Karnataka High Court
Ladappa S/O Mahadevappa Judabi Ors vs The State Through Afzalpur P.S. on 7 June, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 1219, 2019 (4) AKR 427
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3706/2011
Between:
1. Ladappa S/o Mahadevappa Judabi
Age: 25 years, R/o Chincholi
Tq: Afzalpur
2. Mahadevappa S/o Ladappa Udabi
Age: 52 years, R/o Chincholi
Tq: Afzalpur
3. Sharadabai W/o Mahadev Udabi
Age: 50 years, Occ: Household
R/o Chincholi, Tq: Afzalpur
4. Renuka W/o Ladappa Udabi
Age: 22 years, Occ: Household
R/o Chincholi Tq: Afzalpur
...Appellants
(By Sri Baburao Mangane
& Sri Ashok B. Mulage, Advocates)
2
And:
The State Through
Afzalpur Police Station
...Respondent
(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment
and order passed in Spl. Case No.98/2008 on the file of the II
Addl. Sessions Judge at Gulbarga dated 02.09.2011 convicting
the appellants/accused for the offences P/U/S. 326 and 307
R/W Sec. 34 of IPC and sentencing the appellants/accused on
19.11.2011 to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under
section 307 r/w section 34 of IPC and acquit the
accused/appellants of the alleged offences.
This appeal coming on for hearing this day,
K.N.PHANEENDRA J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the accused persons in Sessions Case No.98/2008 on the file of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulbarga have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in the said case vide judgment dated 02.09.2011, wherein the accused persons were convicted for the offence under Section 307 R/w 3 Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. The brief factual matrix of the case are that, on 28.06.2007 in the evening at about 6.00 p.m., the PW1 by name Kalyani S/o Lakkappa R/o Chincholi has tethered a he-buffalo near his house and fed the he-buffalo with grass and water etc. At that time, the accused No.2 came to that particular spot and started abusing the complainant calling him as bustard and why he has tethered the said he buffalo near his house. By saying so he asked accused No.1 to bring an axe from the house. Accordingly, accused No.1 brought one axe from the house and that time accused No.3 and 4 also came to the spot. It is further alleged that, accused No.1 with the help of the axe from its hind portion assaulted PW1 due to which he sustained injuries. Accused No.2 assaulted with a club on the back and left shoulder of PW1. At that time accused No.3 and 4 have instigated accused No.1 to assault PW1 4 and also to finish him off and it is alleged that accused Nos.3 and 4 also kicked on the chest and stomach of PW1 with their legs. It is alleged that later the other eye witnesses came to the spot and resolved the dispute and thereafter PW1 was admitted to the hospital at various places and ultimately he was admitted at Ashwini Hospital at Solapur. It is further alleged that, PW-1 sustained fracture to his head. On the above said allegations, a complaint as per Ex.P1 came to be lodged by PW-1 and a case has been registered against the accused persons, in Crime No.98/2007 initially for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC R/w Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet has been laid against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 323, 324 and 506 of IPC. The accused persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge after framing of charges and the court found that, all the accused committed the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC. However, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused 5 persons for the offence under Section 307 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends before the court that, there was a case and counter case between the parties. In an affray both the parties have quarreled with each other and in that context the accused persons themselves have sustained injuries, and in fact PW1 and his family members have assaulted accused persons. Further he submits before the court that, the complainant PW1 has not actually sustained any fracture, but with the help of the hospital authorities he got created a document to show that he suffered as a fracture. The entire evidence of the prosecution is not reliable because the eye witnesses and PW1 are interested witnesses and in fact eye witnesses are closely related and they are one way or the other interested to support the evidence of PW1. Further it is contended that there is no specific allegations against 6 accused No.3 and 4 with regard to they having used any weapons, nor accused No.2 has used any weapon to assault the PW1. It is only the allegation against accused No.1 who assaulted on the head of PW1. That to the prosecution has not proved that PW1 has sustained any fracture so as to attract either Section 326 or 307 of IPC. The learned counsel also contends that, on perusal of the entire case of the prosecution, there is no intention on the part of accused No.1 to assault the PW1 so as to cause such a bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death of the injured, so as to attract Section 307 of IPC. Even Section 326 is also not attracted because the so called X-ray or C.T.Scan showing the fracture in the head has not been produced by the prosecution. Therefore in all he submits that, the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, extending the benefit of doubt, the accused-appellants are entitled for acquittal.
7
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits before the court that, though there is some discrepancy in not producing the X-ray nevertheless all the eye witnesses including PW1 injured eye witness has supported the case of the prosecution and in fact there is a serious fracture to the head of PW-1. The doctors have specifically stated that there was a fracture inside the head. Though specifically X-ray report was not produced but the doctor who actually treated the injured has been examined and he in fact deposed about the taking of the C.T.Scan report and giving opinion that the injured had suffered a fracture to his head. The other evidence available on record also shows that accused No.2 to 4 have also assaulted the injured particularly A2 has assaulted with a club and A3 and A4 have assaulted him with their hands and legs on his chest and stomach. Therefore all of them have common intention to do away with the life of PW1. Therefore, the trial court after 8 appreciation of oral and documentary evidence rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case for the offence under Section 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, there is no room for this court to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
5. In the wake of the above said submissions, it is just and necessary for the court to re-look into the evidence on record to find out whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is proper and correct. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined as many as 15 witnesses PW1 to PW15 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. In fact, the accused were also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 lead his defence evidence and examined himself as DW-1. The material objects M.O.1 to M.O.4 were also marked by the prosecution.
9
6. On perusal of the above said materials on record, the court has to consider the evidence of the important prosecution witnesses, before adverting to the materials evidence on record, we would like to have the brief cursory look at the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. PW1 is the injured complaint, PW2 and PW3 are the spot panchas which is marked at Ex.P2, PW4 is the panch witness Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Under Ex.P3 cloths of PW1 M.O.3 and M.O.4 were recovered and Ex.P4 under which one axe and one stick was recovered. However, this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9 are the eye witnesses who have supported the case. PW10 is a doctor who treated PW1 at the initial stages. PW11 is also an eye witness, but turned hostile to the prosecution. PW12 is another doctor who later treated PW1. PW13 is the panch witness to the Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, he has also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW14 is the investigating officer 10 and PW15 is the police constable who registered a case and dispatched the FIR to the jurisdiction Court.
7. On perusal of the evidence of the injured eye witness and also other eye witnesses, that is, PWs-5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 they have fully supported the case of the prosecution and invariably all the witnesses have stated in their examination-in-chief with regard to the injured eyewitness (PW-1) tethering a he-buffalo near his house and accused No.2 came to the spot and started quarrelling with the injured and thereafter accused No.2 requested accused No.1 to bring an axe from his house. Accordingly, accused No.1 brought the axe and with that axe accused No.1 himself assaulted the injured from the hind portion, that is to say the wooden portion of the said axe from the backside and also accused No.2 with a club assaulted the injured on the back and shoulder and accused Nos.3 and 4 came there and abused the complainant as bastard and 11 also instigated accused Nos.1 and 2 to finish off the injured.
8. Very peculiarly enough, in the course of cross- examination, the incident as such has not been denied by the accused persons. On the other hand, it is suggested in the course of cross-examination of these eyewitnesses that, in fact the complainant, that is, the injured eye witness (PW-1) and other members of his family have started quarreling with the accused persons and in that context they abused the accused persons and that PW-1 has slapped on the cheek of accused No.4. Further it is also suggested that complainant and his witness have unlawfully entered into the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and also damaged the household articles in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also suggested that, the complainant had also threw the son of accused No.2 into a well and also the complainant and others threatened the accused persons with dire consequences. It is also 12 suggested that during the course of this clash between the accused and the complainant's family, PW-1 himself got injured when he came in contact with the door of his house. Therefore, what could be gathered from the above said cross-examination is that the incident as such has been admitted by the accused persons and also injuries sustained by PW-1. What remains for consideration of this Court is that whether actually it is established before this Court that the complainant and his family members were the aggressors in the quarrel and they actually assaulted accused persons and in that context PW-1 has sustained any injury.
9. Though the learned counsel tried to convince this Court that a counter complaint has also been filed by the accused persons and the case is pending before the competent Court. But those materials were not made available to the trial Court nor it was suggested to the eyewitnesses and PW-1 in which case number the case 13 has been pending before the trial Court and who are all the witnesses in the said case and what exactly happened so far as that case is concerned. Further added to that, the entire case of the defence has to be atleast proved by preponderance of probabilities when particularly the witnesses have denied the said suggestions made to them with reference to the defence taken by the accused. It becomes the responsibility of the accused atleast by means of preponderance of probabilities to establish that such situation was in existence except putting those suggestions. Nothing has been established or proved atleast by means of preponderance of probabilities in order to accept the defence.
10. Though DW-1, that is, accused No.1 was examined, he has reiterated what were the suggestions made actually to the eyewitnesses. It is only self serving statement of DW-1 without there being any support from any material on record. When there are materials 14 available to the accused persons to establish their defence if at all they have filed any complaint against the complainant and others they would have produced atleast the charge sheet papers, and they would have examined some of the eyewitnesses in that case as defence witnesses in this case. If both the incidents happened at the same time, the witnesses cannot be different, eye witnesses should be one and the same. Therefore, in that context neither the person who investigated that case and the doctor who examined the witness and also the eyewitness in the case were not at all summoned nor examined in this particular case so as to read those materials as evidence in this case.
11. Though it is alleged that there was a case and counter case, in the absence of bringing the said materials of the counter case in the evidence of this case, the Court is not even expected to look into the evidence that might have been recorded in that particular case. Therefore, the 15 Court is bound to look into the materials that are only available so far as this case is concerned. Under the above said circumstances, when the incident itself has been accepted by the accused in the cross-examination of the eyewitnesses, there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the injured eyewitness and also the other eyewitnesses.
12. The injuries sustained by PW-1 has been seriously attacked by the learned counsel. It is contended that PW-10 and PW-12 doctors who have examined the injured eyewitness, have not produced any material to show that he has suffered such a fracture to his head. No such X-ray has been produced before the Court. It is evident from the evidence of these two witnesses, PW-10 actually examined PW-1 at the earliest point of time. But he has not taken any X-ray. He has actually referred the injured to the Government Hospital, Gulbarga. But in the Government Hospital, Gulbarga also no X-ray has been taken but considering the seriousness of the injury to PW- 16 1 he was referred to higher hospital at Ashwini Hospital, Solapur. PW-12 who was working as doctor in Ashwini Hospital, Solapur has categorically stated that CT Scan was taken of the head of PW-1 and then only he came to know that there was a fracture inside the head of the injured. What was the nature of the fracture is not stated in detail by PW-12 and further added to that though the CT scan, X-ray was available, neither PW-1 nor PW-12 have produced that X-ray before the Court. Even on perusal of Ex.P-7 issued by Ashwini Hospital at Solapur, it also does not disclose the serial number of the CT scan and the X-ray number of the CT scan. Nevertheless these two doctors are consistent in their evidence that there was a grievous injury to the head and there was a fracture to the head. Though the X-ray has not been produced, taking of the X-ray is specifically spoken to in Ex.P-7. Merely because the X-ray itself has not been produced, the evidence of these two doctors cannot be totally discarded. 17
13. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in the case of State vs. Sheenappa Gowda and others passed in Criminal Appeal No.530/2002 decided on 03.03.2010 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed at para-11 in the following manner:
"11. Therefore, the question for determination is limited to find out whether the said injury No.2 is proved to be a grievous injury sustained by PW.4. It is well settled that in criminal cases, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution and that burden would not shift unless there is a presumption or defence as enumerated in the Indian Penal Code is taken by the accused. In this case, the defence taken by the accused is one of denial. It is clear from the evidence of PW.1 that he has given description of injury on physical examination of PW.4 and has come to the conclusion that there was fracture of the middle phalanx. It is well settled that when the prosecution alleges that grievous injury has been caused, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of PW.1 would only show that there was injury as 18 described in the wound certificate - Ex.P2. When PW.1 suspected such fracture, he ought to have referred the injured - PW.4 for taking X-ray to confirm his finding that there is fracture of middle phalanx. It is now well settled that unless the prosecution produces the X-ray for confirmation of fracture opined by the Doctor on medical examination clinically, it cannot be said that the accused have caused grievous injury of fracture. It is true that in the cross-examination of PW.1, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has not disputed the nature of injuries spoken to by PW.1. However, he same would not dispense with the production the X-ray by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injured had sustained fracture of middle phalanx, which is an opinion given by PW.1 Doctor only on clinical examination of PW.4, the injured. Therefore, it is clear that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 have committed the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and the offence committed by them falls within the ambit of Section 324 of IPC is justified."
14. The said decision has been further relied upon by this Court in another decision in the case of Rangayya 19 vs. The State passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.200034/2014 decided on 08.01.2015.
15. The sum and substance of the above decisions is that, in the above said cases the Division Bench while dealing with the matter it is PW-1 in the said case has only stated in the wound certificate that he suspected a fracture. He has not referred the injured to the higher hospital nor any X-ray was produced before the Court. Therefore, the Court has declined to accept that there was a grievous injury only on the basis of clinical examination of PW-1. But the facts of this case is altogether different. In this particular case PW-10 has categorically stated that he found the seriousness of the injury to the head, he had no facility to take X-ray therefore, he referred PW-1 to Government Hospital, at Gulbarga. Ofcourse, it is elicited that Basaveswhar Hospital at Gulbarga is an equipped hospital which has got facility to take X-ray, but very peculiarly X-ray of head of PW-1 was not taken but in turn 20 he was referred to higher hospital. Later PW-1 had been to Ashwini Hospital at Solapur and there he was treated for a period of more than 16 days and CT scan was taken and it is mentioned in Ex.P-7 that, CT scan disclosed a fracture to the head. Therefore, here it is not only on the basis of a clinical examination of PW-1 such an opinion was given by PW-10 but it is based on a certificate issued as per Ex.P-7. He has gone through the same and on the basis of that he has stated that there was a fracture in the head. The same opinion of PW-10 was fully corroborated by the evidence of PW-12 who has actually treated PW-1 and gave the certificate as per Ex.P-7. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the above said two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel are not in a straight jacket manner applicable so far as this case is concerned.
16. On facts, the case of the prosecution has been established that, during the course of the quarrel between the two groups, accused No.2 started quarreling with the 21 injured and secured an axe through accused No.1. But accused No.1 himself assaulted on the head of the injured PW-1 with the hind portion of the said axe and accused No.2 has assaulted PW-1 on the back. But there is no corresponding injury as such on the back of PW-1. Even then, all the eyewitnesses have categorically stated that accused No.2 also assaulted with a club on the back of PW-1. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that accused No.2 has only committed an offence under Section 324 of IPC. On perusal of evidence once again all the witnesses have stated that after accused No.1 has assaulted PW-1 thereafter accused Nos.3 and 4 came to that particular spot and they also kicked and assaulted PW-1 with their hands and legs. It is not the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons came together at once. It is accused No.2 first came to the spot and he only called accused No.1 to bring the axe to the spot and thereafter only accused Nos.3 and 4 came to the spot. Therefore, it cannot be inferred by the Court that, there was any pre- 22 meeting of the minds of accused Nos.1 to 4 and with that common intention they came to the spot and assaulted PW-1. The factual aspects further disclose that accused No.1 was not present when accused No.2 was quarreling with PW-1 with reference to tethering of he-buffalo. He called accused No.1 to bring the axe. Therefore, accused No.1 thereafter brought the axe, which may not be sufficient to say that all the accused persons had common intention to do something to PW-1. In such an eventuality, when the Court cannot draw any inference with regard to existence of pre-meeting of minds of the accused, Section 34 of IPC cannot be invoked. Therefore, individual overt acts of the accused have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of drawing any inference against them.
17. Further added to the above said circumstances, there is absolutely no motive established before the Court as to why the accused persons have to 23 assault or cause such bodily injury which is sufficient to cause the death of a person. Though the doctor PW-10 in an evasive manner has stated that the injury sustained by PW-1 was sufficient to cause his death if immediate treatment was not given, it goes without saying that PW- 10 has not examined the head of PW-1 in detail. He only found the external injury so as to send PW-1 to the higher hospital. Further, PW-12 who actually treated PW-1 has never stated that the injury was so serious that if immediate treatment was not given the same injury was sufficient to cause the death of PW-1. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the said injury was in the ordinary course sufficient to cause the death of a person. Further added to above, as could be seen from the conduct of accused No.1, though he has an axe in his hand and sharp edged object was there to the said axe, but he did not use the said portion for assaulting PW-1 but he has used wooden portion of the axe reversing the said axe holding the iron portion of the axe in his hand and assaulted the injured 24 with the help of wooden portion of the axe. If at all he had any intention to do away with the life of PW-1, definitely he would have used the iron portion of the axe to cause severe injury to the head of the injured. Therefore, the Court cannot also infer that accused No.1 also had any intention or knowledge to cause such bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death of PW-1. In this context, it is worth to refer to the provision under Section 307 of IPC which reads thus:
"307. Attempt to murder - Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
18. In order to attract Section 307 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish the intention or knowledge 25 and under such circumstances that if the accused by that act caused the death he would have been guilty of murder, but if the victim survives, then only offence under Section 307 of IPC is attracted. Even according to the above said circumstances, no intention or knowledge could be imputed to accused No.1 that he has acted with such an intention or knowledge knowing fully well the blow that he gave would be sufficient to cause the death of a person if he has not properly treated. Therefore, in our opinion the trial Court has committed serious error in drawing an inference that all the accused persons have committed offence under Section 307 of IPC by invoking Section 34 of IPC.
19. Now the point arises as to what offence the individual accused persons have committed. It goes without saying that when Section 34 of IPC cannot be pressed into service, then individual acts of the accused have to be taken into consideration by the Court. Accused 26 No.1 has assaulted on the head of PW-1 which caused grievous injury. The said act need not be intentional or having knowledge of the situation. But if it is voluntarily caused, then the offence falls under Section 326 of IPC which provision says that if an accused person voluntarily causes a grievous hurt by using dangerous weapon. Here accused No.1 has used the axe though he has used the wooden portion of the same the said wooden portion is also a dangerous weapon by which a grievous injury has been caused by accused No.1. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that accused No.1 has committed an offence under Section 326 of IPC.
20. Accused No.2 has assaulted on the back of PW-1. Though there are no injuries but we cannot disbelieve the evidence of the eyewitnesses and PW-1 who received the blow. Therefore, we can also safely say that accused No.2 has caused a simple hurt by using a dangerous weapon like a club as such accused No.2 has 27 committed the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Accused Nos.3 and 4 in fact were not having any weapon in their hands. According to the prosecution they are women folk came to the spot after accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted the injured. They have also assaulted the injured with their hands and legs on his chest and stomach. Though there were no corresponding injuries but hurt was there to PW-1 as stated by him and the eyewitnesses. Therefore, we can safely conclude that accused Nos.3 and 4 have committed an offence under Section 323 of IPC. Though it is stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 have instigated accused Nos.1 and 2, that cannot be believed because by the time accused Nos.3 and 4 came to the spot, the assault was already made by accused No.1. Moreover, only one blow was given by accused No.1 and even accepting that such an instigation was there, no further blows or no further assault was made by accused Nos.1 and 2 on PW-1. Therefore, we cannot believe the evidence of the eyewitnesses so far as instigating words used by 28 accused Nos.3 and 4 and there is no much evidence available that accused Nos.1 to 4 have threatened PW-1 with dire consequences of killing him, etc. Therefore, we are of the opinion that accused No.1 has committed the offence under Section 326 of IPC and accused No.2 has committed the offence under Section 324 of IPC and accused Nos.3 and 4 have committed offence under Section 323 of IPC.
21. Now having come to the above conclusion, the Court has to impose the punishment appropriately for the above said offences. It is quite understandable that PW-1 and accused persons are all residents of the same village and it is elicited that there was no quarrel or dispute between them earlier to the incident at any point of time. There was absolutely no motive for the purpose of considering such an offence of the accused persons. Perhaps it is in a spur of the moment when accused No.2 and PW-1 were quarreling with each other, incidentally 29 assault was also made by accused No.1. Further added to that, there is no bad antecedent alleged against accused Nos.1 to 4 and they are not anti-social to the society. Under the above said circumstances, so far as accused No.1 is concerned, we are of the opinion that, for the offence under Section 326 of IPC two years imprisonment is appropriate and also imposing fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, we are of the opinion that imposition of fine would be appropriate instead of sentencing him for imprisonment. Hence, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded as fine so far as accused No.2 is concerned, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 323 of IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
30
22. If any fine amount is deposited, out of the said amount Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to PW-1 as compensation.
23. Under the above said circumstances, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby set aside. Further, we convict accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and accused Nos.3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Accused No.2 is 31 imposed with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
The bail bonds and surety bonds executed by accused Nos.2 to 4 stands cancelled. Accused No.1 is hereby directed to surrender himself before the trial Court to undergo any remaining period of punishment. Accused No.1 is also entitled for benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. so far as substantive sentence of imprisonment.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SMP/swk Ct:RRJ