JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rahul Misra, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants, Veer Singh and Mani Ram against the judgement and order dated 28.02.1987 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in S.T. No. 161 of 1985, State Vs. Veer Singh and another, convicting both the appellants and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life u/s 302/34 I.P.C. 3. Veer Singh (A1) died during the pendency of this appeal and this appeal stood dismissed as abated qua Veer Singh (A1) by the order of this Court dated 08.05.2018. 4. Thus, the challenge to the impugned judgement and order is now confined to Mani Ram (A2) alone. 5. Factual matrix of this case is summed up as hereunder : 6. According to the written report (Ext.Ka.1) lodged by P.W.3 informant Sita Ram at P.S.-Raksa, District-Jhansi on 19.04.1985 at 7.15 hours, his father Lala Ram had gone to village-Akbarpur on 18.04.1985 and was returning to his village-Khadri along with P.W.1 Baboo Lal and P.W.2 Chainoo at about 5.30 p.m. on the same day and when they reached near the “nullah”, Veer Singh (A1), Mani Ram (A2) and two other persons emerged from behind the hedge of Chheola and wielded lathi blows on the head of P.W.2 Baboo Lal and then the accused and the unknown persons brutally assaulted his father Lala Ram by lathi and luhangi. P.W.2 Chainoo rushed to his village and informed P.W.3 informant Sita Ram about the incident who along with four other persons, went to the spot to pick up his father who informed them that Veer Singh (A1), Mani Ram (A2) and two other persons had assaulted him. P.W.3 informant Sita Ram then took his injured father to the police station on a bullock cart but he succumbed to his injuries. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Case Crime No. 20 of 1985 u/s 302 I.P.C. at P.S.-Raksa, District-Jhansi was registered against the accused. Check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.1) and relevant G.D. No. 6 time 7.15 a.m. (Ext.Ka.5) were prepared by P.W.6 Constable Virendra Singh. 8. The investigation of the case was taken up by P.W.7 S.O. R.N. Singh, after the case was registered in his presence. Check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.1) and relevant G.D. No. 6 time 7.15 a.m. (Ext.Ka.5) were prepared by P.W.6 Constable Virendra Singh. 8. The investigation of the case was taken up by P.W.7 S.O. R.N. Singh, after the case was registered in his presence. He recorded the statement of the witnesses, reached the place of incident, conducted inquest on the dead body of Lala Ram and after preparing the inquest report (Ext.Ka.10) and other relevant documents namely challan lash, letters addressed to R.I. and C.M.O. etc. (Exts.Ka.11 to Ka.15), he dispatched the dead body for postmortem examination through constables, Gajendra Singh and Prem Narayana. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site plan (Ext.Ka.16). He seized blood-stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared their recovery memos (Exts.Ka.17 and Ka.18 respectively). He then searched the house of accused-appellants and prepared its search memo (Exts.Ka.19 to Ka.21). After completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet against both the accused-appellants before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi (Ext.Ka.2). 9. Since the offence mentioned in the charge-sheet was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi committed the accused for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhansi where Case Crime No. 20 of 1985 was registered as S.T. No. 161 of 1985, State Vs. Veer Singh and another, and made over for trial from there to the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi who on the basis of material collected during the investigation and after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge, framed charge u/s 302/34 I.P.C. against both the accused-appellants who abjured the charges framed against them and claimed trial. 10. The prosecution in order to prove the charge framed against the accused-appellants examined as many as seven witnesses out of whom P.W.1 Baboo Lal, P.W.2 Chainoo and P.W.3 informant Sita Ram were examined as witnesses of fact while P.W.4 Dr. H.P. Agarwal who had conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Lala Ram and prepared his postmortem report (Ext.Ka.2), P.W.5 Dr. H.P. Agarwal who had conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Lala Ram and prepared his postmortem report (Ext.Ka.2), P.W.5 Dr. B. Lala who had medically examined the injury of P.W.1 Baboo Lal on 19.04.1985 and prepared his injury report (Ext.Ka.3), P.W.6 S.O. Virendra Singh who had proved the check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.1), endorsement of G.D. Entry (Ext.Ka.5) and G.D. Entry (Ext.Ka.6) and sent the deceased for postmortem and P.W.7 R. N. Singh, the Investigation Officer of the case, were produced as formal witnesses. 11. After closure of the recording of the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellant were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They denied having committed any such offence. Mani Ram (A2) stated that Har Bhajan, son of Lala Ram (deceased) had assaulted him and a case with regard to which was pending against him. He further stated that Lalloo Kachhi was assaulted by Suresh, Mahendra and he was a witness. He also stated that Harish Chand, father of Mahendra was also assaulted by P.W.2 Chainoo and Natthoo. Accused Narain Singh stated that P.W.1 Baboo Lal resided in his house after fleeing from village and when he got the house vacated, he felt annoyed. 12. Learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, by the impugned judgement and order, convicted both the appellants u/s 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life while co-accused Narain Singh was acquitted. 13. Hence, this appeal. 14. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the inordinate delay of almost 22 hours on the part of the informant to lodge the F.I.R. of the occurrence which has not been satisfactorily explained, although the prosecution claims that the incident was committed in the presence of the relatives of the deceased, is in itself indicative of the fact that no one had witnessed the crime. After the dead body of the deceased was recovered, a false and fabricated prosecution story, falsely implicating the appellants due to previous enmity, was concocted with the aid and advise of the police authorities. He next submitted that the glaring contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the two so-called eye witnesses of the occurrence with regard to the material particulars pertaining to the occurrence belies their presence at the place of occurrence. He next submitted that the glaring contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the two so-called eye witnesses of the occurrence with regard to the material particulars pertaining to the occurrence belies their presence at the place of occurrence. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular version. Neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the sentences awarded to them can be sustained and are liable to be set-aside. 15. Per contra Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I appearing for the State submitted that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been satisfactorily explained by P.W.3 informant Sita Ram. The complicity of the appellants in committing the murder of the deceased having been fully established from the evidence of P.W.1 Baboo Lal and P.W.2 Chainoo, the prosecution case is not liable to be thrown out merely on the ground of there being some minor discrepancies in their testimony and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. There are no material discrepancies between the ocular version and the medical evidence on record. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties present and very carefully perused the entire lower court record. 17. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts or not ? 18. Before analyzing the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants, we proceed to first have a look at the evidence of the formal witnesses. 19. P.W.4 Dr. H.P. Agarwal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jhansi had conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Lala Ram on 19.04.1985 at 3.35 p.m. and prepared his postmortem report (Ext.Ka.2). He noted following ante-mortem injuries on the person of Lala Ram : (1) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left post auricular region (behind left ear). (2) Abraded contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on left side of head in middle part 10 cm above left ear. (3) Abraded contusion 10 cm x 4 cm on back of the head. (4) Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on right side of head 10 cm above right ear. (2) Abraded contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on left side of head in middle part 10 cm above left ear. (3) Abraded contusion 10 cm x 4 cm on back of the head. (4) Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on right side of head 10 cm above right ear. (5) Lacerated wound 11/2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on lateral aspect of right upper arm 18 cm below the right shoulder joint. Fracture of right humerus bone present. Shape of right upper arm distorted. (6) Lacerated wound 11/2 cm x 1 cm x upto bone of right elbow. (7) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle on back of right forearm 10 cm above the right wrist. (8) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on back of the left forearm 15 cm below left elbow. (9) Contusion 8 cm x 11 cm on back of left forearm 8 cm above the left wrist with fracture of both bones. (10) Dislocation of right upper central incisor tooth. (11) Contusion 16 cm x 2 cm on lateral aspect of right side chest 6 cm below the right axilla. (12) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on lateral aspect of right thigh 3 cm below the right iliac crest. (13) Contusion 25 cm x 2 cm on lateral aspect of right thigh 6 cm below the right iliac crest. (14) 8 lacerated wounds on front of right leg in an area of 9 cm x 6 cm, 8 cm above the right ankle joint, size varying from 3 cm x 11/2 cm to 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm. All wounds are bone deep fracture of both bones present. (15) 7 lacerated wounds on inner aspect of left leg in an area of 11 cm x 4 cm x 6 cm, 6 cm above the left ankle joint, size varying from 2.5 cm x 11/2 cm to 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm. All wounds are bone deep. Fracture of both bones present. 20. According to P.W.4 Dr. H.P. Agarwal, the cause of death of Lala Ram was shock and bleeding as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 21. P.W.5 Dr. V. Lala, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jhansi had examined the injuries of P.W.1 Baboo Lal on 19.04.1985 at 11.10 a.m. and prepared his injury report (Ext.Ka.3). Fracture of both bones present. 20. According to P.W.4 Dr. H.P. Agarwal, the cause of death of Lala Ram was shock and bleeding as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 21. P.W.5 Dr. V. Lala, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jhansi had examined the injuries of P.W.1 Baboo Lal on 19.04.1985 at 11.10 a.m. and prepared his injury report (Ext.Ka.3). Following injuries were noted on the person of P.W.1 Baboo Lal :- (1) Abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm on left parietal region of scalp, 7 cm away from left ear, red soft scab present. (2) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on left parietal region of scalp, 4.5 cm proximal to injury no. 1 and 8.5 cm above left ear, red soft scab present. (3) Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on middle of forehead 5 cm above bridge of nose, edges swollen, inflammed, oozing of blood present. (4) Abrasion 2 cm x 1.5 cm over right side forehead 7 cm above right eye-brow red-soft scab present. (5) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep over right parietal region of scalp, 11 cm above right ear, edges swollen, inflammed, oozing of serum present. (6) Contusion with swelling 4 cm x 3 cm over posterior aspect of left upper arm, 10 cm above left elbow, red in colour, kept under observation. (7) Abrasion 0.4 cm x 0.5 cm over antero-lateral aspect of left elbow, red soft scab present. (8) Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm over anteriod aspect of left knee, red soft scab present. 22. P.W.6 Constable Virendra Singh proved the check F.I.R. scribed by Constable Moharrir Diwanji Rustam as (Ext.Ka.1) and the endorsement of G.D. as (Ext.Ka.5). He stated that injured P.W.1 Baboo Lal was sent for medical examination, endorsement of which was made in the G.D., copy whereof was brought on record as (Ext.Ka.6) and on the basis of the said G.D., the deceased was also sent for postmortem. He also proved that P.W.7 S.O. R.N. Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case had deposited the two bundles of blood-stained and plain earth, endorsement of which was made in the G.D., copy whereof was brought on record as (Ext.Ka.8). 23. He also proved that P.W.7 S.O. R.N. Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case had deposited the two bundles of blood-stained and plain earth, endorsement of which was made in the G.D., copy whereof was brought on record as (Ext.Ka.8). 23. P.W.7 S.O. R.N. Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case stated that the report of this case was lodged in his presence and during its investigation, he had recorded the statements of the witnesses and after conducting inquest, prepared the inquest report (Ext.Ka.10) and other relevant documents (Ext.Ka.11 to Ka.15). He had also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site plan (Ext.Ka.16). He collected bloodstained and simple earth from the place of occurrence and prepared their recovery memos (Ext.Ka.17 and Ka.18). After completing the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi (Ext.Ka.22). 24. From the perusal of the evidence of P.W.4 Dr. H.P. Agarwal, it is established that deceased Lala Ram had died possibly about 12 to 14 hours before postmortem on his dead body was conducted by him on 19.04.1985 at about 3.35 p.m. which even after taking into account variation of six hours on either side is fixed at around 10 p.m. on 18.04.1985. 25. As per the evidence of P.W.5 Dr. V. Lala, he had examined the injuries of P.W.1 Baboo Lal on 19.04.1985 at 11.10 a.m. i.e. before the registration of the F.I.R. The medical evidence fixed the time of the death of the deceased roughly at 10 p.m. on 18.04.1985. As already noted according to the prosecution, the incident had taken place on 18.04.1985 at 5.30 p.m. and was witnessed by P.W.1 Baboo Lal who had allegedly received injuries in the same incident and had run away from the place of occurrence and information about the occurrence was given to P.W.3 informant Sita Ram by P.W.2 Chainoo. 26. We now proceed to evaluate and appraise the oral evidence on record for ascertaining the veracity of the facts deposed by the three witnesses of fact. 26. We now proceed to evaluate and appraise the oral evidence on record for ascertaining the veracity of the facts deposed by the three witnesses of fact. Nothing turns upon the evidence of P.W.3 informant Sita Ram who is the son of the deceased as admittedly he had arrived at the place of incident after the occurrence had taken place although he had deposed that on his arrival, his father was still alive and he had told him that the accused had assaulted him with lathis but the prosecution has not been able to establish by cogent evidence that the deceased was in a condition, when his son had reached the place of occurrence, to give the dying declaration. From his evidence, it is fully proved that he and the other witnesses had stayed at the place of occurrence throughout the night. 27. P.W.1 Baboo Lal, the injured witness stated that his uncle Lala Ram (deceased) had come to his house of his son's parents-in-law village-Akbarpur and asked for his help in thrashing the crops. He and his brother P.W.2 Chainoo had accompanied their uncle and as they reached near the “nullah” on the way to village-Khadri at about 5.30 p.m., the accused emerged out from the “nullah” and Veer Singh (A1) wielded lathi on his head due to which he ran away. The accused also wielded other lathi blows. P.W.1 Babloo hid himself in the hedges. Thereafter, the accused attacked his uncle through lathis and luhangi due to which his uncle fell down and then the accused managed to escape. He hid himself in the hedge throughout the night and on the next day when Dhan Singh and his brother Munna came in his search, he accompanied them to the police station. He also stated that he was medically examined. He next stated that the clothes (material Ext.1 to Ext.3) were the same which the deceased was wearing at the time of the incident. He also stated that Veer Singh (A1), Mani Ram (A2) and others were accused in the case of murder of Siya Ram and P.W.2 Chainoo and Natthoo, his brothers were witnesses in that case. Veer Singh (A1) had asked him and his uncle to pressurise the witnesses not to depose against the accused, but they did not agree. So the accused bore enmity with the witnesses. 28. Veer Singh (A1) had asked him and his uncle to pressurise the witnesses not to depose against the accused, but they did not agree. So the accused bore enmity with the witnesses. 28. P.W.2 Chainoo, the real brother of P.W.1 Baboo Lal also stated that he had accompanied his uncle Lala Ram to village-Khadri and when they were on the way to the village and had reached the “nullah” at 5.30 p.m., his brother P.W.1 Baboo Lal was walking ahead of them. Veer Singh (A1), Mani Ram (A2) and two other persons emerged from the “nullah” and assaulted P.W.1 Baboo Lal with lathis and luhangi on which he ran away. Thereupon the accused brutally assaulted Lala Ram with lathi. When the accused left the place of occurrence, P.W.2 Chainoo went to village-Khadri and informed P.W.3 informant Sita Ram, deceased's son. He returned to the place of incident along with P.W.3 informant Sita Ram and few other persons. On reaching there, Lala Ram told them that he had been attacked by Veer Singh (A1), Mani Ram (A2) and two other persons. They took Lala Ram to the police station and then he returned to his house. 29. Thus, from the perusal of the facts stated by the two eye witnesses of the occurrence, it transpires that on the date of the incident, deceased Lala Ram had gone to village-Akbarpur, where P.W.1 Baboo Lal and P.W.2 Chainoo, his nephews resided. When he was returning from village-Akbarpur to village-Khadri, P.W.1 Baboo Lal and P.W.2 Chainoo also decided to accompany him. When they reached near the “nullah” at about 5.30 p.m., P.W.1 Baboo Lal was slightly ahead of his uncle Lala Ram (deceased) while P.W.2 Chainoo was behind his uncle, the appellants and two unknown persons emerged from the “nullah” and assaulted P.W.1 Baboo Lal, causing injuries on his legs and hands but he somehow ran away from the place of incident. Thereafter the appellants and the other unknown persons brutally attacked Lala Ram with their weapons and as a result of injuries received by him, he fell on the ground. Even then they continued to beat him. P.W.1 Baboo Lal had hid himself in the “nullah” while P.W.2 Chainoo witnessed the occurrence from behind the bushes before the “nullah”. After committing the murder, the accused ran away. Even then they continued to beat him. P.W.1 Baboo Lal had hid himself in the “nullah” while P.W.2 Chainoo witnessed the occurrence from behind the bushes before the “nullah”. After committing the murder, the accused ran away. Then P.W.2 Chainoo came out of the place where he was hiding and went to village-Khadri and informed P.W.3 informant Sita Ram, son of Lala Ram that the appellants and two unknown persons had caused injuries to his father Lala Ram and P.W.1 Babloo Ram. Then P.W.2 Chainoo, P.W.3 informant Sita Ram and several other persons returned to the place where Lala Ram was lying. Lala Ram told P.W.3 informant Sita Ram that the appellants and two other persons had assaulted him with lathi and luhangi. The occurrence in question was preceded by another incident in which the appellants and several other persons were accused and P.W.2 Chainoo was the witness. In the said case, his evidence had not been recorded. The appellants had asked Lala Ram and his brother to scold P.W.2 Chainoo not to give evidence against them otherwise he will meet the same fate as Siyaram. There are very interesting aspects of the evidence of P.W.1 Baboo Lal. In order to explain the delay of more than 15-16 hours in getting him examined, he deposed that after the incident, he had become so terrified that he had hid himself in the “nullah” for the whole night and had come out of his hideout at 6 a.m. in the next morning when his brother had reached there searching for him and had then taken him to the police station by a bullock cart. The explanation is not only implausible but also childish. The explanation is not only implausible but also childish. If the evidence of P.W.2 Chainoo is to be believed, that he had gone to the village-Khadri immediately after the occurrence and returned to the crime scene with P.W.3 informant Sita Ram accompanied with several other villagers and by that time Lala Ram was allegedly alive and had waited there for the whole night instead of going to the police station to lodge the report apprehending danger to his life at the hands of the appellants and also considering the fact that Lala Ram had already died, is believed to be true then the claim of P.W.1 Baboo Lal that he had witnessed the incident and received injury in the same transaction and he had kept himself hidden in the “nullah” throughout the night and had not come out despite the fact that all his family members were present at the place of occurrence throughout the night, stands totally belied. His act of hiding in the “nullah” throughout the night and his brother P.W.2 Chainoo having returned to the place of occurrence with P.W.3 informant Sita Ram and other villagers and stayed there for the whole night is contrary to normal human conduct in such a situation. If he was actually hiding in the “nullah”, he would have immediately came out of hiding upon noticing arrival of P.W.2 Chainoo, P.W.3 informant Sita Ram and other villagers at the crime scene rather than hiding in the “nullah” throughout the night. The failure of the accused-appellants to inflict any injury to P.W.2 Chainoo who should have been the prime target of the appellants on account of his insisting to give evidence against them in the murder case of Siyaram in case he was actually present at the time and place of occurrence but instead of causing injuries to P.W.2 Chainoo, the appellants assaulted Lala Ram and P.W.1 Baboo Lal with whom they had no enmity, does not stand to reason. We do not find any reason why the accused-appellants if they were waiting near the place of occurrence with the object of committing a culpable homicide, would have chosen Lala Ram and P.W.1 Baboo Lal as their targets, sparing P.W.2 Chainoo who was their enemy no. 1. We do not find any reason why the accused-appellants if they were waiting near the place of occurrence with the object of committing a culpable homicide, would have chosen Lala Ram and P.W.1 Baboo Lal as their targets, sparing P.W.2 Chainoo who was their enemy no. 1. His having not received any injury in the occurrence despite the appellants being inimical towards him as deposed by him in his evidence, puts a big question mark against the claim of his being the eye witness of the occurrence. 30. We have very carefully gone through the contents of the written report of the incident which was scribed on the dictation of P.W.3 informant Sita Ram and the facts deposed by him in his examination-in-chief but we are afraid he has failed to furnish any explanation for the inordinate delay of almost 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R. of the occurrence. The explanation given by P.W.3 informant Sita Ram for not leaving for the police station immediately after the deceased had died that he apprehended danger to his life as it had become dark, does not appeal to our mind as in the month of April, it is not dark at 5.30 p.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station as mentioned in the check F.I.R. is seven miles. Considering the possible time of death in the postmortem report of the deceased which does not conform to the time of the occurrence as mentioned in the F.I.R. coupled with the testimony of P.W.1 Baboo Lal that he had come out of his hideout on the next morning when his brother had come searching for him although his brother P.W.2 Chainoo was aware of the fact that he was hiding in the “nullah” but still he had not made any attempt to search him out when he had returned to the place of occurrence with P.W.3 informant Sita Ram and other villagers and stayed there for the whole night, proves that no one had seen the occurrence. The dead body of Lala Ram was discovered in the morning and thereafter, the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged. No incriminating article was recovered either from the possession or on the pointing out of the appellants. The dead body of Lala Ram was discovered in the morning and thereafter, the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged. No incriminating article was recovered either from the possession or on the pointing out of the appellants. The report of the forensic expert (Ext.Ka.23) with regard to the blood-stained soil allegedly recovered from the place of incident indicates that the blood-stains found on the soil had become totally disintegrated and were incapable of being classified. It is true that the injuries found on the person of P.W.1 Baboo Lal and the antemortem injuries noted on the body of deceased could have been caused by the weapons which had been assigned to the appellants and it is equally true that the death of Lala Ram was homicidal but in our opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. The evidence of the two witnesses of fact is neither convincing nor consistent or trustworthy. The reason given for the inordinate delay of almost 14 hours in the lodging of the F.I.R. is not at all satisfactory and the inordinate delay shatters the credibility of the F.I.R. The explanation for examination of the injuries of the injured after almost 17 hours of the occurrence is also childish and it cannot be inferred that P.W.1 Baboo Lal had received injuries in the same occurrence. No explanation is coming forth for his failure to appear in the witness box during the trial as he would have been the best person to prove that he had received injuries in the same incident. 31. Thus, upon a wholesome consideration of the facts of the case, attending circumstances and the evidence on record, we do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and they are entitled to benefit of doubt. 32. The appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. 33. Mani Ram (A2) is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and his sureties discharged. However, he shall comply with the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 34. There shall however, be no order as to costs.