M. Jagannadha, J.
1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 1982 dated 21-2-1986. By that judgment, the conviction and sentence of eight accused, has been confirmed. Aggrieved thereby Sudhir Samanta (Accused 4) has filed Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 1987 and S.K. Ejahar alias Asgar Hossain (Accused 9) has filed Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 1987. Six others, namely, Supriya Paria (Accused 1), Gajendra Nath Mondal (Accused 2), Biswanath Bhowmick (Accused 3), Kalachand Ghorai (Accused 5), Nemai Das (Accused 7) and Jagannath Mondal (Accused 8), filed Special Leave Application No. 1656 of 1986 and in that petition, by order dated 13-7-1987, leave was refused for Nemai Das and Biswanath Bhowmick (Accused 7 and 3 respectively). Leave was granted to others and the appeal has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 1987, leaving Supriya Paria (Accused 1), Gajendra Nath Mondal (Accused 2), Kalachand Ghorai (Accused 5) and Jagannath Mondal (Accused 8) as appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 1986. We may also state that there was one more accused, (in all nine initially) before the Sessions Court, namely S.K. Eshak (Accused 6) but he died during the pendency of the case before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court and the High Court, therefore, convicted and sentenced only eight accused. We have before us six accused, in three appeals, namely, A-4, A-9, A-5 whose cases were argued separately and A-l, A-2, A-8, whose cases stand on a somewhat different footing.
2. Before the Sessions Court, Midnapore, all the nine accused stood charged with commission of offence under Section 148 IPC; Section 304 (Part I) IPC read with Section 149 IPC; and Section 323 IPC read with Section 149. By his judgment dated 6-5-1982, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under all the above counts. He sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 148 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs 1000 (in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year more) for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC read with Section 149 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently.
3. It is the prosecution case that in the incident dated 28-11-1979 Gurudas Mondal (PW 1) suffered injuries while his son Chittaranjan Mondal died.
4. The prosecution case is that one lady Ananga Manjari, widow of late Bhutnath Mondal (granduncle of Gurudas Mondal, PW 1) executed a deed on 14-9-1975 in respect of the property in question to a deity and appointed PW 1 as Shebait and put him in possession of lands including Plot No. 1855 of 99 decs, in Santipur in West Bengal. Later she filed a suit for cancellation of the deed, at the instigation of Gajendra Mondal (A-2) and at the instance of another person who was the father-in-law of Supriya Paria (A-l). Accused 2 and Jagannath (A-8) are the cousins of PW 1. Four or five days prior to 28-11-1979 (the day of the incident), Gurudas (PW 1) got information that accused Sudhir Samanta (A-4), Gajendra Mondal (A-2), Supriya Paria (A-l), Jagannath Mondal (A-8) and one Gour Bhuiya had 'conspired' together and were holding out threats to the effect that they would assault Gurudas Mondal (PW 1) and his son and thereupon, Chittaranjan Das (son of PW 1) lodged a G.D. at Tamluk Police Station on 25-11-1979.
5. The further case of the prosecution is that on 28-11-1979, at about 10 a.m., Gurudas Mondal (PW 1) with his sons Chittaranjan Mondal (described as Chitta) (deceased), Kishore (PW 8), Ashish, and stepbrother Bamandas (PW 10) and labourers (such as Madan Jaria (PW 9), Sudhir Mondal (PW 11), Sahadev Mondal (PW 12) and others went to harvest paddy in Plot No. 1855 measuring 99 decs of Mouza Santipur (within Tamluk Police Station), which was cultivated by PW 1, as Shebait of the deity in whose favour the said Ananga Manjari (childless widow of late Bhutnath Mondal) had executed a deed on 14-9-1975. It is the prosecution case that at that time, Accused 1 to 9 came and others in a body armed with lethal weapons like lathi, ballam, katari, etc. and directed Gurudas not to harvest the paddy. An exchange of words followed and Gurudas (PW 1) proceeded towards the western boundary of the said plot and stood on the ail (which demarcated this plot from the adjacent plot belonging to one Abdul Hussain). It is said that there, on the ail, Supriya Paria (A-l) delivered a blow with lathi which hit Gurudas (PW 1) on his right ear causing bleeding injury. PW 1 sat down but then accused Jagannath (A-8) and Nemai Das (A-7) began to assault him with kicks and blows. PW 1 fell down on the land of Abdul Hussain. At that time, his son Chitta rushed to that place to rescue his father but accused Biswanath Bhowmick (A-3) assaulted him with a lathi on his head as a result of which Chitta fell down on the ground unconscious. Then accused Nemai Das (A-7) also assaulted Chitta with lathi. At that time PW 2 (Sachin Bhowmick), PW 3 (Panchanan) and PW 5 (Bishnupada) who were in the neighbouring fields came to the place of the incident. PW 5 washed the wounds of Chitta with a napkin soaked in water in a nearby pond. The injured persons were removed to Mecheda Bazar in a cycle rickshaw van and from there to the Police Station, Tamluk. PW 15 who was the Manager of a temporary cinema hall of which Chitta was a partner, accompanied. At the police station, PW 1 lodged a complaint against the accused. Chitta succumbed to the injuries and died on 29-11-1979 at 5.30 p.m.
6. Thereafter, as stated earlier, the nine accused were charged under Section 148, Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trend of the cross-examination read with the statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was to the effect that the accused were falsely implicated, that the alleged incident a few days before 28-11-1979 was false and so far as the cultivation of the land was concerned, their case was that Ananga Manjari was in possession and not Gurudas (PW 1).
7. The learned Sessions Judge divided the discussion of the evidence into several parts. He first held that, though Plot No. 1855 was not mentioned in the FIR, the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11 showed that the incident took place in Plot No. 1855 only where Gurudas (PW 1), his son Chitta and others went to harvest paddy. He next considered whether there was convincing evidence on record to show that Gurudas (PW 1) was in possession and whether he had raised the paddy in that plot. The learned Sessions Judge considered the prosecution case and held that Gurudas (PW 1) was in possession of this plot and that it was he who raised the paddy there. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge considered whether the incident, as alleged, had taken place. He then referred to the relevant evidence, including the medical evidence, and used the words 'all the accused persons' when he came to the conclusion that
'all the accused persons came up in a body being armed with lathis, etc. when Gurudas and his men paid no heed to the words of three of the accused persons who had come earlier. The evidence on record thus shows that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit criminal trespass upon the land which was in the possession of the de facto complainant and to assault the de facto complainant and his men including his sons. The evidence on record shows that all the accused persons were armed with lathis, ballams, sickle etc.'
Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to hold further as follows:
'Considering the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has convincingly proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons, who more than five in number, assembled together, that the assembling came upon for the purpose of committing criminal trespass and to assault the de facto complainant and his men, that some members of the assembly used force or violence, that such force or violence was used in the prosecution of such common object and the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons at the time of the incident.'
He finally concluded:
'The evidence on record has also proved convincingly beyond all reasonable doubt that all the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and [hat the offence under Section 304 Part I and Section 323 IPC were committed by some members of such as such (sic) as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly.'
On that basis, he convicted the eight accused (A-6 having died earlier) and sentenced them as mentioned hereinbefore.
8. In the appeal preferred by the eight accused before the High Court, the aforesaid conviction and sentences were confirmed against all the accused. The High Court rejected the contention that the incident did not take place in Plot No. 1855 and observed that the omission of Plot No. 1855 in the FIR was immaterial. It held that though the FIR did not specifically mention as to who was assaulted by whom,
'but nonetheless, it is absolutely plain and clear from the FIR that Gurudas and Chitta were assaulted by the appellants, and convincing the circumstances of assault, namely, that the assailants came together armed with weapons, non-disclosure of the individual part taken by the different assailants is not a substantial defect to affect the case of the prosecution,
Sachin (PW 2) and Panchanan (PW 3) were independent witnesses and they came from the neighbourhood, after the incident started and that the evidence showed that there was an unlawful assembly and its object was to commit trespass and assault and in prosecution thereof,
Some members of the assembly voluntarily caused hurt to Gurudas while some others assaulted Chitta which resulted in his death shortly thereafter.'
On these findings, the appeal was dismissed.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for Sudhir Samanta (A-4) in Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 1987 and for S.K. Ejahar alias Asgar Hossain (A-9) in Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 1987 contended that the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court ought to have held that there was no evidence against these appellants that they with other accused formed into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing trespass and assault and further that there was no evidence that they had any motive or were carrying any weapons nor that they hit PW 1 or Chitta with the said weapons resulting in injury to PW 1 and death of Chitta. Even assuming they were present at the time of the incident somewhere near the scene of the offence, it could not be assumed that they had become part of the unlawful assembly and shared the common object of committing the offence of criminal trespass and assault. In fact, there were a large number of villagers -- even according to the prosecution -- and there was no material to distinguish these two appellants from the rest of the crowd and include them in the list of accused along with those against whom specific acts were alleged.
10. Learned counsel for the four other appellants, namely, A-l, A-2, A-5 and A-8 in Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 1987 contended that the infirmity in the prosecution case against Kalachand Ghorai (A-5) was no different from the infirmities against accused A-4 and A-9. Even assuming A-5 was present on the scene, his presence was not different from that of the other villagers, there was no proof that he was part of the unlawful assembly and in fact, no specific act was attributed to him. So far as the others, A-l, A-2 and A-8 were concerned, learned counsel made a submission that firstly the evidence adduced was not sufficient to treat them as part of the unlawful assembly or that they had taken specific part in the actual incident of criminal trespass and assault on PW 1 and Chitta and alternately the conviction against A-l, A-2 and A-8 was liable to be converted into one under Section 304 Part II IPC inasmuch as the ingredients of Section 304 Part I IPC have not been fulfilled.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that though there was no specific evidence as to the role of A-4, A-9 and A-5, still there was evidence that they were members of the unlawful assembly and that that was sufficient to maintain their conviction and sentence. It was not necessary to prove any overt act in respect of every person who was a member of an unlawful assembly. So far as accused A-l, A-2 and A-8 were concerned they were rightly convicted under the various provisions referred to hereinbefore and for the specific acts attributed to them. In particular, their hitting Chitta on the 'head' brought the case under Section 304 Part I and therefore the plea to convert the conviction into one under Section 304 Part II should not be accepted.
12. We have already extracted the relevant portions from the judgments of the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court and the words underlined by us in the said paragraphs show that all the accused A-l to A-9 were dealt with together though at the same time it was also stated that there was proof that 'some of these accused' have dealt the blows on PW 1 and Chitta. We have, therefore, to consider whether the contention of the appellants that the approach of the Sessions Court and of the High Court in this behalf was not correct, has any merit.
13. We have heard the submission of the learned counsel limited to these aspects and have been taken through the evidence. Ordinarily, this Court does not review the findings of fact if based on evidence considered by the High Court and the Sessions Court but where this Court is satisfied that the courts have not considered the evidence of the witness from the proper perspective or that they have gone by general conclusions drawn from vague or generalised evidence, it may sometimes become necessary to go into the evidence to find out if the approach, having regard to the facts of the case, was proper. In the present case, we find that no effort was made by the Sessions Court and the High Court to find whether accused A-4, A-5 and A-9 were at all members of an unlawful assembly and we feel, therefore, that the High Court and Sessions Court ought to have gone into these aspects in greater detail.
14. While it is true that before a person could be held to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it is not necessary that he should have done some overt act or been guilty of some omission in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is well settled that first, it must be established that he was a member of the unlawful assembly. When, as in this case, a large number of villagers were present at the scene of the offence and common object and specific acts were attributed only to a few among the nine accused and there was nothing so far as A-4, A-9 and A-5 were concerned as regards the common object or overt acts or motive, the question arises whether they were only members of the general crowd or whether there was proof that A-4, A-9 and A-5 went there with the same common object as those accused to whom overt acts were attributed. It has been held that in such a context, and with a view to guard against convicting persons who were not part of the unlawful assembly, it is permissible to consider the nature of the gathering, how they assembled and what weapons they were armed with, how they proceeded and further the part played by them.
15. At the outset, we may point out that the medical evidence of PW 13, who examined PW 1 and Chitta on 28-11-1979 at the Tamluk S.D. Hospital initially, is to the effect that PW 1 sustained a single lacerated injury over the center of the scalp measuring 2' x 1/2' x 1/2'. It appeared to him that it was a single injury. PW 14, another doctor who examined him at 11.15 p.m. on 28-11-1979 when Chitta was brought to S.S.K.M. Hospital said Chitta was semi-conscious. Chitta died at 5.30 p.m. on 29-11-1979 and PW 20 who conducted the post-mortem said that he found one stitched wound over the vault of the skull one linear crack-fracture over the middle of the left parietal bone to down-left-parietal region and one abrasion over the left shoulder and that death might be homicidal. In other words, the medical evidence reveals one simple lacerated injury on the right ear of PW 1 and two injuries on Chitta, one on the skull and another on the parietal region as stated above and one abrasion.
16. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, PW 4, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 7 were declared hostile. Among the other witnesses, we have of course the evidence of PW 1, Gurudas, who is an injured witness, and the evidence of Sachin Bhowmick (PW 2) and Panchanan Bhowmick (PW 3). PWs 2 and 3 have been rightly treated as independent witnesses, they were ploughing the adjoining fields and they were eyewitnesses. PW 1's relatives are PW 8, Kishore who is the son of PW 1; and PW 10, stepbrother of the deceased; labourers employed by PW 1 are PW 9 (Madan Jena), PW 11 (Sudhir Mondal) and Sahadev Mondal (PW 12).
17. PW 1, in his evidence, refers to the manner in which dispute regarding land came into existence and speaks to his possession of the plot in question. He says that Gajendra Nath Mondal (A-2) is his cousin and it was Gajendra who got Ananga Manjari to file the suit. 4/5 days before 28-11-1979, he got information that Sudhir Samanta (A-4), Gajendra (A-2) Supriya (A-l) and Jagannath (A-8) had conspired together and had been holding out threats to the effect that they would assault PW 1 and others. His son Chitta lodged a G.D. in the police station on 25-11-1979. PW 1 knows all the accused, they are his co-villagers. A-1 is the son-in-law of Gajendra's brother (i.e. A-2's brother), A-8 is also related as his (PW 1's) cousin. Accused Biswanath (A-3) cultivates land for Gajendra (A-2). PW 1 says that the accused persons are members of S.U.C. party. Thus, it is clear that A-2, A-8 and A-3 are related to PW 1 while A-3 and A-8 are A-2's supporters. As regards the incident on 28-11-1979, PW 1 says that first A-l, A-8 and A-2 came on to the field i.e. Plot No. 1855 and directed PW 1 not to harvest the paddy but to have the dispute amicably settled by adjudication. (The civil suit was already pending.) PW 1 says, he did not pay heed and in fact told them that he would harvest the paddy and then he started harvesting the paddy. Then A-l, A-8 and A-2 left and about 5 minutes afterwards came back with all the remaining accused and 'several others' whom, he did not know -- with lathi, ballams, katani and sickle and directed PW 1 and others not to harvest. There was hot exchange of words and when PW 1 proceeded to the western boundary, and stood on the ail, A-l hit him with a lathi. It hit his right ear causing a bleeding injury. PW 1 sat down on the ail and then Jagannath (A-8) and Nemai (A-7) began to kick him and hurled blows. PW 1 fell down into the adjacent plot of Abdul Hussain. Then Chitta came to the rescue of PW 1. At that time Biswanath (A-3) inflicted a lathi blow on China's head. Chitta fell down unconscious. Thereafter Nemai (A-7) hurled a blow with lathi on Chitta.
18. Though PW 1 speaks of conspiracy, 4-5 days before the incident to which Sudhir Samanta (A-4) is said to be a party, we find that later Section 120-B was dropped. The case against A-4 was that he was a member of an unlawful assembly. From the evidence of PW 1 set out above, it does not show why A-4, A-5 and A-9 were treated as the accused rather than being treated as part of 'several others' and there is nothing in the evidence either expressly or otherwise to say that A-4, A-5 and A-9 came there on 28-11-1979 with the common object of trespass and assault on PW 1 and Chitta on the fateful day.
19. PW 2, Sachin Bhowmick, ploughs an adjacent land. Accused Biswanath (A-3) is his cousin. He says that when he was in his field at 9/9.30 a.m. he saw PW 1 harvesting paddy with his brother PW 10 and sons and labourers. The property belonged to Ananga Manjari and PW 1 cultivated the land that year. At that time Supriya (A-l), Jagannath (A-8) and Gajendra (A-2) came there and asked PW 1 not to harvest the crop. PW 1 did not pay heed and continued harvesting. The above persons left and came back after 5 minutes along with the accused persons and along 'with some others'. Lathis were 'in the hands of 2 or 3 persons'. This shows that there were no ballams, sickles or other weapons and that even the lathis were there only with 2 or 3 persons. A-l hit PW 1 with lathi which injured PW 1's right ear and he sat down, and '5 or 6 persons' amongst the persons began to assault PW 1 with kicks and blows. Chitta rushed there and then Biswanath (A-3) hit him on his head with lathi. Accused persons left behind them 'one or two lathis'. (In fact, the police recovered one big lathi and one small lathi from the scene of offence.) PW 1 stated that Chitta was assaulted with a big lathi. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not recollect whether he stated before the Investigating Officer that 5 or 6 persons also assaulted PW 1 with kicks and blows. He could not also recollect whether he stated before the Investigating Officer that at first Jagannath (A-8), Supriya (A-l) and Gajendra (A-2) came to the spot. Thus except to say that accused A-4, A-5 and A-9 came there along with other accused and villagers, PW 1 could not say whether A-4, A-5 and A-9 had come there with any common objective such as committing trespass and assault as contemplated by some of the other accused.
20. PW 3 is the brother of PW 2 and cultivates a neighbouring piece of land. He knows all the accused. Accused Biswanath (A-3) is his cousin. He refers to the land dispute and says that initially Jagannath, Gajendra and Supriya (A-8, A-2, A-l) came and asked PW 1 not to harvest but PW 1 did not agree and proceeded to go ahead with the harvesting. Then the abovesaid three persons left and came there late with all the accused persons 'being armed with lathis'. (This conflicts with the evidence of PW 2 that only 2 or 3 persons were carrying lathis.) He also speaks to the fact that the accused persons asked PW 1 to await the adjudication of the civil dispute but PW 1 did not agree. Then Gajendra (A-2) ordered assault and thereupon Supriya (A-l) hurled a lathi blow which hit PW 1 on his right ear, and he fell down. Chitta rushed there and Biswanath (A-3) hit him with a lathi on his head. He fell down unconscious. The accused persons ran away later. Before the Investigating Officer, he did not state about Supriya, Jagannath and Gajendra (A-l, A-8 and A-2) coming to PW 1 earlier.
21. So, even this evidence of PW 3 is general and vague and it does not show that A-4, A-5 and A-9 had come there with any common objective and for the purpose of forming an unlawful assembly to trespass and to assault PW 1 and Chitta.
22. So far as the evidence of the labourers PWs 9, 11 and 12 is concerned, neither the Sessions Court nor the High Court has relied upon any specific part of their evidence to show that A-4, A-5 and A-9 had come to the scene of incident with the common objective of trespass and assault.
23. The case of conspiracy 4 or 5 days prior to 28-11-1979 which could bring the case under Section 120-B -- based on the G.D. report of Chitta, referred to by PW 1 -- having been given up, we have no positive material to show that A-4, A-5 and A-9 came there with the common objective of trespass and assault as members of an unlawful assembly and not as part of the group of other villagers present.
24. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that it will not be safe to treat Sudhir Samanta (A-4), Kalachand Ghorai (A-5) and S.K. Ejahar alias Asgar Hossain (A-9) as part of the unlawful assembly and make them vicariously liable for the overt acts of the other accused which resulted in an injury to PW 1 and death of Chitta. We, therefore, set aside their conviction under all the provisions under which they were charged and acquit them.
25. We shall next take up the question whether the prosecution has established the guilt of A-l, A-3 and A-8 under Section 304 Part I IPC or whether the facts proved can only bring their case under Section 304 Part II IPC.
26. We shall once again first refer to the medical evidence. PW 13, Dr S. Khatua who examined Chitta at 1.00 p.m. in the Taluk hospital on 28-11-1979 stated that he found one big lacerated injury over the center of the scalp and at that time, the patient complained of severe headache. That means Chitta had regained consciousness. Dr A.K. Rakshit, PW 14 of S.S.K.M Hospital, Calcutta (who examined Chitta at 11.15 p.m. on 28-11-1979) said that Chitta was semi-conscious, Chitta expired at 5.30 p.m. on 29-11-1979, (i.e. nearly 32 hours after the incident). Dr P.B. Das (PW 20) who conducted the post-mortem examination on Chitta on 3-12-1979 stated that he found one stitched wound over the vault of the skull, one linear crack-fracture over the middle of the left parietal bone-down-left parietal region. He also found one abrasion over the left shoulder. He said that death 'might be homicidal in nature' and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.
27. PW 1, father of Chitta, stated that initially Supriya, Jagannath and Gajendra (i.e. A-l, A-8 and A-2) came for the plot and directed him not to harvest paddy and have it settled by adjudication. (The civil suit was already pending in court.) PW 1 paid no heed. When the accused again returned after 5 minutes, they again directed him not to harvest the paddy but PW 1 did not agree. Then there was hot exchange of words, initially PW 1 was hit, later Chitta came there and was given one blow on his head with a lathi. Later A-3, Biswanath hit Chitta on his head. Nemai (A-7) hit Chitta on his body. PW 2 says only 2 or 3 of the accused carried lathis. According to him even after the accused returned after 5 months after the first incident, they asked PW 1 not to harvest and await the adjudication by civil court. PW 3 says that after the accused went back and came after 5 minutes even then they asked PW 1 not to cut the crop but await the adjudication in court. PW 2 and PW 3 also say that one blow was given by A-l and one by A-3 on the head of Chitta and A-7 gave blows on his body. Chitta lost consciousness, but regained it on way to Taluk hospital, and later in the night, he was semiconscious and died next evening on 29-11-1979 at 5.30 p.m. This is the relevant material on this aspect.
28. To start with, there is no charge under Section 302 IPC. The charge itself was under Section 304 Part I. Hence the question of accused having common intention -- as required for the third clause of Section 300 IPC --to cause bodily injury to Chitta and intending such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, has to be excluded, even going by the prosecution case. Therefore the evidence of the doctor, PW 20, cannot help in bringing the case under Part I of Section 304 IPC. Further, the circumstance that the accused pleaded with PW 1, the father of the deceased Chitta, more than once to have the land dispute adjudicated through court because the matter was already in court, the fact that A-l gave only one blow with lathi though on the head of Chitta and stopped there and that later A-3 hit Chitta with lathi in the parietal region and A-7 on the body, and the fact that Chitta gained consciousness soon and was alive for over 32 hours after the incident -- all these facts lead to the inference that each of these accused did not have any intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. They can only be imputed with knowledge that if force was used it was likely to cause death. Therefore, the case, in our view, falls under Section 304 Part II and not under Section 304 Part I IPC.
29. For the aforesaid reasons, we modify the conviction of A-l, A-2 and A-8 to one under Section 304 Pan II read with Section 149 IPC and award them a sentence of 5 years. They are ordered to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
30. A-4, A-5 and A-9 are acquitted of all charges as already stated. Their bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled.
31. Appeals allowed as stated above.