Delhi High Court
Inder Singh And Ors. vs State on 1 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996IAD(DELHI)305, 61(1996)DLT566
JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) These three appeals are directed against the judgment dieted July 16,1992 by which an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi has convicted appellant Kapur Singh for the offences punishable under Section 3021.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act while appellant Inder Singh and Ramesh Kumar have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 3021.P.C. read with Section 341.P.C. and order of the even date by which these three appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one year for offence of murder and Kapur Singh has been sentenced to further undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
(2) Facts of the case are that Ashok Kumar, PW.8 was at the relevant time working as a Booking Clerk at Suraj Cinema which is located at Dhansa Road, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi. He had a brother named Satish who was not employed in any useful avocation at the relevant time.
(3) On December 16,1983, which was a Friday, a new picture had been released at the aforesaid cinema and before the noon show, which was to commence at 12 Noon, Ashok Kumar, as usual, had come to the booking window for selling the cinema tickets for the noon show. Sri Bhagwan, PW.9 had come to Ashok Kumar at the said cinema and informed him that a quarrel was taking place with his brother Satish near Dhansa Bus Stand which is located admittedly at a distance of 100 metres from the said cinema. Immediately Ashok handed over the cash and the tickets to PW.6 Ram Mehar, Manager of the said cinema, and along with Sri Bhagwan, he rushed to the said bus stand and the time was about 11.20 a.m. There they saw that Ramesh Kumar, who was at that time employed in Water Supply Department, was seen holding Satish from his right hand whereas Inder Singh, S/o Late Dharam Singh, resident of Village Khera had secured his brother Satish within his grips from the front side and Kapur Singh, the third appellant, was seen having a knife in his right hand and the appellants were hurling abuses and giving threats to Satish uttering the words that Satish had not allowed them to take tickets of the cinema out of the queue and they would not spare him alive at that time. They also noticed that Satish was trying to pacify them asking them not to hurl abuses and Ashok also tried to pacify them and they also noticed that Satish was trying to get himself released from them but Kapur Singh stabbed Satish with the said knife on the waist under the left armpit and some blood oozed out from the injury. Ashok is stated to have raised an alarm uttering the words "Bachao Bachao" and Constable Raj Singh, PW.10, who claimed to be on duty at the aforesaid cinema, on hearing the noise had come to the spot and had over-powered Kapur Singh and Kapur Singh, in order to get himself released, had given a tooth bite on the left hand finger of Raj Singh. Sri Bhagwan and Ashok Kumar, meanwhile, over-powerd Inder Singh, appellant, at the spot whereas Ramesh Kumar managed to flee from the place of occurrence.
(4) After handing over appellant Inder Singh in custody of Constable Raj Singh, Ashok and Sri Bhagwan took Satish in a rickshaw to Phc Hospital and Satish succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. It was also narrated in the F.I.R. that many public persons rendered assistance to Constable Raj Singh. It was also the case of the prosecution that on the way to the hospital, Satish had told Ashok and Sri Bhagwan that he had been stabbed with a knife by Kapur Singh.
(5) At about 11.30 a.m. on the same day, an unknown person had given a telephone call which was recorded in daily diary at the Police Station Najafgarh at serial No. 11-A, copy of which is Ex.PW-13/A, informing that a quarrel was in progress near Dhasa Bus Stand, Najafgarh. PW.16, S.IJoginder Singh along with Constables Surinder Singh, PW.3 and Onkar Dutt had come to the said place and on learning that Satish had been removed to the Primary Health Centre, he reached there and Ashok was met who gave his statement, Ex.PW.8/A, on the basis of which the F.I.R. was registered, copies of the same being Ex.PW.13/B and Ex.PW.1/A. (6) Dr. A. Bhambri, Medical Officer at the said Primary Health Centre, had also sent report, about Satish having been brought dead, to police station through Sis Ram, PW.7 which was recorded at daily diary No. 13-A at about 11.55 a.m, copy of which is Ex. Public Witness 16/E. He had mentioned that Satish was brought by his friend Sri Bhagwan and he had been declared dead. He was brought to the hospital at about 11.45 a.m. (7) PW.16, S.I.Joginder Singh, after getting the case registered, had prepared the sketch plan, Ex.PW.16/B and had recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested Kapur Singh and Inder Singh and took into possession Ex.P-l, knife, after preparing the sketch, PW.8/B and converted the same into sealed parcel and took the same into possession vide recovery memo, Ex.PW.8/C. He prepared the personal search memos of accused Kapur Singh and Inder Singh which are Ex.PW.S/D and PW.8/E. Accused Ramesh was also arrested after some time on the same day and his personal search memo was prepared which is Ex.PW.10/A. (8) Constable Raj Singh had an injury on his finger of the left hand and after filling the injury form, Ex.PW2/A, Constable Raj Singh was sent for medical examination and he was examined by PW.2 who prepared the Mlc, Ex.PW.2/A in which he recorded that Constable Raj Singh was brought to him at 7.45 p.m. and he found deep abrasion on his left ring finger measuring I /4" x 1/4" and he opined that injury was simple and was caused by hard blunt object.
(9) The Investigating Officer had prepared the inquest papers and had sent the dead body of Satish for post-mortem and Dr.L.T.Ramani, PW.I performed the postmortem on 17th December 1983 at about 12.15 p.m. and vide his post-mortem report, Ex.PW.I/A, he found the following injuries :- 1.linear abrasion I" long curved on the right cheek; 2. linear abrasion 1" on the right side of the face below the ear labule; 3. superficial incised wound " x x skin deep on the back of the left shoulder vertically placed. Margins were regular;
(4) Incised stab wound 1" x "' x ? obliquely placed on left side chest wall inport axillary line 12.5 cm (5") below the armpit, margins were regular, lower end trailing, fluid blood was oozing out from this wound; and (5) There was clean cut wound " long over right parietal area scalp. Injury No. 4 proved to be fatal as it had cut the lobe of the left lung and depth of the wound was about 5 1/2" and he opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem caused by sharp edged weapon and injury No. 4 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and death was due to shock and haemorrhage and time since death was 24 hours.
(10) It appears that the dead body had reached the mortuary at about 6 p.m. on the day of the occurrence itself whereas the Doctor had received the inquest papers on the following day before he performed the post-mortem. The Doctor had opined in the Court that this fatal injury could be possible with knife, Ex.P-l. The fact that Satish had been murdered on that day at about noon time is indeed proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.
(11) The only question which has to be decided by us in these appeals is whether the appellants had been rightly convicted for the murder of Satish. The conviction of the appellants is brought home by the learned Additional Sessions Judge placing implicit faith in the testimony of Ashok Kumar and Raj Singh, the two eye witnesses which stood corroborated to some extent from the testimony of hostile witness Sri Bhagwan.
(12) There has been some confusion about the exact motive but where there are present ocular evidence with regard to the commission of the crime, the proof or non-proof of motive becomes unimportant.
(13) It has been urged before us on behalf of the appellants that it was a blind murder and in fact neither Ashok Kumar nor Raj Singh are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and the F.I.R. in the present case had been ante-timed inasmuch as the special report had reached the Metropolitan Magistrate at 8.30 p.m. whereas the F.I.R. is reported to have been registered at 12.58 p.m. and inquest papers had reached the post-mortem doctor only on the following day. So, it is urged that in all probabilities, the story was cooked up by the prosecution in complicity with the brother of the deceased and convenient Constable Raj Singh had been set up as eye witness whereas Sri Bhagwan has not supported the prosecution case.
(14) We have gone through the testimony of Ashok Kumar carefully and have also kept in view the various deficiencies pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants but we find that Ashok Kumar is a natural witness and his testimony has a ring of truth and there could be no reason or motive for him to falsely implicate the appellants for the ghastly murder of his brother and allow the real culprits to go scot-free. He had no reason to join hands with the police by naming the appellants as the culprits. Admittedly, he had no grudge against the appellants. There has been no previous enmity between the appellants and this all important eye witness, brother of the deceased.
(15) The presence of Ashok Kumar at the cinema stands stamped from the unchallenged testimony of the manager of the cinema. Ram Mehar, PW.6. His testimony had remained unchallenged. He deposed that at that time on that day, Ashok Kumar had told him that he had Icamt about some quarrel taking place with his brother and he had rushed to the spot after taking his permission. This witness was not even cross-examined by the defense. There is no suggestion given to Ashok Kumar that he was not present on his duty on that day in the cinema. It is natural and human conduct that on receiving the information from Sri Bhagwan that some quarrel was taking place with his brother at bus stand, he had rushed to the bus stand along with Sri Bhagwan. It has been urged before us that name of Ashok Kumar has not been mentioned by Dr. Bhambri in his report as the person who brought his brother to the said hospital and it is only name of Sri Bhagwan which stands mentioned therein and thus the inference should be drawn that Ashok had, in all probability, come to that hospital after learning about the murder of his brother.
(16) We do not agree. After all, Dr.Bhambri was to mention the name of only one person who had brought Satish to his hospital. Ashok Kumar had, in his testimony, disclosed that his brother was admitted in the hospital and he went to the ward whereas Sri Bhagwan remained at the Reception Centre in that hospital. So, it is evident that Dr.Bhambri must have been supplied the particulars of the deceased by Sri Bhagwan and thus he wrote the name of Sri Bhagwan as the person who brought the deceased to the hospital. So, it cannot be said that omission to mention the name of Ashok Kumar in the said hospital record would lead to any inference that Ashok had not come with deceased to the hospital and could not have witnessed the occurrence.
(17) It has been then urged that Sri Bhagwan and Ashok Kumar had allegedly taken the deceased to the hospital in a cycle rickshaw but there was no blood found on the clothes of either Ashok Kumar or Sri Bhagwan. It has come out in testimony of Dr.L.T.Ramani that in all probability, the blood had not fallen on the ground. It was cold weather and deceased was wearing warm clothes including a coat, so the possibility of blood coming out in such quantity as to drop on the place of occurrence or smear the clothes of Ashok Kumar and Sri Bhagwan was quite remote. So, nothing turns on this contention of learned Counsel for the appellants.
(18) It has been then urged that in case Ashok Kumar had been promptly available, as is the case of the prosecution, for giving the version to the police for recording of the F.I.R, there is no earthly reason as to why the special report should have reached the Metropolitan Magistrate as late as 8.30 p.m. i.e. after about 7^ hours. PW.12, Constable Deemag Singh, had taken the special report and he had stated that soon after the F.I.R. was recorded, he was handed over the special report and he had delivered the same at first at the residences of D.C.P. and Additional C.P. and had then gone to the residence of the Magistrate and delivered the report to the Magistrate's wife. The Magistrate had appeared as PW.I and deposed that he received the report at 8.30 p.m. and he had made this endorsement on the F.I.R.
(19) The F.I.R. Register was also brought m Court by the Duty Officer, PW.I I S.I.Umed Singh. No question was put to him to show as to what were the timings of the preceding and succeeding F.I.Rs. in order to bring out that F.I.R. in question could have been ante-timed. Mere fact that some delay had occurred in special report reaching late to the Metropolitan Magistrate, in our view, would not throw any doubt regarding the credibility of Ashok Kumar, as an eye witness.
(20) It has been urged that the corresponding D.D. entry pertaining to the recording of the F.I.R. has also not been proved and it should be inferred that, in all probability, the name of the accused or the names of the eye witnesses would not have been mentioned in that daily diary report.
(21) It is true that law has laid down varied safeguards in the Statute and in the Police Rules so that there should be left no chance of fabrication of false stories by the Investigating Officers. But it is also settled principle of law that such lapses of the Investigating Officer or of the police are not sufficient to hold that either the investigation was not fair or the eye witnesses, if their testimony is otherwise trustworthy are not to be believed.
(22) In the present case, it has been also urged that Ashok Kumar did not know the name of the parents of the appellants but such names stand mentioned in the F.I.R. It is to be emphasised that Kapur Singh and Inder Singh, appellants, had been apprehended at the spot and the names of their father would have been found out from them and so mentioned in the rukka which is the statement of Ashok Kumar, which is the basis of the F.I.R. We do not think that such discrepancy would throw any doubt on the testimony of Ashok Kumar.
(23) It has been urged that in the present case the place of occurrence had been changed and as no blood had been found at the bus stand, it is urged that Suraj Cinema belong to a high police officer and in all probability, he had manipulated that the murder should not be shown to have taken place outside his cinema which could affect the popularity of his cinema. We think that this is a far-fetched conjecture. The manager of the cinema had clearly mentioned that Ashok Kumar told him that some quarrel was taking place with his brother and Ashok Kumar had rushed to the said place. In the information given to the police initially, which was recorded in the daily diary, as mentioned above, the place of occurrence mentioned is bus stand Dhansa where some quarrel was stated to be in progress. So, we hold that the place of occurrence has not been shifted, as alleged.
(24) Even the hostile witness Sri Bhagwan.. in examination-in-chief, had narrated the occurrence in consonance with the prosecution case but it is only when he was cross-examined after about one year of his examination-in-chief statement that witness turned hostile and came out with another version that in fact he had not seen Satish being stabbed and that he saw Satish outside the cinema taking water from a handcart. It is evident that the gap of one year between the examination-in- chief and cross-examination has brought about this change in the testimony of Sri Bhagwan. It is that prosecution has not cared to further cross-examine Sri Bhagwan when he had turned hostile to the prosecution case but this lapse of the prosecutor, who conducted the case before the trial Court, would not inhibit us from scrutinising the whole case of the prosecution in order to determine as to which part of the hostile testimony of Sri Bhagwan can be relied upon.
(25) It has been then urged that the doctor who performed the post-mortem had found more than one injuries on the person of the deceased whereas Ashok Kumar and Raj Singh, witnesses and even Sri Bhagwan had referred to only one knife injury being given by Kapur Singh on person of the deceased.
(26) We have to keep in view that the eye witnesses had referred to only the part of the occurrence which they witnessed. It is Sri Bhagwan who had initially noticed the appellants quarreling with Satish and he had rushed to the cinema to bring Ashok Kumar to the spot. It is not something unnatural that the quarrel must have persisted during the intervening period when Sri Bhagwan came to the cinema and brought Ashok Kumar to the spot. So, during that period the other minor injuries found on person of the deceased could have been inflicted by the appellants which obviously were not witnessed by these eye witnesses.
(27) It has been then urged that the conduct ot Ashok Kumar in not rendering any assistance to his brother when he found him in the grips of Inder Singh and Ramesh Kumar is unnatural. It must be emphasised that Kapur Singh was having an open knife in his hand when Ashok and Sri Bhagwan arrived at the spot. It is nothing unnatural that Ashok Kumar or Sri Bhagwan did not come forward to the rescue of deceased at that moment but it is evident that an alarm was raised by Ashok Kumar and the moment Kapur Singh was apprehended by Constable Raj Singh, Ashok Kumar and Sri Bhagwan caught hold of Inder Singh. So, it cannot be said that any unnatural conduct has been depicted by these witnesses.
(28) . It has been urged before us that Raj Singh has been planted as an eye witness as in fact he could not have witnessed the occurrence inasmuch as it is proved on the record that Raj Singh was on duty in another beat in which Suraj Cinema did not fall. Raj Singh had given a statement in Court that he was put on duty on Suraj Cinema for a week commencing from the date of occurrence. He frankly admitted that Suraj Cinema was in Beat No. I and there was another constable on duty in that beat. A patrolling constable is to cover the whole beat and not a particular spot.
(29) We know, as a fact, as has come out from the statements of the witnesses which are not challenged that a new picture had been released in that cinema. So, it is not improbable that the officer who gives duties to various constables might have asked Raj Singh to remain present at Suraj Cinema for a week because it is common knowledge that huge crowds are attracted for witnessing a new movie and if a movie is popular for initial weeks, the crowds are always found hovering for tickets and a constant presence of a constable of police is required to prevent any untoward incident taking place. It has come out, no doubt, in the statement of the Investigating Officer, PW.16, from the entries in the daily diary made on that date showing that in the morning at about 7 A.M, along with other constables. Raj Singh also proceeded for his duty in Beat No. 7. But no question was put to Raj Singh when he was in witness box in order to get his explanation as to how he came to be on duty at Suraj Cinema while in the daily diary he had been shown to be deputed to go to Beat No. 7. If such a question had been put to him, in all probability, he might have come out with some plausible explanation.
(30) It has been urged that Constable Raj Singh could not have heard the noise of any quarrel while being present outside Suraj Cinema which was at a distance of 100 metres from the bus stand. Sub Inspector Davinder Singh, PW.4, draftsman, who prepared the site plan, had shown that there is a straight road in between Suraj Cinema and the said bus stand. Even Constable Raj Singh has stated that there is no turning or bent in between. So, it is not improbable that on hearing the noise of the quarrel at the bus stand f.om 100 metres. Constable Raj Singh had rushed to that place.
(31) It has been urged that Ashok Kumar had raised the alarm only after Kapur Singh had inflicted the injury on person of Satish and thus Raj Singh could have possibly come to the spot after the occurrence and could not have witnessed the occurrence. After all, it is not necessary that Raj Singh would have been attracted to the spot only on hearing the alarm of Ashok Kumar. When a quarrel is taking place at a bus stand in the day time, a commotion is bound to be created and such commotion could attract anyone to the spot from a distance of 100 metres as well.
(32) It has been urged that the doctor who examined the injury of Raj Singh's finger had, in cross-examination, deposed that such injury was possible with any hard heavy object which was opinion also given by the doctor in the M.L.C. Learned Counsel for the appellants forget that the doctor had also opined in his testimony in Court that such an injury was also possible by tooth bite, (33) In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, while dealing with the abrasions, the learned author had opined that abrasions are injuries involving loss of the superficial epithelial layer of the skin and are prod used by a blow, a fall or a slide on a rough surface or being dragged in a vehicular accident, by scratching or grazing with the finger nails, thorns, by teeth-bites or by friction and pressure of strings or ropes tied round neck or other parts of the body. Abrasions vary in size and shape and bleed very slightly. He also opined that abrasions caused by a teeth- bite are elliptical or circular in form and are represented by two or four separate marks caused by the upper front teeth on one side and thv same or less number of marks by the lower front teeth on the opposite side. The intervening space between the marks is often bruised but sometimes the marks coalesce together and form a single mass of abrasions.
(34) So, it cannot be said that injury which was found on Raj Singh's finger was not possible with teeth-bite. We hold that in fact the statement of Ashok Kumar, which refers to teeth-bite being given by Kapur Singh when Raj Singh tried to apprehend him, stands duly corroborated by the medical testimony. We do not think that there has been such delay in examining Raj Singh by the doctor that we can have any doubt about the truthfulness of Raj Singh's statement as well as statement of Ashok Kumar that when Kapur Singh was being apprehended by Raj Singh, he gave a teeth-bite on Raj Singh's finger. So, it cannot be urged with any sense of rationality that Raj Singh is a planted eye witness.
(35) Kapur Singh and Inder Singh have been apprehended at the spot. It was urged that PW.3 Constable Surender Singh, who was handed over Inder Singh by Ashok Kumar and Sri Bhagwan, has not, in his testimony, referred to this aspect of the case. No question appears to have been put to Constable Surinder Singh in this respect. So, it cannot be said that the statement of Ashok Kumar that Constable Surinder-Singh took over Inder Singh is in any manner doubtful.
(36) It has been urged that the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar and had sent the rukka with his endorsement for registration of the case, has not referred to any facts in his endorsement that he had cither met Constable Raj Singh at the spot or had seen the two appellants in custody of any constable at the spot. We do not agree because in the main rukka, which is the statement of Ashok Kumar, the facts had already been narrated and it was not necessary for the Investigating Officer to repeat those facts in his endorsement and the facts and the F.I.R. clearly show that Constable Raj Singh had come to the spot and witnessed the occurrence and had apprehended one of the appellants namely Kapur Singh.
(37) It is significant to mention that in cross-examination of these two important witnesses, it was not suggested that appellant Kapur Singh and Inder Singh, were not apprehended at the spot and knife was not taken from the hand of Kapur Singh by Constable Raj Singh.
(38) In the Cfsl reports, Ex.PA and Pb, it was found that there was human blood found on the knife, although the group of the blood could not be determined. The appellant, Kapoor Singh, did not explain the presence of human blood on the blade of the knife. This fact gives corroboration to the statement of eye witnesses (See Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, ).
(39) It has been urged that no public persons, who admittedly were present at the bus stand or in the nearby huts, had been associated in the investigation and cited as eye witnesses. There is no material on the record which could show that any other public witness had come forward to become an eye witness and the Investigating Officer had deliberately failed to record the statement of any such public witness.
(40) In the present case. Constable Raj Singh and Sri Bhagwan were independent witnesses for all intents and purposes and even Ashok Kumar, no doubt a close relation of deceased, was a natural witness. So, omission to join other public witnesses, in our view, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
(41) In State of U.P. v. Gokaran 6- Others, , it has been laid down that it is not that every delay in sending a delayed special report to the District Magistrate under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would necessarily lead to the inference that the F.I.R. has not been lodged at the time stated or has been ante-timed or ante-dated or that the investigation is not fair and forthright. These observations of the Supreme Court clearly apply to the facts of the present case.
(42) We find that testimony of Ashok Kumar and Constable Raj Singh is totally trustworthy for bringing home the offences to the appellants beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt. Even Sri Bhagwan had supported the case of the prosecution when he appeared in witness box and gave his testimony. It is unfortunate that there took place a gap of one year when he was put forward for cross-examination and during that period, some influences obviously worked on him which persuaded him to change his version in the cross-examination.
(43) In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chet Ram & Others, , the Supreme Court has held that the entire evidence of a hostile witness does ot get excluded or rendered unworthy of consideration because he is declared hostile. So, we have to read the evidence of Sri Bhagwan in contrast with the statements of other two eye witnesses in order to appreciate as to which portion of the testimony of Sri Bhagwan is credible and we find that his testimony given in examination-in-chief is more trustworthy from what he deposed in cross-examination after one year of the examination-in-chief.
(44) It is urged before us that the introduction of a dying declaration of the deceased through the testimony of Ashok Kumar is a clumsy effort on the part of the prosecution to unnecessarily see that Kapur Singh in any case does not escape the clutches of law.
(45) We do not find that there is anything abnormal in the testimony of Ashok Kumar when he deposed that on the way to the hospital, deceased had told the name of Kapur Singh as the person who stabbed him. It is not stated by any of the eye witnesses that deceased had become unconscious on his receiving the stab injury, so possibility of his making such a small statement while he was being taken to the hospital is not unusual or improbable. Mere fact that Sri Bhagwan has not referred to such dying declaration, in our view, is not sufficient to hold that the testimony of Ashok Kumar in that connection is untrustworthy. Be that as it may, the dying declaration, even if it is excluded from the consideration,it does not impinge on the creditworthiness of the eye witnesses Ashok Kumar and Constable Raj Singh.
(46) It has been urged on behalf of appellants Ramesh and Inder Singh that in any case the evidence is not cogent and convincing enough to bring home the offences to these two appellants by taking resort to provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(47) We do not agree. The evidence shows that Inder Singh appellant and Ramesh Kumar were holding the deceased when Kapur Singh was having an open knife and thereafter Kapur Singh had caused the fatal stab injury to Satish. Even prior to that, quarrel was going on between the appellants and Satish and some minor injuries had been found on person of deceased which apparently were caused during that struggle. So, it cannot be said that these two appellants did not share the common intention with Kapur Singh of causing fatal injury to Satish. So, in our view, they have been rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(48) The convictions brought home to the appellants and sentences awarded do not call for any interference in these appeals. We entirely agree with the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and also have come to the same conclusion after appraisal of the evidence of all material witnesses in holding that the offences have been brought home to the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence, we maintain the convictions and the sentences of the appellants and dismiss the appeals.
(49) Appellant Ramesh Kumar, who is on bail, is directed to immediately surrender. His bail bond and surety bonds are cancelled.