JUDGMENT NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. 1. All the above mentioned appeals shall stand decided together as they arise out of the common judgment. 2. The present appeals are preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment and order dated 20.02.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwara, vide which the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 302 IPC read with Section 3(2) (5) of the SC/ST Act and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.. Brief facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution are that a written report was submitted by Ratan Lal Bairwa (PW-4), who is the brother of the deceased Raju Bairwa, on 11.03.2005 at 12:30 p.m. which is Exhibit-P/5, upon which an FIR was registered against the accused-persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 of the IPC. As per the written report, accused-Shakil, Umar, Iqbal, Ashik, Hasan Ali, Shaukat Ali and Munna along with other persons came to his house on 11.03.2005 around 10 a.m. looking for his brother while shouting that they will finish him as he is going around giving evidence against them. As per Ratan Lal, he tried to pacify them by saying that he will try and make his brother understand, on which, they went away threatening. Ratan Lal thereafter went in search of his brother but he could not find him. After sometime, at the round about of Kawakheda, he saw Balmukumd Khatik, Ravi Baba and Kalu Vaishnav coming towards him. They told him that Shakeel, Umar, Iqbal, Ashiq, Hasan Ali, Shaukat Ali, Munna and their companions have beaten up Raju Bairwa near New Housing Board Shastri Nagar Tempo Stand and shot him dead. Ratan Lal Bairwa thereafter reached hospital where he came to know that his brother Raju Bairwa has died. After investigation, the police filed challan against Akil Khan, Hassan Ali, Ashiq Ali, Mohd. Hussain, Taiyab Hussain and Munna @ Bandari under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B of the IPC as well as 3/25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. Thereafter, Shaukat Ali was arrested on 17.12.2005 and after his identification, challan was filed under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. Similarly, challan was filed against accused-Mohd. Thereafter, Shaukat Ali was arrested on 17.12.2005 and after his identification, challan was filed under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. Similarly, challan was filed against accused-Mohd. Umar under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B of the IPC as well as under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. On the arrest of accused-Shakeel Khan and Monu @ Mehandi Hasan, challan was filed under Section 147-148, 302/149, 120B of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. Charges too were accordingly framed for the above-mentioned sections against all 10 of them. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 52 witnesses and produced as many as 81 documents in support of its case. The accused got their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and produced 3 documents in evidence. After conclusion of the trial, two of the accused, namely, Mohd. Hussain and Taiyab Hussain were acquitted, whereas, 8 of the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- (1) Akil Khan Offence Sentence U/s 302 IPC r/w 3(2)(5) Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year of ST/SC Act simple imprisonment U/s 3/25 Arms Act One year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Three months' simple imprisonment. U/s 147 IPC Six months' simple imprisonment. U/s 148 IPC One year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. (2) Monu @ Mehandi Hassan (3) Munna @ Bandari (4) Shaukat Ali (5) Hasan Ali and (6) Ashiq Ali (7) Shakeel (8) Mohammed Umar Offence Sentence U/s 302/149 IPC r/w 3(2) (5) of ST/SC Act Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year simple imprisonment U/s 147 IPC Six months' simple imprisonment. U/s 148 IPC One year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Balmukund (PW-3), Kalu Vaishnav (PW-5), Ravi Baba (PW12) appeared as eyewitnesses. 3. U/s 148 IPC One year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Balmukund (PW-3), Kalu Vaishnav (PW-5), Ravi Baba (PW12) appeared as eyewitnesses. 3. Pw-3 Balmukund being the eyewitness gave out the details of the incident. He admitted in his examination-in-chief that on 11.03.2005 while he was standing at the bus stand, Jakir and 4-5 people came around 7-8 O'clock looking for Raju Bairwa. They asked Raju as to who had removed the horn of their motorcycle on which Raju replied in the negative but Jakir and his companions started hitting him with fist blows but thereafter, went away saying that they will take their revenge. Thereafter, at around 10:00-10:15 a.m. a scooter and motorcycle was seen by him, on which Hassan Ali, Ashiq Ali, Munna, Shakeel, Umar, Shaukat, Iqbal and Akil Khan were riding. They came towards Raju Bairwa and surrounded him. Hassan Ali and Shakeel caught hold the arms of Raju and while shouting that he had earlier also given evidence against them called Akil to fire, upon which, Akil fired at Raju. It is further stated that Balmukumnd he tried to intervene on which Umar and Munna who were armed with knife and danda respectively started running towards him upon which Kalu, Ravi and Balmukund started ran towards the lanes and hide themselves. It is further stated by him that they could see the accused, whereas, the accused-persons could not seethem. Then, Shakeel started saying loudly that Raju had given evidence and therefore, we have killed him and now we will kill anyone who will give evidence against them and went away threatening. On returning, they found that Raju Bairwa was lying in a pool of blood. Thereafter, they took Raju to the Hospital for his treatment and went to inform at his house where they met Ratan Lal, brother of Raju on the way. They came to know after half an hour that Raju has died. Similar statement was given by eyewitnesses Kalu Vaishnav (PW-5) and Ravi Baba (PW-12). Thereafter, they took Raju to the Hospital for his treatment and went to inform at his house where they met Ratan Lal, brother of Raju on the way. They came to know after half an hour that Raju has died. Similar statement was given by eyewitnesses Kalu Vaishnav (PW-5) and Ravi Baba (PW-12). The following role was attributed to the accused by these witnesses:- Accused Role attributed Hassan Ali caught the arms of deceased Shakeel caught arm of deceased (since dead) Akil Khan fired shot with pistol on head of deceased Ashiq Ali inflicted knife blow on the deceased from back Munna @ Bandari inflicted knife blow on the legs of deceased Shaukat Ali Chased the eyewitnesses with danda Monu @ Mehandi Hassan No role Mohd. Umar No role 4. Accused-Appellant Akil Khan was arrested on 12.03.2005. After his arrest, he gave the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 15.03.2005, which was produced on record as Exhibit-P/65. Thereafter, in pursuance to the said information, a pistol was recovered vide recovery memo Exhibit-P/33 dated 18.03.2005. The recovery witnesses of the said pistol were produced as Aditya Sharma (PW-46) and Himmat Singh (PW-18). Accused-appellant Ashiq Ali too was arrested on 12.03.2005. After his arrest, he provided information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is Exhibit-P/67. He got recovered a blood stained knife on 15.03.2005, which is Exhibit-P/41. The recovery witnesses Ramesh Chandra (PW-24) and Sunder Choudhary (PW23) were produced in evidence. 5. Accused-Appellant Shakeel was arrested after 3 years on 17.12.2008. No recovery was effected from him. However, he has since died and therefore, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.336/2013 qua accused-Shakeel is abated. 6. Accused-Appellant Mohd. Umar was arrested on 05.05.2008 and after his arrest, his statement was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit-P/75) that after the incident he had thrown the knife in the canal near Jamna Vihar, which could not got recovered. 7. Mr.R.K.Charan, learned counsel for the appellant Akil Khan while praying for his acquittal submitted that Akil Khan was identified by PW-3 Balmukund in the Court on 18.06.2007, whereas, his presence is not marked on the said date. The witnesses are planted. The name of Akil Khan was not even mentioned in the FIR, whereas, he is shown to have fired with his pistol and his name was allegedly informed to the complainant Ratan Lal. The witnesses are planted. The name of Akil Khan was not even mentioned in the FIR, whereas, he is shown to have fired with his pistol and his name was allegedly informed to the complainant Ratan Lal. Ratan Lal, brother of the deceased, did not take his name. It is contended that since there is old enmity, therefore, Akil has been falsely implicated. Similarly, there is no ballistic expert report. Neither the FSL nor any such report was put to Akil Khan while recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, the recovery of the weapon from him is of no use and cannot be read against him. There is no allegation under SC/ST Act. The murder if at all is not on account of his belonging to any community just because of enmity. 8. Mr.Doongar Singh, learned counsel appearing for accused-Shaukat Ali, Hassan Ali and Ashiq Ali submitted that there is no overt act attributed to Shaukat Ali and nor any recovery has been effected from him except that he is stated to be running towards the eyewitnesses with danda in his hand. With respect to accused Hassan Ali, it was submitted that the allegation of his catching the arms cannot be believed. No accused would hold the arms and tell the other accused to fire because the same can always miss the aim and hurt the person holding. With respect to Ashiq ali, it was contended that he has been enroped on account of enmity only and that on the same set of evidence two accused Mohd. Hussain and Taiyab Hussain have been acquitted and therefore, such eyewitnesses who are disbelieved qua Mohd Hussain and Taiyab Hussan should not have been believed qua the reaming accused. The arguments raised by the various counsels were adopted by learned counsel appearing for accused-appellant Monu @ Mehandi Hassan Iqbal with further submission that his name was written in the FIR as Iqbal, whereas, subsequently, it was modified as Monu @ Mehandi Hassan Iqbal. He was never known by the name of Iqbal. The witnesses have not supported the story of prosecution and were declared hostile. Neither any role has been attributed to him and nor any weapon has been recovered from him. 9. Learned counsel appearing for Mohd. Umar submitted that eyewitness PW-3 Balmukund has specifically stated that Mohd. Umar was not present on the spot at the time of incident. The witnesses have not supported the story of prosecution and were declared hostile. Neither any role has been attributed to him and nor any weapon has been recovered from him. 9. Learned counsel appearing for Mohd. Umar submitted that eyewitness PW-3 Balmukund has specifically stated that Mohd. Umar was not present on the spot at the time of incident. PW-12 also stated that he did not name Shakeel or Mohd. Umar. Hence, it is crystal clear that they have been falsely implicated. Accused-appellant Mohd. Shakeel has since died. Hence, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.336/2013 qua Shakeel is abated and survives only qua the accused Mohd. Umar. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants were heard at length and the entire statements and the evidence was perused with their help. 11. The three eye-witnesses Balmukund (PW-3), Kalu Vaishnav (PW-5) and Ravi Baba (PW-12) have supported the prosecution story. They stood their ground even during the cross-examination. Accused-appellant Akil Khan & Ashiq Ali: 12. All three have stated that Akil Khan fired at the deceased from his pistol which hit him on the center of the head. A knife blow was given by Ashiq Ali on the back of the deceased, whereas, Munna @ Bandari inflicted injury on the legs with knife. The pistol is recovered from accused-appellant Akil Khan vide Exhibit-P/33. The recovery witnesses, namely, Himmat Singh (PW-18) and Aditya Sharma (PW-46) appeared as witness and admitted that the said recovery was in their presence. Aditya Sharma (PW-46) also came forward to give his statement and admitted too that the said recovery was effected in his presence. Thus, the recovery of the pistol has been proved beyond doubt. As per the postmortem report, injury no.1 is the gun shot injury. Dr. Anil Lahoti appeared as PW-1 and verified the postmortem report. The injury no.2 was stab wound on the back. As per the eyewitnesses, this injury was inflicted by Ashiq Ali. The knife has been recovered from him. The recovery witnesses have supported the recovery memo of the knife from Ashiq Ali. Thus, the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses with respect to the injury of firearm and the knife blow corroborates the medical evidence. 13. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the eyewitness PW-3 did not identify Akil Khan has no merit. The recovery witnesses have supported the recovery memo of the knife from Ashiq Ali. Thus, the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses with respect to the injury of firearm and the knife blow corroborates the medical evidence. 13. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the eyewitness PW-3 did not identify Akil Khan has no merit. The identification is insignificant as he is known to PW-3 and other eyewitnesses i.e. PW-5 and PW-12, who had specifically named him in their statements. The argument that in case, Akil Khan was known then the complainant should have named him in the FIR too does not help. FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint which was on hearsay and as told to him by the eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses have duly named Akil. 14. The motive too is evident. It is the stand of all the eyewitnesses that the accused came shouting that they will take revenge from the deceased for giving evidence against them and after committing the offence also they went back shouting that they have killed Raju Bairwa for giving evidence against them and further threatened that they will kill any other person who will further give evidence against them. Even as per the complainant Ratan Lal (PW-4), the accused had earlier come to his house looking for his brother Raju and had stated before him that they will finish him for giving evidence against them. 15. The argument that there is no ballistic report and hence, the recovery of the weapon cannot be read against them too does not help in view of the clinching evidence discussed above. It is well settled proposition of law as also it is held by the Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1963) AIR SC 340 that failure to produce the ballistic report does not introduce a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. It is well settled proposition of law as also it is held by the Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1963) AIR SC 340 that failure to produce the ballistic report does not introduce a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. The same depends on the facts of every case as observed as under:- "It has, however, been argued that in every case where an accused person is charged with having committed the offence of murder by a lethal weapon, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which, and in the manner in which, they have been alleged to have been caused; and in support of this proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision of this court in Mohinder Sinqh v. The State., (1950) S.C.R. 821 In that case, this court has held that where the prosecution case was that the accused shot the deceased with a gun, but it appeared likely that the injuries on the deceased were inflicted by a rifle and there was no evidence of a duly qualified expert to prove that the injuries were caused by a gun, and the nature of the injuries was also such that the photo must have been fired by more than one person and not by one person only, and there was no evidence to show that another person also shot, and the oral evidence was such which was not disinterested, the failure to examine an expert would be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. It would be noticed that these observation were made in a case where the prosecution. Evidence suffered from serious infirmities and in determining the effect of 'these observations, it would not be fair or reasonable to forget the facts in respect of which they came to be made. These observations do not purport to lay down an inflexible rule that in every case where an accused person is charged with murder caused by a lethal weapon, the prosecution case can succeed in proving the charge only if an expert is examined. These observations do not purport to lay down an inflexible rule that in every case where an accused person is charged with murder caused by a lethal weapon, the prosecution case can succeed in proving the charge only if an expert is examined. It is possible to imagine cases where the direct evidence is of such an unimpeachable character and the nature of the injuries disclosed by post mortem notes is so clearly consistent with the direct evidence that the examination of a ballistic expert may not be regarded as essential. Where the direct evidence is not satisfactory or disinterested or where the injuries are alleged to have been caused with a gun and they prima facie appear to have been inflicted by a rifle, undoubtedly the apparent inconsistency can be cured or the oral evidence can be corroborated by leading the evidence of a ballistic expert. In what cases the examination of a ballistic expert is essential for the proof of the prosecution case, must naturally depend upon the circumstances of each case. Therefore, we do not think that Mr. Purushotam is right in contending as a general proposition that in every case where a fire-arm is alleged to have been used by an accused person, in addition to the direct evidence, prosecution must lead the evidence of a ballistic expert, however good the direct evidence may be and though on the record there may be no reason to doubt the said direct evidence." 16. The said judgment still holds the day. Even, in the case of Dhanraj Singh @ Shera and Others. Vs. State of Punjab [Appeal (Crl.) No.941 of 2003], decided on 10.03.2004, the same view was held by Apex Court after taking into consideration the law laid down on the subject as under: "6. In Paras Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1999) CriLJ 1122 it was held that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency or because of negligence the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party. 7. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party. 7. As was observed in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1998) CriLJ 2515 if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the Law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. The view as again re-iterated in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Ors., (2003) CriLJ 1282. As noted in Amar Singh's case it would have been certainly better if the fire arms were sent to the forensic test laboratory for comparison. But the report of the ballistic expert would be in the nature of an expert opinion without any conclusiveness attached to it. When the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence fully establishes the prosecution version failure or omission of negligence on part of the IO cannot affect credibility of the prosecution version." 17. The gun shot injury is inflicted by Akil Khan and knife injury by Ashiq Ali. The prosecution has thus proved the case against Akil Khan and Ashiq Ali beyond doubt. Accused-appellant Munna @ Bandari: 18. All the three eyewitnesses mentioned above also stated that Munna @ Bandari inflicted injury with knife on the leg of the deceased. 19. Mr.Pradeep Shah, learned counsel appearing for appellant-Munna @ Bandari contended that the allegation against Munna was of inflicting injury on the leg of the deceased by the eyewitness PW-5 Kalu Vaishnav and PW-12 Ravi Baba, whereas, the postmortem report only shows abrasions on the leg, which cannot be inflicted by knife. In fact, the said injuries are blunt. 20. Moreover, no recovery of knife has been effected from him. Instead, a cricket bat was recovered. Whereas, the allegation is of the use of knife by him. However, as per eyewitness, the assailants came on scooter and motorcycle. They all stated that Munna inflicted knife blow on the leg of deceased. He provided information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is ExhibitP/59. Instead, a cricket bat was recovered. Whereas, the allegation is of the use of knife by him. However, as per eyewitness, the assailants came on scooter and motorcycle. They all stated that Munna inflicted knife blow on the leg of deceased. He provided information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is ExhibitP/59. In pursuance to the said information, he got recovered a danda and old scooter vide recovery memo Exhibit-P/53 in the presence of witness Ram Lal (PW-40) and Mahaveer Singh (PW41). 21. The recovery witnesses appeared and proved the recovery. As per the postmortem report, the third injury inflicted on the person of the deceased is "Abrasion 0.5 x 05 cm, 05. x 05. cm, 0.5 x 05 cm" and was held to be blunt in nature. Doctor PW1 described the injury on the leg of the deceased. The above injury was inflicted by Munna @ Bandari. No doubt, the blunt injury cannot be inflicted with knife as alleged but the fact remains that danda was recovered and not the knife. Hence, the recovery matches the medical evidence coupled with the fact that he was specifically named by the eyewitnesses as also having inflicted the injury on the leg. Admittedly, the said injury as per the medical report too is on the leg. The scooter on which they came is also recovered from Munna @ Bandari. Accused-appellant Hassan Ali 22. Mr. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for Hassan Ali argued as noted in the early part of the judgment that role attributed to Hassan Ali of catching the arm of deceased so that he can be fired upon deceased is highly improbable on the face of it. 23. As per the statement of eyewitnesses, assailants had come on the motor-cycle and scooter. Accused-appellant Hassan Ali was arrested on 12.03.2005. He provided information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit-P/68 and got recovered motorcycle and knife vide Exhibits-P/66 and P/68 respectively in the presence of Ramesh Chandra (PW-24) and Sundar Choudhary (PW-23). The motorcycle used in the crime is recovered from Hasan Ali. Both Ramesh Chandra and Sundar Choudhary have appeared and stated that the said recovery was effected in their presence. 24. The motorcycle used in the crime is recovered from Hasan Ali. Both Ramesh Chandra and Sundar Choudhary have appeared and stated that the said recovery was effected in their presence. 24. The statement of the eyewitnesses, the injuries inflicted by the accused, the medical evidence supporting the ocular evidence as well as the respective recoveries effected from Akil Khan, Ashiq Ali, Munna @ Bandari and Hassan Ali leave no doubt about their involvement and presence at the time of incident to achieve the common object of teaching a lesson to Raju Bairwa for giving evidence by finishing him forever. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond doubt against accused-appellants Akil Khan, Ashiq Ali, Munna @ Bandari and Hassan Ali. Accused-appellant Shaukat Ali, Mohd. Umar and Monu @ Mehandi Hassan 25. However, we do not find sufficient evidence to involve Shaukat Ali, Mohd. Umar and Monu @ Mehandi Hassan. No overt act has been attributed to Shaukat Ali except that he is shown running after the eyewitnesses with a danda. However, no recovery was effected from him. Similarly, Mohd. Umar is stated to have given statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act about knife. However, no knife was got recovered from him and nor there is any allegation of causing any injury. Mehandi Hassain Iqbal too is shown as empty handed and nor any weapons was recovered from him. 26. The argument of the learned counsel for the State that actual participation of the accused was not necessary to find them guilty for the unlawful assembly is not entirely incorrect as it imposes a constructive and vicarious criminal liability and the offence committed is of a common object and therefore, it may not be necessary for the prosecution to prove overt act. It is also the duty of the Court to separate the grain from chaff. To bring the case under Section 149 of I.P.C. presence should be proved. This Court finds the presence of appellants Shaukat Ali, Mohd. Umar and Monu @ Mehandi Hassan doubtful not only on account of the fact that no recovery was effected from them and nor overt act is attributed but also on account of that it is a specific case of the prosecution and the eyewitnesses Balmukund that the assailants came on one scooter and one motorcycle. Although, Kalu Vaishnav stated that they came on two motorcycles and one scooter. Although, Kalu Vaishnav stated that they came on two motorcycles and one scooter. However, only one scooter and one motorcycle was recovered each from accused-Munna and Hassan Ali. Thus, their appears to be only one scooter and one motorcycle. It is hard to believe that 10 assailants came on two motorcycles. Two out of the 10 have already been acquitted by the trial court. Even, 8 assailants are an excessive number to come on two of the recovered two-wheelers. Hence, Shaukat Ali, Mohd. Umar and Monu @ Mehandi Hassan deserve the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the charges against them. There is no evidence of the offence under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. Hence, all the accused-appellants are acquitted of the said offence. 27. In view of the above, D.B.Criminal Appeal No.350/2013 filed by accused Akil Khan, D.B.Criminal Appeal No.245/2013 filed by accused Munna @ Bandari, D.B.Criminal Appeal No.337/2013 qua Hasan Ali and Ashiq Ali are dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to accused-appellant Akil Khan under Sections 147, 148, 302 of the IPC and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and accused-appellant Ashiq Ali under Section 147, 148, 302/149 of the IPC is upheld. However, their conviction and sentence under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act is set aside. 28. D.B.Criminal No.197/2013 filed by Monu @ Mehandi Hassan Iqbal, D.B.Criminal Appeal No.336/2013 qua Mohammed Umar and D.B.Criminal Appeal No.337/2013 qua Shaukat Ali is allowed. All the appellants are on bail except Akil Khan. Accused-appellants Ashiq Ali, Hasan Ali and Munna @ Bandari are directed to surrender before the authorities for serving out the rest of the sentence forthwith.