Kripa Shanker and Others vs state

P.K. Jain, J.

1 Appellants, Kripa Shaker, Uma Shaker S/o Prate Singh, Prate Singh S/o Guru Deal Singh and Rodney Sham S/o Har Prasad, all residents of village Arson, P.S. Spikenard, district Kanpur, have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.02.1980 passed by Sri L.R. Kohli, the then Ilnd Addl. Sessions Judge, Non-Metropolitan Area, Kanpur, convicting all the Appellants u/s 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 324 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life u/s 302/34, I.P.C. and three years'' R.I. u/s 324/34, I.P.C.

The incident is said to have occurred on 4.6.77 at about 6.00 p.m. It is alleged that four months prior to the present incident, Pratap Singh, Shankar and Kripa Shankar had caused harm to the standing crops of the first informant, Ravindra Kumar Yadav. Complainant''s father, Mijaji Lal, was threatened by the accused persons. Some time thereafter complainant''s brother, Darshan Singh and father Mijaji Lal were going to reap the crops, they were assaulted by the said persons. A report was lodged about that incident by Mijaji Lal. Around two months prior to the present incident, some villagers intervened and a compromise was arrived at but the accused party was harbouring grudge against the complainant and his father. On 04.06.1977 at about 6.00 p.m. Mijaji Lal was standing infront of his house. Kripa Shankar armed with Barchhi came there and teased Mijaji Lal whereupon Mijaji Lal abused him. Kripa Shankar called his brother, Uma Shankar, father Pratap Singh and Party-man Radhey Shyam and exhorted "Aaj shala kana mauke se mila haijaan se mar do.'' Thereupon Uma Shankar and Kripa Shankar assaulted the deceased with Barchhi and Pratap Singh and Radhey Shyam assaulted Mijaji Lal with Kanta. On the alarm, complainant, Ravindra Kumar Yadav. His uncle Daya Shankar and cousin brother Darshan Singh rushed to rescue Mijaji Lal but they too were assaulted. The accused persons killed Mijaji Lal on the spot. Daya Shankar, Darshan Singh and Ravindra Kumar Yadav sustained injuries in the said incident. The incident was witnessed by Mahadeo, Roop Singh and Anokhey Lal and many others.

Written first information report, Ex. ka-5, was scribed by Ravindra Kumar Yadav, which was lodged at police station Sikandra on 05.06.1977 at 12.30 a.m., the police station being 9 miles away from the place of incident.

Investigation of the case was taken up by P.W. 10 Sri Ranvir Singh Solanki who was then S. O. police station Sikandra. He interrogated Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Daya Shankar and Darshan Singh and thereafter proceeded to the place of occurrence. On reaching the place of occurrence, he inspected the dead-body and sealed it and held inquest on the dead-body. From the place of Occurrence, he had taken sample of plain and bloodstained earth. He inspected the place of occurrence and thereafter interrogated witnesses, Moti Lal and Ors. On 06.07.1977 he submitted charge-sheet against the Appellants after completing the investigation.

Injured Daya Shankar and Darshan Singh were medically examined by Dr. R. Prasad (P.W. 11) on 05.06.1977at 6.00 a.m. and 6.40 a.m. respectively. Ravindra Kumar Yadav was medically examined by the same doctor on 05.06.1977 at 3.00 p.m.

Following injuries were found on the person of each of the three injured:

Daya Shankar:

(1) An incised wound 5 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep, on the top and right side head, 12 cm. above the right ear with its margins clean-cut, regular, inverted and bruised.

(2) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x skin deep, on the left side of the face, 1 cm. below the lobule of the left ear, with margins irregular and torn.

(3) Punctured incised wound, 3 cm. x 1 cm. on the chest, 15 cm. below the supra sternal knoctch, with margins clean cut, regular and inverted.

(4) Incised wound, 1 cm. x 0.25 cm. on the right side of the back, 29 cm. below the upper border of the right scapula, with clean-cut and averted margins communicating with wound No. 3 which has been described as wound of entry and this one as wound of exit.

(5) Abrasion 6 cm. x 1 cm. on the top of the right shoulder.

(6) Incised wound, 1 cm. x 0.25 cm. x muscles deep, on the outer aspect of the left thigh.

According to the opinion of the doctor, the injuries other than 2 and 5 had been caused by some sharp edged weapon whereas No. 2 and 5 by some blunt weapon. He advised X-ray of the head, under injury No. 1 and referred the case to U.H.M. Hospital. Kanpur.

Darshan Singh:

(1) Incised wound 2.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x muscles deep, on the right side of the forehead, with clean-cut, regular and everted margins, 1 cm. above the outer part of the right eye with both the lids swollen and contused.

(2) Abrasion. 2.5 cm. x 1 cm., on the outer and inner aspect of the left fore-arm, 3.5 cm. above the left wrist joint.

(3) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep, on the back of the hand, 3.5 cm. below the right wrist joint.

In the opinion of the doctor injury No. 1 was caused by some sharp edged weapon and the remaining two with some blunt one.

Ravindra Kumar:

(1) Contusion, 3 cm. x 2 cm. on the right side of the head, 5 cm. above right ear, direction verticle, colour livid red.

(2) Abrasion, 0.5 cm. x 0.25 cm. on the outer aspect of the right thumb.

In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were caused by some blunt weapon. Injuries were found one and half days old.

Post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mijaji Lal was performed by P. W. 5 Dr. R.S. Pundir on 06.06.1977 at 5.00 p.m. On external examination the Doctor had found that rigor mortis had passed from upper and lower limbs greenish in coloration all over, blisters all over, skin. Peeling of abdomen and rector scrotum. Penis swollen. Gases under pressure. Maggot present.

The Doctor found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body.

(1) Incised wound 9 cm. x 3 cm. x cranial cavity deep on the right side of the head parietal bone cut underneath gaping out clear 12 cm. above right ear margins clear, regular on head.

(2) Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscles deep on head 1 cm. above injury No. 1, gaping regular margins.

(3) Incised wound 7 cm. x 4 cm. chest cavity deep on right side chest, just above right nipple gaping present margins regular.

(4) Incised wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. x 2 abdominal cavity deep just below xipi sternum deep gaping margin regular.

(5) Incised wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on back.

(6) Incised wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. x muscle deep on the right side of the back 22 cm. below top of the right shoulder gaping regular mark.

On internal examination the doctor had found that the scalp, skull and right parietal bone were cut under injury No. 1. The membranes were congested and brain was under process of liquefaction, the wall of the thorax was cut under injury No. 3, right lung and the abdominal wall, the stomach and liver cut under injury No. 4. He also found clotted blood in the cavities. In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused as a result of coma and shock due to injury Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and death could have been caused on 4.6.1977 at 6.00 p.m.

Appellants were charged u/s 302, I.P.C. and in the alternative u/s 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and u/s 324, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. by the trial court. The Appellants denied the charges framed against them. In their statement the Appellants denied the prosecution allegations. Appellant Pratap Singh stated that he reached the scene of occurrence on hearing cries of Kripa Shankar and saw that Daya Shankar was assaulting him with Dhariya while Anokhey, Raj Singh and Mijaji Lal were assaulting him with spear, Darshan Singh with axe. He, Kamta, Dhani Ram, Gajraj, Radhey Shyam, and Uma Shankar had defended Kripa Shankar; Appellant Kripa Shankar stated that on the date of incident at about 5.00 p.m. he found his bullock missing from the door of his house. While searching the same, he found that Mijaji Lal had tethered the same in his bullock cart. When he remonstrated, Mijaji Lal, Daya Shankar, Anokhey and Raj Singh armed with Dhariya and spears rushed and assaulted him. He ran but was assaulted under the Neem tree of Mani Ram. Witnesses Pratap Singh. Uma Shankar, Rajesh, Gajraj, Pratap, Dhani Ram were attracted and defended him. Mijaji Lal died when villagers defended him (Kripa Shankar). Appellants Uma Shankar and Radhey Shyam have also steted similarly

To prove the charges, prosecution examined P.W. 1 Ravindra Kumar, P.W. 2 Daya Shankar, P.W. 3 Darshan Singh injured witnesses and P.W. 4 Anokhy, an eye-witness, P. W. 5 Dr. R.S. Pundir who held the autopsy on the dead body of Mijaji Lal, P.W. 9 S.I. Shiv Narain Singh who was then Head Moharrir at P.S. Sikandara and had scribed the check report and G.D. entry as well as check report and G.D. entry with regard to report lodged by the defence. P. W. 10 Sri Ranvir Singh, the Investigating Officer and P. W. 11 Dr. R. Prasad had medically examined Daya Shankar, Ravindra Kumar and Darshan Singh. Besides examination of the above witnesses, prosecution filed affidavits of constable Swami Prasad (P.W. 6), affidavit of constable Dafedar Singh (P.W. 7), Vikram Singh clerk of Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur. The prosecution also tendered in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner and Serologist (Ex. ka-19).

The Appellants examined four witnesses in their defence. D.W. 1 is Dr. R. Prasad who had medically examined Appellant Kripa Shankar on 5.6.77 at 1.00 p.m., has proved his medical examination report, Ex. kha-3. D.W. 2 is Dr. M.P.S. Kannaujia was Medical Officer in District Jail, Kanpur D.W. 3 Dhani Ram and D.W. 4 Gajraj Singh have been examined to prove the defence case.

Besides the examination of the above named witnesses, the defence has also proved the first information report Ex. kha-1 lodged by Gur Dayal on 5.6.1977 at 10.15 a.m. and G. D. entry regarding registration of case u/s 307, I.P.C. on the report of Gurdayal a copy of which is Ex. kha-2. The medical examination, report of Kripa Shankar is Ex. kha-3.

Dr. R. Prasad (P.W. 1) proved the medical examination report of Kripa Shankar. He had found following injuries on the person of Kripa Shankar.

(1) Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 0.5 cm. x scalp deep situated on head 9 cm. above right ear, margins torn, irregular, inverted direction vertical.

(2) Incised wound 6 cm. x 0.25 cm. x muscle deep situated on left side of forehead just above the left eye brow, edges regular, clean-cut, averted direction vertical.

(3) Incised wound 8 cm. x 3 cm. x muscles deep on the front of left fore-arm on its upper most part 1 cm. below the elbow joint, edges clean-cut, regular and averted margin, direction transverse.

(4) Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 0.25 cm. skin deep on the left side 1 cm. below outer angle of the left eye, edges torn, irregular and inverted, direction vertical.

(5) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 0.25 cm. x skin deep on the left side of the chin 2.5 cm. below the angle of the mouth, edges torn, irregular, averted, direction vertical.

(6) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 0.25 cm. x skin deep middle of the chin 3.5 cm. below the lower lip, margin torn irregular, averted.

(7) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x skin deep of right side of the abdomen, 2.5 cm. below the middle part of right collar bone, margins irregular, torn and irregular.

(8) Contusion 12 cm. x 8 cm. on his right side back just Adjacent to the root of neck. Advised X-ray. (9) Abrasion, 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. on the left side back. (10) Contusion 18 cm. x 3 cm. situated on back at 14 cm. below. 7th vertebra, colors livid red. Direction transverse.

All the injuries were simple. 2 and 3 were caused by some sharp edged weapon. 1, 4 to 10 were caused by some blunt weapon and could be caused on 4.6.1977 between 5 and 6 p.m.

The trial Court on the consideration of the evidence on record found that the defence version was not established and the prosecution case regarding the manner of assault was established beyond doubt. The trial court, therefore, convicted and sentenced the Appellants as stated above.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State. We have also gone through the material on record and judgment of the trial court.

It is contended on behalf of the Appellants that the trial court has applied two standards for appreciating the evidence of the prosecution and it has failed to appreciate the legal position that the accused were not required to explain the injuries of the prosecution witnesses and the defence was not required to establish its case with such rigours with which the prosecution was required to prove its case. As also that no explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused party during the incident was furnished, the prosecution version was untruthful or at least the prosecution witnesses were concealing the origin of the incident. Learned A.G.A. contends that the trial court has given cogent reason for disbelieving the evidence and has rightly held that the injuries found on the person of Kripa Shankar could have been suffered even after an hour after the incident. It is contended that the prosecution was under no obligation to explain the injuries of the accused unless such injuries were serious in nature and were shown to have been caused during the incident in which the prosecution side sustained injuries.

Before dealing with rival contentions, the legal position may be clarified. In cases of self-defense, now it is well-settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court as well as various High Courts that where the accused party has also sustained injuries in the same incident in which prosecution party sustained injuries and the injuries sustained by the accused or members of the accused party are not trivial in nature, the prosecution is required to explain the injuries of the accused or members of their party. In case of failure of the prosecution to do so or in cases where there is denial of the prosecution witnesses that the accused party sustained injury in the same incident in which the members of the prosecution party sustained injuries, and Court comes to a finding that the accused party sustained injuries in the same incident, a presumption can be drawn against the prosecution that the prosecution is not coming with clean hands and the prosecution witnesses are lying on the most material point and in such circumstances, the prosecution story becomes unreliable. The second cardinal principle is that the accused is not required to prove his defense with such a rigor with which the prosecution is required to prove its case. If the accused is successful in creating doubt that the defense version is also possibly true, then in such a case, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and consequently, to acquittal. The third cardinal principle is that in case of self-defense, the accused is not required to modulate its defense step by step which means that he is not required to give one blow against one blow or use as much force as is used by the side of the prosecution. What is required from the side of the accused is that the accused party will behave as normal man behaves and if there is reasonable apprehension of death/grievous hurt to the accused party then in the nature of the circumstances the accused in exercise of the right of private defense can inflict severe injury which may even be fatal, to the other party. The accused is not required to explain the injuries sustained by the prosecution side. It is in the light of these cardinal principles of law that the trial court is required to appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties on the particular charge. The evidence of both the parties has to be dealt with same standard keeping in mind the above principles. The Court cannot apply two standards for the two contesting parties while appreciating the evidence.

In the instant case, the first submission of the Appellants is that the trial Court had applied two standards while appreciating the evidence. Our attention is drawn to certain observations of the trial court given in the judgment. At page 13 the trial court observed:

"I agree to the submission that Kripa Shankar, if had sustained injuries at the time of the occurrence, the non-explanation thereof, would lead to the inferences that the prosecution suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence that the witnesses had lied on a material point and that the defense case is probabilised. For drawing such inferences it is to be found out, if or not the defense version explains the injuries on the person of the deceased and others so as to render itself probable and threw doubt on the prosecution case. In the instant case, in view of the defense F.I.R. the oral evidence led by them, the defense version does not explain the injuries on the person of the deceased, Daya Shankar and Darshan Singh, much-less, on the person of Kripa Shankar."

The Court below further observed that:

"Dhabi Ram deposed to have wielded a spear. The defense F.I.R. does not show a spear with him. Then, all the injuries found on the side of the prosecution Court has disbelieved the defense version of accused Kripa Shankar having sustained injuries in the incident on the ground that the blunt weapon injuries on the person of accused Kripa Shankar could not be caused by Dairy or spear and the sharp weapon injuries must have been deeper if Dairy was used. Such finding of the trial court is arrived at only on conjectures and without appreciating the evidence of both the sides by same standard.

The trial court in its judgment observed that:

"Injuries were there on the person of Kripa Shankar when he reached the police station. These were found by the Doctor when he was examined on the next day at 1 p.m. He had been lodged in jail on 6.6.77 but was hospitalized from 8th to 18th June, 1977. Therefore, the question arises, how he sustained those injuries. It was the duty of the Sub-Inspector to have found out how his injuries came about. He did not do that. That default on the part of the Investigating Officer may invite strictures for him but certainly, does not dispel the statements on oath of the prosecution witnesses who deposed that Kripa Shankar had sustained no injury at the time of the occurrence. There was no serious injury on the person of Kripa Shankar. One lacerated wound on his head was scalp deep. It could not be caused either by a Dairy or a spear. Naturally it was caused by something else. One muscle deep incised wound was on his forehead and the other also muscles deep was on his forearm. These wounds, if caused by Dairy, would have been much deeper. Therefore, keeping in view, the delay in the F.I.R. by Guru Deal, the belated medical examination and the nature of injuries, which could not be caused by the weapons imputed to the prosecution side, an inference becomes inevitable that those had been got manufactured or were self suffered for countering the prosecution case. Sri Kripa Shankar may have suffered those injuries after the occurrence within an hour or so thereof and, therefore, the prosecution witnesses, if deposed that he had no injury at the time of the occurrence, cannot be said to have lied on the point.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that these observations of the trial court are based upon surmises only and not supported by any material on record. We find force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants. From the observations of the court below, it is evident that when Kripa Shankar reached the police station, injuries were found on his person. It is not the case of the prosecution that these injuries were sustained by Kripa Shankar after the alleged incident or were self-inflicted. The defense has examined Dr. R. Prasad as D.W. 1 who had medically examined Kripa Shankar on 5.6.77 at 1.00 p.m. There is no suggestion to this witness that these injuries could be self-inflicted. Otherwise also, considering the nature of injuries, it could hardly be believed that such injuries could be self-inflicted, injury No. 1 is lacerated wound 3 cm. x 0.5 cm. x skin deep 9 cm. above the right ear. Injury No. 2 is incised wound 6 cm. x 0.25 cm. x muscle deep on forehead just above the left eye brow with clear cut, regular and averted edges and injury No. 3 is incised wound 8 cm. x 3 cm. x muscles deep on left forearm, with clean cut, regular and averted margins. Injury Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were also on the face. Rest of the injuries was on back of chest and abdominal region. One can hardly believe that such injuries could be self-inflicted. Even though the prosecution witnesses have stated that Kripa Shankar did not sustain any injury during the said incident, there is no suggestion to the Doctor or to the prosecution witnesses or to the Investigating Officer that Kripa Shankar did not have any injury on his person when he went to the police station. It is not the case of the prosecution that Kripa Shankar procured medical examination report in order to make out a defense case. It would be seen that Dr. R. Prasad who has been examined as D.W. 1 had also examined the injuries of Daya Shankar, Darshan Singh and Ravindra Kumar. The incident occurred on 5.6.77 at about 6.00 p.m. and these injured on the side of the prosecution were medically examined at 6.00 a.m., 6.40 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. on 5.6.77. Kripa Shankar was examined by the same Doctor on 5.6.77 at 1.00 p.m. If the injuries found on the person of Ravindra Kumar by the Doctor at 3.00 p.m. could be believed to have been received in the said incident, how could the injuries noted by the Doctor on the person of Kripa Shankar at 1.00 p.m. could not be held to have been received in the same incident on the ground that there was delayed medical examination of the accused. The report on the prosecution side was lodged on 5.6.77 at 12.30 p.m. whereas the report on the side of defence was lodged by Gur Dayal the same day at 1.15 a.m. In this report, it is specifically stated that Kripa Shankar had also made assault upon the accused persons in order to defend himself. P. W. 9 Shiv Narain Singh who was head moharrir at the relevant time has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that injured Kripa Shankar had also come to the police station with first informant Gur Dayal. He has also stated that he had seen the injuries on the person of Kripa Shankar which he had noted in the G.D. The Investigating Officer was present at the police station but he did not care to know as to when the defense report was registered. He also adopted partisan attitude towards the Appellant. There is no case of the prosecution that the injuries found on the person of Kripa Shankar were received in the same other incident. The defence has examined two witnesses, namely, Gajraj Singh and Dhani Ram as D.W. 4 and D.W. 3 respectively who have supported the version of the defence. D.W. 3 categorically states that he had used the spear in order to defend Kripa Shankar. Two of the wounds found on the person of Daya Shankar were incised wounds and such wounds could also be caused by spear. There is no suggestion to these witnesses that Kripa Shankar did not sustain any injury during the said incident or that injuries found on the person of accused Kripa Shankar were sustained by him in any subsequent incident. In this view of the matter, there was no sufficient ground for the trial court for presuming or drawing the inference that the accused did not sustain any injury in the said incident in which the prosecution side sustained injuries or that the injuries found on the person of the accused Kripa Shankar were manufactured or self-inflicted. The trial court has also observed that although in the F.I.R. lodged by Guru Deal, it is stated that Kripa Shankar had defended himself but Kripa Shankar has not stated this fact in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure It may be noted that defence has not examined Guru Daryl as a defense witness. Therefore, the accused cannot be confronted with the statement contained in the F.I.R. Besides this, there is general tendency among the accused persons that they are hesitant and very slow in admitting participation in the occurrence. In any case, once the accused claims that the injuries were sustained by him in the said incident and has been successful in establishing that the injuries found on his person could probably be caused in the incident in which the prosecution side sustained injuries, then the Court has to give a categorical finding as to which of the two parties were aggressors. In case such a finding is not possible and the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries of the accused or the prosecution witnesses deny the receipt of injuries by the accused during the occurrence, then natural inference would be that the prosecution witnesses are concealing the genesis and origin of the incident, and by denying the factum of receipt of injuries by the accused during the occurrence, are lying on a most material point and their testimony cannot be held to be reliable.

Number of injuries, of course, some times gives clue as to which party could be aggressor but that is always not safer criterion for arriving at a conclusion that the party which sustained lesser number of injuries was aggressor. The trial court has misdirected itself on the question of law that if the accused party was aggressor, then besides Kripa Shankar (who sustained as many as 10 injuries) some of the rescuers should have also sustained injuries. Non-receipt of injury by rescuers in the instant case cannot be a sufficient ground to hold that the defense case was not probable.

The defense version to some extent probablised by admission of the prosecution witnesses. The defense case is that bullock of the accused party was missing and Kripa Shankar was searching it and just before the present occurrence, he reached the pond of the village and saw Prabhu, cousin of Mijaji Lal using the bullock in the bullock-cart and he had also seen Mijaji Lal, Daya Shankar and others digging earth from nearby place and loading it in the bullock-cart. P. W. 3 Sri Darshan Singh who is an injured witness, of course, does not admit the defence case in so many terms but categorically states in examination-in-chief that at about 6.00 p.m., he and his father were bringing earth in the bullock-cart from the side of pond. He also admits during cross-examination that he and others had gone to the pond to dig earth at about 4.00 p.m. The defense version is that when Kripa Shankar objected to use the bullock in the bullock-cart by Daya Shankar and others and used object ional language, Mijaji Lal, Daya Shankar, Raja Singh and Anokhey Lal abused him and proceeded towards him whereupon Kripa Shankar ran towards the village. Although this suggestion has been denied by the prosecution witnesses but from the statement of P. W. 3, this much is borne-out that the complainant party had gone to collect the earth from near the pond and at the time of occurrence, they were engaged in transporting the mud from the pond to the village which is also the case of the defense. This also probabilises the truthfulness of the defense version.

On a careful consideration of entire evidence on record, we find that the trial court has misdirected itself on the question of law and consequently arrived at erroneous findings of fact some of which are based upon conjectures and surmises. Having given anxious consideration to the entire evidence, we find that the probability of the defense version being true cannot be ruled out and accused Kripa Shankar had sustained injuries in the occurrence in which the prosecution side sustained injuries and by no means, the injuries found on the person of Kripa Shankar could be held to be of trivial in nature. The prosecution was, therefore, under obligation to explain the injuries found on the person of accused. Prosecution having failed in this regard, its version becomes doubtful and unreliable. The accused persons are, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt and consequently to acquittal.

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the trial court is set aside. Appellants Kripa Shankar, Uma Shankar, Pratap Singh and Radhey Shyam are given benefit of doubt and they are consequently acquitted. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their surety bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.