Gujarat High Court
Kamlesh Dinubhai Amin And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Etc. Etc. on 7 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996CRILJ2843
JUDGMENT K.J. Vaidya, J.
1. These three appeals first one by Kamlesh Dinubhai Amin and six others, second one by Bipinchandra Hiralal and third one by the State of Gujarat against Rajesh Amrutlal Sompura and 14 others, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 29-6-1988 rendered in Sessions Case No. 112 of 1986, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, wherein out of 21 accused persons who came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 114, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC, at the end of the trial, eight were ordered to be convicted for the same and sentenced to R.I. for life and rest of others were acquitted as stated in detail in the impugned order.
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, instead of re-narrating the entire prosecution case in detail here, we deem it quite proper and accordingly refer and rely upon the same as reproduced in para 2 of the impugned judgment.
3. At trial, all the 21 accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Trial Court partly accepting the prosecution evidence convicted eight appellants accused for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and sentenced each one of them to life, acquitting rest of the accused of all the charges, as stated above in para 1 of the judgment, giving rise to the present three appeals.
4. M/s. K. J. Shethna and Nagin N. Gandhi, learned advocates appearing for the appellants accused, while challenging the impugned order of conviction and sentence have vehemently contended that the Trial Court has committed serious and patent error in relying upon the evidence of so-called eye witnesses whose evidence suffers from the patent infirmities going to the very root of the case rendering them totally undependable! M/s. Shethna & Gandhi further submitted that the Trial Court without making any honest, sincere efforts on its part to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in proper perspective, ignoring well-established test of credibility of the witnesses, has unfortunately convicted the accused as many as eight and that too for the alleged offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC by mechanically applying Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC sentencing them to life when there is indeed not even a scintilla of evidence against them to suggest that they could be vicariously held liable for the alleged murder of Banaji Tejaji! M/s. Shethna & Gandhi further submitted that so far the appellant Kamlesh Dinubhai Accused No. 1, is concerned who is alleged to have given a blow, his identity is not established beyond doubt. Not only that but the medical evidence brought on the record also falsifies the eye-witness account that Accused No. 1 pierced sword in the chest of Banaji Tejaji bringing about his death. M/s. Shethna & Gandhi on the basis of these submissions, finally urged that the impugned judgment being manifestly perverse, these appeals deserve to be allowed at once and that the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants accused accordingly be quashed and set aside.
5. As against the above, Mr. S.R. Divetia, Learned APP relying upon reasonings of the Learned Trial Judge, submitted that no case was made out on behalf of the appellants accused to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
6. In order to reappreciate the prosecution evidence in proper perspective, we propose first to deal with the medical evidence brought on the record and thereafter the evidence of the eye-witnesses. The said medical evidence consists of first of all two doctors namely PW 2 Dr. Ishwarlal Parekh who examined the injured prosecution witnesses and secondly that of PW 14 Dr. Vasant Barot who conducted Post-Mortem Examination of the deceased Banaji.
6-1. To start with according to PW 2 Dr. Ishwarlal Parekh, on 18-4-1986, he examined the following injured prosecution witnesses namely :--
(1) PW. 18 Chandansinh Pahadsinh regarding whom he has issued the Medical certificate at Ex. 36. The injury shown in the said Medical certificate is small size of CLW over Dorsal aspect of terminal phalanx of middle finger 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm. x 1 cm. blood clots surrounding the wound present. The injury is possible by hard and blunt substance;
(2) P.W. 3 Babubhai Dalabhai to whom the Medical Certificate at Ex. 37 was issued, which shows that (i) He had small abrasion over the terminal phalanx of left thumb 1/3 cm. x 1/3 cm. red coloured; (ii) Echhymosis over the inter-scapular region 8 cm. x 1 cm. red colour. The injuries were possible by hard blunt substance.
(3) P.W. 17 Udaysing Ramsinh Udesin. The Medical Certificate issued in his favour is produced at Ex. 41 which shows that there was abrasion on the left fore-arm of the size (i) 1 cm. x 1 cm. red colour; (ii) there was another abrasion over the left wrist joint which was of the Size of 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm: red colour. These injuries were possible by either stick or stone.
(4) P.W. 15 Babuji Tejaji regarding whom the Medical Certificate is issued at Ex. 42 which shows that he had no external injury but was simply complaining of pain on abdomen and that he was complaining about the pain due to fist and kick blows.
Over and above these four injured prosecution witnesses examined before the Court. P.W. 2.Dr. Parekh had also examined other injured persons, who for whatever reasons have not been examined before the Court. They were (1) Ravji Chhagan; (2) Karasan Rahuji; (3) Kacharaji Kuraji and (4) Chelaji Dalaji. As per the Medical Certificates, all these persons had very trivial superficial injuries.
7. That takes us now to yet one more Doctor namely P.W. 14 Dr. Vasant Barot who while conducting the post-mortem examination of the deceased Banaji Tejaji found the following three injuries on his person :--
(1) Oblique incised wound on the left 4th, 5th intere-costal space in mid-clavicular line about 7 cms. away from mid-line; 5 cms. x 2ms. deep to the internal structure; blood clots.
(2) Oblique incised wound 2.5 cms. x 1.5 cms. x 1/4 cm. on medial aspect upper l/3rd left leg. Blood clots present.
(3) Oblique abrasion antra aspect of left shoulder by 1 cm. x 1 cm.
7-1. According to this Doctor, cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organ (heart). Further, according to him, (after seeing muddamal sword) the injury in question can be caused, if pointed portion of it is pierced. Now this PW-14 quite surprisingly in cross-examination, has admitted that injury No. 1 is caused by giving a blow with the sword and not by piercing it and that is why he has described the said injury as incised wound. He has also further admitted in the cross-examination that in his P.M. Examination Ex. 72, he has not made any special note regarding the piercing wound. The depth of injury No. 1 which is shown by him is regarding piercing. Now on face of it, the evidence of PW 14 is inconsistent and totally confusing. It is simply difficult to understand as to what indeed the Learned APP in charge of the case was doing at the relevant time when PW-14 was giving evidence and while cross-examined in a most confused manner, by not getting it clarified, if possible by putting certain questions in re-examination, and if the need be by declaring him hostile. Surprisingly enough even the Learned Judge has also not thought it fit to check, control and get clarified PW-14 giving helter skelter evidence like a weather-cock. Every Trial Judge and PP must remember that when the trial is conducted in the Court room, it is not a drama to be witnessed from the distance, or like a video camera operator shooting the video picture or seeing some cassettes on the video. It indeed and certainly calls for active participation both of the Learned Trial Judge and the Learned PP failing which it can amount to dereliction of duty on their part. Anyway, the evidence of PW-14 is so confusing that prima facie it appears that for whatever reasons, he had given evidence to oblige the defence and yet neither the Learned Trial Judge nor the Learned PP could do anything to salvage the situation where they could have realized that hole of doubt created by PW-14 was capable of sinking the prosecution ship and in fact it has sunk the ship.
8. This takes us now to the another set of prosecution evidence consisting of eye-witnesses. They are (1) PW 3 Babu Bala who gave complaint Exh. 45; at the Mahidharpura Police Station on 17-4-1986 at 11-30 p.m. (2) PW 18 Chandansinh Pahadsinh; (3) P.W. 17 Udesinh Ramsinh; and (4) P.W. 15 Babuji Tejaji.
9. To start with the evidence of P.W. 3, he is an employee in the Diamond Factory of PW 18 which is situated in the house of Babubhai in Galemandi Sheri, Surat. Further, according to this witness, the factory was working in between morning 7-00 a.m. till late in the evening 8-30 p.m. There was a water tap connection in the factory, however, since there was not enough pressure, employees of the factory used to go down stairs to fetch the same. On the ground floor of the house, accused No. 2 Thakkar Kaka and his wife accused No. 3 Savita Kaki and his mother were residing together. The witness has identified both accused Nos. 2 and 3 before the Court. He has further stated that on right side of the factory, accused No. 1 Kamlesh and his brother accused No. 15 Piyush were residing. He further stated that this accused No. 1 and accused No. 15 were present in the Court. This witness, while identifying accused No. 15 Piyush, has identified him as accused No. 10 Nareshbhai who ultimately came to be acquitted. That on the date of the incident, while taking bucket of water upstairs, some water spilled over the floor. As a result, accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 picked-up quarrel and started giving abuses. However at that time without paying any heed the employee went away. Thereafter, one Gambhir Karsan also went down to fetch water. The aforesaid accused also gave abuses to him. Thereafter PW. 17 Udesinh and Chejaji Dalaji (not examined) came down and met with the very same fate as accused Nos. 2 and 3 continued giving abuses. As a result, when the aforesaid persons inquired from accused Nos. 1 & 2 as to why they were abusing, accused No. 2' reacting shouted to accused No. 13 directing him to telephone police to arrest and take them (prosecution witnesses present) away, alleging they were doing mischief. Even accused No. 3 joined issue in exhorting the accused present to beat prosecution witnesses and get house vacated. At that time, accused No. 15 and accused No. 1 were present. Accused No. 13 Chandrakant, accused No. 12 Jagdish; accused No. 16 Kishore, accused No. 5 Haribhai and others persons also were present. In the meantime, one of the employees of the factory went to call PW-18 owner of the factory who came at 11-00 a.m. and asked accused No. 2 as to why he was abusing. In the meantime, 10 to 15 other persons rushed in. As a result, according to this witness, he, PW-17 Udesinh, Chelaji Dalaji, Dhanji Tejai, Gambhir Karasan, Babuji. Tejaji, Karasan Rahji etc. came down. At that time the persons collected there started giving kick and fist blows. Accused No. 15 gave a stick blow on the back as a result of which, he fell down. Thereafter, accused No. 15 started beating PW. 18. At that time, accused No. 1 brother of accused No. 15 who was in crowd raised sword. In the meantime, Banaji all of a sudden appeared on the scene and on intervening, accused No. 1 pierced his sword in his chest, as a result of which Banaji profusely bleeding fell-down. Thereafter accused No. 1 went to beat PW. 18 and hit him with back side of handle of the sword. While accused No.1 was about to give another blow of the sword, the complainant threw in between his towel as a result of which the same fell down. PW-18, while trying to catch hold of the sword got injury on the hand. Other accused persons who entered the room started beating the employees and the persons outside were pelting stones. This included accused No. 13 Chandrakant, accused No. 16 Kishor, accused No. 12 Jagdish and accused No. 5 Haribhai whom he knew by faces only and identified them for the first time in the Court after such a long lapse of time after the incident. There were in about 14 to 15 persons in the crowd. Thereafter, P.W. 3 went to Gelemandi Gate and informed the police about the incident in question and requested him to come in the van. According to this witness, he informed the police that the accused were beating his co-employees with sticks. On the request being made, the police called for the police van and he came along with the police. The police recorded the complaint before Banaji was taken to the hospital. Now this witness, to utter surprise, in cross, admits that he gave complaint after returning from the hospital. This is quite contrary to what is stated in his examination in chief! The complaint was taken by the police at 11-30 p.m. At the time of giving the complaint, this witness admits knowing names of few accused only and for others, he was knowing by face only. Out of 21 persons, he could give names of only 4 to 5 persons. Not only that but this witness also admits that whatever names he had given in the FIR, they were given on the basis of the same given by accused No. 12 Jagdish Ambalal. When P.S.1. asked him who were the assailants, the complainant said that perhaps Jagdish Jariwala was knowing and thereafter, he was called. He stated that he could identify those persons who had given kick and fist blows from the face only and that the complaint was given at the instance of Jagdish. This witness further quite surprisingly admits that he could give names of four accused only namely Piyush, Ishwar, Haribhai and Chandrakant as the assailants. However he frankly admitted that he did not know as to what rest of the accused did. He further admits that no test identification parade was held. In para 7 of the cross-examination, on showing the complaint, this witness admits that he has not stated anywhere in the complaint about stones pelting. The explanation given in this regard is that due to oversight that was not stated. In para 12, this witness further admits that when "Mara Mari" was going on, he ran away towards the house. In para 14, this witness has further admitted that at Galemandi Police Gate, he, has not stated that he was beaten. Not only that but when he narrated the entire incident at the police gate there even, he has stated that the assailants had come to attack with sticks only. At no point of time, he had informed the police about the sword being used in the commission of offence connecting accused No. 1 with crime alleged against him. This witness in para 20 of the cross-examination has further stated that accused No. 1 pierced the pointed portion of the sword in chest of Banaji. After Banaji fell down, then though accused No. 1 went ahead with the sword, he did not pierce the same in chest or abdomen of Chandansinh but gave blow only with the handle portion of the sword. In para 21, he gave his complaint go-bye to whatever he has stated in the examination in chief by stating that he had seen part of the incident only and thereafter ran away, According to this witness, the quarrel about spilling of the water on the floor was over and there was complete peace and that another incident took place after two hours when PW-18 came to the factory premises. In para 26, this witness has also admitted that the deceased had taken some food in the Lodge which clearly stands contradicted by the medical evidence on the record. On going through the above evidence, it is also very clear that PW-3 complainant is either deliberately giving inconsistent evidence before the Court or has not seen the incident at all and is stage managed for the reason best known to the Investigating Agency. Not only that but it is also clear that he was not present when accused No. 1 pierced the sword in chest of Banaji. Whatever he has stated in the examination in chief, admittedly so stated in the complaint on the basis of the information passed on by accused No. 12 Jagdish. Not only that but when this witness went to Galemandi Police, Gate, he has not narrated the incident about accused No. 1 piercing sword in the chest of Banaji and he having received stick blow. Further still, he has stated that he has given FIR before going to hospital and in the cross-examination he has stated that it was given after returning from the hospital. This witness has gone to the extent of saying that he had taken the meals with the deceased Banaji and now if we see the medical evidence of P.W. 14 Dr. Barot, it is very clear that the stomach was empty. Under such state of affairs, in our opinion, this witness is completely got-up and liar and that it would be simply hazardous to place implicit reliance upon his evidence. No test identification parade was held. He was not knowing the names of some of the accused as he admittedly knew them by faces, yet surprisingly he has given not only the names of the accused but has given the names of their fathers also. To accept and rely upon the evidence of such witnesses and pass order of conviction and sentence thereupon under Section 302 of IPC and for that purpose even any other offences would be simply violence on the common sense to which none could ever be the party.
10. That takes us now to the evidence of P.W. 18. This is a witness who is the owner of the Diamond Factory and of the rented premises wherein on the ground floor, the alleged incident took place. According to this witness, on 17-1-1986, at about 10-30 p.m. two of his employees viz., Chelaji Balaji and Pathuji (both not examined) had come to his house. It was reported that there was some problem and commotion in the factory and that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively were giving abuses. All the persons were collected. It was further reported that some water was spilled over the floor by Babuji and because of that some quarrel had started. Accordingly, this witnesses proceeded towards factory and reached there at about 10-45 p.m. where he tried to persuade the accused Nos. 2 and 3. On inquiring as to why they were creating problems, in reply they vehemently demanded of him, to close the factory and started giving abuses. To this, witness told that; he is trying finding out the place for factory, and the moment it was found out, he will vacate the premises, but please do not create the scene. Despite this request and low-profile, according to this witness, the accused No. 3 started raising shouts, as a result, the persons residing nearly collected. On hearing his voice, his employees who were on upstairs also came down. In the meantime, pelting of stones started. Under the circumstances, he requested his employees to come inside the house. Thereafter, about 8 to 10 persons entered the factory. They were accused No. 15 accused No. 1 and accused No. 13. who was known as Boss and accused No. 16 were identified. According to this witness, all these accused persons were present in the Court. At that time, accused No. 15 entered the house with stick and gave a blow with it to his employee PW-13 on his back. When he went near accused No. 15 to catch hold of the stick, the accused No. 1 came with a sword and raised it towards him. At that time, one of his other employee Babaji Tejaji intervened and the sword raised by Accused No. 1 was pierced in his chest, as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter, the accused No. 1 once again raised his sword and PW-3 who had put on a towel on seeing this, took it out and place in between as a result the towel fell down. In the meantime, the accused No. 1 gave a blow with the back portion of the sword on the abdomen portion of the said witness. Thereafter accused-Chandrakant came with a stick to give the blow and he was prevented by PW-17 and Chelaji Dalaji (not examined). This blow fell on the hand of PW-17. At that time, he asked one of his employees PW-3 to go to the police station. As a result, Babuji went to the police station. During this scuffle, he also received injury on one of his fingers by the sword. According to this witness, even PW-3 had also received sword injury on his thumb. Before we go to his cross-examination, it is indeed very clear that the evidence of this witness is quite contrary to the evidence of PW-3, who in terms has stated that he did not know about the incident and he had not seen the incident. Not only that, but PW-3 has not suited that he received any sword injury on his thumb. Even the medical evidence does not support him on this count. This witness has admitted that his brother was serving as PSI in Mahidharapura Police Station. He has also admitted that those accused persons whom he knew by laces were not identified by him by holding identification parade before the Executive Magistrate. Not only that but when the injured Banaji was taken to the hospital, the complainant PW-3 was present. This once again runs contrary to the evidence of PW-3 not only that but in para 21 this witness has further stated that PW-3 has also received injury by sword which is not only contrary to the medical evidence, but even contrary to the evidence of PW 3 himself. This witness has not uttered a word as to how other persons were injured. He has not referred to the presence of many of them. Not only that but as alleged, if accused No. 1 intended lo kill this witness, then in that case, he would not have rest satisfied merely by giving a sword blow and that too by handle or this thumb which is ultimately found to be quite superficial. The whole evidence of this witness under the circumstances is utterly topsy-turvy deserving any credence and acceptance worth the name. It is indeed quite difficult to understand as to how the Learned Sessions Judge found evidence of this witness dependable.
11. That takes us now to the evidence of another witness PW-17 Udesinh Ramsinh, who is also one of the employees in the diamond factory of PW. 18. He claims himself as an eye-witness. He also claims having received the injuries. This witness says that he knew accused No. 15 by face and while identifying him before the Court, he points out accused Bharat as Piyush. Not only that, but this witness has also posed before the Court as knowing accused No. 1. Now during the trial, while noting the demeanour of this witness, it is observed by the Learned Trial Judge that this witness took five minutes and after taking 5 to 6 rounds identified accused No. 1 as Kamlesh. This witness has also stated that the accused No. 1 pierced the sword into the chest. This also runs contrary to the medical evidence, which is of course confused for whatever reason. In para 6 of the cross-examination, when the accused No. 1 was shown to this witness, his name was given as Kaushik who is accused No. 7. Looking to the above infirmities in the evidence of this witness, once again, it is indeed difficult to accept the same and once again the most surprising part is how indeed his evidence appealed the Learned Trial Judge as dependable to pass an order of conviction under Section 302 against the 8 accused persons.
12. That takes us to the evidence of another witness PW-15 Babuji Tejaji. He is also an employee in the diamond factory of PW-18. This witness, out of 21 accused persons knew 8 persons only by faces and still no test identification parade was held to establish the identity of the rest of the accused persons. This witness in para-28 of cross-examination admits that at about 11.30 to 12.00 he had gone walking to the hospital. He had seen police in the hospital, but he did not know his name. This once again runs contrary to the earlier witness who says that police was not there in the hospital. This witness also further admits that after the water was spilled over the floor, exchange of words took place between some of the employees of the diamond factory and the accused Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, there was peace for about two hours. It was only after the owner of the factory PW-18 a trouble-shooter appeared on the scene that the commotion started. This clearly indicates that in all probability it was PW-18 who picked up the quarrel wherein Banaji was injured by some one with the sword and done to death.
13. To summarize the aforesaid evidence, it is indeed very clear that (i) after the first incident at 9.30 p. m. PW-18 Chandansinh came on the scene of the offence. (ii) In all probability it was PW-18 who picked up the quarrel with accused Nos. 2 and 3. as admittedly situation had calmed down prior to his arrival. (iii) It further appears that the accused Nos. 2 & 3 being aged about (18 and 55 respectively, when harassed by employees of factory, that the persons residing in the street nearby appeared lo have ran to rescue them. (iv) It is under these circumstances that somebody from the crowd under some unknown circumstances all of a sudden gave a sword blow on the chest of Banaji Tejaji. (v) It is also clear that out of 21 accused persons, many were unknown to the prosecution witnesses and yet to test, identification parade was held, (vii) It is also further clear that injuries received by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses are absolutely trivial or in fact no injuries at all and stage managed only with a view to project them present at the time of the incident having seen the murder of Banaji. (viii) It is equally surprising that if the accused No. 1 Kamlesh intended to kill PW-18, then he certainly would not have spared him and given only one solitary sword blow and that too with the handle of sword. (ix) It is further clear that there is no overtact alleged against any of the accused except the omnibus allegation of pelting of the stones, the story which is patently absent in the FIR. (x) The most improbable and perplexing is the prosecution story that when the accused No. 1 was arrested after three days of the incident he was found wearing bloodstained clothes. (xi) There cannot be any greater violence on comrhon sense than to accept such cock and bull story. (xii) The most fantastic part is the complaint by PW-3, which admittedly was given on the basis of the information passed on by the accused No. 12 Jagdish was accepted by the trial Court. (xii) The material part of it viz., a sword blow given by the accused No. 1 was not stated at all at the gate when PW-3 reached there. Under these tell-tale circumstances totally hostile to the prosecution rendering it quite difficult to accept, to rope-in innocent persons from the crowd regarding whom no test identifications parade even was held and yet to charge and convict them for the alleged offences under Section 302 read with Sections 143, 147, 148 and. 149 of IPC i.e., is something difficult, to gulp down and believed by any average intelligence of the judicial officer and yet we find that as many as 8 persons on thoroughly useless evidence have been sentenced to life. To say the least, this is simply-shocking. It is indeed a very sad commentary on the appreciation of evidence made by the trial, Court. Mr. Shethna was indeed right when he submitted that from where indeed are we to give back the lost most precious 8 years of life to accused No. 1 Kamlesh and seven others when on such patently infirm and unbelievable evidence by no stretch of imagination any order of conviction could ever have been recorded. Under the circumstances, with utmost respect we request the learned Judge henceforth to be extremely careful and circumspect in mechanically accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses before recording the conviction under Section 302 of IPC. We also hope and trust that in future proper care will be taken while appreciating the prosecution evidence before sentencing any person to the life imprisonment mechanically applying Sections 143, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C. In our opinion, the identity of the accused No. 1 as having given a sword blow is not established at all beyond doubt. As a matter of fact, looking to the nature of the evidence, the real facts are suppressed. A gloss is given to the prosecution story for the reasons best known to the prosecution side and accordingly, the whole genesis of the prosecution case is rendered doubtful. The allegation by the learned advocate for the appellants that the whole thing was cooked up by PSI who was at Mahidharpura Police Station and who happens to be brother of PW-18, because of whom the entire story was cooked up cannot be ruled out. Doubt does arise but remains doubt only in absence of other material. Of course, it is stated by the witnesses that at the relevant point of time, PSI Barot was not in the police station and on the date of the incident, he was on leave, According to PW-20 who at the relevant time was PSO at Mahidharpura Police Station has in his cross-examination admitted that one man came to inform him regarding the incident that when he started from Galemandi Gate to the scene of offence, on the way in between the time, the informant had not given any information, no names of the appellant were disclosed. Even the allegation regarding sword blows given was also not reported. Of course, it is true that this witness has not specifically named PW-3 Babuji Dalaji who had gone to Galeman Gate Police Station. Be the case as it may, but on such type of thoroughly useless evidence, no order of conviction could ever have been even remotely be recorded and under the circumstances the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
14. This takes us to the acquittal appeal filed by the State against those persons who have been acquitted. When the appeal against the convict prisoners falls flat, the acquittal based on the evidence of the very same witnesses, has indeed no legs to stand upon before us and accordingly, the same deserves to be dismissed.
15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No. 644 of 1988 and Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1988 are allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused persons are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence in jail is required in connection with some other proceedings. Bail bonds of appellant Nos. 2 to 8 are ordered to be cancelled.
15.1. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 1988 is concerned, the same fails and is dismissed.