Holding

Only the accused who actually inflicted the fatal blows were liable for murder under Section 302 IPC, while the others were liable only under Section 148 IPC, and the convictions were upheld.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Balwant Singh and the assault on Santokh Singh (PW‑6) by five accused who formed an unlawful assembly armed with weapons. The trial court had convicted all five under Section 148 IPC for the assault, while Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singh were also convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder, and the others were acquitted of the murder charge. The Court held that the common object of the assembly was limited to attacking Santokh Singh and did not extend to the killing of Balwant Singh; therefore only the accused who delivered the fatal blows were liable for murder under Section 302, the rest being liable only under Section 148. The eye‑witness testimony of Santokh Singh, corroborated by medical evidence and weapon recoveries, was found reliable and sufficient to sustain the convictions. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused and the complainant, confirming the trial court's sentences.

Issues considered

The scope of the common object of an unlawful assembly under Sections 148, 149 and 34 IPC in relation to a subsequent murder.
Whether all members of the assembly can be held liable for murder under Section 302 IPC when only some inflicted the fatal blows.
The reliability of the eye‑witness testimony and its corroboration with medical and forensic evidence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 323, s. 325, s. 34

Subjects

murderunlawful assemblySection 148 IPCSection 302 IPCintenteye‑witness testimonyweaponconvictionappeal dismissed

Judgment

RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ORS. ETC. A
,.)._ v.
STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

MARCH 13, 1996

[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860 :

Sections 302, 149 and 34-Accused person anned with weapo11s fom1-
ing ll11lawflll assembly-Common object limited to attack 011e person-Two
of them inflicted fatal blows on deceased when he i11tervened in the qllar-
c
ref-Held, the accltsed who actually caused fatal iiijwies, would be co11victed
for murder-Rest of the accused were liable only for causing wievous hun by
being members of a11 u11lawflll assembly.

Section 302-Murder--lntention a11d know/edge-Deceased received D
"I'
fatal blows whe11 inte1ve11ed in the quarrel-lnjwies on vital pans of the
bodies with greater force, fow1d to be i11tentional and 11ot accident-Evide11ce
of injured eye-witnesses was corroborated by the medical evidence-Held,
even in the absence of the motive guilt of accused can be established, if the
evidence on record is reliable and trnstlvorthy-hence, accused liable to be
E
convicted.

The appellants A, R-1, J-1, J-2 and R-2 were alleged to have com-
milted murder of deceased B and caused grievous injuries to PW-6. They
were tried for various offences and convicted by the Trial Court. R·l and
J-2 were convicted under section 302 !PC, while the remaining three F
co-accuse were ae<Jliitted in respect of the offence under section 302/149
IPC. But all of them were convicted under section 148 IPC. J-2 was also
convicted under section 325 IPC, while the rest of the accused were
convicted under section 325/149 IPC. R-1 was convicted for the offence
under section 323 !PC, while rest of the accused were convicted under
Section 323/149 !PC.
G
-~ - According to the Prosecution, H received some threatening letter
from some extremist and thereafter he started living with his brother B,
the deceased. He also moved an application before the District Magistrate
for permission to carry his own weapon for self-defence. The said applica- H
389

'
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A lion was objected to by the appellants J·l and R-1 and on that account
relations between them became strained. PW-6 brought about some com-
promise between J-1 and D, which was also resented to by the accused and
alleged to be a motive for the assault. On the same day, while PW-6 was
returning from his tubewell appellant R-1, armed with a gandasi arrived
there and started retorting him for bringing about the said compromise.
B On counter-retort from PW-6 appellant R-1 raised a lalkara, on which J-1
and J-2 armed with gandasi, R-1 armed with datri came over there, with
two other unknown person. Meanwhile, A Also arrived and raised the
lalkara, on which R-1 alleged to have given a gandasi blow from its wrong
side on the right forearm of PW-6, while the appellant J-1 gave a gandasi
C blow from its wrong side on his left-thigh. All the accused thereafter caused
injuries to him with their respective weapons. In the meanwhile, the
deceased and PW-7 reached therP and witnessed the assault and asked the
appellants not to beat PW-6, on which appellant A again raised a lalkara
saying that since the real enemy had arrived, he should not be spared. R-1
D thereupon gave a gandasi blow on the head of the deceased, while J-1 gave
a gandasi blow from its wrong side on the back of the head of the deceased,
On receipt of the injuries, the deceased fell down and the appellants, 7'
thereafter, left the place alongwith their respective weapons. The deceased
succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself.

E Statement of PW-6 was recorded and formal F.I.R. was registered.
During the course of the investigation, R-1 and J-2, gave disclosure state-
ments, through which the weapons were recovered. The Trial Court relied
upon the evidence and accordingly convicted the appellants.

Aggrieved by the order, the appellants and the complainant (PW-6)
F both flied appeal before this Court. The appellants challenged the convic-
tion and the complainant challenged the acquittal of three accused from
the offence under section 302/149.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court
G HELD : 1. The trial court had rightly observed from the evidence
that all the accused were present at the time of the occurrence with the • •
common motive to attack PW-6 and on a lalkara by appellant A, they
actually attacked PW-6 and caused injuries. This way, the accused formed
an unlawful assembly carrying weapons, which were used in the commis-
H sion of the offence and conse<1uently, they became liable to be convicted
!
RAGHUBIR SINGH v. STATE 391

under section 148 of !PC. [397-D-E] A
2. A critical analysis of the evidence on the record shows that the
common object of the unlawful assembly was limited to the attack on PW-6
and did not extend to cover the murder of tile deceased. The Trial Court
rightly concluded that the accused who had actually caused injuries to the
deceased alone were responsible for the murder and that others could not B
be held liable either with the aid of section 149 or section 34 !PC. The
deceased received the fatal blows when he intervened in the quarrel and
the injuries inflicted on him were found to be intentional and not acciden·
tal. The blows were given to him with a great force and on vital parts of
his body. In view of the seriousness and the seat of the injuries and the C
type of weapons used, the offence committed by the appellants squarely
fall under section 302/IPC. [397-G-H; 398-A; 399-A·B]

3. The Trial Court rightly observed that PW-6 was an injnred eye
witness. His evidence was clear, cogent and trustworthy; it was also sup-
ported by the medical evidence on record. The F.I.R. recorded on his D
statement and the recoveries of the weapons also lend sufficient credence to
his statement made at the trial. Nothing had been brought out in the cross-
examination of the witnesses, which may in anyway create doubt about the
truthfulness oftbe eye-witnesses. Even in the absence oftbe motive, the guilt
of the culprits can be established in a given case, if the other evidence on E
record is reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, the conviction and sentence
· for various offences as recorded by the Trial Court are well founded and do
not suffer from any infirmity. [395-H; 396-A; 396-E-F; 397-C; 396-C; 399-C]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
283 of 1985 Etc. F
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.85 of the Additional Judge,
Special Court, Hoshiarpur in Cr!. Challan No. 40/Spl./C/Hoshiarpur of
1984.

U.R. Lalit, Ms. Rachna Joshi Issar and Devi D. Sharma for the G
Appellants in Cr!. A. No. 283/85.
~-.

R.L. Kohli and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant in Cr!. A. No. 436/85

Ms. Rupinder Wasu, R.S. Suri and Harijinder Singh for the Respon-
~~- H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) 3 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ANAND, J. Five accused, namely, Amarjit Singh, Raghubir
Singh, Jagat Singh, J oginder Singh and Ranbir Singh were sent up for trial
before the learned Add!. Judge, Special courts, Hoshiarpur in connection
B with the murder of Balwant Singh and for causing injuries to Santokh Singh
PW6. They were tried for various offences. Raghubir Singh and Joginder
Singh were convicted for an offence under Section 302 !PC while their
remaining co-accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 302/149
!PC. All the accused were convicted for an offence under Section 148 !PC.
Joginder Singh was also convicted for an offence under Section 325 !PC
C while the rest of the accused for an offence under Section 325/149 !PC.
Raghubir Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 323 !PC and
the rest of the accused for an offence under Section 323/149 !PC. Amarjit
Singh who is a law graduate and a practising advocate and had been
attributed only a 'lalkara' at the time of assault, was in view of his previous
D record and educational qualifications directed to be released on probation
for a period of one year on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5000 with
one surety of the like amount undertaking to maintain peace and be of
good behaviour and to appear and to receive the sentence as and when
required by the court during that period. Raghubir Singh and Joginder
E Singh were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs. 5000 and in default R.I. for one and a half years each for the offence
under Section 302 !PC. Joginder Singh was also sentenced to R.I. for one
year under Section 325 !PC while the rest of the accused were sentenced
to R.I. for nine months each under Section 325/149 !PC. Raghubir Singh
was sentenced to three months R.I. for the offence under Section 323 !PC
F
and the rest of the accused were also sentenced to three months R.l. under
Section 323/149 !PC. All the accused were further sentenced to RI. for six
months under section 148 IPC. The substantive sentences of imprisonment
were directed to run concurrently and the fine on realisation was directed
to be paid to the heirs of Balwant Singh as compensation.
G
The· appellants have filed this appeal under Section 14 of the Ter-
rorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act 1984 challenging their convic-
tion and sentence as recorded on 6.3.1985. State had also filed an appeal
against the acquittal of the accused of the offence 302/149 !PC, being Crl.
H A. No. 526/85. That appeal, however, was dismissed by a Division Bench
RAGHUBIRSINGHv. STATE [DR.ANAND,J.] 393

of this Court on 27.2.1987. The complainant Santokh Singh has filed Cr!. A
A. No. 436/85 against the acquittal of the three accused for the offence
under Sections 302/149 !PC. Both these appeals are being disposed of
together.

According to the prosecution case, sometime in August 1984 Har- B
bans Singh PW received a threatening letter allegedly from some extremist
on which he moved an application to the District Magistrate for permission
to carry his own weapon for self defence. Jagat Singh appellant moved an
application on 14.8.84 before the District Magistrate opposing the request
of Harbans Singh and on that account the relations between Harbans Singh
on the one hand and Jagat Singh and Raghubir Singh who are brothers, on C
the other hand became strained. Because of the receipt of the letter,
Harbans Singh and Balwant Singh started living together. On 11.9.1984 an
agreement appears to have been arrived at between Jagat Singh appellant
and Harbans Singh PW for a passage through a plot This led to straining
of relations between joginder Singh and his brother Ranbir Singh (appel- D
!ants) on the one hand and Harbans Singh on the other. It is also alleged
that Santokh Singh PW-6 brought about a compromise between J agat Singh
and Dalip Singh which was resented to by the accused. These were the
motives for the assault as alleged by the prosecution.

At about 10 p.m. on 11.9.84 Santokh Singh, Nambardar was returning E
from his tubewell and he met Tarsem Singh PW near Octroi Post on the
Jalandhar-Hoshiarpur road. They started talking to each other. In the
meantime, Raghubir Singh appellant armed with a gandassi reached there
and pulling down the turban of Santokh Singh PW-6 told him that he was
nobody to bring about any compromise between Jagat Singh and Dalip F
Singh. Santokh Singh PW-6 retorted that he had not done any wrong and
picked up his turban and placed it on his head. Raghubir Singh appellant
then raised a lalkara on which Jagat Singh and Joginder Singh armed with
gandassis and Ranbir Singh armed with a datri came there. There were
two other unknown persons also accompanying them. Amarjit Singh (co-
accused) arrived on a scooter and after parking the. same rai,ed a lalkara G
that Santokh Singh and Tarsem Singh should not be allowed to go and that
he would take care of the matter. On this Raghubir Singh is alleged to have
given a gandassi blow, from its wrong side, on the right forearm of Santokh
Singh PW-6 while Jagat Singh appellant gave a gandassi blow by its wrong
side on bis left thigh. All the accused thereafter caused injuries to him with H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A their respective weapons on his left arm and fingers and other parts of the
body, including his right thigh and the right side of his head. In the
meanwhile, Nambard1r Balwant Singh, deceased, and Harbans Singh PW-7
reached there and they also witnessed the assault. They asked the appel-
lants not to beat Santokh Singh on which Amarjit Singh raised a lalkara
B saying that since the real enemy had arrived, he should not be spared and
allowed to go away unhurt. Raghubir Singh thereupon gave a gandassi blow
on the head of Balwant Singh while J agat Singh gave a gandassi blow from
its wrong side on the back of the head of Balwant Singh. On receipt of the
injuries, Balwant Singh fell down. The appellants left the place along with
their respective weapons after Harbans Singh PW- 7 escaped to his house.
C Balwant Singh succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Chowkidar Lakhwant
Singh arrived at the spot and carried Santokh Singh PW-6 injured to Civil
Hospital, Hoshiarpur where he was medically examined and as many as
seven injuries were found on his person. According to Dr. T.S. Verma, all
the injuries had been caused with a blunt weapon. According to the
D Radiologist's report, injury No. 6, which was a defused swelling of the
upper one third of the left thigh, was declared as grievous. Sub-Inspector
Sardul Singh PW recorded the statement of Sanlokh Singh on arrival at
the Hospital on receipt of the police ruka, after Santokh Singh was
declared fit to make a statement, and forward the same, with his endorse-
ment, to the police station. The formal FIR was registered on 12.9.1984 at
E 12.55 a.m. The investigation was taken in hand by Sardul Singh who went
to the spot from the hospital. The dead body of Balwant Singh was found
lying there. He prepared the inquest report Ex.PC and the dead body was
sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Jagmohan
Singh on 12.9.84 at 9.15 a.m. The following injuries were found on the
deceased :
F
"(1) Incised wound 10 cm x 6 cm x 7.4 cm on the forehead. It was
placed horizontally/oblique. The frontal bone was fractured. The
brain matter was coming out.

G (2) Reddish contusion mark on the top of right shoulder joint. it
was 4.8. cm x .12 cm. It was obliquely placed. , ..
(3) Reddish contusion mark 14.4. cm x 1.4 cm on the front of chest
in the upper part. It was obliquely placed going upward towards
H the right side.
! RAGHUBIRSINGHv. STATE [DR.ANAND,J.) 395

(4) There was swelling of scalp in the region of paraital region left A
side and top of skull. It was 12.4 cm x 3.2 cm.

(5) Three contusions red in colour in the front of abdomen and
right side near the illiac crest. It was 4 ems in diameter."

According to the medical opinion, the death of Balwant Singh was B
caused due to shock and haemmrohage on account of the injuries received
by the deceased which were all ante mortem. The doctor further opined
that injuries Nos. 1 and 4 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature individually and collectively. It was further opined that the
time gap between the injuries and death was immediate and between death C
and post mortem about 12 hours. According to Doctor injury No. 1 had
been caused by a sharp weapon while all other injuries had been caused
by blunt weapon.

SI Sardul Singh PW undertook the investigation and collected blood
stained earth and prepared the rough site plan. The clothes of the deceased D
which had been brought by constable Madan Lal were also sealed into a
¥ parcel, and taken into possession. Raghubir Singh and J oginder Singh
appellants surrendered before the court on 14.9.84 and were taken into
custody. On 17.9.84 AS! Ajit Singh interrogated Raghubir Singh who made
a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of a gandassi from a heap E
of stock lying in his field. Joginder Singh also made a disclosure statement
on 17.9.84 and led to the recovery of a gandassi. Both the weapons
gandassi Ex. Pl recovered on the disclosure statement of Raghubir Singh
and gandassi Ex. P2 recovered on the disclosure statement of Joginder
--r· Singh were found to be blood stained. They were seized. and sealed. AS! F
Jagjit Singh interrogated Jagat Singh and Ranbir Singh on 21.9.84 and they
also made disclosure statements leading to the recovery of a gandassi and
a Datri concealed by them respectively. Gandassi Ex.P3 was recovered at
the instance of Jagat Singh while datri Ex.14 and khundi Ex. P5 were
recovered at the instance of Ranbir Singh. On completion of the investiga-
tion, the appellants were sent up for trail and were convicted and sentenced G
in the manner noticed above.

Santokh Singh PW6 is the injured eye-witness. He has deposed to
not only about the motives but also about the assault both on himself and
·c,n Balwant Singh. He has fully supported the prosecution version as H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A detailed in the earlier part of this judgment. His evidence is clear and
cogent. According to Dalip Singh PW-10 when he arrived at the spot after
the occurrence he had found Santokh Singh PW6 present there along with
Lakhwant Singh Chowkidar and the dead body of Balwant Singh. Accord-
ing to him, Santokh Singh PW-6 narrated the occurrence to him and PW-6
B was removed to the hospital by Lakhwant Singh Chowkidar in the rickshaw.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellants that all the 3/4 alleged
motives were minor and not sufficient to induce the appellants to commit
the murder of Balwant Singh does not impress us. The motives may be
minor but nonetheless they did provide an occasion for attack on the
C deceased by the appellants. That apar~ even in the absence of motive, the
guilt of culprits can be established in a given case if the other evidence on
the record is trustworthy and the absence of proof of motive has never been
considered as fatal to the prosecution case where the ocular evidence is
found reliable. The evidence of Santokh Singh PW 6 is straight forward
D and consistent. He being an injured witness would not leave out his real
assailants and implicate the appellants falsely. His evidence has impressed
us. Besides, the evidence of PW-6 has received ample corroboration from
the medical evidence provided by Dr. Jagmohan ~ingh PWl, Dr. T.S.
Verma, PW2, and Dr. C.L. Thukral PW3. The statement of Santokh Singh
PW-6 was recorded at the hospital at about mid- night and it was on the
E basis of that statement that the formal FIR came to be registered. In the
FIR itself the genesis of the occurrence <.nd the manner of assault have
been clearly detailed. The names of the accused as well as the weapons
with which they were armed have also been clearly stated. This prompt FIR
containing all necessary details also lends sufficient credence to the state-
F ment of PW-6 Santokh Singh made at the trial. As already noticed Dalip
Singh PW-10 and Lakhwant Singh Chowkidar have fully corroborated the
statement of Santokh Singh not only with regard to the second part of the
occurrence but also about the manner in which the first part of the
occurrence relating to the attack on Santokh Singh PW took place. We also
G do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the appel-
lants that since the attack on Balwant Singh was at the spur of the moment
therefore PW-6 could not have witnessed the occurrence and as such he is
not a reliable witness. PW-6 Santokh Singh was very much present at the
spot and it was in his presence that Balwant Sing deceased and Harbans
H Singh PW arrived at the spot and advised the accused not to attack PW-6
_)
RAGHUBIRSINGHv. STATE[DR.ANAND,J.] 397

and thereafter a lalkara was raised that since the real enemy had arrived, A
he should not be spared. Nothing has been brought out in the course of
-)< cross- examination of PW-7 which may create any doubt about the manner
in which Balwant Singh had arrived at the spot and was attacked in the
presence of Santokh Singh. There was admittedly party faction in the
village and Amarjit Singh was heading one faction, while Harbans Singh B
PW-7 belonged to the other faction. The lalkara regarding the arrival of
the enemy thus stands explained. The recoveries of the weapons from
Raghubir Singh, Joginder Singh, J agat Singh and Ranbir Singh have been
amply proved from the testimony of Swaran Singh PW-11 ASI Baldev Raj
PW-12 and AS! Ajit Singh PW-13. These recoveries also lend assurance to C
the testimony of Santokh Singh PW-6 and Harbans Singh PW-7. Nothing
has been brought out in the cross-exami_nation of either of these two
witnesses which may in any way create any doubt about their truthfulness.
The trial court while dealing with the attack on Santokh rightly observed :

"From this evidence, therefore, it has to conclude that all the D
accused were present at the time of the occurrence with the
common motive to attack Santokh Singh PW and on the lalkara of
Amarjit Singh, accused, the others co-accused actually attacked
him and caused the injuries which were actually found on his
person during the medico legal examination. In this situation the E
accused formed an unlawful assembly carrying weapons which
were used in the commission of the offence qua Santokh Singh and
consequently, they became liable under Section 148 !PC. Out of
the injuries sustained by Santokh Singh during the occurrence,
injury No. 6 was found to be grievous with a facture of the left
thigh. This injury was caused by the wrong side of the gandasi and F
the blow is attributed to Joginder Singh accused."

We agree with the above findings of the trial court.

Our critical analysis of the evidence on the record shows that the
common object of the unlawful assembly was limited to the attack on G
Santokh Singh and did not extend to cover the murder of Balwant Singh.
Balwant Singh apparently received the injuries when he intervened during
the course of the occurrence and those injuries proved fatal. The trial
Court rightly found that in the established facts and circumstances of the
case, the accused who had actually caused the injuries to Balwant Singh H
\
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A alone were responsible for the murder of Balwant Singh and that others
could not be held liable either with the aid of section 149 or Section 34
!PC.

There was no serious dispute either before the trial court or before
us that Balwant Singh had died at the time and place as alleged by the
B
prosecution on account of the injuries sustained by him. As per the post
mortem report Ex. PA, the deceased had five injuries out of which three
were contusions, one was an incised wound on the forehead and another
a swelling in the parital region. Injuries No. 1 and 4 were opined by Dr.
Jagmohan Singh to be individually and collectively sufficient in the ordinary
C course of nature to cause death. According to the ocular testimony of PW-6
injury No.l is attributed to Raghubir Singh appellant while injury No. 4 is
attributed to Joginder Singh appellant. Santokh Singh PW-6 has categori-
cally deposed that Raghubir Singh had given the gandassi blow on the head
of Balwant Singh from its sharp side while Joginder Singh had given a blow
D with the gandasi from the wrong.side on the back of the head of Balwant
Singh, who fell down thereafter and the other accused caused further
injuries on the deceased. Indeed, in the FIR Ex. PM Santokh Singh PW-6
specifically attributed the first blow to Raghubir Singh and had stated that
the rest of the accused also caused injuries to him from the wrong and right
side of their respective weapons. The injury attributed to J oginder Singh is
E not specifically mentioned by Santokh Singh in the statement Ex. PM. Both
Harbans Singh PW-7 and Santokh Singh PW-6 at the trial, however, clearly
deposed that injury No. 4 had been caused by Joginder Singh. Nothing has
been suggested in the cross- examination of Harbans Singh PW7 regarding
the injury attributed to Joginder Singh appellant. The mere omission in the
FIR of Injury No. 4 having been caused by Joginder Singh appellant cannot
F
in any way improve the case of the appellants and discredit Santokh Singh
PW-6. We agree with the trial Court that the two fatal blows to Balwant
Singh had been inflicted by Raghubir Singh and .loginder Singh appellants.
So far as the defence of the appellants, including the statement of Ram
Prasad OW 1, the trial court has rightly considered and found the same
G not to be worthy of any credence. We agree.

Faced with the unimpeachable evidence on the record, learned coun-
sel for the appellants submitted that appellants Joginder Singh and
Raghubir Singh could not be said to have intended to cause the death of
H Balwant Singh and therefore the offence would not fall under Section 302
RAGHUBIRSINGHv. STATE [DR.ANAND,J.] 399

!PC. We cannot agree. Undoubtedly, Balwant Singh received the fatal A
blows when he intervened but the injuries inflicted on him were intentional
and not accidental. The blows were given to him with great force on vital
parts of his body. Keeping in view the seriousness of the injuries, the
weapons used and the seat of the injuries, the offence committed by these
two appellants would squarely fall under Section 302 !PC.
B
Thus, for what has been said above the conviction and sentence of
the appellants for various offences as recorded by the trial court are well
founded and do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. There is no merit
in this appeal which consequently fails and is dismissed.

Coming now to the Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 1985 filed by the C
complainant, we do not find any force in the same and particularly in view
of the dismissal of Cr!. A. No. 526/85 decided on 27.2.1987 filed by the
State, for the very same relief, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed.

The appellants Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singh are on bail. Their D
bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody to undergo the
',(' remaining part of the sentence.

B.K.S. Appeal dismissed.

~-