Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 in Sessions case No. 53 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
2. The appellants-accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 along with A. 6 were originally tried for the following offences
1. A.1 to A.10 under Section 148, IPC.
2. A. 1 under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
3. A.1 to A. 10 under Section 302, IPC or alternatively under Sections 302 r/w 149, IPC.
However, during the pendency of the trial A. 6 died and hence the case against him stood abated.
3. A.1 was found guilty Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. He was also found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year under Section 3 of the Act but no separate sentence was passed under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. A. I was also found guilty under Section 148, IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Accused 2 to 5 and 7 to 10 were found guilty under Section 148 and 324, IPC and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer three months simple imprisonment under each count. However, the sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellants-accused was directed to run concurrently.
4. The gravamen of the charges against the appellants accused is that on 12-9-1995 around 6-30 p.m. near the field of Manikya Reddy in Brahmanadoddi village all the accused caused the death of one Vadde Linganna by beating him indiscriminately and A. 1 hurled bomb on Vadde Linganna which caused injuries on the left flank of the deceased.
5. The substance of the prosecution charge in a nut-shell is as under : The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Brahmanadoddi village. The deceased was also resident of the same village. A. 1 is the father of A. 2, P.W. 1 is nephew of the deceased while P.W. 3 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. P.W. 6 is the brother of the deceased and husband of P.W. 3. In the year 1995, in Sarpanch elections A. 1 desired to set up his son A. 2 for the said elections. The deceased being the leader of Vaddera community people, A. 1 requested the deceased to support his son A.2 in the Sarpanch elections. The deceased showed disinterest in the village politics on the ground that he being an employee had no interest in the village politics. Ultimately one M. Nagabhusanaiah was unanimously elected on the advice of one Venugopal Reddy of Kothakota. As the deceased failed to support the candidature of the son of A. 1 in the Sarpanch elections, A. 1 had developed ill-feeling against the deceased.
6. On 12-9-1995, P.Ws. 1 to 6 and others were engaged in carrying out weeding operation in the onion field of the deceased. Around 2 p.m. on the same day the deceased went to his field to supervise the work and around 3 p.m. P.Ws. 1 to 3, 6 and the deceased took their meals. After completing their in the field, P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 6 and the deceased and others started returning home from the field. When they came near the cotton field of one Manikya Reddy, which is at a distance of one and a half furlongs from the field of the deceased, all the accused emerged from the said field in which they were hiding in the standing crop which is to the height of 3 feet armed with bombs and hunting sickles. A. 1 hurled bomb on the deceased. The other material witnesses were walking at a distance of 10 to 15 feet away from the deceased. A.1 hurled the bomb on the deceased which hit on the right flank of the deceased. Thereafter A.1, who was having an hunting sickle in his hand, tried to attack the deceased with the hunting sickle. The deceased raised his left hand to ward of the blow. The ring finger of the left hand of the deceased was wounded. The deceased started running from the place of incidence being chased by the accused and attacked him with hunting sickles indiscriminately with an intention to kill him. The deceased fell down at Jalakalamma Bavi. Then the accused indiscriminately attacked him with hunting sickless and after attack they ran towards Maramdoddi. As the accused were armed with bombs none of the prosecution witnesses could come to the rescue of the deceased. After the accused left the place they went to the deceased and found him dead with bleeding injuries.
7. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 remained at the dead body and required P.W. 1 to go to police station to lodge a complaint, who then went to C. Belgal police station and gave a report. P.W. 8, who was present in the police station, registered a case in Cr. No. 24 of 1995 under Sections 147, 148 and 302, IPC read with Section 149, IPC and issued express first information report under Ex. P. 1 to all the concerned. P.W. 8 then informed' about the occurrence through V.H.P. to P.W. 9 the Circle Inspector of police. P.W. 8 took up investigation and left the police station along with P.W. 1. They reached the scene of offence. When they reached the scene of offence P.W. 9 was also present there. P.W. 8 then handed over the copy of the first information report Ex. P. 5 to P.W. 9.
8. On 13-9-1995, around 7 a.m. P.W. 9 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 7. During the course of inquest he examined blood relations of the deceased and prepared Ex. P. 4 inquest report. Ex. P. 6 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. P.W. 9 also noticed the burnt houses of A. 1 and prepared the Ex. P. 7 rought sketch of the burnt and damaged house of A. 1.
9. On receipt of requisition for conducting postmortem examination P.W. 4 Professor of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 13-9-1995 and issued Ex. P. 2 postmortem certificate. P.W. 4 opined that the cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Necessary permission was also sought by P.W. 9 from the District Collector and the Magistrate for prosecuting A. 1 under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the permission letter was marked through P.W. 5 is Ex. P. 3.
10. On 4-10-1995, P.W. 9 arrested all the accused near Polakal Z.P. High School and seized one country made bomb each from A. 1 and A.8 and hunting sickles from A. 3, A. 5, A. 7 and A. 9. After receiving Ex. P. 10 F.S.L. report P.W. 9 laid charge sheet in the Court.
11. In support of the prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 9 were examined and got marked Exs. P1 to P. 10 and M.Os. 1 to 7. On behalf of the defence D.W. 1 was examined and Exs. D. 1 to D. 5 were marked. .
12. After the completion of the trial the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put to all the accused persons Under Section 313, Cr. P.C. The plea of the accused was one of denial. However, the trial Court found the accused guilty of committing various offences and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as indicated above. This decision of the trial Court dt. 20-1-1998 in SC No. 53 of 1997 is assailed by A. 1 to A. 5 and A. 7 to A. 10 before this Court.
13. On behalf of the appellants-accused Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel along with Mr. C. Praveen Kumar attacked the judgment of the Sessions Court on three grounds. According to him, there are number of circumstances which indicate that P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 6 have not witnessed the incidence. The counsel submitted that if it is to be accepted that A. 1 hurled bomb at the deceased, in the first information report given by P.W. 1 in Ex. P. 1 there is no reference about the hurling of bomb by anybody at the deceased. It is secondly contended by the learned senior Counsel that as per the version of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 6 they were going along with the deceased after wedding work was completed. If the material witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 6 were in the company of the deceased, when bomb was hurled on the deceased, the material witnesses would have certainly received some splinter injuries. In the absence of splinter injuries being received by these witnesses, it is highly probable that these witnesses were also present along with the deceased at the time of the incidence. It is thirdly contended that at the time of the postmortem examination as many as nine injuries were found on the body of the deceased out of which two injuries are attributed to A. 1 and the other injuries are attributed to other nine accused . According to the learned senior counsel, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 6 indicate that all the accused indiscriminately attacked the deceased and if it be so, there should be more injuries on the body of the deceased than nine injuries. The counsel therefore submitted that after medical opinion as found in postmortem report that the cause of injury No. 3 relates to bomb, the version of the prosecution has been twisted to suit the medical evidence. According to the learned counsel, these three circumstances would throw the case of the prosecution and therefore pleaded that the case of the prosecution is to be rejected and the accused are liable to be acquitted. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that when the Court below has given benefit of doubt for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC to A. 2 to A. 5 and A. 7 to A. 10, there is no justifying ground not to extend that benefit of doubt to A. 1 also who is alleged to have participated along with the other accused. It is lastly submitted that the overt acts attributed to the accused are not consistently mentioned throughout the proceedings as is evident from the fact that under Ex. P. 1 no mention was made by P. W. 1 about hurling of bomb by A. 1 on the deceased. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses shall be viewed with circumspection and benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused.
14. Supporting his contention the learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka 1995 SCC (Cri) 414. It is also contended by the learned Senior counsel that omission or not narrating a fact as told by other witnesses, is one such circumstance, which should be taken note of by the Court in order to weigh the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, whether such evidence could be accepted for convicting the accused. The counsel stated that when the hurling of bomb by A. 1 on the deceased was not mentioned by P. W. 1 in Ex. P. 1 complaint and when it was mentioned for the first time in the Court by P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 such fact is to be taken note of by the Court while appreciating the evidence, for finding A. 1 guilty of hurling of bomb. In support of this contention, the learned Senior counsel has drawn out attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ram Kumar v. State of M.P. : 1975CriLJ870 . It is finally submitted by the counsel that at best: the offence committed by A. 1 could be brought within the ambit of Section 324, IPC as is done in the case of other accused and punishment could be imposed accordingly.
15. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the country, has taken us to the evidence let in by the prosecution and submitted that merely because P.W. 1 has not mentioned about the fact of hurling of bomb by A. 1 on the deceased, the prosecution case against A. 1 on that ground cannot be negatived. It is also submitted by the learned public prosecutor that what is required under Section 154, Cr. P.C. is that if an information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given either orally or in writing to prosecuting agency, the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such office of police station in such form as the State Government prescribe in this regard. Thus according to the learned public prosecutor, the substance of commission of offence is only to be furnished by the informant which is to be preserved in such form and that information is only to set the prosecution machinery in motion. The learned public prosecutor therefore contended that each and every facet of the incidence need not be given by the informant and therefore pleaded that when the requirement under Section 154, Cr. P.C. is complied with, not giving full details about hurling of bomb by A. 1 on the deceased by the informant P.W. 1 under Ex. P. 1 cannot in any way mar the prosecution case. The learned public prosecutor elaborating his argument further submitted that the omission of P.W. 1 in not mentioning about hurling of bomb by A. 1 would not bind the other prosecution witnesses particularly P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 through whose evidence A. 1 hurling bomb on the deceased has been elicited and therefore pleaded that on this ground the prosecution case cannot be rejected. It is nextly submitted by the learned public prosecutor that it is not as though the prosecution witnesses were aware of hurling of bomb only after postmortem examination which was held on the early hours of 13-9-1995 at 7 a.m. When the inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by P.W. 9 in the presence of P.W. 7, cut injury was also noticed on the body of the deceased which relates to bomb explosion. Injury relate to bomb explosion was found by the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination. P.W. 4 doctor referred to the injury related to bomb as injury No. 3 in the postmortem report. Thus the use of bomb by A. 1 is confirmed and therefore the contention of the counsel for the accused that bomb theory was invented by the prosecution belatedly after the postmortem report and A. 1 has nothing to do with hurling of bomb cannot be accepted. The Public Prosecutor also contended before us that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, as spoken to by P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 with supporting medical evidence of P.W. 4, clinchingly establishes the involvement of the accused in the crime and stated that no justifying reasons are shown by the appellants warranting upsetting of the well-considered decision of trial Court.
16. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and the learned public prosecutor as stated above, the point that arises for consideration is :
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused satisfactorily implicating them in the charges levelled against them?
17. The first and foremost attack of the learned senior counsel for the accused is that P.W. 1 though claimed to be an eyewitness to the incidence, under Ex. P. 1 first information given by him to police, has failed to mention about A. 1 hurling of bomb at the deceased and that non-mentioning of such an important factor at the first available opportunity by P.W. 1 is crucial to the prosecution case. In order to first answer to this contention, we must examine the evidence of P.W. 1 in the light of the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 to find out the implication of P.W. l's not mentioning about A. 1 hurling of bomb at the deceased. It is true that P.W. 1 speaks about this fact in the Court at the time of his examination. The case of the prosecution consistently is that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 and other were in the company of the deceased at the time of returning home from the field work and these material witnesses were about 15 to 20 feet away from the deceased and at that point of time all the accused surfaced from the cotton field of Manikya Reddy, armed with bombs and hunting sickles. Not only P.W. 1 deposed in the Court that the deceased was going ahead of the material witnesses and the distance was about 10 to 15 feet but also indicated that the accused surfaced from the cotton field of Manickya Reddy and that A. 1 hurled bomb at the deceased which hit on the right flank of the deceased. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 also spoke to the fact of A. 1 hurling bomb at the deceased, which hit him on the right flank. They also spoke to the fact of attacking the deceased by A. 1 with hunting sickle, and the deceased with a view to ward of the blow raised his left hand as a result his left hand ring finger was cut by A. 1 with sickle. All the prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 including P.W. 1 deposed that the deceased ran towards Jalakalamma Ravi and there he fell down being attacked by the accused indiscriminately and later the accused ran towards Maramdoddi village.
18. Though P.W. 1 failed to intimate the fact of A. 1 hurling bomb at the deceased, the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 goes to show that A. 1 hurled bomb on the deceased, which is also reiterated by P.W. 1. Therefore, merely because P.W. 1 failed to mention that fact in Ex. P. 1, his statement cannot bind the other prosecution witnesses who have deposed to the fact of A. 1 hurling bomb at the deceased. We are therefore of the view that non-mentioning of hurling of bomb by A. 1 in Ex. P. 1 complaint by P.W. 1 may not vitiate the prosecution proceedings. In the cross-examination P.W. 1 himself admitted the fact of his not mentioning this factor. In view of the medical evidence that injury No. 3 is caused on account of use of explosive substance, the use of explosive substance in the attack is established. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 clearly indicate the hurling of bomb by A. 1. We must say as provided under Section 154, Cr. P.C. what is required is a cognizable offence which has taken place is to be brought to the notice of the prosecution authorities to put the process in motion paving way for further investigation.
19. Insofar as the submission that when all the prosecution witnesses claimed to be in the company of the deceased and that when bomb was hurled at the deceased no splinter injuries were received by the prosecution witnesses and that in the absence of splinter injuries being received by the prosecution witnesses their presence at the time of the incidence along with the deceased could not have been believed by the Court below, we must necessarily say that these witnesses have deposed that the deceased was going ahead of them and was away from them at a distance of 15 to 20 feet. The P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 have mentioned this factor in the evidence before the Court. It may be true if powerful bomb is thrown and when it is blasted it is likely that the splinters from the bomb would fly in different directions and likely to cause injuries to others who are within the reachable distance but that all depends upon the magnitude of the bomb. As is evident from the deposition of P.W. 1, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 the deceased was 15 to 20 feet ahead of them while walking ahead of them and A. 1 threw the bomb at the deceased which hit him on the right flank causing injury. The bomb has physically struck the deceased on the right flank and it is he who bore the gruntals of the bomb. At the time of inquest which was held on 13-9-1995 around 7 a.m. trace of bomb injuries were noticed by the Circle Inspector of Police, who conducted inquest in the company of P.W. 7 and others. P.W. 9, who conducted inquest, collected remants of the bomb and seized blood stained clothes of the deceased, blood stained earth and control earth and later they were sent to F.S.L. for opinion. The opinion of the Assistant Director of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory under Ex. P. 10 reveals that the presence of components of explosive mixure of potassium, chlorate, chloride, arsenic, sulphide, sulphate after explosion. It further revealed that the explosive mixure is used in the country made bombs. It is evident from the report Ex. P. 10 the remants of bomb collected from the place of incidence contained components which is used in the country made bomb. The evidence let in by the prosecution as spoken to by P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 coupled with the supporting evidence as revealed by P.W. 9 and the expert opinion as found under Ex. P. 10 significantly prove the use of explosives in the incidence. Therefore, we have no hesitation to accept the version of the prosecution witnesses that A. 1 threw bomb on the deceased which caused him injury.
20. In the light of the evidence as indicated above, we have no hesitation to hold that all the witnesses were present at the time of the incidence when the deceased was attacked by all the accused persons.
21. The other submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that when it is alleged by the prosecution that all the accused indiscriminately attacked the deceased, only nine injuries are found on the deceased and that out of nine injuries, injuries 1 and 3 are attributed to A. 1 and the other seven injuries are attributed to the rest of the nine accused. If all these accused persons indiscriminately attacked the deceased there would have been more injuries than these injuries and on that basis the evidence of the prosecution is to be disbelieved, we do not think that this submission could be accepted by us. The evidence let in by the prosecution through P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 coupled with medical evidence of P.W. 4 the doctor indicate that the injuries 1 and 3 are referable to the acts of A. 1 and the remaining seven injuries are referable to the other accused. It may be true that when allegations are made as to the indiscriminate attack by all the accused numbering nine there could have been more injuries found on the deceased instead of nine injuries as found by the doctor at the time of postmortem examination. Not finding sufficient injuries may not be a sole ground for rejecting the prosecution case. What is relevant is whether there was participation of these accused in the offence and whether all the material witnesses have deposed about the participation of all the accused in the crime and therefore it cannot be said that an omnibus allegation is made against the accused and such omnibus allegation is to be rejected.
22. Though the learned counsel for the appellants took us to the decisions cited supra about the effect to mention the overt acts consistently and that omission of not mentioning of fact which is told by the other witnesses, the Court has to take note of such circumstance while accepting the evidence let in by the prosecution, there is no dispute as to the principle on these aspects. But, however, we are of the view in the facts of this case the principle has no relevancy. As discussed above, not only P.W. 1, but P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 have categorically deposed in the Court about A. 1 hurling the bomb on the deceased and the participation of other accused in the crime. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses made on behalf of the appellants to discredit the version of these witnesses. Hurling of bomb a fact though escaped the notice of P.W. 1 but at the time of preparing inquest report in the presence of witnesses, P.W. 9 has noticed the injuries on the body of the deceased which is related to the use of explosive substance on the deceased. This fact has also been stated by P.W. 7 who was also present at the time of preparing the inquest report. Furthermore, P.W. 4 the doctor who has conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased has also lent his support to the prosecution version indicating that injury No. 3 is possible only by explosive substance like country made bomb. The third injury as found on the body of the deceased by the doctor is :
Effect of singeing, blackening and yellowish discolouration present over back of abdomen on right side in an area of 21 cm. x 18 cm. with lacerated injury caused by explosive substance at central area, measuring 10 x 8 x 9 cm. Edges of it are averted with irregular torns. In its depth, posterior aspect of liver is found lacerated with measurement of 7 cm. x 6 x 3 cm. abdominal cavity contain 320 ml. of fluid blood.
Thus the contention that not finding more injuries and omission to mention in Ex. P. 1 about hurling of bomb by A. 1 is fatal to the prosecution case and the version of prosecution has to be disbelieved is unacceptable to us in the light of our detailed discussions made above.
23. That leads us to other related questions as to whether the P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 6 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence and whether their evidence could be accepted. As discussed above, we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 about their presence at the time of occurrence as nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to discredit their version to throw suspicion in the mind of the Court about their presence at the time and place of incidence on 12-9-1995.
24. Insofar as the fixing of liability against all the accused as to whether they could be found guilty of committing offence falling under Section 302, IPC or 302 r/w Section 149, IPC the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 is sufficient to hold that A. 1 has hurled bomb and caused bomb blast injury on the right flank of the deceased which relates to injury No. 3 and also injury on the left ring finger with-sickle when the deceased tried to ward of the blow by raising his left hand. Injuries 1 and 3 are specifically attributed to A. 1 by all the material witnesses. As per the evidence, the other accused also joined A. 1 in chasing the deceased indiscriminately with hunting sickles even after the deceased fell down. However, the witnesses could not say which of the rest of the accused caused which other injury found on the person of the deceased as pointed out by P.W. 4 the doctor. As per the evidence of P.W. 4 injuries 1 to 3 are sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 1 is on the head while injury No. 2 is on the back of the neck. While injuries 4 to 6 are simple, injury No. 4 is on the right shoulder blade, injury No. 5 is cut injury on the back of trunk and injury No. 6 is laceration over outer aspect of right thumb. Injury No. 7 is cut laceration over forearm below elbow and injury No. 8 is cut laceration over right upper arm back. These injuries were also not specifically attributed to any of the accused.
25. In the light of the incriminating evidence available against A. 1, he is rightly found guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC by the trial Court, as he is responsible for injury Nos. 1 and 3 which proved to be fatal.
26. As far as the other accused are concerned, they could be brought under Section 324, IPC for having indiscriminately attacked the deceased with hunting sickles. Accused A. 2 to A. 5 and A. 7 to A. 10 cannot be said to have intention to cause death of the deceased, as the vital injuries are not caused from their acts. Therefore, the offence committed by A. 1 is to be undoubtedly held as culpable homicide amounting to murder falling within the ambit of Section 302, IPC. As far as A. 2 to A. 5 and A. 7 to A. 10 are concerned, they are rightly found guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 324, IPC by the trial Court. The trial Court was also justified in acquitting A. 2 to A. 5 and A. 7 to A. 10 from the charge of murder punishable under Section 302, IPC or under Section 302 r/w 149, IPC.
27. As stated earlier, A. 1 is also charged with the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act for hurling bomb on the deceased which hit him on the right flank which injury became crucial for the death of the deceased. In the light of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 charge against A. 1, this charge is also proved and is liable to be punished Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Apart from this A. 1 is also liable to be punished under Section 148, IPC in the background of the allegation that all the accused were armed with deadly weapons attacked the deceased and therefore we find A. 1 also guilty of offence Under Sections 148 and 302, IPC and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. Insofar as A. 2 to A. 5 and A. 7 to A. 10 are concerned, since their participation is proved at spoken to by the prosecution witnesses the allegation that these accused A. 2 to A. 5 and A. 7 to A. 10 also indiscriminately inflicted injuries on the deceased and were also armed with deadly weapons, they are liable to be punished for the offences under Section 148 and 324, IPC.
28. For all the reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
29. Immediately after delivering the judgment in this appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on all these appellants/accused, Sri C. Praveenkumar, learned counsel for the appellants , submitted that in so far as A-2 to A-5 and A-7 to A-10 are concerned, they were found guilty of committing the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under each Court, however the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. The learned counsel stated that immediately after the conviction order passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 53/1997, necessary bail applications were moved on behalf of A-2 to A-5 and A-7 to A-9 and they were enlarged on bail by the trial Court. In so far as A-10 is concerned, he was also enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl. A. No. 207/1998 filed on behalf of all the accused, on 17-2-1998. The learned counsel stated by the time they could obtain bail, they had already served about three months period of imprisonment. He also submitted that they have already paid a fine of Rs. 1,000 / - each under each count, as imposed by the trial Court. The learned counsel further submitted that A-2 to A-5 and A-7 to A-10 are agriculturists and have no criminal background and therefore, requested the Court to treat the period of detention already undergone by them as the punishment. Taking the above said aspects into consideration, we are of the view that the period of imprisonment already undergone by A-2 to A-5 and A-7 to A-10 either before the trial or after the trial is sufficient punishment, which meets the ends of justice. The bail bonds of A-2 to A-5 and A-7 to A-10 shall stand cancelled.