Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2820 (JHR)

Sarda Devi W/o Budhan Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2018-12-21

RATNAKER BHENGRA, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. As per record, appellant No.2, Lalo Paswan and appellant No.8, Govind Ravidas had died. Hence, their appeal stands abated. 3. This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2002, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 458/97, whereby and whereunder, all the appellants, except appellant No.5, Rama Kandu, have been convicted under Section 147 IPC and appellant No.5, Rama Kandu has been convicted under Section 148 IPC. All the appellants, except appellant No.5, Rama Kandu, were sentenced to undergo RI for two years for the offence under Section 147 IPC and appellant No.5 Rama Kandu was sentenced to undergo RI for three years under Section 148 IPC. The period in custody undergone during investigation and trial were ordered to be adjusted towards the period of sentence. 4. The case of prosecution as per the fardbeyan of informant Basanti Devi, PW-8, is that on 13.10.1996 at about 8:00 a.m. accused Rama Kandu armed with farsa, Sanjay Paswan armed with tangi accused Lalit Paswan, Ashok Yadav, Suresh Kandu, Seo Kumar Rabidas, Lalo Paswan, Ganesh Paswan, Gobind Ravidas, all armed with lathi, bhala, gansa, and sword came to the house of her cousin Dewar Yogendra @ Raju and started abusing him. In the meantime, Sanjay Paswan gave an axe blow on his head due to which he has received grievous injury and since then he was not in a position to speak. Thereafter, Rama Kandu also assaulted him with farsa. The informant states the reasons for assault was that about 2/4 days before Raksha Bandhan one Punam Kumari daughter of Budhan Ram aged about 18 years was seen sleeping in her house on a cot along with accused Seo Kumar Rabidas by Tribhuwan Ram and Baleshwar Rabidas. Since this was a question of prestige of a girl the matter was not made public. 5. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant Basanti Devi, Katkamsandi P.S. case no. 86/96 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323 and 307 IPC. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken and thereafter case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter the charges were framed accordingly and trial was held. 6. Altogether eleven prosecution witnesses were examined. 86/96 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323 and 307 IPC. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken and thereafter case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter the charges were framed accordingly and trial was held. 6. Altogether eleven prosecution witnesses were examined. After conclusion of the trial, the accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid; hence, this appeal. 7. PW-8 Basanti Devi is the informant of this case. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. She denied seeing anything and said that she had come outside only after the fighting was over. However, she has deposed that she had seen Yogendra lying down wounded and villagers took him to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh on rickshaw. In para-4, she had admitted that the signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.1/a is of her and it has been proved by her. In her cross-examination, in para-8, she has deposed that the police had made a sign on a blank sheet of paper. Further the police had taken no statement from her and the statement that she is making in Court today she is doing voluntarily and on her own will. 8. PW-1 is Loknath Rabidas. He deposed that on alarm he had come out of his house then he had seen Rama Kandu, Sanjay Paswan, Ganesh, Lalo, Lalit, Ashok, Suresh Kandu and Sarda Devi whom he recognized. That they were possessing arms and saying to kill Yogendra. Sanjay assaulted Yogendra with an axe on the head of Yogendra, due to which, he fell down. The axe got stuck on his hand then Sanjay applied pressure with his feet on the head of Yogendra and withdrew the axe. In para-3, he has deposed that a few days back the accused Seo Kumar was found with Poonam, daughter Sarda sleeping together and this is the reason Sarda conspired and the accused have committed this act. In para-5 he has said that they had taken Yogendra to Pelawal O.P. where Basanti Devi gave the fardbeyan. He also signed on the fardbeyan and he has proved his signature on the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext.1. In para-7, he has deposed that on the night of the incident Basanti Devi was also present in the place of occurrence and that she is the Bhabhi or the relative of Yogendra. 9. PW-5 is Prakash Rabidas. He also signed on the fardbeyan and he has proved his signature on the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext.1. In para-7, he has deposed that on the night of the incident Basanti Devi was also present in the place of occurrence and that she is the Bhabhi or the relative of Yogendra. 9. PW-5 is Prakash Rabidas. He has also signed on the fardbeyan as witness. He deposed that he heard alarm. When he come out he saw Yogendra fallen down. In para-2, he has deposed that on asking mother and sister of Raju informed him that Sanjay Paswan, Ganesh Paswan, Rama Kandu, Suresh Kandu, Lalo Paswan, Sarda Devi, Lalit Paswan and Ashok Yadav had together murdered Raju. He has then deposed that he had seen these above-named persons fleeing. In para-4, he deposed that he had witnessed the incident taking place. In para-7, he deposed that he had seen that the axe got stuck on the head of Yogendra and Sanjay had applied pressure by his feet on Yogendra and removed the axe. Thereafter all of them had moved towards the house of Sarda Devi. In para-8 he deposed that few days before daughter of Sarda Devi Punam Kumari and Seo Kumar Rabidas were seen together in bed by certain people. This incident was taken in another manner by Sarda Devi. 10. PW-2 is Jitan Das. He has deposed in para-1 that on alarm he had come out of his house and he had seen accused Ganesh, Sanjay, Rama, Suresh Kandu, Lalit Paswan, Ashok and others. Sanjay assaulted Yogendra by tangi on his head due to which he fell down. When the axe did not come out then Sanjay applied pressure with his feet on the head of Yogendra and extracted the axe. Rest of the accused were at the time saying maro-maro. In para-2, he has deposed about the incidence in which there was some talk about the daughter of Sarda Devi and the caste people of Sarda Devi had told Sarda to keep her daughter in control and due to this only Yogendra’s death had been ordered. 11. PW-3 is Bhageshwar Ram. He deposed that on the day of incidence he was in his house. 11. PW-3 is Bhageshwar Ram. He deposed that on the day of incidence he was in his house. On hearing alarm, he came out of his house then saw that Sanjay Paswan, Ganesh, Rama Kandu, Seo Kumar Ravidas, Lalo, Lalit Paswan, Ashok Yadav and Govind Ravidas were armed with lathi, bhala and garasha have surrounded Yogendra. The accused Sarda Devi was also present there. In para-2, he deposed that accused Rama was armed with farsa and accused Sanjay was armed with tangi. Sanjay assaulted Yogendra with axe on the head of Yogendra due to which he fell down. The axe got stuck on the head of Yogendra and Sanjay applied his feet on the head of Yogendra and removed the axe. Thereafter, he ran away and entered into the house of Sarda. In para-3, he has deposed that one month ago, the daughter of Sarda Devi, Poonam Kumari was seen in a compromising position with Seo Kumar Ravidas. Yogendra Kumar and others had scolded Sarda and told her to keep her daughter under control. Sarda Devi was very angry due to this and conspired with the accused to murder Yogendra. 12. PW-4 is Ashok Rabidas. He deposed on the day of incident on 13.10.1996 at 8 O’clock he was in his house. He heard alarm. He came out and saw Sanjay Paswan, Ganesh Paswan, Sarda Devi, Lalit Paswan, Lalo Paswan, Rama Kandu, Suresh Kandu and Ashok Yadav at the door of Raju. When he was to reach to the place of occurrence he saw Sanjay Paswan assaulting Yogendra Ram with axe on his head due to which he fell down and was injured seriously. Rama Kandu also assaulted with Farsa. All of them were screaming to kill Raju. When Raju fell down, then all the accused ran away. 13. PW-6 is Surendra Rabidas. He has deposed that on the day of occurrence on 13.10.1996 at 8:30 he was in his house near his well. A crowd had collected at the door of Yogendra. He went to the house of Raju and saw Saro Devi dropping an axe from her roof which Sanjay picked up. He heard the sound of maro-maro. Sanjay assaulted Yogendra with axe which hit him on his head and got struck there which Sanjay removed with his feet. A crowd had collected at the door of Yogendra. He went to the house of Raju and saw Saro Devi dropping an axe from her roof which Sanjay picked up. He heard the sound of maro-maro. Sanjay assaulted Yogendra with axe which hit him on his head and got struck there which Sanjay removed with his feet. At that time along with Sanjay, Ashok Yadav, Lalit Paswan, Ganesh Paswan, Suresh Paswan and Saro Devi were also present. All the accused were armed with lathi, danda and garasha in their hands. In para-5 he has deposed that the police had taken the blood stained soil. He has also proved his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.4. 14. PW-9 Rajendra Rabidas and PW-10 Rabindra Rabidas have also supported the prosecution case and reiterated the same as other prosecution witnesses, such as, PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 etc. 15. PW-7 Degan Rabidas did not support the prosecution case. Informant PW-8 Basanti Devi and PW-11 Ganpat Rabidas were declared hostile. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellants: 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has first and foremost argued that the FIR itself is no longer valid. He argued that since Basanti Devi, who had informed the police has herself been declared hostile. The fardbeyan and the FIR is no longer admissible. Counsel also pointed out from the evidence of PW-2 Jitan Das that this witness in para-4 has deposed that the case was written by Bhageshwar and that everybody knew that Bhageshwar was the one who had initiated the case. In fact, PW-2 says that he himself also knew about this. Counsel for the appellants, therefore, says that the case by Bhageshwar should have been the one to form the basis of the FIR but this information or FIR has been suppressed by the prosecution. This is so because in the initial information given by Bhageshwar it may have contained different information and, therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on the fardbeyan of Basanti Devi. 17. Learned counsel also argued that the charges that were framed were also under Sections 302/149/120B IPC. However, the prosecution was not able to establish a case against the accused including the appellants herein on these sections and there was acquittal of charges framed under these sections and therefore, on similar evidence, the current conviction also cannot stand. 17. Learned counsel also argued that the charges that were framed were also under Sections 302/149/120B IPC. However, the prosecution was not able to establish a case against the accused including the appellants herein on these sections and there was acquittal of charges framed under these sections and therefore, on similar evidence, the current conviction also cannot stand. Counsel has argued that on the same set of evidence Seo Kumar had been acquitted then no conviction can lie on the same set of evidence against the current appellants also. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants then argued that there is no motive that can be attributed to the appellants. He has said that the motive, if any, could be attributed only to Sarda Devi because it was her daughter, who had been caught in a compromising situation with Seo Kumar and this was objected to by other persons including the deceased and therefore, Sarda Devi was much aggrieved by such objections and therefore, as far as the other appellants are concerned, apart from Sarda Devi, there is no motive and therefore they should be acquitted of all charges. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that there was no prior meeting of the minds by the appellants to commit such an act that resulted in the death of the deceased. If there has been no prior meeting and they have not conspired together to commit the death of the deceased then the offence under Section 148 or 147 IPC cannot be made out against the current appellants. 20. Counsel for the appellants has cited the case of “Shiva Shankar Pandey & Ors. versus State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 229 and argued that in this case Hon’ble Apex Court held that it was not safe to convict the accused-appellants by taking recourse to Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. Continuing learned counsel argued that to demonstrate also that no common intention was made out, it is seen consistently in the fardbeyan as well as in the evidences of almost all the witnesses that Sanjay Paswan is alleged to have been the main accused, who has assaulted on the head of the deceased with an axe and therefore, he was, in fact, convicted under Section 148 IPC while others were convicted under Section 147 IPC. Therefore by the evidence themselves it is revealed that Sanjay Paswan is one who gave the blow, then by such act itself it cannot be said that all the persons who have been convicted have common intention against the deceased. Overt act has not been ascribed to the other appellants that could have resulted in fatal injuries except to Sanjay. Counsel says few persons may have deposed against Rama Kandu but that has not been consistently said by all the witnesses and therefore, the main assailant has been Sanjay Paswan. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant then argued from the statement of prosecution witnesses who have been examined. It is seen that they have indicated that they were many more persons or large number of persons present there when the incident happened and in fact, some of them have even been named amongst this large number. However, it is seen that though the prosecution witnesses have been examined, all are either family witness or related witnesses and therefore, their evidence has to be taken with a lot of precaution and cannot easily be believed. Counsel said that other witnesses who could have been made prosecution witnesses were deliberately withheld by the prosecution. Counsel also argued that PW-7, Degan Rabidas had not been declared hostile. However, he did not support the prosecution case in the particulars of assault by the accused or the current appellants. Counsel also repeated that this Hon’ble Court must note that even the informant herself who is Basanti Devi or PW-8 had declined having knowledge of the incident and submitted that by the time she arrived at the scene, the fighting has already stopped and she has been declared hostile, therefore, on the basis of the evidence of informant Basanti Devi wherein fardbeyan or FIR itself comes into question, no conviction and sentence can be upheld and sustained. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants then argued that the post mortem report itself cannot be relied upon and it has rightly not been relied upon for conviction under Section 302 IPC and acquittal has been extended to all the appellants. However, the post mortem report cannot be relied upon even to take into account any injuries that may be considered. Learned counsel for the appellants then argued that the post mortem report itself cannot be relied upon and it has rightly not been relied upon for conviction under Section 302 IPC and acquittal has been extended to all the appellants. However, the post mortem report cannot be relied upon even to take into account any injuries that may be considered. Counsel says this is so because the Doctor has not been examined and without examination of the Doctor any injury report or even post mortem report that has been brought on record at the trial stage cannot be admitted. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that another major lacuna in this case is the non-examination of the Investigating Officer or the IO. Counsel says that due to the non-examination of the IO and taken along with the fact that even the Doctor has not been examined and even the informant herself has turned hostile, there is very little to go by. In fact, it was IO, who could have proved the place of occurrence and also it was the IO, who could have proved the manner of assault because he could then have gone into the seizure of any weapons if any that are alleged to have been carried by the accused and also if there was any assault of the nature made by Sanjay and Rama Kandu. Because the IO has not been examined, these aspects were not able to be dealt with and therefore, any benefit, which may be thus considered will only accrue to the accused or the remaining appellants herein. Counsel also said that not all the prosecution witnesses have consistently named all the accused or all the appellants and therefore, the examination of the IO would have been important in throwing light to this case. Even, who was allegedly carrying what arms or what arms were used could only have more correctly answered by the examination of the IO. 25. Lastly, counsel for the appellants without admitting the guilt of the current appellants has argued that the case is of the year 1996 and reasonable time has passed since then and all the accused or appellants herein have faced much rigors and hardships of trial. 25. Lastly, counsel for the appellants without admitting the guilt of the current appellants has argued that the case is of the year 1996 and reasonable time has passed since then and all the accused or appellants herein have faced much rigors and hardships of trial. After considerable years having passed and now they are older and wiser and already been sufficiently punished and therefore these factors may also be considered while deciding the case. Arguments of learned counsel for the State: 26. Learned counsel for the State had on the other hand argued that the accused or the appellants herein have already been leniently punished. In fact, they have been much too leniently punished and only because the learned Trial Court has extended the benefits of the non-examination of the Doctor which related to the post mortem and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer. Because of these shortcomings of the prosecution the appellants were simply most lucky to be convicted of the Sections 147 and 148 of IPC. The accused or the appellants herein were convicted of the Sections 147 or 148 IPC and therefore they have already been very leniently punished and at this stage, they deserve no mercy and mercy pleaded for on the basis of oldness of the case would not serve the ends of justice particularly when a person’s life had been lost by the assault and they have not at all been adequately punished. Counsel for the State however says that apart from that all the other evidences which could relate to Sections 147 and 148 IPC are existing and on this basis itself, they could have been convicted also of the offence under Section 302 IPC. However, since they were not convicted of the major offences the remaining offences remain, and if they have been convicted for the offences under Sections 147 and 148 IPC counsel says he sees no reason why they were not convicted of the other sections also because the evidences of the prosecution witness on record are fully reliable and appeared to be fully true. Counsel argued that even though the informant herself has been declared hostile, all the other witnesses including the other two witnesses, who signed or put their signatures on the fardbeyan, have also supported the prosecution case. Counsel argued that even though the informant herself has been declared hostile, all the other witnesses including the other two witnesses, who signed or put their signatures on the fardbeyan, have also supported the prosecution case. It is seen that apart from PW-7, PW-8 and PW-11, who have not supported the prosecution case, all the other witnesses have supported substantially the case of the prosecution. The other witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-9, and PW-10 have by and large named all the accused or the remaining appellants herein in the evidences and taken together none of the accused or the remaining appellants herein can escape from being present there at the time of the occurrence or the crime. Almost all the witnesses have named Sanjay Paswan to have committed the fatal assault. Even Rama Kandu has been named by most of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, since they have been named by the witnesses who were present there at the time of the incident and consistently named and it does not seem that their evidences are not true and therefore the conviction can be held on the basis of their evidences itself. Since these witnesses are also belonging to the same village, in fact, the house of Sarda Devi also is said to be there and all the other accused or appellants herein are apparently also from the same or nearby places, it is but natural that both parties’ members will know each other. It is also apparent that they were known to the prosecution witnesses because they are named so and as per many of the prosecution witnesses they all after committing the act were seen entering into the house of Sarda Devi or going towards the house of Sarda Devi. Therefore, the place of occurrence is also fully testified by the witnesses because it has been revealed or disclosed that the accused persons including the remaining appellants herein had come to the door of the deceased and outside the house i.e. the incident took place on the road. Therefore, the place of occurrence has also been fully proved by the witnesses. Many of the witnesses have also testified that the accused or the remaining appellants herein were carrying various arms i.e. apart from Sanjay Paswan, who was carrying an axe and Rama Kandu who was carrying a farsa. Therefore, the place of occurrence has also been fully proved by the witnesses. Many of the witnesses have also testified that the accused or the remaining appellants herein were carrying various arms i.e. apart from Sanjay Paswan, who was carrying an axe and Rama Kandu who was carrying a farsa. There is also mention of lathies, gadasa and that all of them were armed and they also shouted and screamed maro-maro or to kill the deceased. Therefore, all the ingredients that are necessary for forming an unlawful assembly are fully present. The motive for the occurrence has also been mentioned, which is the witnessing the daughter of Sarda Devi and Seo Kumar having sex or being seen in a compromised position for which Sarda Devi was scolded and admonished by her caste man including the deceased. She did not like this and had taken it otherwise and then conspired together with the accused or the appellants herein to commit the assault resulting in the assault of the deceased, which finally led to his death. Only because they have got the benefit of the non-examination of the Doctor and therefore, by extension the questioning of the post mortem report and the non-examination of the IO does not mean that they can go scot free of any allegations whatsoever. They fully deserve to be convicted under the remaining Sections of 147 and 148 IPC. FINDINGS 27. Having heard both the counsels and having gone through the records of the case, the evidences and the facts and circumstances of the case, one of the things that must be borne in mind in fact has to be foremost in the mind is that charges were also framed amongst other Sections, under Section 302 of the IPC along with Section 149 and 120 of the IPC. This was so because the death had taken place and that was a serious situation; however, conviction has ultimately resulted only in conviction under Section 148 of certain accused and under Section 147 of the other accused or appellants. This could be attributed to the non-examination of the IO and the non-examination of the Doctor, whereby, the post-mortem was also not relied upon, and hence, there was no conviction under Section 302 of the IPC also Sections 149 and 120B. This could be attributed to the non-examination of the IO and the non-examination of the Doctor, whereby, the post-mortem was also not relied upon, and hence, there was no conviction under Section 302 of the IPC also Sections 149 and 120B. It is difficult to relying on the basis of the evidences that is available death had not taken place and since convictions have already been done under Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC it would require demolition of the entire evidences as being of no value whatsoever to only demolish the entire case against the accused or the remaining appellants. 28. The incident which lead to the current incidence is apparently not denied. It is seen from the evidences that prior to the current incidence for which this Court has to consider the evidences, it is seen that the daughter of one of the accused Sarda Devi was seen in a compromising position with one Seo Kumar. Complaint was made regarding this to Sarda Devi, which also consisted of persons from the side of the informant in this case. Sarda Devi had taken this incident of witnessing the sexual situation of her daughter and this Sheo Kumar Rabidas and subsequently, complaint about it to her in a different light. She was in fact offended by this, against the complaining persons or the persons who had brought this to a light and made it an issue of prestige. This incident itself or the spark for the current incident is not denied. Thereafter, it has come in the evidence that due to the meeting to discuss the incidence with some of the accused and the appellants herein and what can be done, and the incident of assault was a result of this meeting. Therefore, it cannot be said that subsequently when so many of the accused including the appellants had gathered and that they had also guided with some weapons including weapons that could be considered as deadly weapons, then it cannot be said that the offences under Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC cannot be sustained. The argument by the appellants that there was no prior meeting of minds, is only argued with Sanjay Paswan in mind, and perhaps Rama Kandu. The argument by the appellants that there was no prior meeting of minds, is only argued with Sanjay Paswan in mind, and perhaps Rama Kandu. It was Sanjay Paswan, who had assaulted Yogendra by tangi on his head due to which he fell down as said in the evidence, also said that Rama Kandu had also assaulted Yogendra with farsa, this might have been attributed to these two accused has not come within the notion or prior meeting of the minds. However, since the accused including the appellants were present at the spot along with various weapons including dangerous weapon that it would then give the facts conviction has not been done under Sections 302, 149 and 120B of the IPC, that it would be totally difficult to deny the convictions under Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC. To do so would be a denial of the evidences and also a total denial of justice. 29. One of the arguments raised by the appellants is that all the main witnesses are either related or family witnesses and interested witnesses and therefore, the evidence should be discarded. It is seen that the accused side were many in number and also they were not without influence and therefore, it is possible that other witnesses from the village itself may not be forthcoming and therefore, it is only the related or family witnesses who will be concerned to take to the witness stand, and unless the witnesses are so weak or inconsistent and contradictory in the evidences then only these witnesses could be considered as not being trustworthy. However, from the evidences of the prosecution witnesses it is seen that they have corroborated and supported the prosecution story and the broad substance of the accusation that the accused persons including the remaining appellants were involved in coming together and assaulting and therefore, it would be difficult to deny that rioting did not take place by an unlawful assembly. This Court has noted the argument of the counsel for the State that except for PW-7, PW-8 and PW-11, who have not supported the prosecution case, all other witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-9 and PW-10 have by and large named all the accused or the remaining appellants herein in the evidences including their roles. This Court has noted the argument of the counsel for the State that except for PW-7, PW-8 and PW-11, who have not supported the prosecution case, all other witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-9 and PW-10 have by and large named all the accused or the remaining appellants herein in the evidences including their roles. Therefore, in the light of such consistent evidence it will be difficult to not at least sustain the conviction under Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC. 30. Here, it is pertinent to note that informant Basanti Devi, PW-8, was declared hostile. But, she herself, in para-4 of her deposition, has proved her signature on the fardbeyan as Ext. 1/a. Hence, merely because she turned hostile, it cannot be said that the fardbeyan or FIR would lose all its relevancy and cannot be looked into for any purpose. 31. Having heard both the counsels and having gone through the records of the case and because of the aforesaid reasonings, this Court see no reason why the convictions under Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC of the remaining appellants cannot be sustained. Accordingly, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2002, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 458/97, whereby and whereunder, all the appellants except appellant No.5 Rama Kandu have been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 147 IPC, and appellant No.5 Rama Kandu was convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC is sustained. Appellants bail bonds are cancelled. The learned trial court or the concerned court-below is directed to take steps for procuring their arrest to carry out the imposed or remaining sentences. 32. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.