Udai Bhan Singh and Another vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—The two appellants father Udai Bhan Singh (A-1) and son Phool Singh (A-2) had committed fratricide/patricide on 27.8.1979 at 8.30 p.m. in village Arka, police station Karari, district Fatehpur by gunning down and inflicting several incised wound to Chandra Bhan Singh, who was none else other than real brother of (A-1) and uncle of (A-2) for which crime both of them were prosecuted, by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in S.T. No. 39 of 1980, State v. Udai Bhan and another, and were convicted u/s 302/ 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal. Pending final outcome of their appeals, appellant Udai Bhan Singh (A-1) expired and his appeal was abated on 11.1.2012. Now only the appeal of appellant Phool Singh (A-2) is to be considered by us.

Complete narration of the prosecution case was made by the informant Smt. Itwari Devi P.W. 1 (widow of deceased Chandra Bhan Singh), Lalloo Singh P.W. 2 and Kalyan Singh P.W. 4 (both sons of the deceased), during the session''s trial. Sketching the gist of their allegations, it is evident that Padua @ Mathura Chamar and Bhagwaniya were the parents of the informant Itwari Devi P.W. 1 and were residents of village Arka, police station Karari, district Fatehpur, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, Lalloo Singh and Kalyan Singh, are the sons of the informant and the deceased. Appellant Udai Bhan Singh (A-1) and deceased Chandra Bhan Singh were sibling brothers, both being sons of Jai Karan Singh resident of the same village. Appellant Phool Singh (A-2) is the son of Udai Bhan Singh (A-1).

Jai Karan Singh had 21 bighas of agricultural land, which was jointly held by him and his two sons as no partition in between them had taken place. Deceased Chandra Bhan Singh impressed upon his elder brother (A-1) to partition the property but (A-1) was not agreeable for it. One month prior to the date of the present incident, 27.8.1979, Jai Karan Singh expired. In those days, consolidation proceedings were going on in the village Arka. Fifteen days prior to the present Incident (fifteen days after demise of Jai Karan Singh), Chandra Bhan Singh (deceased) moved an application before the consolidation authorities for separating his share from the joint property. When (A-1) came to know of it, he also filed an application in the consolidation proceedings that he was the only heir of Jai Karan Singh (deceased) and therefore, entire property be carved out in his name. Three days prior to the incident, (A-1) came to the deceased and threatened him to withdraw his application moved in the consolidation proceedings otherwise bear the consequences. Deceased did not succumb to such a threat and rebuffed (A-1) by informing him that he also had a family to foster and refused to withdraw his application.

On 27.8.1979, deceased alongwith his two sons, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, were returning to their house from the house of Village Pradhan Ram Kripal to dine and when all the three of them arrived near the ''Sar'' of Bachhu washer-man, they spotted the two appellants standing at the cattle feeding mound nearby, which was north east to the entrance door of the deceased''s house. Spotting the deceased both the accused accosted that they will not spare him and no sooner thereafter (A-1) fired at the deceased from his gun. Hearing gun fire shot and the shrieks raised by P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, informant P.W. 1 came to her door and opened it slightly and from the ventilated portion spotted (A-1) armed with a gun. (A-1) spotting her uttered that she be also annihilated and shot at her, P.W. 1 immediately joined door planks resultantly the fired pellets embedded in the door planks of her house. P.W. 1 bolted the door from inside and climbed on her attic (roof) through a bamboo ladder, raising hue and cry and from there witnessed that (A-2) was butchering her husband from a spade, which was studded in a wooden handle and both P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 were raising rescue hue and cries. The shrieks of the sons and the wife attracted village pradhan Ram Kripal, Sunder Lal Pandey, Shiv Pratap at the murder spot. Locating them the two murderers escaped towards west. P.W. 1 came down from her attic and out of her house and went near her husband, who had died meanwhile. Because she was a lady with no male member in the house and having only two minor children, that, she could not muster enough courage to approach the police station during the night and consequently following day morning, she, accompanied with village watchman Madhav Pasi, came to police station Karari where she orally dictated her F.I.R., which was scribed by head moharir Raj Kishore Srivastava P.W. 8.

F.I.R. of the informant was registered on 28.7.1979 at 8.10 a.m. vide rapat No. 15 by P.W. 8, by preparing chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1. G.D. entry prepared immediately thereafter has been proved by P.W. 8 as Ext. Ka-6. Special report regarding the murder was dispatched through constable Bheem Singh at 9.30 a.m. the same day vide rapat No. 16, which is Ext. Ka-7. P.W. 8 has further proved deposit of blood stained and plain earth, empty cartridge, pieces of door planks by the Investigating Officer Kamal Singh P.W. 9 at the police station and the G.D. entry in that respect vide Ext. Ka-8, which was recorded vide rapat No. 15 at 10.30 a.m. by constable moharir Bhola Nath Shukla. The gun in question brought from Rana Firearm Dealer, Civil Line, Allahabad by S.O. Kamal Singh was also deposited at the police station vide rapat No. 30 sketched by the same Head Moharir Bhola Nath Shukla on 22.10.1979 at 11.45 a.m. vide Ext. Ka-9. The said gun was sent for ballistic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow through C.P. 1065 Basdev Singh alongwith a bundle of empty cartridge on 6.11.1979 at 4 p.m. vide rapat No. 21 prepared by P.W. 8 and the G.D. entry in that respect is Ext. Ka-11.

Investigation into the crime was commenced by S.O. Kamal Singh, P.W. 9, immediately after registration of the case. Investigating Officer first of all recorded 161, Cr.P.C. statement of the informant and then accompanied by S.I. Devesh Pratap Singh, four constables and the informant came to the murder scene and deputed the said S.I. to conduct inquest on the cadaver of the deceased. Investigating Officer P.W. 9 recorded 161, Cr.P.C. statements of Lalloo Singh P.W. 2 and Kalyan Singh P.W. 4. He, thereafter collected blood stained and plain earth (material Exts. 11 and 12) and prepared its recovery memo Ext. Ka-11. The lantern (material Ext. 1), which was alleged to have been burning at the door of the Informant was inspected by the Investigating Officer, who seized it, prepared its recovery memo Ext. Ka-12 and then handed over the said lantern to the informant. An empty cartridge (material Ext. 2) was recovered by the Investigating Officer and recovery memo Ext. Ka-13 was penned down. The pieces of wooden door planks in which three pellets were embedded were also seized by the Investigating Officer and recovery memo Ext. Ka-14 in that respect was sketched by him. Accused persons were searched but could not be found and in that respect, search memo Ext. Ka-15 was prepared by P.W. 9. Spot inspection was conducted and incident spot map Ext. Ka-16 was sketched by the Investigating Officer. On 19.9.1979, the two culprits were interrogated by the Investigating Officer in Central Jail. Naini. On 22.10.1979, Investigating Officer came to Allahabad from where, he recovered S.B.B.L. Gun No. 16989 from the gun shop of Rana Pratap Singh, which belonged to (A-1), sealed it and prepared the recovery memo Ext. Ka-17. Aforesaid gun is material Ext. 3. Investigating Officer thereafter recorded 161, Cr.P.C. statement of Rana Pratap Singh and Devi Din Mistri. Gun was deposited at the police station. Investigating Officer further collected two applications from the court of CO., Manjhanpur moved by the deceased and (A-1), which are Exts. Ka-18 and Ka-19. Through constable Basdev Singh empty cartridge and gun were dispatched to Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow for examination on 10.11.1979. On 27.11.1979, through the aforesaid constable the blood stained earth was also sent for chemical examination to Agra. Both the appellants were charge-sheeted on 22.10.1979 by P.W. 9 vide Ext. Ka-20.

Inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was performed by S.O.D.P. Singh on 28.8.1979 and Inquest memo Ext. Ka-21 was penned down by him. Other relevant papers of photo lash, challan lash, letter to C.M.O. and R.I. etc., Exts. Ka-22 to Ka-26 were also prepared by P.W. 11 simultaneously. The dead body was handed over to constables Hart Ram Upadhyay P.W. 10 and Maha Nand Singh to be carried to the mortuary for autopsy purposes.

Dr. Vijai Pal P.W. 3 performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh on 29.8.1979 at 2.30 p.m. in Moti Lal Nehru Hospital. Allahabad which was brought to him by the aforesaid constables Hart Ram Upadhyay and Maha Nand Singh. Deceased was found to be 50 years of age and had expired prior to quarter to two days. Rigor mortis was absent on his upper torso but was present in the lower part. In the sustained injuries maggots were present. No pellets or any piece of wad was recovered from inside the dead body. Skull bones were fractured at its base and structure in front of the neck and soft tissue of mouth were cut. Heart and left lung were lacerated extensively at several places. Left diaphragm had ruptured, stomach, small intestine, urinary bladder all were empty and large intestine had faeces. Cause of deceased''s death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. From the cadaver of the deceased, a loin cloth and a towel (gamchha) were taken out by the doctor, which were sealed and handed over to the constables. Post-mortem examination report of the deceased was prepared by P.W. 3, which is Ext. Ka-3. All the incised wound sustained by the deceased could have been caused by spade and the injuries could have been inflicted on him at or about the time of the incident and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause his death. Following ante-mortem injuries were sustained by the deceased on his body:

(1) Incised wound 4" x 3/4" x 1" right side of face cutting middle of right ear and bone below.

(2) Incised wound 6" x 2" x bone deep right side and front of neck upper part cutting vertical spine below 2nd cervical vertebra and spinal cord completely.

(3) Incised wound 5" x 1-1/2" x bone deep sub manelitules region below chin, cutting bone underneath.

(4) Incised wound 4-1/2" x 1-1/2" x bone deep left face, middle cutting bone underneath.

(5) Incised wound 1" x 1/4" cutting left ear in the middle.

(6) Incised wound left face oblique from upper lip to upper part of nose 4" x 1/4" x cutting bone underneath.

(7) Incised wound 6" x 1-1/2" top of left shoulder cutting bone underneath.

(8) Incised wound 4" x 1" top of right shoulder cutting bone underneath.

(9) Incised wound 4" x 1" x 1/2" left leg upper and inner part.

(10) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" left leg upper and front.

(11) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" right thigh outer and lower part.

(12) Firearm wound of entrance on right side of chest and inner part 2" x 1-1/2" x thoracic cavity deep. Margins are inverted black, scorched and tattooed.Underlying 4th, 5th, 6th ribs and sternum are fractured.

(13) Firearm wound exit in left side axillary region upper part 8 in number varying each 1/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep to 3/10" x 3/10" x chest cavity deep. Margins are everted, not black, not tattooed, nor scorched. Underlying 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs are fractured.

No pellets or any piece of wadding recovered from body. Skull bones fractured on its base in front, Soft tissue of mouth, structures on front of neck were cut. Heart and left lung were lacerated extensively in several pieces left diaphragm ruptured. Stomach, small bowel, urinary bladder all empty. Left bowel has faces.

Constable Basdev Singh P.W. 5 had carried two bundles of articles to the chemical examiner, Agra on 27.11.1979. The same constable had carried the gun and cartridge to Ballistic Expert, Lucknow on 6.11.1979. So long as the aforesaid articles were in his possession, he did not allow anybody to tamper with them.

Rana Pratap Singh P.W. 6 is the arms dealer and owner of firearms shop and it was at his shop that S.B.B.L. Gun No. 16989 having Indian Licence No. 30 (II), which was deposited for repair by (A-1), was seized by the Investigating Officer Kamal Singh, P.W. 9. The aforesaid weapon was deposited on 4.9.1979 at 2.30 p.m. at serial No. 526, P.W. 7 B. Rai, Government Ballistic Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, U.P., had tested the gun and the cartridges and vide his report Ext. Ka-5, dated 29.10.1979, he had found the recovered cartridges EC1 to have been fired from the aforesaid gun. Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding the blood stained soil, dated 30.11.1979, indicate that human blood was present in the soil.

Charge-sheeting of the accused culminated in registration of a criminal case against the accused and finding the offence triable by Court of Sessions, Committal Court of C.J.M., committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it was received on 6.2.1980 and was registered as S.T. No. 39 of 1980, State v. Udai Bhan Singh and others. The aforesaid trial was transferred to the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge for trial who, on 1.7.1980 charged both the accused with offence u/s 302/ 34, I.P.C., which charges were read out and explained to the accused who denied the same and claimed to be tried and consequently, their trial commenced.

In the trial prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses out of whom informant Itwari Devi P.W. 1 and her sons Lalloo Singh P.W. 2 and Kalyan Singh P.W. 4 were the fact witnesses. P.W. 3 Dr. Vijai Pal is the post-mortem doctor, P.W. 5 constable Basdev Singh had taken the firearm to Ballistic Expert, Agra, P.W. 6 Rana Pratap Singh, is the owner of firearm shop, where the gun of accused (A-1) was deposited by him, P.W. 7 B. Rai is the Ballistic Expert, P.W. 8 Head Moharir R.K. Srivastava had recorded the crime by preparing chik F.I.R. and G.D. Entry, P.W. 9 S.O. Kamal Singh Yadav is the Investigating Officer, P.W. 10 Constable H.R. Upadhyay, had carried the corpse to the mortuary and P.W. 11 S.O. D.P. Singh had conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, were the formal witnesses.

As has already been referred to hereinabove learned trial Judge, vide impugned Judgment, held both the appellants guilty u/s 302/ 34, I.P.C. and therefore, convicted and sentenced them, which conviction and sentences is under challenge in the instant appeal.

Since, (A-1) has already demised and his appeal stands abated, hence we deal with the appeal of only appellant (A-2).

In the aforesaid background, we have heard Sri. Patanjali Mishra, amicus curiae appointed by us, who was, later on, joined by Sri. V.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel. We heard both of them in support of the appeal and Smt. Raj Laxmi Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State and have critically and analytically perused the trial court record including oral and documentary evidences.

Following submissions were raised by learned amicus curiae as well as by Sri. Srivastava, learned senior counsel castigating the impugned judgment of conviction. Firstly, they contended that P.W. 1 could not have seen the firing made by (A-1) at the deceased. At that moment she was inside her house and it was only after hearing the gunshot and the shrieks raised by her sons P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 that she came to the door of her house. It is her testimony that she never came out of the main door and when she tried to open it (A-1) had fired at her but she had bolted the door immediately, consequently, what transpired outside of her house could not have been seen by her. Next, it was submitted that informant herself was a concubine and a trollop and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on her testimony. Neither P.W. 2 nor P.W. 4 were born from her. While assailing the character of P.W. 1, reliance was placed on paragraph 3 of her deposition wherein she had deposed that she alongwith her brother Kalyan and mother Bhagwana had resided in Pune for 12 or 14 years. She could not disclose the name of the person in whose house they had resided. She also could not disclose the identity of other persons, who were residing in the aforesaid house. P.W. 1 had mentioned that from Pune that she had come to village Arka, district Fatehpur. It was on the basis of the aforesaid testimony, that it was submitted that P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 were not her sons and, she being a lady of easy virtue, was entangled with village Pradhan Ram Kripal and orchestrating the conspiracy hatched up with him that the deceased was annihilated to grab his entire property. It was further submitted that prosecution allegation of informant witnessing the incident from her attic is a false version as no bamboo ladder was found inside her house through which she could have climbed on the attic. It was next submitted that the learned trial Judge also disbelieved P.W. 1 in respect of said version in Paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.W. 1, who is an untruthful witness. It was primarily on the aforesaid submissions that it was urged that appeal of the appellant be allowed and he be acquitted of the charges and be set at liberty.

Arguing to the contrary, Smt. Raj Laxmi Sinha, learned A.G.A. harangued that it is an incident in which two uterine brothers and their sons are involved. Both of them were close relatives and knew each other since their birth and therefore, it is not a case of mistaken identity. There was no reason for the prosecution side to fabricate a mendacious story against the appellant had he not been the real assailants. It is absurd to cogitate that a wife and sons will spare the real assailants and implicate their closest relative in a false case. It was next submitted that the criticism that P.W. 1 was a trollop is based on no evidence. Neither P.W. 1 nor her two sons were cross-examined at length to fathom out any licentious activity by the informant. Merely because informant had resided for 12 or 14 years in Pune, is no reason to spat a temerity on her face by bracketing her as a lady of easy virtue. It was next submitted that the prosecution version is consistent with medical evidence and since there was no reason to falsely implicate the assailants, the conviction of appellant cannot be altered nor can he be absolved of the crime committed by him, submitted learned A.G.A. It was further argued that so far as bamboo ladder is concerned, the learned trial Judge has slightly misread the evidence as P.W. 1 has categorically deposed that bamboo ladder was available in her house but when the Investigating Officer had visited then it was not attached with the roof. Learned A.G.A., therefore, submitted that all the three fact witnesses are reliable and their evidences are sufficient to dismiss the appeal of the appellant and affirm his conviction and sentence.

We have considered the rival submissions vis-a-vis oral and documentary evidences available on the record. From the examination of evidences, it is evident that both the sides involved in the incident were close relatives. Deceased and (A-1) were real uterine brothers being sons of Jai Karan Singh. (A-2) was the son" of (A-1) and real nephew of the deceased. P.W. 1 being wife of the deceased was the sister-in-law and aunt of both the appellants. P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 being the sons of the deceased were the real cousin brothers of the appellant. Consequently, the submission of learned A.G.A. is well merited and we concur with it that it cannot be a case of mistaken identity.

So far as medical evidence is concerned, neither of the two counsel arguing appeal for the appellant were able to address and point out any discrepancy between the ocular testimony vis-a-vis medical evidence. From the perusal of the injuries sustained by the deceased, as were recorded by the doctor P.W. 3 in the autopsy report Exhibit Ka-3, the deceased had sustained as many as thirteen injuries out of which, injuries No. 12 and 13 were firearm injuries. Rest of the injuries were all incised wounds which were quite possible by the spade, which, according to the prosecution allegation, was wielded by the present appellant. Fourth, fifth and sixth ribs of the deceased alongwith sternum were fractured. In such a view, there is consistent corroborative medical evidence available on the record. Now turning towards the criticism levelled by the appellant''s counsel, we find that none of the two urged submissions are worth considering and tenable. Firstly, P.W. 1 has not at all been questioned as to when she had gone to Pune and whether at that time she was married or was a damsel. Further, no cross-examination of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 was done on the aforesaid aspect. When P.W. 2 entered into the witness box then on the Court questioning he had disclosed his parentage as being son of Chandra Bhan Singh (deceased). No challenge to the aforesaid fact was made by the appellant by cross-examining the said witness on the aforesaid aspect. No application was moved against him u/s 340, Cr.P.C. for being a perjurer and stating a false evidence. Only an unconvincing and unconcerned suggestion was given to him that the deceased was not his father. This ostensibly was done by the accused persons to strengthen their claim of entire property of the deceased, which was the underlying motive for the appellant to annihilate their own blood relation and commit fratricide. Except for giving such a bald suggestion, there was no other excuse available with the appellant to grab deceased property and to orchestrate criminal conspiracy. The said ipse dixit and bald suggestion without any background material is wholly unacceptable and therefore, we are not impressed at all by the appellant''s argument and repelled it outright.

Coming to the another argument that informant could not have witnessed shooting down and hacking of the deceased because she was inside her house and there was no bamboo ladder, we are of the opinion that half of the said contention may be correct. It is the prosecution case itself that P.W. 1 was inside her house when the deceased was shot at. In the F.I.R., she had dictated that hearing gun shot fire and shrieking of her sons that she had rushed to see the incident. She had further stated that she never came out of her house and she had opened planks of her entrance door slightly and peeping through the hole she had seen (A-1) armed with gun, who had immediately made a second fire on her but because she had bolted herself from inside that by providence she could not sustain any injury. This proves two facts firstly, presence of (A-1) at the spot and secondly that informant may not have seen shooting down of her husband but, makes her an eyewitness of the incident. Entire episode was a inseparable, conglomeration and, therefore, participation of (A-1) in the incident is established beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. She had climbed on the attic with the help of a bamboo ladder. She had made categorical deposition that when the Investigating Officer had come to her house, she had shown bamboo ladder to the Investigating Officer but at that moment, ladder was not fixed with the attic. She had stated in paragraph 10 of her deposition that her house is 10-11 hands high and there is no stair case in her house nor it was when the incident occurred. She had stated that there was a bamboo ladder with the help of which, she had climbed on her attic from where she had seen the incident. She had further divulged that she had visualized some of the incident from her attic and some from the ground floor which happened with her. She had shown bamboo ladder to the Investigating Officer but at that time it was not attached with the attic. Her exact words transliterated were "there is no stair case in my house nor it was there during the incident. Self tendered that bamboo ladder was there. From this bamboo ladder I had climbed on the roof from where I had seen the entire incident. Then said some of the incident was witnessed from above and rest, which was happened with me was from ground floor. Bamboo ladder was shown to the Investigating Officer but when Investigating Officer had visited then the ladder was not attached."

In view of such a statement, it will be imprudent for us to dub her as an untruthful and unreliable witness. In this respect, we don''t subscribe to the view taken by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment. In our estimation, her testimony is truthful, consistent, credible and reliable. We further note that the prosecution would not have gained any mileage from embellishing a story of P.W. 1 claiming of her attic with the help of a bamboo ladder. If a story was to be fabricated, prosecution would have made P.W. 1 an eye-witness of the entire episode from inside her house by making her peep through even a small hole. Firing was resorted to at her house as has been countenanced by the circumstantial evidence of embedded pellet in both the planks of the entrance door of her house. Thus, it cannot be said that the version given by informant P.W. 1, who is none else than the widow of the deceased, is incredible. Role assigned to the present appellant is that he had hackled his own uncle by a spade. Injuries 1 to 11 mentioned in the post-mortem examination report clearly and unambiguously indicate that the deceased had sustained these incised wounds on his body. Three of his ribs alongwith sternum were fractured. According to medical opinion, these incised wounds could have been sustained by the deceased at or about the time of the incident and thus there is convincing and unblemished evidence on record to establish appellant''s participation into the crime. His role from the very beginning has been specified without any vacillating evidence. F.I.R. was lodged without much of a delay and the explanation offered by P.W. 1 for not approaching the police station during the ensuing night is convincing, natural and acceptable. There was no reason for her to falsely implicate the appellant. On the contrary, the lust and malice imbibed by the assailants compelled them to murder their own blood relation. Motive as alleged by the prosecution was very much in existence on the date of the incident for appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. Initially, (A-1), dead accused, refused to partition the property inherited by them from their father Jai Karan Singh. After Jai Karan Singh demised, deceased moved an application before the Consolidation Authorities to carve out his share, which ostensibly was the bate-noire for the appellants to have a hostile feeling against him. No sooner the application was filed by the deceased. (A-1) made a counter claim by moving an application claiming entire share of Jai Karan Singh''s estate by claiming himself as his sole heir. He, therefore, had enough and compelling reasons to execute the crime. The greed for property had taken out all his sane senses and appellant (A-1) even had approached the deceased hurling threats him to withdraw his application otherwise meet the consequences. All this had happened within one month of the demise of Jai Karan Singh and, therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that rapacious motive forwarded strong reasons to the appellant to murder the deceased.

From the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the depositions of formal witnesses as countenancing circumstances, establishes the prosecution version convincingly and we have not been able to wean out any circumstance favouring the appellant to assoilzie the case in his favour and absolve him of the crime committed by him.

Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal.

Appeal of the appellant Phool Singh (A-2), therefore, is dismissed. His conviction and sentence, as is recorded in the impugned judgment is hereby affirmed. Appellant Phool Singh is on bail. He is directed to be taken into custody forthwith and lodge in jail to serve out remaining part of his sentence. Bail bonds and surety bonds of appellant Phool Singh (A-2) are hereby cancelled. Let a copy of the judgment be certified to the learned trial Judge for his intimation and further action.