Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Prasad And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2003)DMC154, RLW2003(1)RAJ681, 2002(4)WLC774
JUDGMENT Sharma, J.
1. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 25.8.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarhbas, Alwar, thereby convicting the accused appellants under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years on first count and 3 years on second count with a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default thereof, each was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The facts of the prosecution case giving rise to this appeal are summarised as below:
3. On 27.1.1999, complainant Sukhan lodged a written report, Ex.P14 at Police Station, Tapukada about the incident alleged to have taken place on 23.1.99. It was alleged in the report that his daughter Santo, aged 24 years, since deceased, was married to accused appellant Jagdish on 3.3.95 and since then, she had been subjected to mal-treatment, harassment and cruelty on the ground of demand of dowry by her husband Jagdish and his family members and also turned her out from their house on various occasions. It was alleged that on 23.1.99, the accused killed her by applying electric current and buried her in their house. As per the allegation, her body was taken out from the pit on 25.1.99 and cremated in a Nala. The complainant alleged that at the time of her murder, she had pregnancy of 6-7 months. On this written report, police registered a case vide FIR, Ex.P. 15 and proceeded with investigation.
4. During investigation, police recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prepared the site plan, Ex.P.17 of the crematorium, the place where the deceased was burnt, seized the soil from the pit vide seizure memo Ex.P. 18, recovered a piece of green coloured bangle made of glass, a piece of red coloured bangle, one used old sock (Jurab) of one foot, a iron wire and a electric wire of yellow and blue colour of the length of 9 feet from the pit and prepared seizure memo Ex.P. 19 and also seized burnt and half burnt bones and ashes vide memo Ex.P.20. The police arrested accused Jagdish, Ram Prasad and Smt. Bhoti vide arrest memos Ex.P. 16, P.22 and P.23. On the information of accused Jagdish, the police recovered a chain and silver 'paijeb' of the deceased. A pair of earring of the deceased was also recovered on the information and at the instance of accused Jagdish vide memo Ex.P.12. The police also prepared memos, Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.25 of the place pointed out by accused Jagdish and Bhoti, where deceased was buried, on the information having been furnished by accused Jagdish Prasad and Smt. Bhoti, Vide memo, Ex.P. 26, accused Jagdish pointed out the place where the deceased was burnt and Vide memo, Ex.P.27 accused Ram Prasad pointed out the place of pit and crematorium.
5. On completion of usual investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellants in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tijara. The learned Magistrate, having found the case exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, who in turn, transferred the case for trial to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract), Kishangarhbas.
6. The learned trial court on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and after hearing arguments of both the side, framed charges against the accused appellants under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.
7. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited some documents to prove its case. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused did not examine any witnesses in their defence. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found the prosecution case as alleged, proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal.
8. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution has relied upon the following evidence :
(i) the extra judicial confession made by accused Jagdish on 25.1.1999 at 8-9 PM before witnesses Prakash, Tara Chand, Shibbu and Manohar to the effect that he buried his wife in the house:
(ii) to prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment/cruelty on account of demand of dowry, the prosecution has relied upon the statements of Ramjan, Isal & Abdullah, neighbours of the accused, Smt.Shakuntala, mother of deceased, Shanker, Phupha of deceased, Om Prakash and Chunnilal, cousin brothers of complainant Sukkan, Raghuvir, cousin brother of deceased and Sukkan, father of the deceased;
(iii) recovery of chain and 'Paijeb' of deceased vide recovery memo Ex.P.29 on the information Ex.P.33 dated 6.2.99 of accused Jagdish;
(iv) recovery of ear rings of deceased on the information, Ex.P32 dated 8.2.99 of accused Jagdish, vide recovery memo Ex.P.12 and its site plan, Ex.P.13;
(v) recovery of iron wire vide memo Ex.P.28 and its its site plan Ex.P.21, on the information, Ex.P.34 dated 6.2.99 Of accused Jagdish;
(vi) Information of accused Ram Prasad about the pit and crematorium, Ex.P.31 dated 30.1.99 and his pointing out the places vide memo Ex.P.27;
(vii) Accused Jagdish furnished information about the pit and crematorium vide memo Ex.P.35 dated 6.2.99 and he also pointed out the places vide memos Ex.P.24 and P.26;
(viii) Accused Smt. Bhoti furnished information about pit where deceased was buried (Ex.P,30 dated 30.1.99) and she pointed out the place vide memo Ex.P.25.
(ix) Site plan, Ex.P.16 dated 29.1.99 of the house of accused, seizure memo of soil of pit and control soil vide memo Ex.P. 18 dated 29.1.99, seizure memo of iron wire, two pieces of broken glass bangles, one sock from the pit and one electric wire lying near the wall, seizure memo of ashes, burnt and half burnt bones and one half burnt hand with fingers having ring of the deceased from crenatiriumo, vide memo Ex.P.20 dated 29.1.1999 and its site plan Ex.P. 17.
9. At the very out set, it may be mentioned the there is no direct evidence to the effect that the accused appellants pushed the deceased in a pit and passed electric current in it so as to cause her death and after her death covered the pit with soil and thereafter removed her dead body and put it on fire. To prove this fact, the prosecution has relied upon the circumstances enumerated above. In this view of the matter, I shall now deal with the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, in the light of the evidence, oral as well as documentary.
10. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was the Extra judicial confession.
11. The prosecution has examined PW.2 Prakash, PW.3 Shibbu, PW.4 Manohar and PW.6 Tara Chand to prove the extra judicial confession made by accused appellant Jagdish to these witnesses. However, none of the prdsecution witnesses before whom the alleged confession was made, has supported the above fact.
12. The another circumstances relied upon by the prosecution was the recovery of chain, 'paijeb' and ear rings of the de.ceased, from the house of accused appellant Jagdish at his instance and on his information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. A glance at the information memo Ex.P. 33, it appears that accused Jagdish informed the investigating Officer that he concealed ear-rings, paijeb and chain of the deceased in a box. Pursuant to this information, a chain and Paijeb were recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P.29 dated 6.2.1999 which were kept in a box. Surprisingly, no recovery of ear-rings was effected on that day. The accused again furnished information, Ex.P.32 on 8.2.99 in respect of recovery of ear-rings kept in the same box and on 8.2.99 the ear rings were recovered vide memo Ex.P.12 from the same place from where the chain and paijeb were recovered two days earlier. PW.9 Ilias and PW.16 Chatru are the motbir witnesses of the recovery memo Ex.P.12, but they have not supported the prosecution case. Similarly, Noor Mohammed is the motbir witness of recovery memo Ex.P.29 of chain and paijeb, but he too has riot supported the prosecution case and one Mahesh, another Motbir witness of recovery memo Ex.P.29 has not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the recoveries of chain, paijeb and ear rings in the manner as alleged by the prosecution do not inspire confidence. However, even if the recoveries of above articles are taken to be true, then also in my considered view, the possession of the articles belonging to the deceased with appellant Jagdish, husband of the deceased cannot at all be considered to be unnatural until it is proved by cogent and convincing evidence that he removed these articles from the dead body of the deceased. There is no evidence to show that the articles belonging to the deceased recovery from the possession of appellant Jagdish were removed from the dead body of deceased by him and that deceased was wearing these articles at the time of her death.
13. Now comes the circumstance viz., the site plan, Ex.P. 16 dated 29.1.99 of the house of accused, seizure memo of soil of pit and control soil vide memo Ex.P. 18 dated 29.1.99, seizure memo of iron wire, two pieces of broken glass bangles, one sock from the pit and one electric wire lying near the wall, seizure memo of ashes, burnt and half burnt bones and one half burnt hand with fingers having ring of the deceased from the place of burnt, vide memo Ex.P.20 dated 29.1.1999 and its site plan Ex.P.17.
14. On evaluating the evidence, it appears that the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that the articles found in the pit belonged to the deceased. There appears to be a glaring inconsistency in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding seizure of half burnt hand with fingers having ring in it. PW. 12 Sukhan in his statement has deposed that on 26th at about 5 PM he saw the half burnt hand of his daughter at the place of cremation and they put the hand in a bush and thereafter lodged the report. On the other hand PW.15 Om Prakash has deposed that on 27th he along with Chunni Lal, Sukkan and Prem visited the place of cremation and found one half burnt hand, which they put in a bush and thereafter lodged the report. On the contrary, the investigation carried out reveals that PW.19 Kan Singh Investigating officer inspected the place of creation of deceased on 29.1.99 and prepared Ex.P. 17 and P.20 and found one half burnt hand at the place of creation. The question as to how the hand which was put in a bush on 26th or 27th came at the place of cremation remained unanswered by the prosecution evidence. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence mentioned above does not connect the accused appellants with the commission of crime.
15. Now 1 shall deal with other three circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and enumerated in sub-paras (vi) to (viii) of this judgment viz., the information furnished by the all the three appellants as regards the place of burnt, the pit, and the place where deceased was buried. From the evidence on record it is evidence that PW.12 Sukkan, father of deceased lodged the written report of the incident on 27.1.1999, in which he has clearly stated that inlaws of his daughter buried his daughter in a pit on 23.1.99, after supplying current in it and thereafter on 25.1.99 they put her dead body on fire in a revine. Thus, it appears that both the facts were well within the knowledge of the investigating agency. In this view of the matter, the information furnished by all the three accused appellants regarding pit and the place of cremation as also their pointing out these places is of no consequence and it is no evidence in the eye of law, inasmuch as nothing new was discovered by their information.
16. On evaluating the prosecution evidence the fact that stands proved is that deceased Santo was married to appellant Jagdish on 3.3.95 i.e. about 4 years prior to her death and her body was found burnt in the forest. As such it can be concluded that she died within 7 years of the marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances. However, nothing is elicited from the prosecution evidence that the accused appellants pushed the deceased in a pit and passed current in it, nor there is any evidence to prove that after her death the accused covered the pit with soil and thereafter put her body to flames. The witnesses who are in relation with the deceased family, examined on behalf of the prosecution had no knowledge of the above fact and their statements are evidently, hearsay. As per the statements of parents of the deceased. Chunnilal and Om Prakash, it appears that they were informed of the above fact by PW.14 Raghuvir and Raghuvir in his statement has deposed that he was informed of the above fact by one Dulla, who has not been examined by the prosecution. PW.11 Shanker in his cross examination has categorically admitted that Ram Prasad had gone to attend some marriage function in village Kolgaon on the day of the incident and therefore, it was not possible for accused Ram Prasad to perform the above acts on the day of incident as he was not available in his village on the day of incident.
17. To prove a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon should be of conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. In the case at hand, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are neither of conclusive nature nor they exclude possible hypothesis except the one required to be proved and the chain of evidence is not so complete so as to hold that in all human probability the act was done by the accused and the accused only.
18. From the above discussion, the question which now emerges for consideration of this court is as to whether the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn against the appellants. It is a settled proposition of law that to draw a presumption under Section 113-B, of the Evidence Act, the ingredient of the offence under Section 304-B IPC "that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry" has to be proved.
19. In Gurditta Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (1), a Division Bench of this court while dealing with the question of presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act in a case involving offence under Section 304-B IPC, observed as under:
"The words "it is shown" occuring in Section 304-B are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304-B IPC did exist is on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words to draw a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved."
20. In Sham Lal v. State of Haryana (2), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that it is imperative, for invoking the aforesaid legal presumption to prove that soon before her death she was subjected to such cruelty or harassment.
21. Recently, in Satvir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (3), with one connected appeal, their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed as under :
"....The essential components of Section 304-B are : (i) Death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, 9ii) Soon before her death she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. When the above ingredients are fulfilled, the husband or his relative, who subjected her to such cruelty or harassment, can be presumed to be guilty of offence under Section 304-B...." (Para 14).
22. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court and this court, referred to above, I would deal with the question whether the prosecution has been able to established the basic ingredient of Section 304-B, IPC that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty by the accused appellant so as to hold them responsible for causing her death.
23. In order to prove the above fact, the prosecution has examined independent witnesses, namely PW.1 Ramjan, PW.7 Isab and PW.8 Abdullah, who happened to be neighbours of the accused, but none of these independent witnesses has supported the prosecution case.
24. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove this fact are the close relations of the deceased. PW.10 Smt. Shakuntala and PW.12 Sukkan are the mother and father of the deceased, whereas PW.11 Shanker is Phupha of deceased, PW.13 Chunni Lal and PW.15 Om Rrakash are cousin brothers of Sukkan PW.12. PW. 14 Raghuveer is the cousin brother of deceased.
25. Before adverting to the statements of the above witnesses, to decide the question, a reference to the earlier version about the fact of harassment or cruelty in the FIR would be relevant. In the written report, Ex.P.14, lodged by PW.12 Sukkan it has been mentioned that since the date of marriage of his daughter with appellant Jagdish which was solemnized on 3.3.95, she was being harassed for demand of dowry and the accused dragged her out from their house several times. A glance at the written report, it is clear that there is no specific mention as to what was the demand, whether in cash or in kind and if at all there was any demand, when it was made. The witnesses who are in close relation of the deceased, including the parents have tried to prove that accused appellants demanded a scooter and cash.
26. PW.10 Smt. Shakuntala, mother of the deceased has deposed that soon after the marriage of her daughter Santo, the accused had started ill treating her. On some occasions they raised demand for cash of Rs. 50000/- and also demanded a scooter on some occasions. They used to harass her daughter and dragged her out of the house. Appellant Jagdish used to beat his wife. Her inlaws also used to beat and harass her. In cross examination the witness has stated that Shanker PW. 11 had arranged the marriage of her daughter with appellant Jagdish and nothing was settled as regards dowry at the time of marriage. She stated that immediately after Santo reached her inlaws' house, the accused started raising demand for dowry and harassing her. She further stated that Santo wrote number of letters to them informing about her harassment by the accused and they had received number of such letters. However, the witness stated that she does not remember as to where those letters are. In cross examination, the witness further stated that in respect of harassment of her daughter, a meeting of Panchayat was also held a year before and they did not lodge any complaint at the police station as regards harasment of Santo. No compliant was made even to any officer etc. The witness admitted that she never visited Santo's inlaws house at Nakhnol.
27. PW.11 Shanker has stated that Santo had started going to her inlaws house. She gave birth to a daughter. Santo used to meet him and visit his house whenever she happened to be in village Nakhnol. She had informed him only once to the extent that her inlaws have been harassing her, but she did not disclose the name of any one. According to this witness, Santo informed him that accused had demand a scooter from her uncle. In cross examination, Shanker has stated that he had arranged the marriage of Santo with Jagdish. However, the witnesses has admitted that nothing, at the time of marriage, was settled at the time of marriage. The witness admitted that Santo gave birth to a female child, who died at the age of 7-8 months and till then there was nothing wrong. He further admitted that Santo used to visit his house and also used to disclose every thing and that she was living happily. According to this witness, his house is at the distance of 12-13 fields from the house of Ram Prasad. The witness admitted that Santo had not disappeared in the past and on the day of incident, Ram Prasad had gone to attend some marriage in village Kolgaon. In cross examination, Shanker admitted that no meeting of Panchayat was held. However, some persons had come to talk in the matter of harassment of Santo. He did not enquired from the neighbours whether the accused used to harass Santo.
28. PW. 12 Sukkan, father of the deceased has stated that his daughter gave birth to a female child in 1996 who died at the age of 8 months. Santo used to inform his about the demand of a scooter etc. by her inlaws whenever she happened to visit them. She clarified that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law raise demand and harass her. The witness stated that because of his inability to fulfil their demand, the accused had dragged his daughter out of their house on 2-3 occasions. In cross examination the witness stated that PW.11 Shanker, his brother-in-law was the mediator in arranging marriage. He admitted that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. According to him, after the marriage, she started visiting his place and after 2 years of her marriage she gave birth to a female child. The witness stated that accused had started raising demand for dowry from very beginning and they used to receive her letters mentioning about her harassment in connection with demand of dowry by the accused. The facts regarding demand of dowry and harassment by the accused were mentioned in the letters of Santo and she also used to inform orally about the demand of a scooter and cash. In the later part of his cross examination, the witness stated that he had received 1-2 letter after her marriage. He admitted that he did not make available the letters of his dauther to the police nor did he inform about the harassment either to any officer or at the Police Station.
29. PW. 13 Chunni Lal has stated that Santo, on her visit to village, used to inform him that her inlaws have been demanding dowry and a scooter and used to harass and ill treat her. She also informed that Jagdish and Ram Prasad were demanding scooter. He stated that accused harassed the girl 3-4 times and also gave her brating. In cross examination the witness stated that on death of Santo, when they visited village Nakhnol and enquired from the neighbours of the accused, they informed that accused used to harass Santo.
30. PW.14 Raghuvir has stated that after marriage, Santo used to visit his house and she never complained against any one. He then stated that Santo informed him once or twice that Jagdish and Bhoti used to harass her. Sukkan had purchased a new scooter and when Santo came to him, she disclosed that Jagdish is demanding scooter which her father had purchased. The witness stated that Santo had left the house twice and he did not know whether she was dragged out or had left at her own. In cross examination, the witness admitted that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage of Santo. He stated that Sukkan had purchased a scooter a year prior to the incident. Sukkan used to drive the scooter and Jagdish also used to drive it whenever he happened to be there. The witness further stated that when she left the house twice in the past, they had brought her back. However, he admitted that he was not aware of the reason as to why she had left the house,
31. PW.15 Om Prakash has stated in his statement that whenever Santo met him, she informed that her inlaws and husband are harassing her. He further stated that Santo informed that her father did not give scooter and that she should bring Rs. 20,000/- from her parents.
32. From the evidence discussed above it becomes clear that there are glaring discrepencies in the statements of above witnesses. Smt. Shakuntala, mother of the deceased states about the demand of a scooter and Rs. 50000/- as also ill treatment of her daughter by the accused. However, she admits that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. As per PW.11 Shanker who arranged the marriage of Santo, there was nothing abnormal and the relations between the two were cordial till Santo gave birth to a female child, who died after 7-8 months of her birth. However, this witness admitted that once Santo informed him about the demand of a scooter but in cross examination, he clarified that he had no occasion to talk with Santo. He also admitted that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. Witness Sukkan, father of the deceased states about the demand of scooter etc. He also states about the demand having been started right from the time of marriage. Sukkan is the author of the written report, but he did not mention these facts in the FIR. Smt. Shakuntala and Sukkan both have stated that Santo wrote number of letters informing them about her harassment on account of demand of dowry by her inlaws and husband. However, no such letters have been produced and got exhibited in evidence. Sukkan has also admitted that the Shanker had arranged the marriage of his dauther and that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. Witness Reghuveer, cousin brother of deceased has stated that Santo did not make any complaint against any one, however she informed only to the extent that Jagdish and Bhoti used to harass her and Jagdish wanted scooter which Sukkan had purchased. This witness also admits that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. He further admits that on two occasions, Santo left the house of her inlaws at her own. Lastly, the witness admits that he had no talk with Santo. Witness Om Prakash states about the demand of a motor cycle and Rs. 20000/-, whereas witness Chunnilal states about the demand of scooter only. PW.19 Kan Singh, Investigating Officer has stated that Santo used to leave the house of her inlaws in the disturbed state of her mind and her parents and relations searched her and sent back to her inlaws house.
33. In this view of the matter, I do not find any evidence to show that deceased Santo was being harassed or was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry except general, vague and inconsistant statements of the interested witnesses namely, the partents and close relations of the deceased. None of the neighbours who were examined as independent witnesses, has supported the prosecution allegation that Santo was subjected to cruelty or harassment or ill treatment on account of demand of dowry. There is also no evidence that there was demand of dowery at the time of marriage of Santo from the side of accused. Even the so-called letters of deceased Santo alleged to be received by them informing about her harassment by the appellants, which could have been the best documentary evidence to establish the prosecution allegation, have not been produced and got exhibited in evidence. In my considered view the essential component 6f Section 304-B IPC namely, soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry has not been fulfilled and therefore, the appellants cannot be said to have subjected deceased Santo to such cruelty or harassment and as such since the ingredient of Section 304-B IPC does not stand proved, no presumption of guilt against the appellants under Section 304-B IPC can be drawn.
34. The expression "soon before her death" occurring in Section 304-B IPC indicates that there must be perceptible nexus between the infliction of dowry related harassment and cruelty and the death. But from the facts and circumstances that have emerged out from the evidence discussed above, even if it is taken to be true that some demand of dowry was there in the past, still there is no evidence to prove that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty by the appellants in connection with demand of dowry and further the interval between the so-called demand of dowry and the death of Santo is wide enough to snap the nexus. Thus, admittedly the prosecution evidence is lacking on the above necessary essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC and hence no presumption of dowry related death can be drawn against the appellants.
35. As already stated above, there is no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove that accused appellants pushed deceased Santo in a pit, passed electric current in it, thereby causing her death and then buried her in the pit and thereafter cremated her.
36. From the evidence discussed above, it has also not been proved that the appellants knowingly or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention gave any information respecting the offence which they knew or believed to be false.
37. Since the prosecution has failed to establish its case on both the counts, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC cannot be sustained and they deserve to be acquitted.
38. Before parting with the judgment, it must be observed that it is unfortunate that the trial court has not even considered the evidence while arriving at a conclusion of guilt against the appellant, what to say of proper and objective consideration. It does not transpire from the judgment under appeal as to on what basis/evidence the trial judge has held the appellants guilty of having committed offence under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC. No reasons worth the name have been assigned. To my mind the judgment of the trial court is based on pure surmises and conjectures and it reflects complete non-application of mind and poor judicial approach.
39. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC and the sentences awarded there-under are set aside and they are acquitted of the offences charged with. The appellants are in jail and they be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.