STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSHIV CHARAN & ORS.

                         [2013) 8 S.C.R. 336


A                     STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                                  v.
                       SHIV CHARAN & ORS.
             (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1425-1426 of 2007)
                            JULY 1, 2013
B
          [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.)

         Penal Code, 1860:

c.        s. 30211491148 - Conviction under - By trial court -
     Sentence of life imprisonment with fine - High Court allowed
     the conviction to one uls.323 and reduced the sentence to one
     year imprisonment on the ground inter alia that fatal injury
     was attributable to the absconding accused and the
0    complainant party was the aggressor - On appeal, held:
     Finding of High Court was based on no evidence and hence
     perverse - It is actually a case where common object of
     unlawful assembly stood translated into action and members
     of the assembly succeeded in their mission.

E        s. 149 - Common object - Invocation of - Discussed.

          Criminal Trial - Non-explanation of serious injuries on
     the person of accused - Effect of - Held: Non-explanation of
     serious injuries on the person of accused may be fatal to the
F    prosecution case, but if injuries are minor, even if not
     explained, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved.

       Respondent-accused were prosecuted u/ss. 302/149/
  148 IPC. The accused had also filed a cross-case. Trial
  court convicted the accused for the offences charged
G and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court
  in view of the facts that the fatal injury was attributable
  to the absconding accused; that FIR was registered on
  the basis of hearsay information; and in view of the
  injuries on the accused and also that the pending cross-
H                             336
  STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHIV CHARAN & ORS.             337


case suggest that complainant party was the aggressor,        A
converted the conviction to one u/s. 323 IPC and
converted the life sentence to imprisonment for one year.
Hence the present appeal by the State.
    Allowing the appeal, the Court                            B
     HELD: 1.1. Applicability of Section 149 IPC has its
foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua
non for its application. It contains essentially only two
ingredients, namely, (i) offence committed by any
member of any unlawful assembly consisting five or            C
more members and; (ii) such offence must be committed
in prosecution of the common object (Section 141 IPC)
of the assembly or members of that assembly knew to be
likely to be committed in prosecution of the common
object. It is not necessary that for common object there      D
should be a prior concert as the common object may be
formed on spur of the moment. Common object would
mean the purpose or design shared by all the members
of such assembly and it may be formed at any stage.
Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution    E
of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it may
yet fall under second part of Section 149 IPC if it is
established that the offence was such, as the members
knew, was likely to be committed. The court must keep
in mind the distinction between the two parts of Section      F
149 IPC, and, once it is established that unlawful assembly
had a common object, it is not necessary that all persons
forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have
committed some overt act, rather they can be convicted
for vicarious liability. However, it may be relevant to       G
determine .whether the assembly consist of some
persons which were merely passive witnesses and had
joined the assembly as a matter of ideal curiosity without
intending to entertain the common object of the
assembly. However, it is only the rule of caution and not     H
   338     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A the rule of law. Thus, a mere presence or association with
  other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold
  everyone of them criminally liable for the offence
  committed by the others unless there is sufficient
  evidence on record to show that each intended to or
B knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending
  act, being a member of unlawful assembly as provided
  for u/s.142 IPC. It may also not be a case of group rivalry
  or sudden or free fight or an act of the member of
  unlawful assembly beyond the common object. [Para 16)
C [345-H; 346-A-H; 347-A]

      Saladin and Ors. vs. State of U.P. AIR 1956 SC 181;
  Masalti vs. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202: 1964 SCR 133;
  Chandra Bihari Gautam and Ors. vs. State of Bihar AIR 2002
  SC 1836: 2002 (2) SCR 1164; Ramesh and Ors. vs. State
D of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 169: 2010 (12) SCR 799;
  Ramachandran and Ors. Etc. vs. State of Kera/a AIR 2011
  SC 3581: 2011 (13) SCR 923; Onkar and Anr. vs. State of
  Uttar Pradesh (2012) 2 SCC 273: 2012 (2) SCR 1164; Roy
  Farnandez vs. State of Goa and Ors. AIR 2012 SC 1030:
E 2012 (1) SC~ 477; Krishnappa and Ors. vs. State of
  Karnataka AIR 2012 SC 2946: 2012 SCR 1068 - relied on.

       1.2. Thus, for resorting to the provisions of Section
  149 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that (i) there was
F an assembly of five persons; (ii) the assembly had a
  common object; and (iii) the said common object was to _
  consist one or more of the five illegal objects specified
  in Section 141 IPC. [Para 17) [347-C-D)

      1.3. In light of fact-situation of the present case, it is
G clear that 5 persons had come fully armed, in a vehicle
  and all of them caused injuries to the deceased. It is
  actually a case where common object of unlawful
  assembly stood translated into action and members of
  the assembly succeeded in their mission. Thus, the view
H taken by the High Court that the respondents are liable
 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHIV CHARAN & ORS.         339


for the acts attributed to them individually and not A
collectively, being perverse is not worth acceptance. The
High Court has committed an error in presuming that the
case was one where a free fight had occurred, and
therefore, the provisions of Sections 148 and 149 IPC
were not attracted; the complainant party were B
aggressors; and there had been some soft pedaling in
the investigation. Such findings are based on no
evidence and hence perverse. [Paras 17 and 18) [347-F-
H; 348-A]

    2. Non-explanation of serious injuries on the person C
of accused may be fatal to the prosecution case. But
where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor in
nature, even in absence of proper explanation of
prosecution, story of the prosecution cannot be
disbelieved. High Court has not considered the issue of D
non-explanation of injuries on the person of accused in
correct perspective. [Paras 20 and 21) [348-G; 349-G-H]
    Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 11 SCC 158:
2012 (8) SCR 910; Mano Dutt and Anr. vs. State of Uttar E
Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 79: 2012 (3) SCR 686 - relied on.
                   Case Law Reference:
    AIR 1956 SC 181       relied on          Para 16
    1964 SCR 133          relied on          Para 16    F

    2002 (2) SCR 1164     relied on          Para 16
    2010 (12) SCR 799     relied on          Para 16
    2011 (13) SCR 923     relied on          Para 16
                                                        G
    2012 (2) SCR 1164     relied on          Para 16
    2012 (1) SCR 477      relied on          Para 16
    2012 SCR 1068         relied on          Para 16
    2012 (8) SCR 910      relied on          Para 20    H
    340     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A         2012 (3) SCR 686         relied on             Para 21

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    Nos.1425-1426 of 2007

        From the judgment and order dated 20.09.2005 of the
B   High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in D.B.
    Criminal Appeal Nos. 1454 and 1458 of 2002

          Ajay Veer Singh, Nitin Jain Atul Agarwal, Milind Kumar,
    for the Appellant.
c         G.K. Bansal, Reepak Kansai for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These appeals have been
D   preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated
    20.9.2005, passed by the High Court of Judicature of
    Rajasthan at Jodhpur (Jaipur Bench) in D.B. Criminal Appeal
    Nos.1454 and 1458 of 2002, by way of which, the High Court
    has converted the conviction of the respondents herein, from
E   one under Sections 302/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
    (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and Section 148 IPC to
    another under Section 323 IPC, and the sentence awarded by
    the Sessions Court to life imprisonment with fine, has also been
    substituted by a sentence of one year.

F        2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals
    are that:

       A. A complaint was submitted by Batti Lal (PW.1) in the
  Police Station, Barnanwas on 28.8.2000 at about 9 a.m., that
G on the said day, his brother Prahlad (since deceased), had
  been grazing buffaloes. The respondents herein alongwith one
  Mahesh, absconder, had attacked Prahlad and inflicted injuries
  on his person. Mahesh had hit Prahlad on the head with a rod,
  whereas the respondents had inflicted injuries with lathis.
H Kedar-accused had tried to push Prahlad to crush him under
 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHIV CHARAN & ORS.                 341
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
the tractor driven by the accused, but could not succeed. A
Prahlad had then been taken to the local hospital, from where
he was referred to Jaipur Hospital, but he succumbed to his
injuries while in transit.

     B. On the basis of the said report, a case under Sections
                                                                 8
147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC was registered against the
respondents and Mahesh, absconder, and investigation
commenced. Autopsy on the dead body of Prahlad was
performed. The respondents were arrested. All necessary
memos were drawn up, and upon completion of the
investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the respondents. C
However, the investigation against Mahesh remained pending,
as he had been absconding.

     C. The trial commenced. The prosecution examined 15
witnesses in support of its case. The respondents were D
examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.'). They
not only pleaded innocence but also examined one witness in
defence. Upon completion of the trial, the learned Trial Court
convicted. and sentenced the respondents as has been referred E
to hereinabove.

    D. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred criminal appeals
before the High Court, which were allowed vide impugned
judgment and order.
                                                                F
    Hence, these appeals.

     3. Shri Ajay Veer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
State, has submitted, that in light of the grievous injuries found
on the body of Prahlad (deceased), which are undeniably G
homicidal in nature, the case certainly did not warrant the
conversion of the conviction of the respondents from under
Sections 302/149/148 IPC, to one under Section 323 IPC.
There was sufficient evidence on record to show that the
respondents were the aggressors, and the mere pendency of H
    342     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2013] 8 S.C.R.


A   the cross case before the Trial Court should not give leverage
    to the High Court to take such a lenient view. Therefore, the
    appeals deserve to be allowed.

         4. Per contra, Shri G.K. Bansal, learned counsel appearing
    for the respondents has submitted, that the High Court has
B   appreciated the entire evidence in correct perspective, and
    upon realising that it was a free fight, has held that it was not
    possible to determine, who were the actual aggressors? The
    view taken by the High Court does not require any interference
    whatsoever. Thus, the appeals lack merit and are liable to be
C   dismissed.

         5. We have· considered the rival submissions made by
    learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

D       6. Post-mortem on the body of Prahlad, deceased, was
    conducted by the team/Board consisting of Dr. N.K. Meena and
    Dr. Ramesh Chand Gupta (PW.9'). The report (Ex.P-14),
    revealed the following ante-mortem injuries:

          (1)    "Lacerated wound 3" x Yz"    x bone deep - Mid of
E                scalp.

          (2)    Contusion 2" x Yz'' (Rt.) wrist joint of both bones.

          (3)    Abrasion Yz x Yz on front of Rt. ear.

F          (4)   Multiple linear abrasion on the left lower limb.

         In the opinion of the Doctors, the cause of death was shock
    due to injury on scalp leading to brain hemorrhage.

G       7. The injuries found on the person of respondent Shiv
    Charan were as follows:

          (1)    Abrasion with swelling on Lt. Hand dorsal aspect
                 of palms at 1 cm below junction of little finger.

H
    STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHIV CHARAN & ORS.                343
              [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
       (2)   Abrasion with swelling of Rt. Side parietal region     A
             at skull.

       (3)   Complaint of pain whole.back with injury.

    8. The injuries found on the person of respondent Kedar
were as follows:                                                    B

       (1)   Lacerated wound on Rt. Parietal region on skull.
             Scalp deep soft clotted blood, 5 cm x % cm.

       (2)   Lacerated wound on center of skull soft clotted        C
             blood 4 cm x % cm scalp deep.

       (3)   Complaint of Pain Lt. Parietal region with swelling
             2 cm x 2 cm.

       (4)   Complaint of pain Rt. Arm.                             D
      9. Ramdhan Meena (PW.2) has deposed that while
Prahlad had been grazing the buffaloes in the morning, Mahesh,
armed with an iron rod, alongwith the co-accused -
respondents, who were armed with lathis, had come there.
They all started abusing Prahlad. Mahesh had inflicted a blow       E
on the head of Prahlad with an iron rod, and Shiv Charan had
hit him with a lathi on the left side of the face. Nehru had then
pushed Prahlad in front of the tractor driven by the accused-
respondents, to crush him under it, but could not succeed.
Prahlad, injured, had then been taken to a hospital in Jaipur,      F
but died on the way.

     This witness was declared hostile, as he did not support
the case of the prosecution.
                                                                    G
     10. Khushi Chand (PW.5), deposed that Prahlad
(deceased), had been grazing buffaloes. The respondents,
alongwith Mahesh had come there on a tractor. They had
started quarrelling with Prahlad. Mahesh had first assaulted
I
Prahlad on the head with an iron rod, and thereafter, the
                                                                    H
    344     SUPREME COURT REPORTS.                ·. [2013) 8 S.C.R.


A   respondents herein had assaulted Prahlad with lathis. The
    witnesses had tried to save Prahlad, but the accused had fled
    in their tractor by road after beating him. Prahlad had then been
    taken to the Gangapur Hospital in a cart, after which he had
    been referred to Jaipur Hospital. He died on the way.
B
         11. Gopal (PW.4) and Phool Chand (PW.7), had given the
    same version of events, as they had also been grazing their
    buffaloes/catties alongwith Prahlad (deceased).

        12. Dr. Shiv Singh Meena (PW.15), who had examined
C   Prahlad in his injured condition, has proved the injuries on his
    person.

         Dr. Ramesh Chand Gupta (PW.9), who was the member
    of the board, which conducted the postmortem, deposed that
D   the layer around the brain had been fractured. There was
    fracture in his right parietal bone, and fractures on the right
    radius and alina bone. In his opinion, the cause of death was
    hemorrhage inside the brain. The injury found on the head of
    the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the normal
    course of nature.
E
          13. Jitendra Jain (PW.12), the Investigating Officer, proved
    all the recoveries, and answered all questions relating to the
    investigation. He also admitted that a cross case had been
    registered by the respondents in regard to the very same
F   incident, against the complainant party, as accused Kedar and
    Shiv Charan had also sustained injuries in the said incident.

          14. The Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence
    on record and has thereafter, rejected the version of Shiv
G   Charan and Kedar, that they had received injuries as referred
    to in the cross case, while acting in self-defence. The court has
    also rejected the theory of grave and sudden provocation, and
    also that the quarrel had taken place suddenly, and that maar-
    peet had started without any previous intention or planning. In
H   the instant case, the previous enmity between the parties on
  STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHIV CHARAN & ORS.                    345
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

mortgaging the land also stood established. Conslbering the           A
gravity of the injuries and the evidence on record, the Trial Court
has convicted and sentenced the respondents as has been
referred to hereinabove.

     15. The High Court while deciding the appeals, has taken         8
the following circumstances into consideration:

      (i)     The fatal injury on the head of Prahlad (deceased),
              has been attributed to Mahesh, the absconding
              accused;
                                                                      c
      (ii)     The informant Batti Lal, was not an eye witness to
              the incident, and who got the FIR registered on the
              basis of hearsay information;

      (iii)   The injuries sustained by the accused, particularly
                                                                      0
              by accused Kedar, suggest that the complainant
              party had in fact been aggressors; and

      (iv)    A cross case was registered against the
              complainant party and the same was pending.
                                                                      E
     The High Court came to the conclusion after taking into
consideration the number of injuries suffered by the accused
Kedar and Shiv Charan, that an inference could easily be drawn
to the effect that there had been some soft pedaling in the
investigation, and that the prosecution had not revealed the          F
genesis of the incident. The High Court, thus, very abruptly
reached the conclusion that as there had been no meeting of
minds just prior to the incident, or even at the time of incident,
the respondents were responsible for their individual acts.
Since a fatal injury had been found on the head of the                G
deceased, which had been attributed to be caused by co-
accused Mahesh, an absconder, the conviction and sentences
were altered as referred to hereinabove.

     16. The pivotal question of applicability of Section 149 IPC
has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua    H
    346      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 8 S.C.R.


A   non for its application. It contains essentially only two
    ingredients, namely, (I) offence committed by any member of
    any unlawful assembly consisting five or more members and;
    (II) such offence must be committed in prosecution of the
    common object (Section 141 IPC) of the assembly or members
B   of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
    prosecution of the common object. It is not necessary that for
    common object there should be a prior concert as the common
    object may be formed on spur of the moment. Common object
    would mean the purpose or design shared by all members of
C   such assembly and it may be formed at any stage. Even if the
    offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common
    object of the unlawful assembly, it may yet fall under second part
    of Section 149 IPC if it is established that the offence was such,
    as the members knew, was likely to be committed. For
o   instance, if a body of persons go armed to take forcible
    possession of the land, it may be presumed that someone is
    likely to be killed, and all the members of the unlawful assembly
    must be aware of that likelihood and, thus, each of them can
    be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 149 IPC.
E   The court must keep in mind the distinction between the two
    parts of Section 149 IPC, and, once it is established that
    unlawful assembly had a common object, it is not necessary
    that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown
    to have committed some overt act, rather they can be convicted
F   for vicarious liability. However, it may be relevant to determine
    whether the assembly consist of some persons which were
    merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a
    matter of ideal curiosity without intending to entertain the
    common object of the assembly. However, it is only the rule of
    caution and not the rule of law. Thus, a mere presence or
G   association with other members alone does not per se be
    sufficient to hold everyone of them criminally liable for the
    offence committed by the others unless there is sufficient
    evidence on record to show that each intended to or knew the
    likelihood of commission of such an offending act, being a
H   member of unlawful assembly as provided for under Section
  STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHIV CHARAN & ORS.                   347
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
142 IPC. It may also not be a case of group rivalry or sudden A
or free fight or an act of the member of unlawful assembly
beyond the common object. (Vide: Baladin & Ors. v. State· of
U.P., AIR 1956 SC 181; Masalti v. State ofU.P., AIR 1965 SC
202; Chandra Bihari Gautam & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR
2002 SC 1836; Ramesh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 B
SC 169; Ramachandran & Ors. Etc. v. State of Kera/a, Al R
2011 SC 3581; Onkar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012)
2 SCC 273; Roy Farnandez v. State of Goa & Ors., AIR 2012
SC 1030; and Krishnappa & Ors. v. State of Kamataka, AIR
2012 SC 2946).                                                c
       17. Thus, for resorting to the provisions of Section 149 IPC,
the prosecution has to establish that (i) there was an assembly
of five persons; (ii) the assembly had a common object; and
(iii) the said common object was to consist one or more of the
five illegal objects specified in Section 141 IPC.                   D

     There is evidence on record to show that all the
respondents had, in fact, come together on a tractor. They had
started abusing Prahlad (deceased). Mahesh, absconding
accused, had hit Prahlad (deceased), with an iron rod, on his E
head, and the respondents~ accused had also hit him with lathis.
Even after inflicting first injury on the head by Mahesh, beating
by the present respondents went on and thereafter, the accused
ran away. Therefore, in light of such a fact-situation, it is clear
that 5 persons had come fully armed, in a vehicle and all of them F
caused injuries to Prahlad, who succumbed to such injuries.
Here, it is actually a case where common object of unlawful
assembly stood translated into action and members of the
assembly succeeded in their mission. Thus, the view taken by
the High Court that the respondents are liable for the acts G
attributed to them individually and not collectively, being
perverse is not worth acceptance.

     18. The High Court has committed an error in presuming
that the case was one where a free fight had occurred, and
therefore, the provisions of Sections 148 and 149 IPC were not      H
    348     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A   attracted; the complainant party were aggressors; and there
    had been some soft pedaling in the investigation. Such findings
    are based on no evidence whatsoever, and hence, are held to
    be perverse.

         19. So far as the injuries found on the person of accused
8
    Shiv Charan and Kedar are concerned, the injuries of Shiv
    Charan are merely abrasions. Dr. M.K. Meena (DW.1) opined
    that as injuries found on the person of Kedar could be caused
    by fall on stone and some of his injuries were of superficial
    nature. The Trial Court dealt with issue of injuries suffered by
C   the said accused by making reference to the statement of
    Mohanlal (DW.2), who had stated that all the accused persons
    were going on a tractor to attend a claim case. The said witness
    was also with them and when they reached near Bandawal, 6-
    7 persons surrounded the tractor and stopped it. They started
D   beating Kedar and Shiv Charan and caused injuries to them.

          In fact, this has been a consistent case of all the accused
    persons wtiile their statements were recorded under Section
    313 Cr.P.C. None of the accused has explained how the injuries
E   were caused to Prahlad (deceased). The Trial Court
    appreciated the evidence and came to conclusion that the
    respondents-accused were the aggressive party and they were
    five in numbers and all of them were armed. Thus, the High
    Court could not be justified in reversing the findings of fact
    recorded by the Trial Court without making reference to any
F
    evidence.

          20. Non-explanation of serious injuries on the person of
    accused may be fatal to the prosecution case. But where the
    injuries sustained by the accused are minor in nature, even in
G   absence of proper explanation of prosecution, story of the
    prosecution cannot be disbelieved. (Vide: Laxman v. State of
    Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SCC 158)

         21. This Court considered the issue in Mano Dutt & Anr.
H   v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 sec 79 and held as under:
 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHIV CHARAN & ORS.                   349
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

           "38. The question, raised before this Court for its A
    consideration, is with respect to the effect of non-
    explanation of injuries sustained by the accused persons.
    In this regard, this Court has taken a consistent view that
    the normal rule is that whenever the accused sustains
    injury in the same occurrence in which the complainant B
    suffered the injury, the prosecution should explain the
    injury upon the accused. But, it is not a rule without
    exception that if the prosecution fails to give explanation,
    the prosecution case must fail.

    39. Before the non-explanation of the injuries on the
                                                                    c
    person of the accused, by the prosecution witnesses,
    may be held to affect the prosecution case, the Court has
    to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions:

    (i) that the injuries on the person of the accused were also D
    of a serious nature; and

    (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time
    of the occurrence in question.

    40. Where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy; E
    and where the court can distinguish the truth from
    falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries on the person
    of the accused are not explained by the prosecution
    cannot, by itself, be the sole basis to reject the testimony
    of the prosecution witnesses and consequently, the whole F
    case of the prosecution. Reference in this regard can be
    made to Rajender Singh v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC
    298, Ram Sunder Yadav v. State of.Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC
    365 and Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC
    190."                                                        G

     In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the High
Court has not considered the issue of non-explanation of injuries
on the person of accused in correct perspective.
                                                                    H
    350     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A        22. In view of above, the appeals succeed and are allowed.
    The judgment and order impugned before us is set aside and
    the judgment and order of the Trial Court is restored. The
    respondents are directed to surrender within a period of 4
    weeks from today, failing which, the learned Additional
B   Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gangapur City, is directed to take
    them into custody and send them to jail to serve the remaining
    part of the sentence. A copy of the order be sent to the learned
    Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gangapur City, for
    information and compliance.
c K.K.T.                                          Appeals allowed.