Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gurdeo Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 September, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1996CRILJ1270, 1994(2)WLN467
Author: R.R. Yadav
Bench: R.R. Yadav
JUDGMENT R.R. Yadav, J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15-12-1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1987, by which, he found the appellant Gurdeo Singh guilty for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. and appellants Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and sentenced each of them for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- to each appellants, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's R. I.
2. According to the prosecution story, it is alleged that on 10-9-86 at about 5.30 p.m., the brother of first informant School Master Malkiyat Singh after coming from the School, was standing ahead of his house near 'Khala' (water-course), where accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh s/o Jhanda Singh and his two sons viz. Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh suddenly came and immediately after their arrival, Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh caught hold of both the hands of Malkiyat Singh and exhorted their father to beat him. Upon Exhortation of Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh, Gurdeo Singh, who was carrying a 'Kassia' (Phawra i.e. an agricultural equipment used for irrigational purposes) gave a blow of 'Kassia' on the neck of Malkiyat Singh, on account of which, he fell down and instantaneously died. According to first informant Ranjeet Singh, the occurrence was seen by him, by his brother Lal Singh and by his uncle's son Shravan Singh, who were sitting in front of their house and came running to rescue Malkiyat Singh. According to the prosecution, by that time, the accused-appellants alleged to have run away from the scene of occurrence.
3. On the basis of the said written report by the first informant Ranjeet Singh Ex. P/l, a formal F. I. R. Ex. P/2 was drawn at the Police Station, Raisinghnagar under Section 302/34, I. P. C. on the same day at 7.20 p.m. and investigation commenced.
4. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the accused-appellants in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, who committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar for trial.
5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh under Section 302, I. P. C. and as against accused-appellants Labh Singh and Panchhi alias Balbir Singh under Section 302/34, I. P. C. All the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and produced 21 documents from Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/ 21 in support of the prosecution story.
7. Accused Gurdeo Singh has stated in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that on the day of occurrence, it was his turn to irrigate his field. He went to irrigate his field alone. After expiry of fixed hours of his turn to irrigate his field, he was entitled to have entire water of 'Nikal' (water course) i. e. from starting point to tail-end of the water course. When water of Nikal was going to his field, and he was returning towards his house from his field, by the side of the water-course (Khala), he saw Malkiyat Singh holding a 'Kassia' having 5 1/2 or 6 feet 'danda' in his hand, with which, he was creating a hole in the water of Nikal in order to obstruct the water flow of 'Nikal' to the Chhappar (water pond) Upon which, he had objected, as according to him, he alone was entitled for water of Nikal. Instead of refraining to do so, Malkiyat Singh started to shower filthy abuses, upon which, he also abused him. At that time, Gurdeo Singh had only Kassia with him. Malkiyat Singh gave a Kassia blow from its sharp side on the head of appellant Gurdeo Singh. After causing injury on his head, he again made an attempt to give another blow, upon which Gurdeo Singh grappled with him and both fell down on the ground. In process of grappling, Kassia of Malkiyat Singh fell down. Malkiyat Singh stood up and tried to catch hold of his Kassia then appellant Gurdeo Singh was scared about his life and took at once his Kassi lying beside him and assaulted Malkiyat Singh, which proved fatal. When Malkiyat Singh fell down, he did not give him any further blow. The appellant Gurdeo Singh received injury by Kassia and from grappling. At the time of occurrence, neither there was any witness nor his two sons viz. Labh Singh and Panchhi alias Balbir Singh were present. On the same night, he went to police station to lodge the F. I. R. and stated actual occurrence at the police station. He is, illiterate and as such he did not know what is written by the police. He had also shown his injury at the police station but he was put behind the bars and on the next day, medical examination was done at Raisinghnagar Hospital. No medical treatment was given to him. According to the statement of Gurdeo Singh, he assaulted Malkiyat Singh, when he entertained a serious apprehension about his life to save himself. According to accused appellant Gurdeo Singh, if Malkiyat Singh would have succeeded to catch hold of his Kassia then he would have killed him. He had a licence of 12 Bore gun, which is lying in his house.
8. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused, learned trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in his judgment, has found that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh is guilty for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. and accused Labh Singh and Panchhi alias Balbir Singh are guilty of the offence under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and sentenced them as afore mentioned.
9. We have heard Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. D.R. Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length and carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on record.
10. From the material available on record, it is apparent that there are two versions about the manner of assault; one disclosed by the prosecution in the F. I. R. and another version stated by accused Gurdeo Singh in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. As such according to both the versions, factum of assault leading to the death of deceased Malkiyat Singh at the time and place mentioned in the F. I. R. is undisputed. The weapon with which the deceased was assaulted, is also not disputed before us except that according to the prosecution, appellant Gurdeo Singh assaulted deceased Malkiyat Singh while his two sons namely; accused Labh Singh and Panchhi alias Balbir Singh caught hold of both the hands of the deceased and then appellant Gurdeo Singh gave a Kassia blow. According to the defence version, both the sons of Gurdeo Singh, named-above, were not present on the spot but the quarrel took place at the spur of the moment on a trivial matter of change of course of the irrigational water of 'Nikal' for which appellant Gurdeo Singh claimed himself to be entitled but it was being obstructed by deceased Malkiyat Singh by creating a hole in the water-course (Khala) in order to divert the flow of water of Nikal to his Chhappar (a pit used for collecting water for the purpose of drinking water to animals) situated near the Khala (water-course). It is pertinent to mention here that the existence of a pit used for collecting water for the purpose of supply of drinking water to the animals of the deceased and others, is shown by Figure '8' in the site-plan Ex. P/ 3 and in the description memo of site-plan Ex. P/3A. The existence of pit is admitted by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh in his deposition. When accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh objected to the unauthorised diversion of water claiming his entitlement for water of Nikal, there was exchange of filthy abuses between him and the deceased. Deceased Malkiyat Singh started the fight by inflicting first blow from his kassia from sharp side to the accused appellant Gurdeo Singh causing head injury to him and then thereafter both of them grappled with each other. It was claimed that the appellant Gurdeo Singh alone had caused injury to the deceased in his right of private defence and none had seen the occurrence.
11. Thus, in the present case, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether 'Maar Peet' took place in the manner as alleged by the defence and appellant Gurdeo Singh alone had caused the injury to deceased Malkiyat Singh in exercise of his right of private defence.
12. It is urged before us by Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants that it is deposed by the prosecution witnesses before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that injuries to accused Gurdeo Singh were caused by P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh in order to apprehend him but there is no such reference in the F. I. R. Ex. P/l written report given by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh at the police station, Raisinghnagar. According to him, there was no mention in the F. I. R. as to how accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh came to receive a sharp-edged injury on his head. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the defence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted on its face value.
13. There is substance in the aforementioned argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. A close scrutiny of Ex. P/l lodged by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh would, show that he did not mention about the presence of Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha at the place of occurrence, who is alleged to have caused injury with Kassia on the head of accused Gurdeo Singh. Thus, there is no mention in the F. 1. R. as to how the appellant Gurdeo Singh came to receive injuries No. 1, 2, and 3, and therefore, in our opinion, the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses with regard to the manner of assault cannot be accepted on its face value and it cannot be relied upon implicitly for the purpose of conviction of the accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh.
13-A. Secondly, it is borne out from the evidence on record that all the three accused-appellants came at the palce of occurrence empty handed. All the three accused-appellants did not carry any weapon, not even lathi or danda. It is true that it is alleged by the prosecution in the F. I. R. Ex. P/l that appellant Gurdeo Singh was carrying a Kassia, which cannot be said to be a weapon. As a matter of fact, it is an agricultural implement used for the purpose of irrigation of agricultural fields. In our considered opinion, it is highly improbable that accused Gurdeo Singh along with his two sons, Labh Singh and Panchhi alias Balbir Singh could dare to go un-armed from village 15 R. B. to village 14 R. B. which is situated at a distance of 2 kms with an intention to kill the deceased and they would choose a place for committing murder of deceased Malkiyat Singh just adjacent to his house surrounded by residential houses of his brothers P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh, and Jaspal Singh and his real nephews P. W. 3 Shravan Singh and P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh. A man can speak lie but circumstances can never speak lie. In the present case, the discrepancy and omission in the F. I. R. lodged by P. W. 1 - Ranjeet Singh, who is an Advocate having 10 years standing is fatal. According to us, the allegations made by the prosecution during investigation and trial that the injuries caused to appellant Gurdeo Singh by P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh while apprehending him, is an afterthought version and, is an improvement made by the prosecution to explain the injuries found on the person of appellant Gurdeo Singh.
14. Thirdly, had it been a truth that P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha caused head injury with his Kassia to apprehend appellant Gurdeo Singh and the other witnesses belonging to his family have reached on the spot then why they have not apprehended him and allowed him to go. It must be kept in view while taking the aforesaid point into consideration that appellant Gurdeo Singh was an old man of 60 years on the date of occurrence while P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh and other alleged witness Harbeer Singh alleged, to have reached on the spot were young men. Had it been a truth as alleged by the prosecution then all these witnesses ought to have apprehended appellant Gurdeo Singh and it is not believable that after causing injury on the head of Gurdeo Singh, they had allowed him to escape. Thus, the explanation of injuries given by the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence and seems to us an afterthought improvement.
15. It is undisputed that all the four eyewitnesses examined in support of the prosecution story are kith and kin and they are closely related with the deceased. Out of four eye-witnesses, the name of P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha is not mentioned in the F. I. R. Thus, according to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, all the four eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution in the instant case, are interested and partisan witnesses.
16. It is well to remember that the interested and partisan witnesses are not necessarily false witnesses though the fact that such witnesses have the personal interest, therefore, we must put ourselves on guard and further put the following questions to our judicial conscience before appreciating the testimonial value of the deposition of four eye-witnesses in the present case namely; P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh and P. W. 3 Shravan Singh and P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha :-
(a) Firstly, we propose to focus our attention on the question whether the presence of the aforesaid eye-witnesses at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time when occurrence took place, is probable.
(b) Secondly, whether the substratum of story narrated by all the four eye-witnesses, named above, is consistent with the other evidence on record including the statement given by the accused-appellants under Section 313, Cr. P. C.
(c) Thirdly, whether the natural course of human events coupled with the surrounding circumstances and inherent probabilities of the case stated by the aforesaid four eye-witnesses in the present case, is such which may carry conviction with a prudent mind that they are truthful witnesses.
17. If answer of the aforesaid questions are given by us in affirmative and evidence of the aforesaid four eye-witnesses appears to us to be almost flawless and free from suspicion and then only finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the accused-persons can be maintained by us and if answers of the aforesaid questions, which are formulated by us in the preceding paragraphs, are answered in negative then finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellants are entitled to be acquitted.
18. In the instant case, it is alleged that the occurrence took place on 10-9-86 at about 5.30 p.m. and written F. I. R. Ex. P/l was lodged by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, who is an Advocate having 10 years' standing at the Bar and also real brother of the deceased, at the police station, Raisinghnagar on the same day at 7.20 p.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station disclosed in the formal F. I. R. Ex. P/2, is 10 kms. P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh has deposed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he remained at the scene of occurrence for half an hour and then he along with his brother Jaspal Singh proceeded to the police station on tractor to lodge the first information report.
19. It is settled law that a fact is taken as proved, when after considering the matter in the natural course of human conduct, the Court believes it to exist or considering its existence, so probable that a prudent mind under the circumstances of a particular case may act upon the supposition that it exists. In the present case, P. W.1 Ranjeet Singh remained at the scene of occurrence for half an hour then it is natural to believe that all the four eye-witnesses must have collected near the dead-body of Malkiyat Singh and they must have deliberation between themselves about the lodging of the F. I. R. and also about the witnesses who had seen the actual occurrence. If it is so believed by us, then, it is difficult to hold that P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha was present at the scene of occurrence. Thus, his testimony is totally unreliable when he says that he has seen the occurrence and took part in it.
20. Secondly, P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha is not cited by the prosecution as an ordinary eyewitness but it is also alleged that when the accused-persons were running away after assaulting deceased Malkiyat Singh then P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh had exhorted Harbeer Singh and P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha to apprehend accused Gurdeo Singh. When P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh and Harbeer Singh made an attempt to apprehend accused Gurdeo Singh then Gurdeo Singh gave a Kassia blow to P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh, who saved himself from the Kassia blow of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh. It is also alleged by the prosecution that P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh gave a Kassia blow to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh in his self defence.
21. The aforesaid allegation does not find place in the written F. I. R. Ex. P/l given by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, who is an Advocate having 10 year's standing at the Bar.
22. From the aforesaid discussion, it is easily deducible that P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh was not present at the time of occurrence, therefore, his name and role assigned to him by the prosecution at a later stage is an afterthought improvement. Thus in our considered opinion, the presence of alleged eyewitness P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh and role assigned to him causing injury to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh in his self defence is an afterthought improvement in order to explain the injuries received by accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh, for which, there is no explanation whatsoever in the F. I. R. Ex. P/l and hence his testimony, in our considered view, cannot be believed.
23. It is apparent from the perusal of written report Ex. P/l lodged by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, the names of Harbeer Singh and P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha did not find place in it. There is also no mention in the F. I. R. as to how accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh came to receive injuries on his person which are apparent from perusal of Ex. D/3 the injury report of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh which has been duly proved by P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal. P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal had deposed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he examined the injuries on the person of accused Gurdeo Singh on 11-9-1986 on the application of the Police, Raisinghnagar at 6.45 p.m. and found 3 injuries on the person of accused-Gurdeo Singh, who is present in Court (Additional Sessions Judge). According to P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, injury No. 1 on the head of the accused Gurdeo Singh was an incised wound caused by sharp edged weapon, which was 2 1/2" x 1/8" x bone deep. According to the deposition of P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, injuries No. 2 and 3 were abrasions with dark, dried clotted blood. According to P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, looking to the nature of injury No. 1, he advised for its X-ray examination. In the opinion of P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, injuries Nos. 2 and 3 can be caused either by blunt weapon or they can come by fall on the ground during the course of grappling with another person.
24. The F. I. R. Ex. P/l did mention the names of P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh, P. W. 3 Shravan Singh but it did not make mention of so-called eye-witnesses Harbeer Singh and Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha. There is no explanation whatsoever offered in the F. I. R. as to how accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh came to receive the aforesaid injuries at the time of occurrence with sharp-edged weapon on his head. In our humble opinion, in order to explain the injuries received by Gurdeo Singh, the prosecution introduced two more eye-witnesses Harbeer Singh and P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha, which is an afterthought improvement. The prosecution did not choose to examine Harbeer Singh but had examined Jagdeo Singh assigning him a specific role of causing one injury by Kassi on the head of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh. In our considered opinion, the presence of P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh at the scene of occurrence with the alleged assigned role of causing injuries by sharp-edged weapon on the head of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh does not inspire our confidence and as such, unbelievable. Thus, P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh failed to satisfy even the first test of credibility formulated by us in the preceding paragraphs.
25. Now, after discussing the testimonial value of P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha, we propose to discuss the credibility of P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh P. W. 2 Lal Singh and P. W. 3 Shravan Singh.
26. Firstly, the aforesaid three eye-witnesses are not only deeply interested in the deceased. Two of them i. e. Ranjeet Singh and Lal Singh are his real brothers and the third witness Shravan Singh is nephew of the deceased. But all these eye-witnesses have also made improvements in the prosecution story propounded by them at the investigation stage and that too in material particulars changing the complete texture of the prosecution story. In order to avoid the repetition and to maintain brevity, suffice it to state that in the F. I. R. Ex. P/l, there was no mention about the injuries suffered by accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh but at later stage when all these witnesses came to know, that injuries suffered by Gurdeo Singh have been medically examined by P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, Medical Jurist, they made an after-thought improvement in the prosecution story, alleging therein that while accused-persons were running away after assaulting deceased Malkiyat Singh PW 1 Ranjeet Singh exhorted Harbeer Singh and Jagdeo Singh to apprehend Gurdeo Singh and when they made an attempt to apprehend accused Gurdeo Singh, he gave a kassia blow to PW 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha, who saved himself and caused injuries to appellant Gurdeo Singh in his self-defence. It has come on the record that P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh and Harbeer Singh were young men while accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh was an old man of more than 60 years on the date of occurrence. It has also been deposed by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh that apart from these two eye-witnesses, namely; P. W. 2 Lal Singh and P. W. 3 Shravan Singh had also surrounded accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh but in spite of causing injuries to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh, there is no reason whatsoever why accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh was not apprehended by them if they were there in such large numbers. It is not understandable as to why all these eye-witnesses after causing injuries to Gurdeo Singh appellant, who was 60 years of age at the time of occurrence, allowed him to go away when he has committed a cognizable offence and all of them had a legal right to apprehend him as contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha, after causing injuries to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh with a Kassi, he threw the kassi where dead body of the deceased was lying, then why it was not shown by him to the Investigating Officer, who visited the spot on the same day. The aforesaid improbabilities create suspicion about the substratum of the story narrated by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh and P. W. 3 Shravan Singh.
27. Secondly, at the risk of repetition it is stated that P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh had categorically deposed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that residential house of the accused-appellants is at a distance of 2 kms. from the place of occurrence. It is undisputed that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh had a 12 Bore licenced gun but accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh came with a Kassi and his two sons Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh came at the place of occurrence unarmed and had choosen the place of occurrence surrounded by several residential houses of kith and kin of deceased Malkiyat Singh. P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, in his deposition has given a vivid description of these residential houses of kith and kin of deceased Malkiyat Singh but all these witnesses have stated that accused-appellant Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh came along with his father Gurdeo Singh unarmed and all these accused-persons had choosen a place surrounded by several residential houses of kith and kin of deceased Malkiyat Singh. In the F. I. R., there is no mention that both the sons of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh exhorted their father to give further blows of kassia to deceased Malkiyat Singh. According to depositions of P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 3, accused-appellants Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh found deceased Malkiyat Singh to be still alive. Thus the aforesaid three eye-witnesses, named above, further made an afterthought improvement during the course of investigation and during their deposition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in order to attribute common intention of accused-appellants Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh as follows :-
^^vHkh ftUnk gS vkSj ekjks A** In our considered opinion, P. W. I Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh and P. W. 3 Shravan Singh had made the aforesaid deliberate improvement in order to attribute common intention of accused-appellants Panchhi. alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh, which did not find mention in the written F. I. R. Ex. P/l lodged by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh.
28. We have already discussed about the fact that all these three eye witnesses assembled near the dead body of deceased Malkiyat Singh immediately after commission of crime and remained together for half an hour and thus, all these three eye-witnesses had sufficient time for consultation to implicate two sons of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh. In our considered opinion, it is highly improbable that all these three accused-persons came with common intention to commit murder of deceased Malkiyat Singh at the place surrounded by several residential houses of kith and kin of deceased Malkiyat Singh from a distance of 2 kms. away from their residential houses and out of three accused-appellants, two accused-appellants viz. Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh came unarmed. It is not disputed before us that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh had a 12 Bore licenced gun and still he came at the scene of occurrence with a Kassi used for agricultural purposes with an intention to kill Malkiyat Singh. This is against the natural human conduct.
29. A bare perusal of the report Ex. P/l further reveals that there was no mention of prior altercation between the accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh and deceased Malkiyat Singh said to have taken place 15 days before the date of occurrence but all these eyewitnesses i. e. P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh and P. W. 3 Shravan Singh made further improvement in their deposition that before 15 days from the date of occurrence, children of deceased Malkiyat Singh were playing in the water of Khala (water-course) upon which, accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh made a protest to deceased Malkiyat Singh to check his children not to play in the water of Khala obstructing the flow of water to his field. Upon the aforesaid protest of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh, deceased Malkiyat Singh innocently replied to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh that it is difficult for him to persuade his kids not to play in the water course obstructing the water to his field. Upon this reply given by deceased Malkiyat Singh, it is alleged that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh gave threat to him to teach him a lesson at the appropriate time. This is the third improvement made by three eye-witnesses viz. P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh and P. W. 3 Shravan Singh at the trial. The aforesaid motive did not find place in the written F. I. R. Ex. P/l lodged by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, who is admittedly an advocate having 10 years standing at the Bar.
30. Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants submitted before us that since all these three eye-witnesses, named-above, had made improvements in their statements during the course of investigation and during the course of their deposition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, their depositions are not trust-worthy and we find substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and hold that the deposition of P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh and P. W. 3 Shravan Singh as well as P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh do suffer from the defect of material improvements made by them in the prosecution story and as such, do not inspire our confidence in truthfulness of their evidence.
31. Fourthly, the substratum of the prosecution story narrated by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh and P. W. 3 Shravan Singh being inconsistent with injury report Ex. D/3 of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh and is also unbelievable being highly improbable in the surrounding circumstances of the present case as stated in the preceding paragraphs and is also unbelievable in the natural course of human behaviour that accused-appellants Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh came along with their father Gurdeo Singh empty handed from their residential house, which is according to P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh is 2 Kms away from the place of occurrence with common intention to commit the murder of deceased Malkiyat Singh and had chosen a place of occurrence surrounded by several residential houses of kith and kin of deceased Malkiyat Singh. In the present case, inherent probabilities stated by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh and P. W. 3 Shravan Singh in their depositions before the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be reconciled by any stretch of imagination looking into the natural human behaviour. Thus, their testimonial value cannot be safely relied upon to carry conviction of a prudent mind that they are truthful witnesses and their depositions are trust-worthy. In our considered opinion, the depositions of P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2'Lal Singh, P. W. 3 Shravan Singh and P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh have failed to pass through the test of credibility formulated by us in the preceding paragraphs. Their depositions before the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be flawless and free from suspicion, therefore, finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the probative value of the aforesaid eye-witnesses named-above, cannot be maintained.
32. It is true that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive of crime but once the prosecution propounded a motive in their prosecution story, the adequacy of motive is to be examined by the Courts of law in the criminal cases. In the present case, in our humble opinion, the motive alleged by the prosecution was that the children of deceased Malkiyat Singh were playing in the water of Khala (water-course) 15 days before from the date of occurrence obstructing the flow of water going to the field of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh, upon which deceased Malkiyat Singh in a very innocent manner explained to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh, who is a mature man of 60 years to the effect that how it is difficult for him to persuade his kids not to play in the water-course (Khala). The innocent explanation given by deceased Malkiyat Singh to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh in the normal course of human behaviour, cannot be treated to be an adequate motive to commit the murder of deceased Malkiyat Singh, that too after 15 days when the emotions and passions if any of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh had a chance to cool down. Even if assuming for the sake of argument that such exchange of words took place between deceased Malkiyat Singh and accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh, even then it is unbelievable that after expiry of 15 days, all accused-appellants will come unarmed at the scene of occurrence with common intention to commit the murder of deceased Malkiyat Singh. It is not disputed before us that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh had a licence of 12 Bore gun, which was lying at his residential house. It is further not believable that all these accused-appellants after reaching at the scene of occurrence started to assault deceased Malkiyat Singh without any further provocation from the side of deceased Malkiyat Singh. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh cannot be said to be armed with a weapon of killing inasmuch as, a Kassi which he was carrying on the date of fateful occurrence, is not weapon but invariably it is used for the purpose of irrigating agricultural fields. It is admitted by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh, P. W. 3 Sharwan Singh and P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha that at time of occurrence, accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh was allotted water to irrigate his agricultural field and he was irrigating his agricultural field on his turn. Thus, in our considered opinion, if accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh was carrying a Kassi for facilitating the irrigational operation of his agricultural field cannot be said to be armed with a deadly weapon. In our considered opinion, the 'Maar Peet' did not take place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.
33. It is urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution case was that the injuries received by accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh were caused in exercise of the right of private defence of person of P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh. The name of P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh was not mentioned in the F. I. R. There was no mention in the F. I. R. as to how the accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh came to receive injuries. According to Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants, the evidence of P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh, P. W. 3 Shravan Singh and P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh, who are close relations of the deceased cannot be made the basis of conviction of the accused-appellants. It is further urged that sons of the accused-appellant were totally unarmed. According to him, Kassi in the hand of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh, cannot be said to be an arm or weapon as such because it is admitted by all the eye-witnesses named above, that on the date of occurrence, the water was allotted to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh for irrigating his agricultural field and in order to facilitate the irrigation of his agricultural field carrying of Kassi by him was necessary, which is an agricultural implement and invariably it is used for the purpose of agriculture. Needless to state, if need be it can certainly be used as a weapon of offence also if that be so according to him it is difficult to say, how any common intention can be attributed to the appellants Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh, even if the fatal injuries were caused to the deceased by accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. Garg placed reliance on a case Mitter Singh v. State of U. P. rendered by the Apex Court and . Accused-appellants Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh totally denied their presence at the time of incident and their defence was that they have been falsely implicated in the case. A close scrutiny of the depositions of P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh, P. W. 3 Shrawan Singh and P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh made by us in the preceding paragraphs throws a flood of light that the presence of the aforesaid two appellants at the scene of occurrence unarmed with a common intention to commit murder of Malkiyat Singh from their residential house, which according to P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh is 2 kms away from the place of occurrence, is highly improbable and as such it is not believable. In our considered opinion, they are entitled to get the benefit of doubt.
34. Now we propose to take the case of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh, who had admitted in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. to the effect that he had assaulted deceased Malkiyat Singh in exercise of the right of private defence. His statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. has been mentioned by us in the preceding paragraphs in our judgment, therefore, it need not to be repeated again in extenso.
35. P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh had deposed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that on the date of occurrence, water was allotted to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh to irrigate his agricultural field and on his turn, he was irrigating his agricultural field at the time of fateful occurrence. P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh has further admitted in his deposition the existence of Chhappar (Pit) near the Khala (water-course), which was being used for the purpose of drinking water for animals of deceased Malkiyat Singh and other family members including P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh. P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh has further admitted in his cross-examination that the aforesaid Chappar (pit) is used for drinking water far animals of deceased Malkiyat Singh and other family members, which used to be filled with water by creating a hole in the Khala (water-course) through which accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh was irrigating his agricultural field on the day of occurrence. P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh has further deposed that after expiry of fixed period of his turn of water to irrigate his agricultural field, appellant Gurdeo Singh was entitled to utilize the entire water in the watercourse, popularly known as 'water of Nikal' by the villagers i. e. from starting point (¼ewM½) to the tail-end of the water-course connecting his agricultural field.
36. According to the statement of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh under Section 313, Cr. P. C. after expiry of the fixed period of his turn of water to irrigate his agricultural field, he was returning towards his residential house from his field by the side of water-course (Khala). At that time, he saw deceased Malkiyat Singh holding a Kassi in his hand having 5 1/2 feet or 6 feet 'danda' and he was busy creating a hole in the water-course (Khala) in order to obstruct the flow of water of Nikal to his agricultural field upon which, he objected not to do so. According to him, he was alone entitled to water of Nikal. Instead of refraining himself to do so, deceased Malkiyat Singh gave a Kassi blow from its sharp side on his head and after causing head injury to him deceased Malkiyat Singh again made an attempt to give him another kassi blow, upon which, he grappled with him and both fell down on the ground. It is also stated by the accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that at the time of occurrence, he was alone and had a kassi in his hand for the purpose of irrigating his agricultural field. According to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh in the process of grappling, the kassi of Malkiyat Singh fell down. Deceased Malkiyat Singh stood up and tried to catch hold of his kassi and at that time, appellant Gurdeo Singh feared that an attempt is likely to be made to take his life and acted swiftly and he picked up his kassi lying beside him and assaulted Malkiyat Singh. According to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh, when deceased Malkiyat Singh fell down, he did not give any further blow to him. According to appellant Gurdeo Singh, he received injuries of kassi and also from grappling with deceased Malkiyat Singh. According to the statement of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh, at the time of occurrence neither there was any body else present nor his sons namely Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh were present. It is also stated by accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh that he has 12 Bore licenced gun, which was lying at his residence.
37. A close scrutiny of deposition of P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh throws a flood of light that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh was entitled to water of Nikal after expiry of the fixed period of his turn. The existence of Chhappar (pit) adjacent to the watercourse used for drinking water for animals of deceased Malkiyat Singh and other family members, is also admitted by him in his cross-examination. It is also deposed by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh in his cross-examination that the water is collected in the Chhappar (pit) by creating a hole in the water-course (khala) and also by raising an earthern obstruction in the water-course to stop its flow of water to go further. P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh has also deposed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh has not given any further blow when his brother Malkiyat Singh fell down. P. W. 2 Lal Singh, in his deposition had clearly stated before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh could also go by the side of water-course (khala) for reaching his residential house.
38. It is pertinent to mention here that there is a distinction between Kassi and Kassia. According to the deposition of P. W. 3 Shravan Singh the 'danda' of a Kassia is 5 or 5 1/2 feet while 'danda' of a Kassi is only 2 1/2 or 2 3/4 feet. Both kassi and kassia ware agricultural implements used for different purposes. Kassi is used for facilitating the irrigational purposes while Kassia is used for dividing the agricultural plot into sub-divisions, which is popularly known in Rajasthan as deposed by P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh and other eye-witnesses as 'Gondi' (¼xksaMh½). It is further pertinent to mention here that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh was carrying a 'Kassi' on the date of occurrence and water was allotted to him to irrigate his agricultural field. We have already held in the preceding paragraphs of our judgment that there was no mention in the F. I. R. Ex. P/l as to how accused Gurdeo Singh came to receive injuries. We have also held that allegation of the prosecution that P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh alias Ladha gave a kassia blow to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh is an afterthought improvement, which is unbelievable.
39. In view of our aforesaid findings, the only question remains to be decided by us is as to whether in the present set of circumstance, the right of private defence of person accrued to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh for causing the death of deceased Malkiyat Singh and death of Malkiyat Singh caused by accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh is permissible within the meaning of Section 100, I. P. C. read with Exception-II of Section 300, I. P. C.
40. Ex. D/3 injury report of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh reveals that he had received three injuries. According to the deposition of P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, injury No. 1 was caused by sharp-edged weapon and injuries Nos. 2 and 3 can be caused due to fall on the ground in the process of grappling with another person. According to Ex. P/20 to post-mortem report of deceased Malkiyat Singh he had received eight injuries. Out of which, injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are incised wounds caused by sharp-edged weapon while injuries Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are caused by blunt weapon. P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, Medical Jurist, who has examined appellant Gurdeo Singh and also conducted the Autopsy of deceased Malkiyat Singh, during the courts of his statement, has deposed that injuries Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to deceased Malkiyat Singh can be caused due to fall on the ground in the process of grappling with another person. It has been clearly deposed by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh had not given a Kassia blow to his brother when he fell down on the ground and it is so stated by accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. to the effect that he did not give any Kassia blow when deceased Malkiyat Singh fell down on the ground.
41. It is well to remember that Section 100, I. P. C. undoubtedly authorises a man, who is under a reasonable apprehension that his life is in danger or his body is in danger or being inflicted with a grievous hurt by his assailant he can cause any harm including death. The apprehension must be real and reasonable and the injuries inflicted in such circumstances must not be greater than is reasonably necessary for the purpose of self-defence, as contemplated under Exception II to Section 300, I. P. C. Exception-II to Section 300, I. P. C. postulates the exercise of the right of private defence in good faith and also without premeditation and intention to do more harm than is necessary for the purpose of self-defence.
42. In our humble opinion, in judging whether action of the accused-person in causing injuries to the victim in the purported exercise of right of self-defence is justified or not, one has primarily to look into the conduct of the assailant and the apprehension with which the accused-appellants suffers at the time of causing such injuries and secondly it has to be seen by the Courts of law as to whether in the purported exercise of the right of private defence, the accused has not caused more harm than it is necessary in the surrounding circumstances.
43. Now in the light of the aforesaid legal propositions, we propose to examine the case of right of self-defence put-forth by accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh. The statement given by the accused-appellants under Section 313, Cr. P. C, is supported by the injury report of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh Ex. D/3, which was prepared and duly proved by P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, Medical Jurist. The post-mortem report of deceased Malkiyat Singh Ex. P/20, conducted and prepared by the aforesaid Medical Jurist P. W. 9 also supports the version given by accused-appellant. In the present case, P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal who is an independent witness had deposed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that injury No. 1 caused to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh was by sharp edged weapon whereas injuries Nos. 2 and 3 can be caused due to fall on the ground in the process of grappling with another person. Similarly, P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal had deposed that injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 caused to deceased Malkiyat Singh were caused by sharp-edged weapon while according to his deposition, injuries Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 can be caused due to fall on the ground in the process of grappling. The statement of P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal corroborates the statement of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh about his grappling with deceased Malkiyat Singh and run counter to the prosecution story deposed by P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, P. W. 2 Lal Singh, P. W. 3 Shravan Singh and P. W. 4 Jagdeo Singh. According to them, immediately after reaching at the scene of occurrence the accused-appellants Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh caught hold the hands of deceased Malkiayat Singh and accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh who was carrying a 'Kassi' with him started to give kassi blows to deceased Malkiyat Singh. Thus, in the deposition of the aforesaid eyewitnesses, there is no reference whatsoever about the grappling between accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh and deceased Malkiyat Singh while the deposition of P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, Medical Jurist throws a flood of light that there was a grappling between accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh and deceased Malkiyat Singh and in the process of grappling, there is all possibilities that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh may have received injuries Nos. 2 and 3 in the process of grappling with deceased Malkiyat Singh and similarly, in the opinion of P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, Medical Jurist, who is an independent witness, deceased Malkiyat Singh in the process of grappling with accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh may have received injuries Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
44. In order to avoid repetition and to maintain brevity, suffice it to state that P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh has admitted in his cross-examination about the entitlement of water of Nikal by the accused i. e. from starting point ¼ewM½ to the tail-end of the watercourse connecting the field of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh after expiry of the scheduled period allotted to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh for irrigating his field on the fateful day of occurrence.
45. Thus, if according to the prosecution itself, accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh was entitled for water of Nikal then there is a strong probability in the present case that when accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh saw deceased Malkiyat Singh creating a hole in the water-course to obstruct the flow of water of Nikal to his chappar, he was justified to object. If on his objection instead of refraining himself to do so, deceased Malkiyat Singh gave a Kassia blow to accused appellant Gurdeo Singh from its sharp side on his head causing incised wound up to bone deep then he was within his right to grapple with him in order to dis-arm the deceased. It is true that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh was more than 60 years old while the deceased was about 35 years old, then, it was quite easy for the deceased to immediately get himself released from the grip of accused Gurdeo Singh and hence after doing so he stood up and made an attempt to catch hold of his Kassia lying beside him and at this stage, the circumstances were such which reasonably caused an alarm and apprehension in the mind of accused Gurdeo Singh about the conduct of deceased Malkiyat Singh, who had already caused an incised wound on his head with his kassia from its sharp side that if the deceased is allowed to catch hold of his Kassia lying at a distance during the course of grappling, he would be killed, or grievous hurt whill be caused to him by the deceased.
46. There is yet another reason for accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh to be scared about his life that he was carrying a kassi having 2 1/2 or 2 3/4 feet danda whereas deceased Malkiyat Singh was carrying a kassia having danda of 5 or 6 feet. Thus, if deceased Malkiyat Singh would have been successful in picking up his kassia then in such circumstances, it would have been difficult for accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh to defend himself with kassi having danda of 2 1/2 or 2 3/4 feet. In view of the' aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in the instant case, a right of private defence had accrued to accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh and an argument contrary to it advanced by Mr. D.R. Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, is not acceptable to us.
47. In this connection, we would like to discuss as to whether accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh has exceeded the right of private defence as contemplated under Exception II to Section 300, I. P. C. In our humble opinion, the provisions contemplated under Exception II to Section 300, I. P. C. does not mean and cannot expect from a person whose life is placed in danger to weigh with nice precision the extent and degree of force which might be used in such a situation in exercise of his right of private defence. In the instant case, accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh had caused three incised wounds and according to his statement, when deceased Malkiyat Singh fell down, he did not cause any injury to deceased Malkiyat Singh. The statement of accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh under Section 313, Cr. P. C. is corroborated from the deposition of P. W. 1 Ranjeet Singh, who has deposed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that when his brother deceased Malkiyat Singh fell down on the ground then accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh had not caused any further injury to him. Rest of injuries No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 found by P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, during the course of post-mortem Ex. P/20, are abrasions and according to the deposition of P. W. 9 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, these injuries could be caused due to fall on the ground in the process of grappling with another person. In our considered opinion, accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh has not caused more harm to deceased Malkiyat Singh than was necessary for the purpose of his defence and to save his life within the meaning of Exception-II to Section 300, I. P. C. and as such he is entitled for acquittal and an argument contrary to it advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor before us to the effect that accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh in causing injuries to deceased Malkiyat Singh has exceeded his right to private defence, is not acceptable to us and is hereby repelled.
48. It is well to remember that it is settled principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that an accused pleading the right of private defence need not prove it beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough if on the basis of the circumstances of a particular case, applying the test of preponderance of probabilities the version becomes acceptable. The burden placed on the accused is discharged no sooner he creates a doubt in the mind of the Court and satisfied the Court that the version disclosed by him in the facts and circumstances of that particular case is more probable. In the present case, from the aforesaid discussion made in the preceding paragraphs of our judgment, the accused-appellants had satisfied us with the version disclosed by them in the facts and circumstance of this particular case, is more probable than the case put-forth by the prosecution, therefore, in our considered opinion, all the accused-appellant are entitled to be given benefit of doubt and are entitled for acquittal.
49. Our aforesaid view is fortified from catena of judgments rendered by the Apex Court, which need not be referred in our judgment except one of the latest decisions rendered by Their Lordships in the case of Dwarka Prasad v. State of U. P., (1993 Suppl(3) SCC 141 :(1993)1 All. Cri R721 : (1993 AIR SCW 1122 at p. 1129). which is quoted below in extenso :-
"It is well known that accused pleading the right of private defence need not prove it beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough if on the basis of the circumstances of a particular case, applying the test of preponderance of probabilities the version becomes acceptable. There are not two parallel versions before the Court, one on behalf of the prosecution and other on behalf of the accused and the Court is required to choose as to which of the two versions is the correct version of the occurrence. The burden placed on the accused is discharged no sooner he creates a doubt in the mind of the Court and satisfied the Court that the version disclosed by him in the facts and circumstances of that particular case is more probable. The onus of the accused under Section 105 of the Evidence Act has been examined by this Court in the cases of Partap v. State of U. P. , Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, , Seriyal Udayar v. State of T. N., , Vijayee Singh v. State of U. P., , and Buta Singh v. State of Punjab, ".
50. There is yet another reason not to refer to many other decisions on this point rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, inasmuch as, in the aforesaid decision, their Lordships have considered some of the judgments rendered in the past.
51. As a result of the afore-mentioned discussion, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar Dist. Sri Ganganagar under Section 302, I. P. C. against accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh and under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. against accused-appellants Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh vide its judgment dated 15-12-1987 are hereby set aside. All the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 302, I. P. C. and Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. Accused-appellants Panchhi alias Balbir Singh and Labh Singh are already on bail, so they need not surrender and their bail-bonds are hereby cancelled. Accused-appellant Gurdeo Singh is in jail, and he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.