In Re: K. Vadietu and others

Ratnavel Pandian, J.—The Appellants 1 to 13 who were arrayed as accused 1 to 13 before the trial court have preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment of the court of Sessions, West Tanjor Division, Tanjore in S.C. 4 of 1974 on his file convicting all the Appellants under various charges and sentencing them to varying terms of imprisonments thereunder. For the sake of convenience the Appellants have been referred to as accused in the order as mentioned in the judgment of the trial court. A-3 and A-7 were charged u/s 148 I.P.C. under charge No. 1; A-l to A-4, A-6, A-8 to A-13 u/s 147, I.P.C. under charge No. 2; A-l u/s 302 I.P.C. under charge No. 3; A-2 u/s 302 read with Section 34 I P.C. under charge No. 4; A-5 u/s 326, I P.C. under charge No. 5; and A.4 and A-6 under S. 325, I.P C. under Charge No. 6, A-1 to A-3. A-7 to A-13 u/s 326 read with S. 149, I P.C. under Charge No. 7; A-3 u/s 323,I.P C. under charge No. 8; A-7 u/s 324, I.P.C, under charge No. 9: A-6 u/s 323 I P.C,, under charge No. 10: A-1 u/s 323 I.P. C. under charge No. 11: A-8 to A-10 u/s 323 I.P C. under charge No. 12: A-ll u/s 323, I P C. under charge No. 13: and A-12 and A-13 u/s 323 I.P.C., under charge 14. The learned Judge while convicting them convicted A-1 under charge Nos- 2, 3, and 11 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 147 I.P.C, under charge No. 2 and rigorous imprisonment for five years u/s 304, Part II I P.C, (not u/s 302 I P.C.) under charge No. 3, and no separate sentence was awarded under S. 323 I.P.C under charge No. 11. A-2 was convicted under charge Nos. 2 and 4 (under S. 325 I.P.C but not u/s 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively. A-3 was convicted under charge Nos. 2 and 8 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count. A-4 was convicted under charge Nos. 2 and 6 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count. A. 5 was convicted under charge Nos. 1 and 5 (under Section 324 I.P.C. and not u/s 326 I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under charge No. 1 and no separate sentence was awarded under charge No. 5. A-6 was convicted under charge No. 2 and released on admonition u/s 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, but she was acquitted under charge Nos. 6 and 10. A-7 was convicted tinder Charge Nos. 1 and 9 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under charge No. 1 and no separate sentence was awarded under charge No. 8. A-8 to A-13 were convicted under charge No. 2 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each but no separate sentence was awarded under charge Nop. 12,13 and 14. It is also directed by the trial court that the order of sentence passed against each of the accused shall run concurrently and out of the fine, if collected, a sum of Rs. 300 will be paid to P.W. 1 and P-W. 5.

The indictment against all these Appellants is as follows. All the 13 accused and the prosecution party belong to Harijan community and they are all closely related Inter se. There is Kaliyamman temple in the Harijan street for which the Harijan residents of the village used to collect funds and mike contributions now and then. P.W.3 Perumal was nominated as ''Kanakkupillai'' for the purpose of collections and he used to entrust the collections with A-ll (a street nattanmai) A-l, A-2 and A-8. A sum of Rs. 230 was thus entrusted with these four persons for purpose of conducting festival to the said temple.P. Ws. 1 and 3 who were brothers did not like the idea of collections lying in individual hands and therefore on the last Tamil new year day, P.W.3 demanded that the collections deposited with accused 1, 2 and other should be deposited in a bank. Obviously, the accused did not relish that idea. But they kept quit. When they were pressed they gave evasive replies and did not agree to the idea of depositing the amount in the bank. This culminated into two groups among Harijans of that locality and that bitterness arising between these two groups gained momentum day by day.

On 9th June, 1973 at about 7 p.m. when P. Ws. 1 and 3 and two others were returning home after their day''s work, they were accosted near the toddy shop by accused 1, 3, 7 and 1 and 3rd accused questioned P.W. 3 . So saying he gave a beating to P,W. 3 on his head with a stick. The others who accompanied P.W. 3 separated them whereupon P. Ws. 1 and 3 ran away from the scene to their respective huts fearing further assault at the hands of the accused. P.W. 3 then complained about this beating to the residents of the Harijan Street, and he was advised that the matter could be talked over next day and so he went home.

At about 8-30 p.m. on the day there was a connotation in front of the house of P.W. 1. P.W. 3 on hearing the noise came out of the house and went to P.W. l''s hut where he found all the 13 accused, excepting A-6, of whom A-3 and A-7 had an aruval each in their hands while the other accused excepting A-2 and A-6 had sticks. The 4th accused first beat P.W. 1 with stick, while the 5th accused out him on his head with the aruval. When P.W. 3 interfered the third accused beat him with stick on both his hands, while 7th accused gave a cut on his head with the aruval. P.W 4 the eldest brother of P. Ws.1 and 3 on hearing the alarm came running and the accused 8, 9 and 10 beat him with stick all over his body. At that time, A-6 was standing a little bit away and was pelting stones on P. Ws. 1 and 3 and injured them. At this juncture, the deceased Kalimuthu aged about 17 the son of P.W. 1 came running to the scene crying and shouting. The first accused gave beatings to the deceased with stick on his had, belly and buttocks. The second accused pushed the deceased down to the ground and when he fell down the second accused kicked him on his abdomen and on his private parts as a result of which Kalimuthu died on the spot within a short time.

When P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 and the deceased were being attacked, P.W. 6 the daughter of P.W. 1 raised an alarm and intervened, whereupon the 1st and 2nd accused beat P.W. 6 with stick. Further it is the case of the prosecution that A-11 beat P.W. 5 with stick. P W. 7 wife of P.W. 4 was beaten by A-12 and A-13 with sticks. P.W 9 the son of P W. 4 intervened and when he was attempted to be assaulted by A-4, P W. 4 picked up a stick and beat A-1 and A-7 in retaliation. Similarly, it is the case of the prosecution that PW. 9 stabbed A-4 with a pen knife. While the prosecution party stared retaliating effectively the attack of the accused, all the accused took to their heels. P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 went to the police station at Thiruvaiyaru which Is at a distance of six kilometres away. PW 1 laid the first information report in Ex. P. 1 at 2 a.m.

P W. 15, the Sub Inspector of Police registered Ex. P-1, as Crime No. 74 of 1973 under Ex 147, 148, 323 324 and 302, I P C. and sent express reports to all the concerned authorities. At about 3 a.m. on the same night, A-4 appeared at the police station with injuries on his person and gave a counter complaint in Ex. P-30 against the prosecution party. P W. 15 registered the complaint of A-4, as Crime No. 75 of 1973 under Ss.323 and 324, I.P.C. He sent the injured witnesses P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 to the Tanjore Hospital after recovering their blood stained clothes (M. Os. 2, 3, 8 and 9), under mahazar Ex. P-20. He also recovered the blood stained cloth (M. Order 10), of A-4 under mahazar Ex. P-21, and sent him to the hospital. A little later A-3, A-4 and A-5 also came to the station with injuries on their persons and they were referred to the hospital by P.W. 15.

P.W. 2, the Assistant Surgeon attached to Government R.M. Hospital, Tanjore examined P.W. 1 at 2-30 p.m. on 10th June, 1973 and found on him two incised wounds, a lacetrated wound and two contusions as narrated in Ex. P-3 wound certificate, the X-ray of the nasal bone and right forearm taken disclosed that there was a fracture of the nasal bone and also a fracture of the lower l/3rd of ulna. The doctor is of the opinion that injuries 1 and 3 could have been caused by an aruval and the other injuries by sticks. On the same day at 2-45 p.m. he examined P. W 3 and found on him seven injuries as narrated in Ex. P. 4, the wound certificate. The X-ray of the left hand taken revealed a fracture of the second metacarpal bone. He also examined P. W. 4 at 3 p.m. and found on him five injuries as narrated in Ex. P. 3 the wound certificate. P. W. 2 then examined P W. 6 at 3-5 p.m. but there was no external injuries except complaint of pain in both thighs and back. Ex. P. 7 is the wound certificate of P. W. 6. At 3-15 p.m. P. W. 2 examined P. W. 5 and found two contusions as mentioned in Ex. P-8, the wound certificate. At 3-20 p.m., P. W. 2 examined P. W. 7 and found abrasions as described in Ex. P. 9 the wound certificate.

P. W. 2 at 3-30 p.m. examined the 3rd accused and found two abrasions on him. Ex. P. 11 is the copy of the extract from the Accident Register relating to his injuries and Ex. P-l2 is the wound certificate issued to him. Then at about 3-40 p.m. P. W. 2 examined the first accused and found on him two abrasions and one contusion as described in Ex. P. 13 the wound certificate. At 3-50 p.m. P. W. 2 examined the 4th accused and found on him two abrasions, one lacerated injury and an incised wound as described in Ex, P. 14, the wound certificate. It is seen from the evidence of the doctor that A-1, A-3 and A.4 and P. Ws. 5 and 7 were treated as out patients, while the other injured persons were in-patients. One Dr. V.P. Subramaniam (not available as he bad gone to U. S.) examined the 7th accused and found on him a lacerated injury over the left parietal region. Ex. P. 15 is the original of the accident register in the handwriting of Dr. V.P. Subramaniam. A-7 was admitted in Ward No. 13 and treated as in-patient.

P.W. 16 the inspector of Police on on receipt of the information rushed to the scene village at about 4 am. and prepared the observation mahazar under Ex. P. 22 attested by P. W. 12. He then conducted inquest over the dead body of Kalimuthu from 4-30 p.m. to 7-30 a.m. and examined P. W. 8 and others. Ex. P. 30 is the inquest report. He then seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased (Mos. 6 and 7) under mahazar Ex. P. 23 attested by P. W. 12. He also seized the blood stained doth (M O.11), in front of the house of P. W. 1, under mahazar Ex- P. 24. HE also prepared a rough sketch of the scene under Ex. P. 32. P. W. 14, the tutor in Forensic Medicine in Tanjore Medical college, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kalimuthu and found following injuries:

x x [it is omitted: Ed ]

According to the Doctor, injuries Nos. 3 and 4 are necessarily fatal and those injuries could have been caused by a stout stick with a single blow. Further he has stated that the kicking or squeezing could have caused the abrasions on the scrotum and penis (injury No. 1) Ex. P. 29 is the post mortem certificate issued by him.

Continuing the investigation P.W. 16 seized the blood stained earth M. Order 12 in front of the house of one Dharman and he also recovered blood stained earth M. Os 13 and 14 from the house one Baliah, He found a series of stones (M,0 15 series), scattered in front of the house of P.W. 1 It is found from the evidence of P. W. 16 that the simutaneously investigated the counter complaint given by P.W.4. He arrested the accused 1, 3, 4, 11 and 12 at 7 p.m. on 10th June 1973, and accused 6,7, 8, 9 and 10 on 13th June 1973. He arrested A. 13 on 14th June 1973 and A. 2 on 18th June 1973, and A. 6 on 23rd June, 1973. After investigation he referred the complaint of A-4 in Crime No. 75 of 1973 as a mistake of fact and laid charge sheet in Crime No. 74 of 1973 on 31st July, 1973.

All the 13 accused totally denied their complicity in the crime when questioned with reference to the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence. They all admitted that P. W. 3 was collecting money from the Harijan residents for the purpose of the temple and there were disputes between them with reference to the deposit of the amount. But they would say that it was the prosecution party who beat the accused 1, 3,4 and 7. The accused 6,10 and 13 pleaded alibi. The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and marked Exs P-1 to P-46and M.O. 1 to 13.

It is common ground that there were disputes between the prosecution party and the accused party with reference to the custody of the common fund collected from the Harijans of the village for the celebration of the festival in Kaliamman temple. The abovesaid dispute is not challenged by the accused. But, in fact, it is conceded by them in their statements u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure In particular in Ex.P-30 given by A-4 it is categorically stated that the temple common funds was entrusted with A 1, A-2. A-8 and A-11 and that P.W.3 was insisting that the said amount should be deposited in a bank, Ex. P-33 is the village account book for the collection of the common fund. Therefore, the motive for the occurrence is well established by the prosecution.

[Discussion of facts is omitted]

X X X

According to the prosecution, the report (Ex.P-30) from the accused party had been recorded only after Ex. P-1 was recorded from P.W.1. If the accused had been to the Police station much earlier to the arrival of the prosecution witnesses. I do not find any reason as to why the officer in charge of the police station bad not taken any report from any one of the accused who had arrived there. But the omission on the part of the police officials in not taking the report as soon as they arrived at the station from the accused party would show, as suggested by the defence that in the present case, the report should have been subsequently prepared taking the fact of the death of Kalimuthu, sc as to suit the prosecution version.

Mr. Natarajan has vehemently urged that the first information report of this case registered in Crime No. 74 of 1973 was received by the magistrate only at 9 a.m. on 11th June 1973 as seen from the endorsement made by the Sub Magistrate thereon. The seal affixed on the printed F.I.R. is also dated 11th June 1973. But unfortunately neither this document is marked nor any question has been put with reference to this late receipt of this F.I.R. to at least P.W-10, the magisterial clerk. However, as the fact that the record now available on file shows that time and date of receipt is not disputed and could. not be disputed too, I take it that it was received by the Magistrate only on 11th June 1973 at 9 a.m. In other words, the F.I.R. was received by the Magistrate whose court is situated in the same town, via, Thiruvayaru after an inordinate delay and the prosecution has not tried to explain as to how this delay has occurred. The only faint answer made by P.W.16 is that 10th June 1973, was a Sunday. But in my view it will never prevent the police officials from handing over the express report that too for an offence u/s 302 I.P.C. to the Sub Magistrate; it is pertinent to note that P.W.15 has deposed that he sent the express reports to the superior officers immediately after the registration of the case. But in my view this answer is totally incorrect in view of the unimpeachable circumstance that the report was received by the magistrate only on 11th June 1973, at 9 a.m. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that the police officials should be prompt in sending the F.I.R. as early as possible without any undue delay.

The Tamilnadu Police Standing Order 577 dealing with the despatch of express reports would state that in all cases of murder, culpable homicide etc, shall be seat direct to the local Sub Magistrate and other Police officials and should be sent in the quickest way possible either by post or hand.

In Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court has observed that ''On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity,'' danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is therefore essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained". Applying the above principle, in my view, the first information report in this case received by the Magistrate by a delay of 31 hours after it was recorded and by a delay of 36 hours from the time of occurrence cannot be considered as one that cane into existence at 2 a.m. 10th Jane, 1973.

It may be noted at this juncture that even the inquest was over by 7 a.m. on 10th Jane, 1973, earlier to the time of receipt of the first information report by the Magistrate, I find from Ex. P-31, inquest report both from the Initial made by the Sob Magistrate and the seal thereon that the report was received, on 11th June, 1973, but the time is not noted In all the seals, first of all the date was put as "12" by ink and then was over written as "11". The statements of the witnesses attached along with the inquest report Ex. P-31 also contain both the initial of the Magistrate and the seal of the court and in these seals the date was put as 12 and overwritten as 11 by ink. But of course the learned Magistrate has initialled it as 11th June, 1973 (After going through the record I find that instead marking the inquest report as Ex. P-31, the whole file including the statements of the witnesses recorded during the inquest are marked as Ex. P-31. In fact, the marking is only on the statements of the witnesses and not on the report. It is highly reprehensible on the part of the trial court to mark the documents even without taking any care as to what is the document that they are marking in that case. The statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest are inadmissible and I wonder how the entire statements of the witnesses examined during the inquest are marked along with the inquest report as Ex. P-31. That shows no attention has been bestowed even in respect of marking the documents during the trial that too in a murder case). While dealing with this aspect of the receipt of important documents K. N. Mudaliyar, J., while sitting with Paul, J., has given the following guidelines in Karunaran Jabamani, in re 1974 L.W, (Crl.)190 . "It is imperative that the following documents should be despatched immediately, without any delay by the investigating officers to the Sub Magistrate.... On receipt the said documents, the Magistrate should initial the same, nothing there in the time and date of the receipt of these documents. This would provide the only Judicial safeguard against subsequent fabrications of such document in grave crimes. The following are documents of special importance which should be despatched by the investigating officers without any delay to the Magistrates, and they should baas(sic) the initials of the Magistrate with reference to both the time and data of their receipt:

The Original report or complain u/s 154 Cr.P.C.

The printed form of the F.I.R, prepared on the basis of the said report or complaint.

Iequest reports and statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest.

Memo sent by the Station House officers to doctors for treating the injured victims who die la the hospital subsequently and the history of the case treatment.

Memo sent by the doctor to the Police when a person with injuries is brought to the hospital, or the death-memo sent by the doctor to the police on the death of the person admitted into the hospital with injuries,

Observation mahazars and mahazars for the recovery of material objects, search lists and the statements given by the accused admissible under S. 27 of the Evidence Act, etc, prepared in the course of the investigation.

The statements of witnesses recorded under S. 161(3) Crl.P.C.

Form No. 91, accompanied by material objects.

The defence has suggested to P. Ws. 15 and 16 (the investigating officers) that Ex. P-1 was prepared only after 7 am. on 10th June, 1973, but not at 2 a.m. on 10th June, 1973, as now alleged. Mr. Natarajan would bring to my notice that all the injured witnesses and the injured accused were seen by the doctor, P.W. 2 only between 2-30 p. m. and 3-50 p.m, that is normally 12 hours after Ex P-1 and P-30 were made. P.W. 15 would admit that there are a number of buses plying from Thiruvayaru to Tanjore and the first bus starts at 4-30 a.m. But, he would say that he was not aware of the fact that they were seen by the doctor P.W. 2 only after 2-30 p. m. on 10th June, 1973. It may be noted here that in the memos sent by the police for examination of these injured witnesses and the injured accused by the medical officer under Exs. P-2, P 6 and P- l0 the time of sending the injured persons is not mentioned. It is very strange to note that as to how an inordinate delay of more than 12 hours had occurred in cases of this nature to take the injured persons to the hospital at Tanjore which is at a distance of about 12 k.m. as admitted by the counsel on both sides. This circumstance would also strengthen the suggestion made by the defence that Ex. P-1 would not have come into existence at 2 a.m.

It is the definite case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place in the night at 8.45 p.m. P.W.1 admits that there was no electric light or street light in the Harijan street, that is in the vicinity of the scene. It is found from the almanac that the 1st of June was the new moon day and the moon has set in at 1-23 a.m. on the date of occurrence, i.e.; on 9th June 1973/10th June 1973. So, obviously, there should have been some moon light during the time of the occurrence. Bat unfortunately none of the witnesses to the occurrence has spoken that they witnessed the occurrence through the moonlight. Mr. Natarajan taking advantage of both positive and negative aspect of the case so far as the light is concerned, contends that the occurrence as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses should not have been clearly witnessed by these eye witnesses. In my view this contention is not bereft of any force.

It is very strange how P.W-1 that too after receiving injuries on his head, with fractures on the nose and ulna could have noticed very minutely the overt acts of all the accused persons with reference to the weapons used and the portions of the body attacked with reference to each and every witness. Ex.P-1 gives all the meticulous details attributing overt acts with equal distribution is a very arithmetical way so that none of the accused could escape of the specific offences. In evidence also P.W-1 corroborates the entire averments made in Ex. P-1 even with respect to minute details. To my part, no reliance could be placed on a document of this nature which, in my opinion, could have come into existence after deliberation and consultation. At the worst P.W-1 could have never been the author of the whole of the statement. In Ex. D-1, P.W-1 admitted that Ex. P-1 was not read over to him. In the trial court be has deposed as follows;

Thus P.W.1 admitted that he was out of his wits and perturbed. This admission of P.W.1 further strengthens the defence as to whether P.W.1 could have given Ex. P-1 in all meticulous details without the consultation of others. The report in this case as found from the endorsement made by the Sub Magistrate on the copy of the printed F.I.R. has bean received by him at 9 a.m. on 11th June 1973. However the defence has made a suggestion to P.W 16 that it was received by the court on 13th June 1973, which, in my opinion, is not correct In these circumstances, BO importance could be attached to the first information report Ex. P-1 and the evidence of the eye witnesses have to be scrutinised very carefully.

Now, 1 shall discuss the main over act attributed to A-1 for the allegations made under charge No. 3, viz for the offence under S. 302 I.P.C. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased died of the injuries 3 and 4 found in Ex. P-29 which injuries are found on the left side of skull and subdural blood clots found over the left side brain, deep to injury No, 3, in Ex,P-1, there is absolutely no mention of any allegation that the first accused beat the deceased on his head. What is mentioned therein is that the deceased was beaten on his stomach by Vadivelu. A-l, and Rajaraman, A-2, trampled on his stomach. The trial Judge in para 30 of his judgment has completely gone wrong in saying that the allegations made at the earliest opportunity in Ex. P-l was to the effect that the first accused was responsible for beating the deceased on his head. The trial Judge curiously enough after reciting the averment of Ex. P-1 in Tamil, finally concluded that those portions contained the allegation of the deceased being beaten on his head. It shows that the learned Judge without applying his mind to the averments even after extracting the portion in his judgment has concluded by translating the word ''Vayithil'' as bead. Thus, the learned Judge has completely gone out of the track and proceeded on the footing as though the allegation mentioned in Ex. P-1 is that the first accused beat the deceased on his head and the medical evidence corroborated the averments. This wrong conclusion based on a non-existent fact in Ex. P-1 has resulted ultimately in gross miscarriage of justice in holding that it was the first accused who caused the injuries en the head of the deceased resulting in his death. However, I find from the evidence of P.W. 14 with reference to the post mortem certificate that all the internal organs of the deceased were found to be decomposed. But unfortunately the prosecution has not elicited from the doctor that the internal organs could have been decomposed both by beating at the stomach and by trampling. At this stage I am afraid whether I would be justified in taking judicial notice that the decomposition of internal organs could have been caused only due to the beating and trampling. A-2 who is said to have trampled at the stomach of the deceased is charged, under charge No. 4, for an offence u/s 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. but is convicted u/s 325 I.P.C. Even for holding that A-2 has caused grievous injuries the prosecution has failed to elicit answers from the doctor in respect of the nature of the alleged injuries caused by A-2 as grievous injuries. Therefore, I wonder how the trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the injuries which were responsible for the death of the deceased were caused by A-1 and A-2 was responsible for causing the grievous injuries. So, in these circumstances, I hold that there is absolutely no evidence to Sustain the conviction under charges No. 3 and 4, and for holding that the deceased was done to death by A-1 by beating en his head and A-2 caused the grievous injuries by trampling on his stomach.

Coming to the other charges Mr. Natarajan would contend that the parrot like version of these witnesses are nothing but only the tutored version and as such no reliance could be placed on their evidence. For instance, he points out that A-6 who is a woman is said to have caused, as per charge No. 6 grievous hurt to witness Pechimuthu, P.W. 1 by pelting a stone from the upstairs of the house of A-8 and caused an injury which according to the medical evidence was of a grievous nature with fracture on the nasal bone.

[The discussion of the evidence is omitted: -Ed.]

X X X

In these circumstances, I am of the view that the injuries found on the person of the accused are not satisfactorily explained by tangible and cogent evidence.

To sum up, the receipt of the first information report by the Magistrate after an inordinate delay, the non-recording of the statement by the police officials from the injured accused who were present in the station even before the arrival of the prosecution party, the parrot-like version of the eyewitnesses, which is highly unbelievable and untrustworthy, the present embezzlement on the side of the prosecution case that A-1 caused the injury on the head of the deceased which is not found in the first information report, the unsatisfactory and unacceptable explanation of the injuries found on the person of the accused, and the ingenious reason given by the trial Judge by translating the Tamil word ''vayiru'' as head etc, etc, would cumulatively affect the version of the prosecution case and as such no reliance could be placed on this evidence to sustain the convictions passed by the trial court are set aside and all the accused Appellants are set at liberty forthwith. The fine amount if already collected shall be refunded to A-8 to A-13. The criminal appeal is allowed.