Patna High Court
Hari Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 12 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(47)BLJR1678, 1999CRILJ3921
Author: A.K. Prasad
Bench: R.A. Sharma, A.K. Prasad
JUDGMENT A.K. Prasad, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9-6-1989 in S.T. No. 93 of 1982 passed by Sri Damodar Prasad, Vth Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, convicting all the appellants under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the charge of committing murder of Laka Pahan in furtherance of the common intention and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life. Further, the appellants have been convicted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year thereunder. Besides, the appellant Laro Munda has been convicted under Sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. Appellants Hari Singh Munda and Joto Munda have been further convicted under Sections 147 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been separately sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment thereunder for six months and one year respectively. The sentences passed on the convicts have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as made out in the first information report (Exhibit 2), is as under :
On 22-10-1980 at about 9 a.m. the informant (Baliram Pahan), P.W. 5 Laka Parian (the deceased), own uncle of the informant, Sohrai Pahan, P.W.6, younger brother of the informant, Mago Pahan, P.W.2, the cousin uncle of the informant, Karam Singh Pahan, P.W. 1, the brother of Mago Pahan, Sukhu Pahan, P.W.8 and Kunta Pahan, P.W.7, brother of the informant, assisted by the female members of the family, were harvesting the standing paddy crop on their land, known as Nayaldiri Darhi Don situate at village Kuda, within P.S. Murhu, district Ranchi. The harvested paddy crop was being kept by them in the field itself. While the harvesting was in progress at 10 a.m. the appellants Hari Singh Munda, Joto Munda and co-accused Manga Munda (since dead) armed with Lathi, appellant Laro Munda and co-accused Somrai Munda (who died pending trial) and Sukhram Munda (acquitted accused) armed with Balua. with two unknown miscreants, came to the field and began assault on the prosecution party. The females harvesting the crop fled to some distance at their sight Manga Munda, Laro Munda and Samrai Munda, chased and assaulted Laka Pahan with Lathi and Balua. who died on the spot. The accused persons caused injuries to Sohrai Pahan and Mago Pahan with Lathi and Balua. The informant fled from the field to some distance and so he escaped unhurt. The accused persons subsequently took away the cut paddy from the field. The dead body of Laka Pahan lay on the spot and after the occurrence Jaimashi Christian, the Chowkidar (P.W. 9) was deputed by the informant to watch the dead body of deceased Laka Pahan lying on the spot. Konta Pahan (P.W. 7) was with the Chowkidar. The motive behind the occurrence is that the accused persons lay false claim on the land.
The informant with the help of villagers carried wounded Sohrai Pahan and Maga Pahan on two cots to Murhu Police Station oh 23-10-1980 at about 10 a.m. and lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit 2) about the occurrence with the police station. The explanation for the delay in lodging the First Information Report is that the police station is at a distant place (in the First Information Report the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is recorded as 16 kms. and in evidence of P.W. 5, the informant, it is mentioned about 10 kms.) and it is a hilly track and it took time in carrying the injured and reaching to the police station. On the basis of the First Information Report (Exhibit 2), the present case was instituted and after investigation charge-sheet was laid against the accused persons in Court.
3. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. Out of them P.W. 2 (Mangari Pahanain), P.W. 4 (Sumi Pahanain), P.W. 7 (Kanta Pahan) and P.W. 8 (Sukhu Pahan) are tendered witnesses. P.W. 9 (Jaimashi Christian), the Chowkidar, has simply stated that on getting information about the murder of the deceased, Laka Pahan, he had gone to the spot. P.W. 10 (Dhaniram Nayak), the Chowkidar, is a witness on the point that on the next morning of the occurrence he went to the spot where the dead body of Laka Pahan was lying to keep a watch on it and others had left for the police station and he had taken the dead body to the hospital for postmortem examination. P.W. 12 (William Minz), a constable, is a formal witness. He has proved the first information report, the inquest report (Exhibit 3) and the sketch map (Exhibit 4) in the pen of Laxman Singh, the then Officer-in-Charge of Murhu Police Station. The other P. Ws. are P.W. 1 (Karam Singh Pahan), P.W. 2 (Mago Pahan), the injured, P.W. 5 (Baliram Pahan) the informant, P.W. 6 (Sohrai Pahan) the other injured, who claimed themselves to be witnesses to the occur-rence.P.W. 11 (Dr.B.K.Sinha)hadheldautopsy on the dead body of Laka Pahan and had examined the injured Mago Pahan (P.W. 2) and Sohrai Pahan (P.W. 6).
4. The admitted fact which emerges from the evidence on record led by the parties is that there is a dispute between them relating to the ownership and possession of the agricultural land known as Nayaldiri Darhi Don of village Kuda, P. S. Murhu, district-Ranchi, which once belonged to Kairi Mundain, who was unmarried and died issueless. The plot No. of the land is 1867 under Khata No. 23. Its detail has come in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5. The prosecution party is said to have raised paddy crop on the land which they were harvesting on the date of the incident when the accused persons trespassed and made the assault, killing the deceased and causing wounds to P.Ws. 2 and 6. The identity of the land involved is also established by the certified copy of the judgment dated 12-4-1979. (Exhibit B) in Case No. C 19 of 1977/T.R. No. 736 of 1979, which was brought by co-accused Maga Munda (since deceased), against Sohrai Pahan (P.W. 6), Laka Pahan (the deceased) and others.
5. The main defence is of innocence and false implication. Further defence as suggested to P.Ws. 1,5 and 6 is that the P.O. land is in possession of the accused persons, who had raised the paddy crop and it was never in cultivating possession of the prosecution party. At the trial, the appellant Joto Munda, appeared in his defence under Section 315 of Cr. P.C., pleaded that the land in question was in cultivating possession of the accused persons since the time of Kairi Mundain who was Fufu of his uncle and the paddy crop was grown by the accused and the prosecution party on the date of incident had assaulted and injured co-accused Manga Mund and Somrai Munda (who died pending the trial). The defence thus transpires to have taken the plea of self-defence. Besides, the plea of alibi was taken on behalf of co-accused Sukhram Munda (acquitted accused) and appellant Hari Singh Munda.
The defence examined four witnesses, namely, D.W. 1 (Hari Singh Munda) on the point that the land in question is in cultivating possession of the accused persons, D.W. 2 (Arbind Kumar) on the plea of alibi of co-accused Sukhram Munda alias Nicholos Purty, D.W. 3 (Mahendra Jha), a formal witness, on the point of destruction of called for daily attendance and D.W. 4 (Joto Munda) the accused-appellant himself. D.Ws. 1 and 4 have also deposed on the plea of alibi of Hari Singh Munda and Sukhram Munda alias Nicholos Purty (the acquitted accused). Exhibits A and A/1 were tendered by the defence in support of the plea of alibi of Sukhram Munda alias Nicholos Purty.
It is stated at the Bar that the State has not appealed against the acquittal of co-accused Sukhram Munda.
6. On consideration of. the evidence and materials on record, the trial Court held that the paddy crop on the land in question had been raised by the prosecution party, the plea of alibi of appellant Hari Singh Munda was found not to be established and that the accused persons had no right of self-defence. Ultimately, the trial Court held the appellants guilty of the respective charges framed against them and accordingly convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated above. The trial Court acquitted co-accused Sukhram Munda by giving benefit of reasonable doubt and in its opinion the plea of alibi taken on behalf of this accused seemed to be true.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are related witnesses and inimical to the defence and in absence of evidence of independent witness the trial Court erred in placing reliance on their evidence; that the Court below ought to have held that the land in question was in possession of the defence and not the prosecution party; that P.Ws. 1 and 5 have made embellishment in their evidence and the manner of occurrence testified by them runs counter to the medical evidence; that the appellants have right of private defence and in absence of charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. is bad in law and that there was no cogent evidence on record to suggest that there was common intention shared by the appellants to murder Laka Pahan.
The learned A.P.P., on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment/order.
8. Now the points which are to be considered for decision of this appeal are :
(i) whether the prosecution party or the defence bad grown the paddy crop on the land in question at the material time and was in possession of it?
(ii) Whether the respective charges against the appellants have been established beyond reasonable doubt?
Point No, I
9. It is admitted fact that Plot No. 1867, under Khata No. 23, in Nayaldiri Darhi Don, situate in village Kuda, P. S. Murhu, district Ranchi, belonged to Kairi Mundain. At this juncture it may be stated that the question of title is not to be adjudicated upon while deciding the factum of possession of the disputed land in a criminal case.
10. One now may proceed to discuss the evidence of the witnesses on raising of the paddy crop on the land in question. P.W. 5 (Baliram Pahan), the informant, has testified to the effect in his chief-examination that the accused persons attacked the prosecution party when they were harvesting the paddy crop in Plot No. 1867; that Kairi Mundain, the original owner of the land, happened to be his maternal-grand-mother and on her death the family of the prosecution party had performed her Shradh that after her death the land came in possession of the prosecution party and the paddy crop in question had been raised by them. He has re-iterated in his cross-examination that the land is in his as well as in possession of the other prosecution witnesses of the family for about 20 years. It has been elicited in his cross-examination that there are four Kiaries (subdivisions) in Plot No. 1867. P.W. 1 (Karam Singh Pahan) has deposed in his chief-examination that the incident took place when the prosecution party were harvesting standing paddy crop in Plot No. 1867. It has come in his cross-examination that its Khata No. is 23 and it belonged to Kairi Mundain who was distantly related to him, being his maternal-grand-mother. He has given the boundary of Plot No. 1867. He has reiterated that all the lands of Khata No. 23 including Plot No. 1867 is in cultivating possession of the prosecution party. He has fairly stated that there is a dispute between the parties over Plot No. 1867. P.W. 2 (Mago Pahan), an injured in the occurrence, has stated in his cross-examination that the P.O. plot is in joint cultivating possession of the prosecution party since the time of his father and it is tilled by the P.Ws. of his family and they divide the produce amongst themselves. He has straightway admitted in his cross-examination that there was a criminal case for the plot in question in which he was acquitted. He has stated that he cannot give the plot No. of the land in question since he is illiterate.
P.W. 6 (Sohrai Pahan), another injured in the occurrence, has stated in his chief-examination that in the year of occurrence the prosecution party had cultivated the land known as Nayaldiri Dahri Don, on which the incident took place. It has come in his cross-examination that it has four sub-plots. This corroborates the testimony of P.W. 5. He has stated the boundary of the plot in his cross-examination. It has not been pointed out by the appellants' learned counsel that there is any conflict in the description of the boundary given by the P.Ws. 1 and 6. There is consistent evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 that the land in question is in the cultivating possession of the prosecution party and the paddy crop had been raised on the plot by it.
11. We may now come to the evidence led by the defence on the factum of possession of the land in question. D.W. 1 (Hadi Munda) states in his chief-examination that he knows the land, known as Nayaldiri Darhi Don, the disputed land, in village Kuda and it was cultivated by Manga Munda, who died in 1983 and thereafter it is in the cultivating possession of his sons Hari Munda the appellant and Arjun. He is unable to state its Plot and Khata No. or the boundary. He admits that he possesses land which is at a distance of half km. and has no concern with the cultivation Of Nayaldiri Don land Hence, D.W. 1 is. not a competent witness on the point of possession and he cannot be relied upon.
D.W. 4 (Joto Munda), the appellant, has stated that Mosstt. Kairi was Fufu of his uncle; that she lived with the accused persons and Nayaldiri land came in their possession since her life time and the paddy crop in 1980 had been grown by the accused persons on the land. He has further stated that on the date of harvesting of the crop he had gone to the field and witnessed that Manga Munda and co-accused Somrai were harvesting the paddy and. they were assaulted by the prosecution party. He is unable to say the Khata No., Plot No. or the area of the land. He does not know the relationship of Kairi with Baliram Pahan (P.W. 5). The solitary testimony of D.W. 4 on the factum of possession and growing of the paddy crop at the material time is not convincing.
12. The defence has tendered certified copy of judgment dated 12-4-1979 in Case No. C. 19 of 1977/T.R.No. 736 of 1979 for proving its possession over the disputed land. Its perusal shows that Manga Munda (the deceased co-accused) had brought the complaint case on the allegation that on 25-5-1977 while he was ploughing R. S. Plot No. 1867 (Nayaldiri Don by name) he had been assaulted by Laka Pahan, the deceased in the instant case with Balua and Sohrai Pahan with Lathi and others. The accused in that case claimed to be in possession of the disputed land The factum of possession was left unanswered in that case and Laka Pahan and Sohrai Pahan were convicted under Sections 324 and 323 of the I.P.C. respectively, for the reason that they had no right to assault the person, i.e. the complain-ant-Manga Munda, with Bjlua and Lathi when he was ploughing the P.O. land alone without any arm and the other accused in that case were acquitted. This document has no bearing on the factum of possession of the disputed land.
13. In view of the discussions made above, I find and hold that the prosecution party and not the defence was in possession of the land in question and had raised the paddy crop at the material time. This point is thus decided.
Point No. II
14. At the first instance, it has to be considered whether the death of the deceased was homicidal. P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 have stated that Laka Pahan on the date of occurrence was assaulted and he died on the spot. P.W.I 1 (Dr.B.K. Sinha) had stated that on 24-10-1980 at 8 a.m. he held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Laka Pahan and he found the following ante-mortem wounds :
(i) One incized wound horizontal in nature 5" x 1/2" x 4" was found on the back of the neck.
(ii) One incized wound 6" x 1" x 4" vertical in nature on the front of left ear cutting the bone below and brain matter.
According to him, the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon like Balua and the time of death elapsed at the time of the post-mortem examination was within 48 hours. He has opined that the death was due to shock, haemorrhage and injuries to the vital organs. Exhibit 1/2 is the postmortem examination report of the deceased in his pen. The medical evidence establishes beyond doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal. Thus on the basis of the materials on record, it is held (hat the deceased met with violent death, as a result of assault.
15. In the instant case, the fact that the occurrence had taken place on 22nd of October, 1980, at the time and place is not in dispute. One may now proceed to discuss the evidence led by the parties regarding the occurrence.
P.W. 5 (Baliram Pahan) the informant has stated that on 22-10-1980 around 10 a.m. while he and the P.Ws. were harvesting the paddy crop in Plot No. 1867, Appellant Laro Munda, Somrai Munda, Sukhram Munda, appellants Harisingh Munda, Joto Munda and accused Manga Munda armed with Lathi came to the land and started to assault Mago Pahan (P.W. 2), Sohrai Pahan (P.W. 6) and Laka Pahan, the deceased, as soon as they reached there. He has further stated in his chief-examination that Laka Pahan was chased and assaulted and Manga Munda had first dealt Lathi blow to him and thereafter Somrai Munda and appellant Laro Munda inflicted wounds to him on his neck and head respectively and thereafter Sukhram Munda dealt Balua blow to him and the appellants Joto Munda and Hari Singh Munda had dealt Lathi blows and Laka Pahan fell dead in the adjoining Tanr land of Manga Munda. He has further stated that Manga Munda and Joto Munda dealt Lathi, blows to Sohrai Pahan (P.W. 6) whereas appellant Laro Munda had struck him with Balua. He has further deposed that the appellants Joto Munda and Hari Singh Munda and Manga Munda with Lathi and Somrai with Balua assaulted Mago Pahan (P.W. 2). In the first information report (Exhibit 2) P.W. 5 alleged that Manga Munda, Laro Munda and Somrai had assaulted Laka Pahan with Lathi and Baluas and he had made omnibus allegations that the accused persons had assaulted Mago Pahan (P.W. 2) and Sohrai Pahan with Lathi and Balua. It is true that in the F.I.R. he had not named co-accused Sukhram among the assailants of the deceased.
16. The doctor (P.W. 11) did not find any injury caused by hard and blunt substance on the person of the deceased. He had found two incized wounds possible by Balua on his person. There seems to be some embellishments in his evidence. P.W. 5 had witnessed the occurrence from a short distance as he fled from the field to save his life. P.W. 1 (Karam Singh Pahan) has stated in his chief-examination that when he and others were cutting the paddy crop, appellant Laro Munda, Sornrai Munda and Sukhram Munda who wielded Baluas and appellants Hari Singh Munda and Joto Munda and accused Manga Munda armed with Lathi arrived and began to assault. He has further stated that appellant Laro Munda dealt Balua blow to Mago Pahan (P. W. 2) on his head, whereas Somrai Munda, appellant-Laro Munda and Sukhram Munda inflicted cut wounds to Laka Pahan with Balua, who fell down in the adjacent Tanr field and died on the spot. He has further stated that appellant Laro Munda dealt Balua blow to Sohrai Pahan. He has stated in his cross-examination that the three accused had assaulted Laka Pahan with Panda in field and when he fled he was given Balua and Farsa blows near its ridge and had suffered wounds on head and neck. It seems that under the stress of cross-examination he has described Panda and Farsa as well as weapons of assault. There is not much difference between a Lathi and Panda except in their size. P. W. 1 does not speak about the assault on Mago Pahan (P,W. 2). It is just possible that he might not have been able to see the assault made on him. It seems that P.W.I has made some exaggeration in his evidence. It has been noticed above that no injury by hard and blunt substance was found by the doctor on the person of Laka Pahan.
It is for the Court to disengage the truth from the falsehoods. P.Ws. 1 and 5 would have been perplexed and in spell of shock and horror to witness the sudden attack by the accused persons on three persons at one and in the same time with different weapons and they might not have been able to correctly observe as to who assaulted whom and with what weapons and on which part/ parts of the body and some contradictions in their evidence regarding the manner of occurrence/ assault in quite natural for the reason that simultaneous attacks were made on three victims by the accused.
17. P.W. 2 has testified to the effect that the appellants Hari Singh Munda and Joto Munda and Manga Munda armed Lathi/Panda, appellant Laro Munda, Somrai Munda and Sukhram Munda wielding Balua came to the P.O. land, when the prosecution party was reaping the paddy crop and assaulted him too. He has further stated that Laro Munda gave Balua below to him whereas Joto Munda and Somrai Munda struck him with Panda and he became unconscious on the spot on sustaining wounds. He has further stated that Laro Munda (the appellant) Somrai Munda and Sukhram Munda chased and killed Laka Pahan. He has further deposed that Sohrai Pahan was also assaulted by the accused. He has not been cross-examined by the defence on the point of assault. It is admitted that he had sustained wounds in the occurrence at the hands of the accused and had witnessed the assault on the deceased Laka Pahan. P.W. 11, Pr. B. K. Sinha, examined him on 23-10-1980 at 12.15 hours and found lacerated wound (vertical) 2" x 1/4" x skin deep on the top of head, dislocation of five teeth of lower jaw, fracture of lower jaw and bridge of nose and an incized wound (horizontal) 2" x 1/5" x 1/5" on the chin. The incised wound was simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon and the other injuries were possible by hard and blunt substance, such as Lathi and the wounds on the lower jaw and nose were grievous in nature. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have attributed the incized wound suffered by P.W. 2 to appellant Laro Munda. P.Ws. 1 and 5 are specific in their evidence that appellant Laro Munda had inflicted Balua wound to P.W. 6.
18. P.W. 6 (Sohrai Pahan) has stated that Somrai Munda, Sukhram Munda and appellant Laro Munda armed with Balua, whereas Manga Munda, appellant Joto Munda and Hari Singh Munda wielding Pandas came to the place of occurrence and he has named all of them except Laro Munda, who had assaulted him with Panda and Balua and he fell unconscious on receiving the assault. According to him, the assault took place on the P.O. land. He has further stated that the accused persons assaulted Laka Pahan to death on the spot. The fact that he was a victim of assault and Laka Pahan had been done to death by the accused persons has not been challenged by the defence in his cross-examination. The doctor (P.W. 11) examined him on 23-10-1980 and found two incised wounds, one incized wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" upto bone on the left eye brow and the other incised wound 3/4" x 1 /5" up to bone on the back of head which were simple in nature possible by Balua and one abrasion on the left cheek and another abrasion on the back of wrist which were simple, caused by hard and blunt substance like Lathi.
19. The medical evidence corroborates the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 and 6 that they had sustained wounds in the incident. Thus they are injured witnesses. Their presence on the spot at the time of the occurrence cannot be doubted.
20. P.W. 2 has specifically alleged that appellant Joto Munda had assaulted him with Panda. The evidence of P.W. 5. is to the effect that appellants Joto Munda and Hari Singh Munda had dealt Lathi blows to P.W. 2. The P.Ws. are natural witnesses to the occurrence. There may be some minor contradictions or exaggeration discussed above in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5, which are not material to discredit their testimony as a whole. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6, the eye-witnesses, cannot be discarded simply on the score that the deceased was related to them or previously there were some dispute between the accused and the eye-witnesses. On careful scrutiny of the evidence it is found that the appellants and the other accused, variously armed, came to the P.O. land with determination and common design to take forcible possession of the land and the crop standing thereon and to do away with the life or to assault those who would come in the way and the accused were the aggressors and in furtherance of their common intention Laka Pahan was done to death on the spot itself.
21. It has now to be seen whether the right of private defence was available to the accused. It has already been held that the paddy crop had been grown by the prosecution party and the accused were aggressors. D.W. 4 has stated that the co-accused Manga Munda and Somrai Munda had been assaulted by the prosecution party and were treated for the wounds. But no medical evidence has been brought on record to substantiate this plea. It is not the defence version that the prosecution party was armed with deadly weapon. There is no material brought by the defence on record to suggest that the accused had reasonable apprehension that the death or grievous hurt would be caused to them by the prosecution party. Under the circumstances, the trial Court rightly negatived the plea of self-defence taken by the accused.
22. It has come in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 that after the assault the accused persons had taken away the harvested paddy. D.W. 4 has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused had taken away the harvested paddy crop. It has already been held that the paddy crop had been raised by the prosecution party.
23. D.W. 4 has stated that on the date of occurrence the appellant-Hari Singh Munda was not in the village. D.W. 1 has deposed that appellant Hari Singh Munda lives outside the village. There is evidence of the eye-witnesses that appellant Hari Singh Munda had taken active part in the occurrence. Their evidence has been found to be trustworthy. The defence has adduced no evidence to substantiate the plea of alibi taken on behalf of appellant Hari Singh Munda. The trial Court rightly held that his plea of alibi was not acceptable.
24. A criticism has been made that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in the case. The identify of the P.O. land is not in dispute. No contradiction has been taken by the defence from the eye-witnesses vis-a-vis their statements in Court and the statements made by them before the Investigating Officer during the investigation of the case. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show that the defence has been prejudiced due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer. Hence, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not affect the prosecution case adversely.
25. The explanation given by the P.W. 5 in the first information report and in evidence, for explaining the delay in lodging the first information report is plausible and it had been fairly conceded! to by the appellants learned counsel The circumstance that co-accused Sukhram Munda alias Nicholous Purty was given benefit of doubt and acquitted by the trial Court as the plea of alibi taken by him seemed to be true cannot be a ground for disbelieving the prosecution case qua the appellants when there is reliable evidence of the eye-witnesses showing their active involvement in the incident.
26. In view of the discussions made above, I find and hold that the respective charges against the appellants have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Point No. ii is answered accordingly.
27. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The conviction of the appellants on the respective charges and the sentences passed on them by the trial Court are affirmed. The appellants shall surrender to their bail bond in the Court concerned to serve out the sentence imposed on them by the trial Court forthwith, failing which the Court shall take all steps for securing their attendance.