CAR 23 SC wherein it has been held that if the author of the FIR did not go to the police station soon after the incident and lodged FIR after delay on account of fear from the side of the accused persons, the delay was justified. 23. While going through the record, things are very clear that both the accused conjointly fired at the deceased and the distance from where they fired was also not very faraway. Country made pistols were found at the behest of both the accused, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused did not have any motive to do away with the deceased. Both the accused had common intention doing away with deceased and that is why the fired from a near distance. Country made pistols were found at the behest of both the accused, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused did not have any motive to do away with the deceased. Both the accused had common intention doing away with deceased and that is why the fired from a near distance. The medical evidence and the postmortem report shows that death occurred due to gun shot wound which was on the vital part of body and, therefore, we concur with the decision of Trial Court holding accused guilty for commission of offence under Section 300 of IPC and punishable as per Section 302 IPC, both aid of Section 34 IPC. 24. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Iqram and Another, (2011) 8 SCC 80 , the Apex Court has made the following observations in para 26 therein: "26. Once the prosecution has brought home the evidence of the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime, then the onus stood shifted on the defence to have brought forth suggestions as to what could have brought them to the spot in the dead of night. The accused were apprehended and therefore, they were under an obligation to rebut this burden discharged by the prosecution and having failed to do so, the trial Court was justified in recording its findings on this issue. The High Court committed an error by concluding that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden. Thus, the judgment proceeds on a surmise that renders it unsustainable." 25. It is found that accused were present at the place of offence and it is they and they alone who have perpetrated and committed the crime by firing the deceased. Accused were under an obligation the rebut this burden but they have failed to so and, therefore, also we have to hold that the accused were the person who had perpetrated the crime. 26. We are mainly concerned with ocular version of PW-1 Sureshpal Singh and PW-2 Ram Singh who are the nephew of deceased. Evidence of PW-1 has to be seen with microscope lens as being a nephew, he would be entrusted witness. 27. 26. We are mainly concerned with ocular version of PW-1 Sureshpal Singh and PW-2 Ram Singh who are the nephew of deceased. Evidence of PW-1 has to be seen with microscope lens as being a nephew, he would be entrusted witness. 27. Submission that there is delay in filing FIR and lapses in investigation is answered by Apex Court in Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and Others vs. State of Punjab, 2004 (45) ACC 940 has held that so called mistake committed during the course of investigation have to be considered by courts seriously but merely because that some mistake has been committed by the Investigating Officer, trustworthy evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected if such course is adopted court will play in the hands of the Investigating Officer and police personnel. Apex Court in Ram Singh @ Chhaju vs. State of H.P. 2010 (1) SCC Crl. 1496, wherein the Apex Court has held that defective investigation is not necessarily sufficient for rejection of prosecution case if it is otherwise proved that the guilt is brought home against the accused. 28. Apex Court in Vishnu Deo Poddar and Another vs. State of Bihar, 2003 Cr. L.J. 1558 has held that fate of prosecution does not depend on what prosecution or investigating officer ought to have done. The fate depends on the material already available on record. If the available material is sufficient to hold accused guilty of offence then the court cannot refuse to convict the accused merely because some part of investigation was poor or done in lackadaisical manner. 29. We are even fortified in our view that the accused were the persons who had perpetrated the crime from the observation at paragraph 14 of Trial Court judgment, we do not think it appropriate to take a different view then that taken by the learned Trial Judge. 30. In the final analysis the presence of the accused is established. The requirement of law and the scrutiny made therein is saying that the accused have not been falsely implicated. Some omissions in the F.I.R. would not weigh against the prosecution. The impact of omission as is discernible from the law propounded by this Court and the apex court would so that the circumstances and veracity of evidence proved involvement of the accused and none other. Some omissions in the F.I.R. would not weigh against the prosecution. The impact of omission as is discernible from the law propounded by this Court and the apex court would so that the circumstances and veracity of evidence proved involvement of the accused and none other. There is no indication of fabrication and merely because there are some minor contradictions and inconsistencies in testimony of the injured eye-witnesses would not make testimony untrustworthy and unreliable. In this case the Investigating Officer has in his ocular version categorically stated that persons present in the Court campus did not agree to testify against the accused not were they ready to even get their statement recorded. We concur with the view taken by learned Trial Judge and the reasons assigned in paragraph of 14 of the judgment. 31. In the final analysis, the evidence of the witness who were present and who have testified will be more important if the evidence is qualitative in nature. We have to see the quality of evidence and not the quantity. In this case it is an admitted position of fact that on the basis the circumstances and subsequent facts, independent source of information, except the police official, other persons present refused to testify and none was available. 32. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of accused-appellant by trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence. Learned trial judge has marshalled the facts and evidence adroitly. Sufficient evidence has been placed to establish the guilt of the appellant. 33. Going through the testimony and the record, it cannot be said that the commission of offence was so gruesome and life sentence would mean till the last blood. Accused shall be entitled to all the remissions. Learned trial judge has marshalled the facts and evidence adroitly. Sufficient evidence has been placed to establish the guilt of the appellant. 33. Going through the testimony and the record, it cannot be said that the commission of offence was so gruesome and life sentence would mean till the last blood. Accused shall be entitled to all the remissions. This direction is given in view of principles enunciated in Maru Ram vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147 , considered again in Vikas Yadav vs. State of U.P. and the constitutional power vested in Article 72 and Article 161 of the Constitution of India read with Section 432 and 433-A of Cr.P.C. will also permit this Court to hold that it will be available to the State to exercise its jurisdiction vested under Section 432 Cr.P.C. and we do not, for a moment, hold that this is a case where life would mean till his last breath and, therefore, also the case of both the accused be considered for remission as expeditiously as possible not later than six months from today. It goes without saying that the State shall exercise the powers after 14 years incarceration is over. 34. Appeals preferred by are dismissed. The judgment and order dated 6.5.2004 passed by Trial Court is upheld. Fine is maintained. However, life shall not mean till last breath. If the accused are not in custody, we grant 12 weeks time to them to surrender, if they not surrender during the said period, Authority concerned to take action as per law and see that the accused-appellants undergo their punishment. A copy of this judgment alongwith Trial Court record be sent to Court below, Jail Authorities concerned and District Magistrate for compliance.