Allahabad High Court
Malkhan Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 6 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001CRILJ933
Author: S.K. Agarwal
Bench: J.C. Gupta, S.K. Agarwal
JUDGMENT S.K. Agarwal, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 2387 of 1982 was preferred by Malkhan Singh, Narendra Kumar and Pratap Singh. Connected with this appeal are Criminal Appeal No. 2548 of 1982 and Criminal Appeal No. 2686 of 1982. These appeals are preferred by Om Pal and Shripal respectively.
2. All the aforesaid appeals arise out of an order of conviction under Section 302/149, 147 and 148, I.P.C. of all the appellants. Malkhan Singh and Pratap Singh being armed with Lathi were convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. Appellants Shripal and Om Pal were sentenced under Section 148, I.P.C. for holding pharsa and sword to two year's R.I. They all were also sentenced to R. I. for life under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the occurrence in this case had taken place on 23-9-1981 at 4.30 p.m. in the Jungle (fields) of village Jarara near the field of Devi Singh. The place, where there incident had occurred, is about 2 kms. from the Abadi of the village. The F.I.R. of this incident was lodged by Vipin Kumar son of deceased Fatesh Singh at 6.30 p.m. at P.S. Pahasu on the same day. A case, on the basis of this written report, was registered at the above said police station by the Head Moharir, P.W. 4 Shiv Prakash. Written report is Ext. Ka-1. After preparation of the check report and completion of other formalities the investigation of the case Was taken up by P.W. 6 Yogendra Singh, S.I. He arrived at the scene of occurrence and prepared inquest memo and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He had also prepared other papers pertaining to the postmortem. He had recovered the bags containing grounded wheat flour and other vegetables that were carried by the deceased on his cycle. They were given in the custody of his son, PW-1 Vipin Kumar. He had also recovered blood stained earth and simple earth from the seat of incident, sealed them in different containers, and prepared their recovery memos. Thereafter the investigation was taken over by P.W. 7 Balbeer Singh, S.I. After conclusion of the investigation he had submitted the charge-sheet in the case against the abovesaid appellants.
4. The post-mortem examination on the person of the victim was conducted by P.W. 10 Dr. Chandra Prakash. The doctor had found only two incised wounds on the person of the deceased. One was on the neck just below right ear. Underneath that injury right vertebral vessels were also found cut through and through. About 1 oz. of clotted blood was present around the tissues. The second sharp-edged weapon injury was on left temporal region extending to left cheek bone, of the dimension of 6 1/2" x 1 1/2" x bone deep. Left ramous of mandible and left mastoid process was found cut underneath this injury. The Doctor opined that these two injuries could have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. Rigor mortis had passed off. There was no decomposition noted by the doctor. In his opinion death could have occurred on 23-9-1981 at 4.30 p.m. He had further very clearly stated that these two injuries could have been the result of use of a sword or a pharsa. In cross-examination he had admitted that injuries No. 1 and 2 could be the result of a single weapon and there can be a difference of 2-4 hours in the duration of death either way. It is also admitted to the doctor that the deceased must have taken his last meal some 4 hours before his death and he had died instantly.
5. The prosecution has examined four ocular witnesses in this case. Out of them P.W. 1 Vipin Kumar and P.W. 5 Gajraj Singh are the sons of the deceased. P.W. 2 Omkar Singh and P.W. 3 Bani Singh have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story in its entirety. P.W. 2 Omkar Singh in his examination-in-chief had nominated all the five appellants and also attributed role of killing of Fateh Singh to Om Pal and Shripal. He had also stated that Om Pal was armed with a Pharsa and Shripal was armed with a sword. Regarding other appellants the case set up by this witness is that they surrounded the deceased. He had also admitted his presence along with Vipin Kumar, Gajraj Singh and Bani Singh on the spot at the relevant time. The initial examination-in-chief of this witness was held on 8-4-1982. His cross-examination was deferred by the Court on the request of learned counsel for the defence. During the course of cross-examination, which was held on 22-4-87, this witness had given out that the assailants were covering their faces with a cloth and he had recognised the assailants by estimation only. Further he had stated that the assailants had taken to their heels after the incident towards east. He showed his inability to tell that for how many minutes the incident lasted. He further stated that the first blow was of Pharsa and, immediately this was followed by the sword blow. He had further admitted in cross-examination that there was no enmity between him and Fateh Singh. On hearing the alarm of Feteh Singh they also yelled out that they are coming. Hearing their challenge the assailants took to their heels towards east. While running away the assailants did not see them. He has refuted the allegation that Shripal is an agricultural labour and he was intending to use his service free of cost. He further categorically denied that Shripal has been falsely involved on account of above fact. He further denied that he never involved Pratap Singh and Fateh Singh in any dacoity case and has no malice or enmity with Pratap Singh. In re-examination by the prosecution he had stated that he did not inform the I.O. during his 161, Cr.P.C. statement anything about Dhata because no such thing was enquired from him. He further stated that the assailants had put on Dhata up to their face. Only their eyes were visible. He had seen them only running away. He was suggested by the prosecutor that his uncle is Sarnam Singh. Anand Pal is brother of appellant Om Pal. Both Sarnam Singh and Anand Pal are married in village Tilakpur and not in Rooppur. It is thus apparent that the statement of this witness is not initially against the prosecution. Thus the witness has not at all been declared hostile by the prosecution. The Court has permitted reexamination of this witness by the prosecution only with a view to allow it to seek an explanation for the change in his version regarding Dhata. In our opinion, this witness cannot be termed a hostile witness. Further this witness has supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety. The prosecution has also brought on record his 164, Cr.P.C. statement. In that statement also this witness has completely corroborated the case of the prosecution and had not given out any Dhata therein. It appears that the evidence of this witness was deferred by the defence with an ulterior motive and on account of some pressure apparently being brought upon him from the side of Anand Pal, brother of Om Pal he had introduced the story of assailants covering their faces with Dhata in the cross-examination. We do not find any substance in this part of his evidence and we are prepared to go to the extent of discarding this part of his evidence and accept that the Pharsa and sword blows, as admitted by him, were given by Om Pal and Shri Pal appellants upon the deceased. His evidence minus the Dhata story is wholly reliable and we do not find any substance minus the Dhata story is wholly reliable and we do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the defence that in this case P.Ws. are not only chance witnesses but also inimical. So far as this witness is concerned, the defence has completely failed to illustrate any enmity against him for their false implication.
6. Next witness in this context is PW 3 Bani Singh. Undoubtedly, this witness has turned his back upon the prosecution at the very outset. No doubt in his evidence he has certified the time of incident to be 4.30 p.m. and also the fact that he and PW 5 Gajraj were on the field of the deceased and both of them had rushed to the spot of incident from that very field. He also had corroborated presence of PW 1 and PW 2, but had further deviated from his previous statement under Sections 161 and 164, Cr. P.C. and stated that when they reached the spot they found Fateh Singh dead and he had not seen anybody assaulting him. He had denied his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. also. He had admitted that his statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C. The same has been brought on record as Ext. Ka-2. It was read over to him. He had denied even this statement. The explanation offered by him was that due to fear he had made this statement before the Magistrate. He had further stated that these accused persons had brought him forcibly from this house and obtained an affidavit from him. Thus, the testimony of this witness, so far as the factum of assault upon the deceased is concerned, is not available to the prosecution but so far as the presence of three witnesses, viz. Vipin Kumar, Omkar Singh and Gujraj Singh is concerned, he corroborated their presence at the spot of incident at the relevant time, i.e. 4.30 p.m.
7. The law regarding hostile witnesses is now well settled. Evidence of hostile witnesses can also be taken into consideration to the extent to which it corroborates the prosecution story. The law does not permit it to be excluded all together from consideration, undoubtedly tainted evidence cannot be corroborated by another tainted piece of evidence, viz. hostile witnesses' evidence. But, if there is even one reliable witness then the corroboration can be had from the evidence of even a hostile witness, if it does furnish corroboration on material particulars of the case. In the present case, so far as PW 2 Omkar Singh is concerned, he has not been declared hostile. Permission by the Court to examined any witness by the prosecution in order to seek clarification of some part of his statement arriving in the cross-examination does not mean that the witness is declared hostile by the prosecution Section 137 of Evidence Act leaves no room for any doubt in this connection. Thus, in the circumstances, the contention of the defence that Omkar Singh is hostile to the prosecution is not acceptable to us in the facts and circumstances of the case. Here the Court is required to assess the corroborative value of the evidence of PW 2 with caution and circumspection. This witness is furnishing corroboration on all material particulars to PW 1 and, therefore, he is a reliable witness. His half-hearted statement that the assailants were covering their faces with a piece of cloth exposing their eyes alone is nothing but a calculated ploy to help out the defence. We have already discussed this part earlier.
8. However, we will like to discuss first the evidence of PW 5 Gujraj Singh before dealing with the evidence of his brother Vipin Kumar. The main charge levelled against this witness is that he is son of the deceased and could not reach the spot in time to witness the assault upon the deceased, because the assailants would not have taken any time in causing two injuries. It was argued by appellant's counsel that in the circumstances, his evidence cannot be utilised to furnish any corroboration to the evidence of PW 1. His evidence is that he and PW 3 Bani Singh were working in his field. He heard alarm of "save, save" emanating from the side of the boring (tubewell) of Devi Singh Jat. He and Bani Singh both ran towards that side. When they came out on the road from the field of Malkhan Singh, Om Pal, Pratap, Narendra and Shripal were seen surrounding his father on the road in front of Devi Singh's tube-well. He ran towards his father along with Bani Singh. He stated that his brother Vipin Kumar and Omkar were also running towards the deceased. They were also raising alarm. His father was also crying. Om Pal gave a Pharasa blow and Shripal inflicted a sword injury upon his father who fell down. As soon as they reached the spot of incident, assailants ran away towards east. They found his father dead. He has also corroborated that cycle, a bag containing wheat flour and other bags were lying scattered on the road. Leaving them near the dead body his brother, Vipin, had gone to P.S. Pahasu and lodged the report. In cross-examination he stated that his field where he was working was at a distance of about 150 yards from the spot. He repulsed the defence suggestion that when he came out of his field the assailants were running away. He claimed that when he heard the alarm and came on the road assailants were surrounding his father. He had hardly run 4-5 steps, when his father was assaulted. He further stated that his field is contiguous to the road. As soon as he reached near his father, the assailants had already taken to their heels. He had stated that he was breaking the rnaind. He was using spade in doing that. Devi Singh Jat was not present at his tube well. None from the nearby fields came to the spot as they were not there. The road that passes by his field is a public pathway. Nobody was on the road at that moment. Occasionally, carts or Tonga use to passby. He had further stated that Pharsa, which was used by Om Pal on his father, was small in size. No Lathi was plied on his father. When he was assaulted, his cycle was lying on the road. 20 minutes after departure of Vipin to the police station, villagers started assembling there. He had not disclosed the names of the assailants to anyone, nor any one enquired the same from him. He admitted to that he is an employee in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) for last 11 years. It has further been elicited in his evidence that he was at the relevant time on annual leave. Om Pal, appellant has retired as Havaldar from the army. There was no litigation pending between him and Om Pal. Om Pal is his own cousin, son of father's elder brother. The police arrived at the scene of occurrence 30-35 minutes afterwards. They came from the side of the village. He also named Yogendra Singh, S.I. amongst these police personnel. He admitted that he had given out names of the assailants to this S.I., but not to any of the constables. He admitted that Malkhan had lodged at P.S. Pahasu a report against his brother but refuted the suggestion that because of this enmity he nominated Malkhan in the incident falsely. He also denied any enmity with Shripal. He was unable to give out the time when the dead body of his father was despatched by the police for postmortem. He admitted that he had gone to Bulandshahr at about 12.30 p.m. next day. He also denied that Omkar and Bani Singh belong to his party and, therefore, they are shown as witnesses. Thus, we do not find any such thing in his statement on the basis of which we can discard outright his testimony. What we discern from his evidence is that he had witnessed at least withdrawing assailants. He certainly came out of his field on hearing the alarm and was at a distance of 100-125 yards. He did see some people assaulting his father. The assailants were well known to him from before. It would not be difficult for him to identify them from a distance. The estimate of distances may vary from person to person. He could have easily reduced the distance. This shows he is honest. In the circumstances his testimony can be relied upon to the extent that he was present there in his field. He had heard the alarm, rushed out on the road and identified these persons but before he could reach his father the assailants withdrew in full view. It was still broad daylight.
9. A very important circumstance is that all the assailants except Shripal are closely related to each other. They are equally related to the witnesses also. The defence wants us to discard the testimony of these witnesses, viz. P.W. 1 and P.W. 5, on account of admission made by P.W. 1 in paragraph 4 that the relation between his father and Malkhan Singh, appellant, were strained, civil litigations were contented between them, and his father had on a number of occasions got them arrested. This indicates enmity between them but as is commonly known that enmity is a double-edged sword and it can cut both ways. It may be used by the prosecution to rope them to satisfy their grudge and it may equally be a motive to eliminate Fateh Singh (sic) their harassment at his hands by the appellants. So this requires from us a cautious and careful approach in the appreciation of the evidence of witnesses. Malkhan is uncle of P.W. 1, Narendra, appellant, is son of Malkhan. Om Pal, appellant, is his nephew. Pratap, appellant, is grandson of the real brother of Malkhan. About Shripal the statement is that he belongs to their group. P.W.-1 Vipin Kumar has stated that he had gone to the flour mill of Poosey Jatav to fetch his grounded wheat. He admits the presence of PW-2 Omkar at that place at about 4.00 p.m. He along with Omkar, who had given his corn seed for grinding at that mill, were returning to village. Omkar's corn was not grinded so he took some flour from the mill. When they reached the conjunction, which leads from Pahasu. At that time he was having a bag and a bundle containing various articles. His father had taken the bag of wheat flour on his cycle. The flour was in gunny bag. All started moving on foot towards the village. As soon as they reached near the tube-well of Shivraj Singh, his father rode the cycle and started to peddle it towards the village. They two were still walking. At about 4.30 p.m. when his father reached near the field of Devi from behind the bushes appellants Om Pal, Shripal, Malkhan, Pratap and Narendra emerged out. Om Pal was armed with a Pharsa, Shripal with a sword, and the others with Lathis. They surrounded his father. Dropping his cycle deceased ran towards east. He was chased and surrounded. Om Pal gave a Pharsa blow on his temple. Shripal inflicted a sword injury on his neck. When his father was surrounded by the assailants, he raised alarm responding to his alarm he and Omkar Singh started running. From the other side his younger brother Gajraj and Bani Singh also ran. Seeing them approaching the assailants ran away through the fields of Netra Pal and Swarupa. When they reached near their father, he was found dead. Leaving Gajraj and Omkar at the spot he had gone to the police station and lodged his written report. It was scribed and signed by him. He had also identified the clothes and the shoes that his father was wearing at the time of death. He had admitted enmity very candidly. In cross-examination he gave out that he had reached the police station at about 6.00 p.m. He went straight from the spot to the police station on a cycle all alone. The report was transcribed by him at the police station. He had informed the S.I. initially that his father is murdered. On that the S.I. asked him to give a written report. After obtaining the paper from the market he prepared his written report and submitted it at the police station. He denied that this report was taken down by him on the dictation of the I.O. He also denied that he was not present at the spot. He had given out the exact weight of the wheat left for grinding at the flour-mill. He further stated that the owner of the flour-mill made an entry in his register. He left that wheat at the flour-mill 2/3 days ago. When he received the ground wheat no entry was made in the register about this delivery. The day, on which he left the wheat at the flour-mill, electricity was not available. Therefore, he had not gone to take it on the next day. In between also he did not fetch the wheat flour for paucity of time. His serial number in the register was tick marked at the time of its delivery to him. When he took his wheat (sic) from Omkar 3 or 4 other persons were also there. This flour-mill is at a distance of 100 steps towards east from the main road. The place where the murder had taken place is about 400/450 steps away from this flourmill. The murder had taken place on the side Patri. He admitted existence of fields of Netrapal and Ram Swaroop there. He pleaded ignorance regarding the fields of Munshi Singh, Sardar Singh and Kehar Singh. He admitted that towards south of Devi Singh is his field. This is that field where Gajraj and Bani Singh were present at the time of incident. No Mukhbir (informer) had disclosed anything either to him or his brother. His father hardly ran about 8 steps after leaving the cycle when this incident occurred. His father had gone to Pahasu at about 10.00 a.m. in the morning for marking purchases of household articles. He had not gone to lodge his report on that cycle. After walking some distance Raj Kumar of Dandpur came across him and he took his cycle for going to police station. He did not find it proper to take the cycle of his father. Om Pal gave only one blow of Pharsa. Pharsa was of medium size. The blade of the pharsa was hardly a balist in length. It was semi-circular. Pharsa blow was soon followed by blow of sword. Hardly it took 2/3 minutes in the entire incident. His father had raised alarm before his fall. They were attracted by the alarm. He was at a distance of 100-125 steps from him. From that place where his father has taken his flour bag on his cycle. Shiv Raj's tubewell is about 150 steps. They accompanied his father up to the tubewell of Shiv Raj. From the field of Shiv Raj, tubewell of Devi Singh is about 300-400 steps are admitted that he had no litigation with Om Pal but stated that there was some litigation with his family members. He admitted that Pratap is his Khandani and Om Pal's real uncle. Appellant Mulkhan and his father were real brothers. Pratap is equally related to both of them. He had very clearly stated that when he reached near his father the assailants were running towards east. They were at a distance of 50-60 steps from him. He came from the north. He identified the assailants when they were inflicting injuries. At that time he was coming from the side of Pahasu. At the outset he had seen them from a distance of 100-125 paces. He denied that he was not present at the spot. He admitted that Malkhan had lodged a complaint under Section 420, I.P.C. against his brother Manindra. He did not ask him to bring grounded wheat on his way back because he used to return quite late. His father had appeared in one or two cases. When he took his flour the mill was not running. He pleaded ignorance whether electric supply was on at that time or not. He stated that from the place where his father was murdered tubewell of Devi Singh is only 75 steps. He could not give any details of the involvement in dacoities of Pratap. He further pleaded ignorance whether Pratap is involved in any dacoity case or not. The evidence of this witness, discussed above, clearly indicate that he was on inimical terms with Malkhan, Om Pal, Pratap and Narendra. Malkhan is own brother of the deceased. Except this admission of enmity, we are unable to find out anything in his testimony to indicate that he has falsely involved these appellants in the case on account of this enmity alone. The defence has failed to elicit anything which may make us discard his going to the flour-mill. No affinity of his with Omkar (P.W. 2) has been proved from his cross-examination. He had involved himself in actual crime only Om Pal and Shripal. Nothing has been brought out in the evidence of this witness why he is involving Shripal and attributing him the main role of giving sword blow. So far as Malkhan and Pratap are concerned, their presence is alleged by them, but they had not given them any role except surrounding the deceased. During the day hours a known person can be recognised from a distance of 100-125 yards of paces also. There is no doubt about this fact. Gajraj, PW-5, may have mistaken steps as yards. This was the distance at the initial stage when they started running. The deceased had run a few steps for his life. It will take sometime before he actually could be encompassed and killed. In the meantime these witnesses who are young impelled vigorously by the zeal to save, definitely cover more distance than the assailants. So finally the distance will come down considerably and the witnesses can easily identify the assailants, who were very well known to them in broad daylight. There cannot be any doubt with regard to this fact. In the circumstances we are of the clear opinion that the evidence of this witness, despite animosity, is wholly reliable. A family member is not likely to leave out the real assailants and involve falsely his own kith and kins in a murder of their own father if it was a blind murder at all.
10. In this context the learned counsel for the defence has also drew our attention to the evidence of the I.O Yogendra Singh (P.W. 6). This police officer was present in the course of routine Gast in this village at about 4.15 p.m. He came to learn about abovesaid incident of murder in village Jarara around 5.15 p.m. He reached the spot of incident along with his contingent. He had examined the dead body. Large number of people were present there. He had sent two constables, Shiv Kumar and Kunwar Pal to the police station for calling the book in which the inquest is being prepared. He prepared inquest memo and signed it. The dead body was handed over to Shiv Kumar and Kunwar Pal by him. In cross-examination this witness admitted that when he reached the spot he did not find Vipin present there, but Gajraj was present. The incident had taken place at 4.30 p.m. and after receiving the information at 4.45 or 5.15 p.m. he must have reached the place of occurrence within minutes. The incident had taken place at the outskirts of the village. He had further stated that so long as he sealed the dead body, Gajraj remained present there. When he was preparing the inquest, S.I. Balbeer Singh along with few police personnel also arrived at the spot from P.S. Pahasu. Before his preparing the inquest the constables, who were sent to fetch the Jild Panchayatnama had returned. When he started preparing the inquest it was 7.45 p.m. When he had sent the constables to the police station it was 5.15 or 5.30 p.m. P.S. Pahasu is 2 kms. from the spot. The entry of arrival and departure of the constables, whom he had sent to the police station to obtain the Jild Panchayatnama, were made in the G.D. at the police station. Nothing other than this was elicited in his testimony. His testimony fully corroborates presence of Gajraj at the spot around 5.00 p.m. and also the fact that inquest was already started before the arrival of P.W. 7 Balbeer Singh. P.W. 7 has also confirmed presence of Yogendra Singh and the fact that he was busy in conducting inquest proceeding at the time of his reaching there. When he inquired about the informant and his brother Gajraj, he learnt that they had gone with the dead body. As a matter of fact only Vipin went along with the dead body. Gajraj had returned to his house. On 25-9-1981 he recorded statement of Vipin Kumar and Gajraj Singh. He had proved the entries in the register of the flour-mill. There is entry on 19-9-1981 at SI. No. 49 about the flour of Vipin. It is in his name. The wheat was 21.70 kg. He had encircled the entry and put his signature over it. This is marked at Ext. K-19. There is also an entry regarding Omkar dated 19-9-1981 at SI. No. 100 about his Maize. It was 32.50 kg. This serial number was also encircled and signed by him. This is Ext. Ka-20. He had admitted that field of Devi Singh is contiguous to the road. It is not at a distance of 300 steps. The field of Manvir is 150 steps and that of Munshi Singh is only 75 steps. The field of Netrapal adjoins the place of occurrence. He had admitted that he did not try to find out what was the condition of electric supply in between 18/21-9-1981 at the flour-mill. His departure to the spot is entered in the G.D. pertaining to 23-9-1981 at 7.45 p.m. He had refuted firmly the suggestion that the report of this incident was registered subsequently and it was anti-dated and anti-timed.
11. Thus, from the evidence of these Section 1s. nothing tangible in favour of the appellants is available. The Medical Officer has endorsed the case of the prosecution in its entirety.
12. In the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. However, only two of the appellants, viz. Om Pal and Shripal were attributed the principal role in this case. It has been urged before us by learned counsel for the defence that the evidence of the prosecution With regard to Narendra, Pratap and Malkhan is seriously deficient, so far as their direct participation in the incident is concerned. The only role that has been attributed to them is of surrounding the deceased. Even no exhortation part had been added against any one of them. They were armed with Lathis. There are no injuries of Lathi. In the circumstances, had they been there what prevented them from using their weapons against the person of the deceased. It remains a mystery especially when the witnesses were still at a distance. We find some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the defence. So far as Malkhan, Narendra and Pratap are concerned, the enmity between the family is admitted to P.W. 1 clearly. There complete non-participation in the incident except surrounding the deceased appears to us an ornamentation by the prosecution to rope in these three persons (appellants) in the offence. Participation of Om Pal and Shripal is proved in this case beyond all reasonable doubt. But so far as the abovesaid three appellants are concerned, they are entitled to get the benefit of doubt.
13. In the result Criminal Appeal No. 2387 of 1982, filed by Malkhan Singh. Narendra Kumar and Pratap Singh, stands allowed. Their conviction and consequent sentences under Sections 302/149 and 147, I.P.C. are hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the above said charges. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender.
14. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 2548 of 1982 and Criminal Appeal No. 2686 of 1982 are concerned, they are hereby dismissed. Conviction of Om Pal and Shripal under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. and consequent sentences of life imprisonment are hereby affirmed. They are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentences.
15. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment immediately to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for effecting the arrest of Om Pal and Shripal. He shall report back to this Court in writing as soon as these appellants are arrested and sent to jail in compliance of our order.