Dinesh Mohanlal Barot vs State of Gujarat

J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—All the above-referred three criminal appeals arise out of a judgment and order rendered by learned Additional City

Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad on 05.11.2004 in Sessions Case No. 259 of 2003. The Criminal Appeal No. 2085 of 2004 is

preferred by original accused No. 2 Dinesh Mohanlal Barot, Criminal Appeal No. 2141 of 2004 is preferred by original accused No. 1

Rakeshbhai Ramanlal Patel and Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2005 is preferred by original accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin Ramanlal Patel. For the

sake of convenience, the appellants shall be referred to according to their original status before the trial Court.

All the three accused persons came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364A, 363, 365, 368 and 507 Indian

Penal Code (''IPC'', for short). All the three accused persons were sentenced to undergo R.I for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of

payment of fine, R.I for three months for the offence punishable u/s 364A IPC, R.I for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of

fine, R.I for three months for the offence punishable u/s 120B IPC so far as accused No. 1 Rakeshbhai Ramanalal Patel and accused No. 3

Jasmin @ Jatin Ramanlal Patel are concerned and R.I for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, R.I for three months

for the offence punishable u/s 120B IPC so far as accused No. 2 Dinesh Mohanlal is concerned, R.I for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in

default of payment of fine, R.I for three months for the offence punishable u/s 363 IPC so far as accused No. 1 Rakesh and accused No. 3 Jasmin

@ Jatin are concerned and R.I for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, R.I for three months for the offence

punishable u/s 363 IPC so far as accused No. 2 Dinesh Mohanlal is concerned. No order of separate sentence came to passed in connection with

all the three accused for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 368 and 507 IPC.

The prosecution case in nutshell is that the incident occurred at about 3 pm on 7.2.2003 in Sharda Primary School, situated in the area called

Bhuyangdev Cross-Roads in the city of Ahmedabad. Nephew of first informant Hemantbhai Patel, named, Raj, aged about five years and six

months was studying in Sr.K.G. in Sharda School, and it is alleged that the accused No. 1 Rakesh came to the school and pretended his name to

be Pareshbhai and that Raj was called to attend one birthday party, and, thereafter, he kidnapped Raj from the school. It is the case of the

prosecution that thereafter he took Raj to various places, like, Chotila, Gandhinagar etc. It is further the case of the prosecution that all the three

accused persons in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy to kidnap Raj for demanding ransom, a telephone call was made demanding the ransom

to the extent of Rs. 5 Lacs from aunt of child Raj PW-9 Falguniben. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 08.02.2003 the custody of the

child was entrusted to accused No. 2 Dinesh, but at the instance of his father Mohanlal, it was revealed that in fact Raj was kidnapped and,

therefore, accused No. 2 Dinesh along with his father Mohanlal consulted PW-5 Prahladji who was serving in the police department, and when

they were about to go to Ghatlodia Police Station, at that time, accused No. 1 Rakesh contacted accused No. 2 Dinesh on mobile phone and as

suggested by PW-5 Prahladji, he was called at Gitamandir S.T. Bus Stand, and at Gitamandir Bus Stand accused No. 1 Rakesh was

apprehended. The custody of the child was entrusted to police and in turn, on 9.2.2003, the custody of the child was given to his parents.

Subsequently, accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin also came to be apprehended. Incident was reported to the police by first informant PW-1

Hemantbhai and his F.I.R. Was registered. During the course of investigation, statements of material witnesses were recorded, mobile phones

came to be seized, phone details were collected from various mobile companies. After collecting required material for the purpose of lodgment of

chargesheet, chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Since the offence was exclusively triable

by the court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, which was numbered

as Sessions Case No. 259 of 2003.

The learned trial Judge framed charge against all the accused at Exh.5 to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the

prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution examined 36 witnesses and produced necessary documentary evidence.

After the prosecution concluded its oral evidence, the trial judge recorded the further statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., and the accused

in their further statements denied generally all the incriminating circumstances brought to their notice and stated that they were falsely implicated in

this case. The accused No. 2 Dinesh filed his written reply at Exh.75-A wherein he stated that he was called by accused Nos. 1 & 3 on 8.2.2003,

and was entrusted the custody of Raj stating that accused Nos. 1 & 3 had to attend one marriage and they would soon come and collect the

custody of Raj back from accused No. 2. That, thereafter, he read in newspaper that in fact Raj was kidnapped, and, therefore, he immediately

contacted along with his father, PW-5 Prahladji who was serving in police department and who was their relative and, thereafter, when they were

about to go to Ghatlodia police station to report the incident and to surrender the custody of Raj to police, accused No. 2 Dinesh received a

phone call on his mobile from accused No. 1 Rakesh and at the instance of PW-5 Prahladji, accused No. 1 Rakesh and accused No. 3 Jasmin @

Jatin were called at Ghatlodia police station and at his instance (at the instance of accused No. 2 Dinesh) accused No. 1 Rakesh was apprehended

and was taken to police station. He, therefore, contended that he did not commit any offence and on the contrary his defence gets corroboration

through the witnesses examined by the prosecution, namely, PW-5 Prahladji and PW-12 Bipin Prahladji, the son of PW-5 Prahladji.

4.1 After appreciating the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion

that the prosecution successfully proved that all the three accused hatched a conspiracy to kidnap Raj for ransom and the ransom was demanded,

but, because of the intervention of PW-5 Prahladji and PW-12 Bipin, all the three accused persons came to be apprehended and Raj was

released from his illegal detention. So far as evidence regarding the phone details produced by the prosecution is concerned, the trial Court

observed that the details relied upon were not pertaining to the period from date 7.2.2003 to 9.2.2003, during which period the incident occurred.

The trial Court observed that so far as accused No. 1 Rakesh is concerned, through the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution of the

school and the test identification parade panchnama, his overt act to kidnap Raj is established. Moreover, he was apprehended virtually red-

handed near Gitamandir Bus Stand. So far as accused No. 2 Dinesh is concerned, relying upon the defence raised by the accused Dinesh, trial

Court recorded his conviction. So far accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin is concerned, relying upon the evidence of PW-5 and PW-12, he came to be

convicted. Ultimately, the trial Court recorded conviction of all the three accused persons for the offences charged against them and were awarded

the sentence as herein above referred to in this judgment.

Learned senior counsel Mr. Thakkar for the appellant original accused No. 2 Dinesh and learned advocate Ms. Sagar for appellant original

accused No. 1 Rakesh and learned advocate Mr. R.J.Goswami for appellant original accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin submitted that the trial Court

erred in recording the conviction of the accused persons. About the demand of ransom punishable u/s 364A IPC, it is submitted that there is no

evidence whatsoever adduced by the prosecution so far as this offence is concerned. The material witnesses did not support the theory of demand

of ransom. That the evidence of test identification parade panchnama is shaky and untrustworthy.

5.1 So far as the conviction recorded by the trial Court of accused No. 2 Dinesh is concerned, it is stated that as a matter of fact, he should have

been treated as star witness by the prosecution, but he is arraigned as an accused in this case. On the contrary, it is at his instance that both the

accused No. 1 Rakesh and accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin came to be apprehended and the custody of kidnapped boy Raj came to be recovered.

Virtually his defence is supported by the two important prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-5 Prahladji and PW-12 Bipin Prahladji. The trial Court

virtually considered the defence raised by accused No. 2 Dinesh as his confession.

5.2 Ultimately, it is submitted that the appeals may be allowed.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Shah for the State vehemently opposed these three appeals and submitted that the trial

Court rightly recorded the conviction of the three accused persons for the offences charged against them. So far as accused No. 1 Rakesh is

concerned, he is identified by important witnesses, namely, Principal, Teacher and Peon of the School. That under wrong pretext, he kidnapped

Raj from the School. During test identification parade, all the three witnesses identified accused No. 1 Rakesh. So far as accused No. 2 Dinesh is

concerned, he himself admitted in his defence that he took custody of the child from the accused Nos. 1 and 3 knowing that Raj was kidnapped,

but at the good offices of PW-5 Prahladji and PW-12 Bipin, Raj could be saved from the clutches of the accused persons. Therefore, it is

submitted that the trial Court rightly observed that the serious offence came to be committed by all the three accused persons, in furtherance of

their conspiracy. Ultimately, it is submitted that the appeals may be dismissed.

We have examined the record and proceedings in context with the submissions made by rival sides.

Considering the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it becomes clear that that the entire prosecution case

rests upon the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, who were serving in School, where Raj was studying, parents and relatives

of Raj and PW-5 Prahladji and PW-12 Bipin Prahladji.

Considering the evidence of PW-1 Hemantbhai, the first informant, who lodged the FIR, Exh.14 before police, except kidnapping of Raj, he did

not support the case of the prosecution, regarding the demand of ransom. The prosecution declared him as hostile witness. However, considering

the evidence of PW-1 Hemantbhai, the uncle of Raj, PW-9 Falguniben Hemantbhai, wife of PW-1 Hemantbhai and aunt of Raj and PW-13

Harshadbhai, the father of Raj, it is clear that on 7.2.2003, Raj had gone to his School. It is also clear from the evidence that at 3 pm, some

miscreant pretending himself to be Pareshbhai kidnapped Raj from the School.

The prosecution examined PW-2 Bhagwatiben Patel, who is Principal of the School, PW-3 Varshaben Patel, who is Peon in the School and

PW-4 Jigishaben Shah, who is Teacher in the classroom of Raj. In their evidence, they categorically stated that one person came to the School

and pretended that he was Pareshbhai and requested custody of Raj stating that Raj was required for the celebration of birthday party of his

maternal uncle. That person took the custody of Raj from the School and left the School along with Raj. All the three witnesses identified accused

No. 1 Rakesh as the person who had come to the School and requested for custody of Raj and took Raj along with him from the School.

Considering the evidence of PW-29 Mr. Mansuri, the Executive Magistrate and the test identification parade panchnama, Exh.59, it clearly

transpires that during the course of test identification parade, PW-2 Bhagwatiben, PW-3 Varshaben and PW-4 Jigishaben identified the accused

No. 1 Rakesh. Under such circumstances, so far as kidnapping aspect is concerned, we do not find any illegality or any infirmity in the impugned

judgment rendered by the trial Court while convicting the accused No. 1 Rakesh for the offence of kidnapping.

The trial Court recorded the conviction of all the three accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 364A IPC for kidnapping for ransom.

As per the prosecution case, the accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin contacted PW-9 Falguniben, the aunt of Raj on PP telephone No. 7498406 and

ransom of Rs. 5 Lacs was demanded. She in turn informed her husband Hemantbhai. PW-1 Hemantbhai in his deposition only stated about

kidnapping of his nephew Raj. He categorically states that no threatening call was received. However, he stated that some talk took place with his

neighbor Amratbhai. First informant Hemantbhai was declared as hostile witness by the prosecution and he outright denied the case of the

prosecution that his wife Falguniben was called by his neighbor stating that there was a telephone call for her and the ransom of Rs. 5 Lacs was

demanded. Then he stated that nobody demanded any ransom and that amount from him. Under such circumstances, considering the evidence of

PW-1 Hemantbhai, nothing emerges about the demand of ransom and that his wife PW-9 Falguni informed him. However, he admitted in his FIR

and he has stated that Rs. 5 Lacs were demanded, but, he admits that the demand was not made personally to him. According to him, such

demand was made to one Amratbhai, who is his neighbor. Though as stated above, as per the prosecution case, the amount was demanded from

PW-9 Falguniben, but despite this the prosecution did not examine said Amratbhai as witness. However, at any rate nothing emerges that any

ransom was demanded and even if it was demanded, then it was demanded by any of the three accused persons.

11.1 About demand of ransom as stated above, the evidence of PW-9 Falguniben Hemantbhai, wife of PW-1 Hemantbhai is required to be

considered. According to her evidence, she received telephone call at her residence wherein somebody stated that their son was kidnapped.

Hearing this she became unconscious. Thereafter, she went to School. At school, she was told that Raj was kidnapped and ransom was

demanded. She stated that she did not inform her husband PW-1 Hemantbhai about the phone call received by her at her residence. She stated

that she talked about it with Hemantbhai at School. Then she stated that the phone call was received by her neighbor. Again she narrated that

somebody asked her on phone as to who was speaking and she stated that she (Falguniben) was on line and then somebody stated that Raj was

kidnapped. Considering the entire evidence of PW-9 Falguniben nothing emerges that any amount was demanded by way of ransom. She does

not say as to whether the phone call about the kidnapping of Raj was received at her residence or at the residence of her neighbor. According to

her, the talk about demand of ransom took place at School. Such version is contrary to the prosecution case itself. As per the prosecution case,

the ransom was demanded on phone from Falguniben. Again, nothing emerges as to out of the three accused persons, who demanded the ransom.

At any rate, considering the evidence of PW-9 Falguniben, the case of the prosecution that the accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin demanded ransom

amount on phone from Falguniben cannot be said to have been at all proved.

11.2 Then remains the evidence of father of Raj, PW-13 Harshadbhai Jayantibhai. According to him, when he returned to his home from duty, his

brother told him that a telephone call was received and Rs. Five lacs were demanded. He admits that, no one demanded the amount personally.

Thus, according to him, his brother PW-1 Hemantbhai informed him about the demand of ransom. Considering the evidence of PW-1 Hemant,

nothing emerges that he informed the father of Raj about the demand. Again, nothing emerges as to who demanded the money. Nothing emerges

from his evidence as to who receives telephone call regarding the demand of ransom. Thus, considering the evidence of Pw-13 Harshadbhai, the

basic case of the prosecution regarding the demand of ransom that the ransom was demanded by accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin on telephone

from Falguniben cannot be said to have been duly established.

11.3 Thus, considering the evidence of above referred three witnesses, we are of the considered opinion that, the ld. Trial Judge erred in coming to

the conclusion from their evidence that the prosecution successfully proved its case regarding demand of ransom punishable u/s 364A IPC.

So far as accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin is concerned, considering the evidence of PW-13 Harshadbhai Jayantibhai, the father of Raj, it

transpires that, accused No. 3 Jatin is brother-in-law of PW-1 Hemant. PW-13 Harshadbhai and PW-1 Hemant, both are real brothers.

Accordingly, accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin happens to be brother of wife of PW-1 Hemant, Falguni. Thus, accused No. 3 Jatin is brother of

PW-9 Falguniben. According to the evidence of PW-13 Harshadbhai, while Jatin was studying in 11 standard, he resided with them in their house,

and accused No. 3 Jatin studied in Sharda School, where Raj was studying and from where Raj was kidnapped. Both the brothers, PW-1

Hemant and PW-13 Harshad alongwith their family members used to reside in common house as joint family. Thus, accused No. 3 Jatin is not

unknown to Raj and his family members. Accused No. 3 Jatin stayed for one year with the family of Raj along with Raj and studied in the same

School where Raj was studying. Under such circumstances, in the impugned judgment, the trial Court rightly observed that accused No. 3 Jatin

was knowing fully well about the family background of Raj and that in which School Raj was studying. The trial Court further rightly observed that

it is only because of the involvement of accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin that Raj, for couple of days managed to stay with accused Nos. 1 and 3

away from his parents. Accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin was known to Raj. The age of Raj at the time of kidnapping cannot be said to be so tender

that he would not make any hue and cry, if he was kidnapped by some unknown person.

12.1 Moreover, considering the evidence of PW-5 Prahladji and his son PW-12 Bipin, it clearly transpires that both these witnesses along with

accused No. 2 Dinesh and his father Mohandas were going to report the incident about kidnapping to police station, at that time, according to

PW-5 Prahladji, accused No. 2 Dinesh received telephone call on his mobile from accused No. 3 Jatin and at his instance, accused No. 2 Dinesh

told accused No. 2 Jatin on mobile phone to meet him at Gitamandir S.T. Bus Stand. However, according to the evidence of PW-12 Bipin

Prahladji, accused No. 2 Dinesh received telephone call on mobile from accused No. 1 Rakesh, but, the place of meeting was suggested to be

Gitamandir S.T. Bus Stand. According to their evidence, both the witnesses along with accused No. 2 Dinesh and Mohandas, the father of

accused No. 2 Dinesh went to Gitamandir S.T. Bus Stand where both accused Nos. 1 and 3 came and accused No. 1 Rakesh talked with

accused No. 2 Dinesh and immediately accused No. 1 Rakesh was apprehended by the witnesses, including accused No. 2 Dinesh. When

accused No. 1 Rakesh came to be apprehended by the witnesses and the accused No. 2 Dinesh, at that time, accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin

made his escape good. According to the evidence of PW-12 Bipin Prahladji, he identified accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin by his appearance and

clothes and at the time when his evidence was recorded before the trial Court, he identified accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin in the Court. However,

he admits in his cross-examination that he has not stated to police in his police statement that he has seen the face of accused No. 3 Jasmin @

Jatin, while he was escaping. In the impugned judgment the trial Court dealt with this aspect of the matter at length and we are of the considered

opinion that the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the evidence of PW-12 Bipin Prahladji is cogent and convincing, connecting accused

No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin with the crime. Over and above this, as stated above, he is the relative of the family members of Raj. He stayed with Raj in

the house of parents and uncle of Raj. He studied in the same School where Raj was studying. Considering all the above facts together along with

the evidence of PW-12 Bipin, we are of the considered opinion that the involvement of accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin is duly established by the

prosecution.

So far as accused No. 2 Dinesh is concerned, perusing the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court, it transpires that the trial Court

placed much reliance upon a written statement tendered by accused No. 2 Dinesh, Exh.75A at the time when his further statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

came to be recorded. According to his written statement, which is virtually his defence, on 8.2.2003 accused No. 1 Rakesh and accused No. 3

Jatin had come to him along with a boy - Raj and they stated that they had to go to attend one marriage and requested accused No. 2 Dinesh to

keep the custody of the boy. Since he was knowing accused Nos. 1 and 3, he agreed for the suggestion. According to him, thereafter, he went to

his father''s house and there he came to know that in fact Raj was kidnapped and, therefore, he himself along with his father Mohanlal and Raj

went to the house of PW-5 Prahladji. We need not repeat here the above discussions made in above paragraph in this judgment as to what

happened after accused No. 2 Dinesh met PW-5 Prahladji and PW-12 Bipin. However, in the written reply, Exh.75A, all those facts have been

narrated. Now, the important aspect of the matter is that considering the evidence of PW-5 Prahladji and PW-12 Bipin, the entire contents stated

by accused No. 2 Dinesh in his written reply, Exh.75A gets corroboration. The important aspect of the matter is that the prosecution should

establish that at the time when accused No. 1 Rakesh and accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin entrusted the custody of Raj to accused No. 2 Dinesh, at

that time, Dinesh was knowing about the kidnapping and despite this, he took custody of Raj and wrongfully confined Raj. Considering the

evidence of PW-5 Prahladji and PW-12 Bipin, nothing emerges that accused No. 2 Dinesh was knowing well in advance before he was entrusted

with the custody of Raj, that Raj was kidnapped by accused No. 1 Rakesh and accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin. So far as participation of accused

No. 2 Dinesh in the kidnapping of Raj or even any demand of ransom amount, there is no evidence whatsoever on record adduced by the

prosecution. Thus, virtually the defence raised by accused No. 2 Dinesh which is otherwise supported by prosecution evidence itself is treated as

his confession of the guilt by the trial Court. As a matter of fact, it was accused No. 2 Dinesh, who immediately went along with Raj to the house

of PW-5 Prahladji as soon as he came to know that Raj is victim of kidnapping. Along with PW-5 Prahladji and PW-12 Bipin, he expressed his

readiness to go to police station along with Raj to report the incident to police and to offer the custody of Raj to police. When they were about to

go to police station, accused No. 2 Prahladji received phone call on his mobile and as emerges from the evidence of PW-5 Prahladji, near

Gitamandir Bus Stand, accused No. 1 Rakesh came to be apprehended and accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin came to be identified. Thus, on behalf

of appellant accused No. 2 Dinesh, it is rightly submitted that as a matter of fact, accused No. 2 Dinesh should have been the star witness to the

prosecution case, but, not only he was arraigned as co-accused, but, ultimately, came to be convicted by the trial Court. We are of the considered

opinion that considering the facts as emerging from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-5 Prahladji and PW-12 Bipin, the defence

raised by accused No. 2 Dinesh can be said to have been duly established. The trial Court, therefore, erred in recording the conviction of accused

No. 2 Dinesh for the offences charged against him.

Perusing the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court, the trial Court did not rely upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the

nature of mobile phone call details. The trial Court while coming to the conclusion that, the evidence regarding phone call details cannot be said to

have been duly established, assigned cogent and convincing reasons while arriving at such conclusion. Over and above this, the bare extracts of

mobile phone call details would not reveal the nature of conversation transacted on air.

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction of all the three appellants accused recorded by the trial

Court for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 507 and 368 IPC deserves to be set-aside. So far as accused No. 2 Dinesh is concerned,

his conviction also deserves to be set-aside for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 365 and 363 IPC and thus, the appellant accused

No. 2 Dinesh deserves acquittal of all the offences charged against him. So far as appellant accused No. 1 Rakesh and appellant accused No. 3

Jasmin @ Jatin is concerned, their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 363 read with Section 120B IPC deserves to be

maintained. It is reported that appellant accused No. 1 Rakesh is in jail since last more than six years and though the appellant accused No. 3

Jasmin @ Jatin came to be released on bail on 3.3.2009, but, before he was released on bail pending the appeal, he remained in jail for the period

of about six years. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the period undergone by accused No. 1 Rakesh and accused No. 3 Jasmin

@ Jatin in jail would meet the ends of justice, together with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I for one week.

For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No. 2085 of 2004 is allowed. Conviction of appellant original accused No. 2 Dinesh Mohanlal

Barot recorded by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad on 05.11.2004 in Sessions Case No. 259 of 2003 for the

offences punishable under Sections 120B, 363, 364A, 365, 368 and 507 Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded to him thereunder are set-

aside. He is acquitted of all the offences charged against him. He is reported to be enlarged on bail. His bail bond shall stand cancelled.

Criminal Appeal No. 2141 of 2004 preferred by appellant original accused No. 1 Rakeshbhai Ramanlal Patel and Criminal Appeal No. 13 of

2005 preferred by appellant accused No. 3 Jasmin @ Jatin Ramanlal Patel are partly allowed. Their conviction recorded by the trial Court for the

offences punishable under Sections 364A, 368 and 507 Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded to them thereunder are set-aside. However,

their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 363 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, the

sentence awarded by the trial Court for the aforesaid offence is set-aside and their sentence is altered to the period already undergone by them in

jail, and the fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, S.I for one week.