JUDGMENT : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 1.1 This Criminal appeal is directed Judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2012 and order of sentence dated 19.03.2012, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad, in S.T. Case No. 286 of 1998, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, further to undergo SI for one month. 2. As per prosecution, one Ajay Ram was allegedly caught while committing house burglary in the house of accused, Md. Sahabuddin in the intervening night of 14/15.10.1996 who was lynched by the appellants. 3. As per fardbeyan of Santoshi Ram recorded on 15.10.1996 his son, Ajay Ram was living in a rented house of one Rameshwar Saw and was working in a shop named STAR DECORATOR situated at Dari Mohalla. On the said night, his son had entered into the house of Md. Sahabuddin and was caught by him and his brother, Md. Saukat Ali and he was assaulted by them. On hulla, about 200-300 people gathered there and all of them started beating up his son. Consequently, he sustained critical injury and thereafter, Md. Sahabuddin and Md. Saukat Ali and handed him to Bank More Police Station and from there, he was referred for treatment to Popular Nursing Home by the Police. During course of his treatment, his son succumbed to his injuries. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, FIR being Bank More (Dhanbad) P.S. Case No. 766 of 1996 was registered. Police on investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 304/ 34 IPC against (i) Md. Sahabuddin, (ii) Md. Saukat Ali, (iii) Md. Shamim, (iv) Md. Jahangir, (v) Md. Sagir, (vi) Sultan Mian and (vii) Md. Furkan @ Bablu and they were put on trial. Sultan Mian died during trial and proceeding against him was dropped. 5. Altogether ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents, including the carbon copy of post-mortem report have been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. The Statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Defence of innocence has been pleaded by the accused persons. 6. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant no. The Statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Defence of innocence has been pleaded by the accused persons. 6. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant no. 1 in his argument, has made specific reference to the deposition of Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma (PW-3) made at Para-3 of the cross-examination, wherein he has deposed that it was appellant/accused, Md. Sahabuddin, who had dissuaded the mob from assaulting the deceased. It is submitted that the appellants had tried to rescue the deceased from the mob, and after rescuing him had handed-over him to the Police Station and for no fault, he has been falsely implicated in the case. 7. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the rest of the appellants submits that out of ten witnesses, PW-4 and PW-5 have turned hostile, and have not at all supported the case of the prosecution. The informant of the case has not been examined and has been withheld by the prosecution without any explanation for the same. Out of the material witnesses, only two witnesses claim to be the direct eye-witness, PW-2 and PW-3. Deposition of both these witnesses suffers from contradictions. PW-3 has not supported the case of the prosecution, however, he has not been declared hostile by the prosecution and, therefore, his deposition will have a binding effect on the prosecution. As per the testimony of this witness in Para-3, it was the mob that was assaulting the deceased and it was accused/appellant, Sahabuddin who rescued the boy from the mob. It has also come in the evidence that PW-1 and PW-2 were on inimical terms with accused/ appellant Sahabuddin and a proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P.C. was drawn. 8. PW-2 has deposed in Para-1 that when he went there, he saw that Ajay Ram was tied down in the hall and the appellants were assaulting him. In Para-15, the witness deposes that he had gone to the Second floor which is across the verandah through the room. He could not say whether the kitchen was adjacent to the verandah. In Para-37, the same witness says that he had gone only up to the verandah and not any further. In Para-15, the witness deposes that he had gone to the Second floor which is across the verandah through the room. He could not say whether the kitchen was adjacent to the verandah. In Para-37, the same witness says that he had gone only up to the verandah and not any further. By referring to these statements, it is argued that when this witness had not gone beyond the verandah, then how he could see that the accused persons assaulting Ajay Ram after getting him tied is beyond comprehension. Further, his deposition is contradicted by PW-3 who has deposed that much crowd had gathered, who had caught-hold of the deceased while he was running away. The story of the deceased being tied down and then being assaulted is falsified on account of deposition of PW-3. 9. It is argued that there is a lacuna in identification in dock of the accused persons, wherein the witness has claimed to have identified four persons present in the court and also claimed to identify those who were not present and were appearing by representation on the said date. For proper identification, the court should have asked the witness, Court question about the name of each so identified. 10. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It is submitted that evidence of the prosecution has been discussed at length in Para 25 of the Judgment wherein finding has been recorded that the appellants had conjointly assaulted the deceased resulting in extensive injuries which resulted in his death. Inconsistencies in the account of eye witness was peripheral which did not absolve the appellants of their role in the incidence. ANALYSIS: 11. Deceased [Ajay Ram] died a homicidal death is not in a shred of doubt, in view of objective findings recorded by the Autopsy Surgeon-PW-7 [Dr. Shailendra Kumar]. As many as eight external injuries were found, and the cause of death has been ascribed to shock caused by hard and blunt multiple injuries. Injury no. (vi) notes 10 “pattern bruises of rod” over the back of chest. The ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased were as under: (Abrasion): (i) 1” x 1/4” over middle of forehead. (ii) ¾” x ½” on the upper part front of right side of chest. (iii) ¼” x ¼” on lower part front of right side of chest. Injury no. (vi) notes 10 “pattern bruises of rod” over the back of chest. The ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased were as under: (Abrasion): (i) 1” x 1/4” over middle of forehead. (ii) ¾” x ½” on the upper part front of right side of chest. (iii) ¼” x ¼” on lower part front of right side of chest. (iv) ¼” x 1/4” on the middle of left flankof chest (v) 6” x 3” over rightshoulder blade (vi) Pattern bruises of rod ten in number all over the back of chest. Length having from 2” to 6” each was 1” wide with a gap of ¼” in between two lines. (vii) Multiple abrasion in an area of 3½” x 2½” over outer side of right-knee. (viii) Pattern bruise of the rod 2” x 1/2” on the front of left thigh in middle. (B) On dissection: Heart contained blood on both sides. Stomach contained about 50 C.C. of watery fluid with no particular smell. Bladder was full of urine. Other internal organs were pale. (C) Time elapsed since death: The Doctor has opined the time elapsed since death 12 hours (+-) 6 hours. 12. The ante-mortem injuries as discussed above are compatible with prosecution version of homicidal death caused in a physical assault by several persons, by lathi danda etc. Once it is established that the death was homicidal in nature, judicial determination shifts to the complicity of the persons who were responsible for causing death. 13. In the present case, consistent prosecution version that appears on combined reading of testimony of witnesses is that deceased [Ajay Ram] was caught while committing theft in the intervening night of 14/15.10.1996 in the house of accused, Md. Shahbuddin at around 3:15 AM. The prosecution version is in accord with the defence story that he was caught while committing theft. 14. Main point for determination is, what happened after the deceased was apprehended while committing theft in the house of Md. Sahubuddin? Whether he was assaulted by the appellants or was the victim of mob lynching by more than 100-150 persons whose identity could not be determined? These are the questions that need to be answered, to return any finding on the charge against the accused persons. 15. Sahubuddin? Whether he was assaulted by the appellants or was the victim of mob lynching by more than 100-150 persons whose identity could not be determined? These are the questions that need to be answered, to return any finding on the charge against the accused persons. 15. Despite the overwhelming evidence of homicide having been witnessed by many, eye witness to the ghastly incidence is scarce, as only two have come forward to testify regarding it. This is the harsh and sad reflection of the social reality, in which the institution of criminal justice system is rooted, and the constraints in which it operates. There is a trend which afflicts criminal trials, were witnesses who are the ‘eyes and ears of Court’ are not coming forward to assist the Court in adjudicatory process. This is a problem to be pondered and taken note by all stakeholders in the judicial administration. There are some reasons which are obvious. Individuals become mute spectators, for a variety of reasons, including the risk of incurring the wrath of people against whom one has to stand to defend truth and justice. These are the factors which cannot fall beyond the ken of consideration, of a Court while considering the ‘matter’ before it, to prove or disprove a certain fact. It is for this reason that Indian law, unlike English law does not require more than one witness to prove a fact. Hon’ble Supreme Court held way back in Darya Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328 . It is well known that in villages where murders are committed as a result of faction existing in the village or in consequence of family feuds, independent villagers are reluctant to give evidence because they are afraid that giving evidence might invite the wrath of the assailants and might expose them to very serious risks. It is well known that in villages where murders are committed as a result of faction existing in the village or in consequence of family feuds, independent villagers are reluctant to give evidence because they are afraid that giving evidence might invite the wrath of the assailants and might expose them to very serious risks. It is quite true that it is the duty of a citizen to assist the prosecution by giving evidence and helping the administration of criminal law to bring the offender to book, but it would be wholly unrealistic to suggest that if the prosecution is not able to bring independent witnesses to the Court because they are afraid to give evidence, that itself should be treated as infirmity in the prosecution case so as to justify the defence contention that the evidence actually adduced should be disbelieved on that ground alone without examining its merits. Mohd. Mian vs. State of U.P. (2011) 2 SCC 721 21. We cannot, however, ignore the sad but basic truth that the so-called independent witnesses tend to stay far away and are not willing to come forth as they often face grave consequences. The prosecution has therefore, perforce, to fall back on the testimonies of witnesses who are friends or family members of the victim. 16. PW-1 is father of PW-2 and he has deposed that at around 3:50 AM on the said night, the female family members of accused, Shabuddin [appellant no. 1] came to his house and started banging the doors when his son opened the door, it was informed that his employee-Ajay Ram had been caught-hold inside their house, while committing theft. Beyond this his testimony cannot be accepted, as he has himself deposed in Para 6 that he had not witnessed the occurrence. In para-7 he has admitted that he was on litigating term with accused Md. Sahabuddin, as there had been cases relating to Sections 107, 144 of the Cr.P.C. He had deposed that he saw in the morning Ajay Ram being carted to the police station. 17. Apart from PW-1, PW-3 is another witness who claims to be the eye witness to the incidence. He has deposed that at around 4 O’clock in the morning he was at his home. On hulla when he went there he saw that one boy had been caught and he was being assaulted by some persons. 17. Apart from PW-1, PW-3 is another witness who claims to be the eye witness to the incidence. He has deposed that at around 4 O’clock in the morning he was at his home. On hulla when he went there he saw that one boy had been caught and he was being assaulted by some persons. There were about 100-150 persons there. Sahabuddin and others took the boy to the police station. In cross-examination he has deposed that Sahabuddin came running there and asked not to assault the boy and insisted on taking him to the police station. Thief was taken on foot to the police station. 18. Doctor (PW-9) has deposed that he examined the deceased at 5 AM on 15.10.96 at Popular Nursing Home, who was unconscious at the time of examination and was brought by the police. His pulses could not be traced and his blood pressure also could not be recorded. Patient died at six in the morning. 19. Out of ten witnesses examined, PWs 4 and 5 have not at all supported the case and were declared hostile and do not deserve reference. The case of prosecution rests on the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 who claim to be eye witness to the incidence. 20. Although PW-3 has not been declared hostile, but his testimony kneels in favour of the defence. Sequence of events casts doubt over veracity of his account. There is positive evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2 in Para 1, that incidence took place in the early hours at around 3-3.15 in the morning when the deceased was caught in the house Md Sahabuddin. This part of the prosecution evidence has remained uncontroverted in cross-examination. PW-3 states that at 4 a.m. in the morning he was at his home and on hulla on the road, he came out where he saw that one boy had been caught by the crowd, and was being beaten up by a mob of about 150 persons. Going by his deposition that he got up at 4 a.m. he cannot be said to be a witness of the events that took place between 3 a.m. to 4 a.m. 21. He gives a clean chit to the accused persons from complicity in the offence, and shifts the responsibility on a mob without naming any of them. Going by his deposition that he got up at 4 a.m. he cannot be said to be a witness of the events that took place between 3 a.m. to 4 a.m. 21. He gives a clean chit to the accused persons from complicity in the offence, and shifts the responsibility on a mob without naming any of them. Had he named someone from the mob, other than the accused persons in the incidence, then his deposition could have deserved a semblance of credence. To blame a faceless mob for the crime, is nothing but a clever ploy to shield the named accused persons. PW3 has tried to give the incidence a colour of mob lynching, but from the injuries sustained by the deceased, it does not appear to be plausible that 100-150 persons were involved in the assault, as stated by this witness. In such an event, there should have been far more injuries found on the person of the deceased. He attempts to project Md. Sahbuddin as saviour. Merely because he has not been declared hostile will not mean that his testimony is to be accepted as gospel truth. 22. Matter ultimately boils down to the solitary account of PW-2. Matter for consideration is whether he is wholly reliable and his testimony has a ring of truth so as to place absolute reliance on his account, without any corroboration. 23. As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, provided the testimony of that single witness is found to be entirely reliable. In that case, there will be no legal impediment for recording a conviction. But if the evidence is open to doubt or suspicion, the court will require sufficient corroboration. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision in Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 : 1957 All LJ 898 : (1957) 2 MLJ 69 wherein the Apex Court has classified the testimony of a witness into three categories viz. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision in Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 : 1957 All LJ 898 : (1957) 2 MLJ 69 wherein the Apex Court has classified the testimony of a witness into three categories viz. (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and observed that although in the first two categories of classification, there may not be any difficulty in coming to a conclusion either accepting or rejecting the testimony, it is in the third category of cases that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony either direct or circumstantial. Further, unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence. [Refer also to Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614 ]. A witness can be held unreliable, if his statement is inherently improbable, or contrary to the course of nature, or the witnesses statement contains mutually contradictory statements. His credit can be impeached under Section 155 or under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. 24. PW-2 [Md. Azad Hussain], is indisputably resident of same Mohalla, and can be regarded as natural witness to the incidence, for the reason that he came from the same neighbourhood and the deceased was his staff who was caught that night in the night heist. 25. He has deposed that in the wee hours of 15.10.1996, he was sleeping in his house, when about 8-10 persons started banging the door of his house. When he went to the house of Md. Sahabuddin there, he found that Ajay Ram (deceased) was tied in hall and was being assaulted by the accused persons. In Para-1-2, he has deposed that Md Sahabuddin, Md Jahangir, Md Shamim, Md Saukat, Md Sultan, Md Babloo and Md Sagir were assaulting Ajay Ram. They were assaulting him with danda, lathi, hockey stick, etc. He asked Ajay Ram (deceased) as to what had happened, on this he said that he had gone behind the house to ease himself, from where he had been caught by the accused persons. They were assaulting him with danda, lathi, hockey stick, etc. He asked Ajay Ram (deceased) as to what had happened, on this he said that he had gone behind the house to ease himself, from where he had been caught by the accused persons. He further deposed that he had counselled the accused persons to hand over the accused to the police, but they did not agree and continued to assault him. 26. Argument that identification by this witness in the Court suffered from infirmity is without any basis, as the witness and the accused persons were from the same place, and he had named them as well in his deposition. If the identification was to be disputed, it was the learned counsel on behalf of the accused to have asked this witness to identify each of the accused separately by their name during cross-examination. Having not cross-examined the witness on identification during trial, at the appellate stage identification cannot be questioned. 27. In order to draw contradiction under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, it is first necessary to draw the attention of the witness towards his statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. which is said to be in contradiction with his deposition made before the Court, and get that part of statement under Section 161 to be proved by the I.O. Once there are two such proved statements then plea of contradiction can be taken. Unless attention is drawn and subsequently proved by the I.O. it cannot be termed as contradiction. Attention is drawn usually towards a positive statement made by a witness, and not towards omissions unless they are significant. Omissions are not contradictions in terms of explanation to section 162 of the Cr.P.C. They can be termed as contradiction only if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs. [Refer to Tahsildar Singh vs. State of U.P. 1959 Supp. (2) SCR 875 and Rajender Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 298 ] 28. In the present case, Cross-examination of the witness continued from 10.01.2003 to 01.02.2003 and then to 14.10.2003. The long and lengthy cross-examination reflects repeated questions towards omissions, but it has failed to elicit any contradiction within the meaning of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. 29. In the present case, Cross-examination of the witness continued from 10.01.2003 to 01.02.2003 and then to 14.10.2003. The long and lengthy cross-examination reflects repeated questions towards omissions, but it has failed to elicit any contradiction within the meaning of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. 29. Only part of the statement given to the police, which has been proved by the I.O. is in Para-17 to 19, wherein the statements made by PW-2 under Section 161 has been proved. It has been deposed that PW-2 had not stated before him that the ladies from the house of Sahabuddin were standing in front of his house. He has stated that, PW-2 had named Sahabuddin, but in his statement he had not asked Sahabuddin to hand over Ajay Ram to police. Beyond this, no part of the statement of PW-2 made to the police has been proved by the investigating officer. These are inconsistencies which cannot be termed as contradiction, far less a vital contradiction. 30. The main contention of the appellant is that there is vital contradiction in the testimony of PW2 with regard to his statement as given in the examination-in-chief and that which was recorded in cross examination. A specific reference to Paras 1, 15 and 37 of the deposition and argued that the witness has given contradictory version in his evidence regarding the place of occurrence. He had gone to the Verandah which was across the room. It shall be desirable to extract the relevant three paragraphs of his testimony towards which pointed reference has been made: ikjk 1 & eSa ?kj esa mudk x;kA ns[kk ,d gkWy esa vt; jke dk gkFk iSj ck¡/kk FkkA ikjk 15 & eSa ?kVukLFky ij nks rYyk ij x;k Fkk cjkenk tks :e ds ikj gS ogk¡ :e gksdj x;k FkkA cjkenk ds cxy esa fdpu gS ;g ugha dg ldrkA ikjk 37 & eSa eksŒ 'kgkcqn~nhu ds ?kj iwjc rjQ ds jkLrs ls x;k Fkk rFkk igys ?kj ds cjkens x;k FkkA eSa flQZ cjkens rd gh x;k FkkA blds ckn eSa vkxs ugha x;k FkkA cjkenk esa fdpu gS fd ugha] ;g ugha crk ldrkA 31. From the above deposition it cannot be said that subsequent statement in para37 of the cross-examination recorded eight months after the examination-in-chief and about six years after the incidence completely negates his presence at the place of occurrence. From the above deposition it cannot be said that subsequent statement in para37 of the cross-examination recorded eight months after the examination-in-chief and about six years after the incidence completely negates his presence at the place of occurrence. Questions regarding the place of occurrence have been put in fragments, and the answer has accordingly come. In Para-1 the witness describes the place, he saw the deceased to be tied down and kept in a hall in the house of Md. Sahabuddin. In para-15 he has stated the he had gone up to the verandah on the 2nd floor. In para-37 he has reiterated that he had gone up to the verandah. If we read all these three paragraphs together, evidence cannot be said to suffer from any contradiction. 32. The argument that the informant has not been examined, also does not cut ice for the reason that he was not an eye-witness and his non-examination cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. It has been held in Krishna Mochi vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 that non-examination of the informant cannot in any manner affect the prosecution case. If FIR is not proved, it would not be a ground for acquittal, but the case would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution. 33. Much has been argued about the enmity between the parties as a motive for false implication. PW-1, father of PW-2 has admitted that there had been Section 107 and 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding with Appellant Md. Sahabuddin. Can this be regarded as motive for false implication? This cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of PW-2 which is otherwise cogent and reliable. It is not a case where the story has been manufactured by these witnesses. It has not been denied the deceased had be caught by the accused person, when he attempted lurking house trespass to commit theft. It is also cannot be disputed that death of deceased was homicidal. Appellants, claim that deceased was the victim of mob violence, but have not named any one. PW-1 candidly admits that he did not go out to the place of occurrence to witness the incidence as he was prevented by his age and ailment. PW-2 says that he was called there, because the deceased was his staff and has deposed, what he witnessed there. PW-1 candidly admits that he did not go out to the place of occurrence to witness the incidence as he was prevented by his age and ailment. PW-2 says that he was called there, because the deceased was his staff and has deposed, what he witnessed there. There is nothing to show that by deposing against the appellants, this witness was to benefit in any way. Therefore, a proceeding under Section 107 and 144 of the Cr.P.C. will have no bearing on the veracity of this witness. It has been held in Ramehwar Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC54 that a witness is normally to be considered independent, unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted, and that usually means unless the witness has caused such an enmity to the accused, to wish to implicate him false. 34. This Court is of the view that there was no infirmity on the part of the trial Court to act upon the testimony of PW-2, which has been adequately corroborated by the attending circumstances and medical evidence. 35. The fact that in the early morning on 15.10.96 at around 3-3.15 am deceased Ajay Ram was caught in the house Md. Sahbauddin and was given a hard beating after being tied by rope by the Appellants, is established beyond the shadow of all reasonable and probable doubt on the evidence of PW-2. PW-2 being resident of the same neighbourhood was called obviously for the reason that the deceased was his staff and he was caught at night. When he went there, he found that he was being conjointly assaulted by the Appellants. Ante-mortem external injuries found on the dead body, like pattern bruises of rod over the back of chest and on the front of left thigh and other mass of abrasions corroborate the oral evidence of PW-2. These injuries cumulatively caused death. Persons causing such indiscriminate injuries can be credited with the requisite knowledge that such act was likely to cause death. Appellants were the perpetrators of the offence and not any mob on which the liability has been attempted to be shifted. On these facts I do not find any infirmity in conviction for offence under Section 304II r/w 34 of the IPC. Judgment of conviction is accordingly affirmed. 36. Appellants were the perpetrators of the offence and not any mob on which the liability has been attempted to be shifted. On these facts I do not find any infirmity in conviction for offence under Section 304II r/w 34 of the IPC. Judgment of conviction is accordingly affirmed. 36. On the point of sentence, almost three decades have elapsed since the time when the incidence took place in 1996. At the time of conviction by the trial Court in the year, 2012, Appellant no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 were 55, 42, 45, 51, 50 and 35 years respectively. It has been argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Appellants that they have undergone the rigours of protracted litigation for almost three decades, and, therefore, they deserve clemency on the point of sentence. 37. Learned APP has argued that a young boy has been lynched in a most brutal way, and any leniency in sentencing will send a wrong message to the society and will erode the deterrence of sentence. Appellants have all along been on bail, except for the 15 days they were in custody after conviction and before being released by this Court on bail. 38. Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case, age and antecedent of the Appellants, a sentence of RI for three years and fine of Rs 5000/- shall meet the ends of justice. In case of default of payment of fine the appellants shall undergo SI of one month. 39. Before parting it will be desirable to refocus on the egregious error committed by the trial court in giving long adjournments after the examination of the witness (PW-2) had commenced. Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. which came after 2013 amendment, mandates that examination of witness should proceed on day to day basis. Apex Court in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 12 SCC 519 has issued salutary guidelines in this regard for examination of witnesses on day to day basis. Learned trial Courts need to be impressed upon the need to observe the guidelines for expeditious examination of witnesses, lest the adjournments do not become a tool to delay and derail fair trial in criminal cases. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Judicial Academy, Ranchi. 40. Appeal is dismissed with modification of sentence. Learned trial Courts need to be impressed upon the need to observe the guidelines for expeditious examination of witnesses, lest the adjournments do not become a tool to delay and derail fair trial in criminal cases. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Judicial Academy, Ranchi. 40. Appeal is dismissed with modification of sentence. Bail of the Appellants is cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within four weeks of the order, to serve the remaining part of the sentence. 41. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.