P L D 1966 Dacca 422 (PLP)

BAQUER, J.‑There are six appellants before us, namely, (1) Watirullah, (2) Sonaullah, (3) Batir, (4) Rafiz, (5) Afiz and (6) Abdul Jabber alias Sadhu. Of these appellants, Watirullah who was charged under section 302, P. P. C. and Sonaullah who was charged under section 302/109, P. P. C., have both been con victed under section 302, P. P. C. and 302/ 109, P. P. C. respectively and both have been sentenced to death. There is a Reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sylhet, under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of their death sentences. Appellants Batir, Rafiz, Sadhu and Afiz, though convicted under section 302/ 109, P. P. C. along with appellant Sonaullah who has been sentenced to death, have been given the lighter sentence of transportation for life. We dispose of both the appeal and the reference together. The trial was held with the aid of 4 Assessors, all of whom unanimously found the appellant Watirullah guilty under section 301, P. P. C. and the rest under section 302/ 109, P. P. C. The prosecution case was that in the evening, at the time of Magrib prayer, on the 8th of Falgoon, corresponding to 21st of February, 1964, the appellants began to cut eat th and remove earth from the silted up tank of the house of the deceased Jainullah. Deceased Jainullah went near the appellants and raised protest, saying as to why the appellants were cutting earth from his tank. This led to an altercation between the deceased and the appellants. Appellant Sonaullah who is the brother‑in‑law of appellants Batir, Rafiz, Afiz and Shadu, gave order saying "catch the bastard". On getting this order, appellants Batir, Rafiz, Afiz and Shadu caught hold of Jainullah. Sonaullah again ordered Watirullah to deal cutting blow by spade and at this order, appellant Watir ullah dealt a cutting blow on the head of Jainullah with the spade which Watirullah had in his hand. The other appellants thereafter gave up hold of injured Jainullah and Jainullah fell down there in senseless condition. There was serious bleeding injury on the head of Jainullah. The appellants decamped, leaving behind the blood‑stained spade at the spot of occurrence. P. W. 2 Abdul Mutleb and step‑brothers of deceased Jainullab, namely, Hanifullah, Wajidullah and others, including wife of P. W. 2, Chandan Bibi, P. W. 3, took the senseless injured Jainullah to the courtyard of Jainullah along with the blood‑stained spade. Soon thereafter Jainullah expired in the courtyard. P. W. 4 Jainullah and P. W. 6 Harisullah came to the courtyard of deceased Jainullah and saw the dead body of Jainullah and the blood‑stained spade near the dead body. P. Ws. 2 and 3 narrated the occurrence to P. Ws. 4 and

6. In the morning the informant Abdul Mutleb, P. W. 2, Hanifullah and others carried the dead body along with the blood‑stained spade to Jagannathpur police‑station and P. W. 2 lodged the ejahar giving the details of occurrence. The police held inquest on the dead body and sent him to the morgue for post‑mortem examination, and after investigation submitted charge‑sheet against the present appellants. After preliminary enquiry by a First Class Magistrate, they were all committed to the Court of Sessions to take their trial. The defence seems to be that the occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The tank in question in connection with which the occurrence took place, belongs to appellants Watirullah, Rafiz, Batir and Afiz and they did not know anything about the, occurrence. Even if there was any occurrence, then also the accused persons acted in the exercise of their right of private defence. There was also a faint suggestion in defence that P. W. 2 Abdul Mutleb had murdered the deceased Jainullah because there was some trouble between P. W. 2 Abdul Mutleb and deceased Jainullah. Further it was suggested that one Anupa was a divorced daughter of P. W. 2 Abdul Mutleb and deceased Jainullah used to visit Anupa at the house of Mutleb. Appellant Rafiz, in his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, set up the plea of alibi stating that he was not at home at the relevant time and that he was far away selling Chemical articles. The prosecution examined seven witnesses and the defence did not examine any witness. Of the seven witnesses examined, P. W. 1 is Kala Mia constable; P. W. 5 is Dr. A. K. Khalilur Rahman, Assistant Surgeon of Sunamganj, who held the post‑mortem examination and P. W. 7 is the I. O., S. I. Abdul Bari. The remaining four prosecution witnesses are the witnesses of occurrence. P. W. 2 Abdul Mutleb who is also the informant in the case, is the uncle, being father's cousin of deceased Jainullah. His evidence is that there is a silted up tank 10 or 15 cubits off to the west of the house of Jainullah who is the owner of the tank. After Magrib prayer, on the date of occurrence having heard a row he went to the said tank and saw appellants Jatirullah and Sonaullah cutting earth from the tank and the rest of the appellants, namely, Batirullah, Rafiz, Afiz and Sadhu carrying earth and throwing the same on the bank of the tank. Deceased Jainullah was protesting which was followed by an altercation. Sonaullah gave order saying "catch the bastard" whereupon Batir, Rafiz, Afiz and Sadhu caught hold of deceased Jainullah. Then Sonaullah said "strike him, strike him". Watir then struck Jainullah on the head with the sharp side of the spade. The victim fell down bleeding from the injury. His wife P. W. 3 also went there. He carried the injured Jainullah to his courtyard along with Hanifullah, Wajedullah, Giasuddin and Fazar Muhammad. The blood‑stained spade Exh. 1 was also taken there Jainullah expired in the court yard. Next morning P. W. 2 the informant went to the thana and lodged the Ejahar at 9‑30 a.m. P. W. 3 Chandan Bibi has stated that on hearing a row her husband P. W. 2 Abdul Mutleb went towards the place of occurrence 30 or 35 cubits off from their dwelling but and she also proceeded towards that place. When she was half way she heard Sonaullah saying "kill the bastard". Batir, Rafiz, Afiz and Sadhu caught hold of Jainullah. Sonaullah then said "strike the bastard". At this, Watirullah struck Jainullah on the head with the spade Exh. 1 causing a bleeding injury. She and others carried Jainullah to the courtyard. P. Ws. Jainullah, Haris and others came and saw the dead body there with the injury and they also found the blood‑stained spade there. She narrated the occurrence to them. The evidence of P. W. 4 Jainullah is that after Magrib prayer a row attracted him to the house of deceased Jainullah where he found the latter lying in the courtyard with injury Lnd the spade Exh. 1 lying nearby. He heard about the occurrence from P. W. 2 Abdul Mutleb and Chandan Bibi P. W. 3 who told him that Watir struck on the head of deceased with that spade. This witness first deposed on 22‑9‑64 and 4 days after that he was recalled by the prosecution on 26‑9‑

64. On that date he deposed that Abdul Mutleb stated that Batir, Watir, Afiz, Rafiz, Sona and Sadhu were taking earth from his tank and when he raised protest Watir struck him on the head with the spade. P. W. 6 Haris Ali has testified that after Magrib prayer on hearing a row he went to the house of Jainullah and saw his dead body in the courtyard with cut injury on the head and the blood‑stained spade Exh. 1 lying nearby. Abdul Mutleb and his wife narrating the occurrence to him told him that Watir gave the cut blow on the head of Jainullah with the spade. This witness on recall after cross‑examination stated that Abdul Mutleb reported that Sonaullah gave order and Batir, Afiz, Rafiz and Sadhu caught hold of Jainullah and Watir dealt the cut blow with the spade. He was further re‑examined when he stated that wife of Abdul Mutleb also stated to him that Sonaullah gave order and Batir, Afiz, Rafiz and Sadhu caught Jainullah and Watir struck the spade blow on the head. P. W. 5 Dr. A. K. Khalilur Rahman as a result of the autopsy held on the dead body on 23‑2‑64 at 11 a.m. found one incised wound on the value of the skull extending from right parietal region to the middle of the skull measuring 3" x 1" brain deep which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. In his opinion, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the said head injury. The only other witness is the I. O. P. W. 7 S. I. Abdul Bari who recorded the F. I. R. Exh. 1, held inquest on the dead body and forwarded the same to the morgue, prepared rough sketch map of the place of the occurrence Exh. 3 with separate index Exh. 4, seized alamats Exhs. 5 and 5 (a) and after examining witnesses, eventually submitted charge‑sheet against all the appellants. It will thus be seen that P. W. 2 Abdul Mutleb and his wife P. W. 3 Chandan Bibi claimed to be eye‑witnesses to the occurrence while P. W. 4 Jainullah and P. W. 6 Haris Ali have been put forth by the prosecution as witnesses of corroboration. Now, it appears that there was no mention at all of the name of Chandan Bibi P. W. 3 in the F. I. R. It teas for the first time that Abdul Mutleb stated in his evidence in the Sessions Court that she also went to the place of occurrence. Hence, it has been urged by Mr. Abdus Salam, the learned Advocate for the appellants that the story developed by the prosecution at the trial, namely, that Chandan Bibi also saw the occurrence having been present at the spot, cannot but be disbelieved, and that it must be held that she did not go to the place of occurrence. This contention, in our view, is not without substance. A close reading of the F. I. R. would indicate that informant Abdul Mutleb P. W. 2 distinctly mentioned the names of Fazar Muhammad, Hanifullah and Giasuddin as the persons who were present at the spot when the occurrence took place. Then he stated that another Jainullah, Harisullah, Wajedullah, Kanarullah Choukidar and others came on hearing the cries and that he narrated the occurrence to them. He did not mention the name of his wife Chandan Bibi as having been present at the time of the incident or of even having gone there on hearing the outcries. It will be noticed that there were two occasions to mention her name in course of narrating the F. I. R. but it was not mentioned by the informant on any of these. Mr. T. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the State, has argued that the omission to mention Chandan Bibi's name in the F. I. R. might be for two reasons. Either it was due to a mistake or Abdul Mutleb P. W. 2 intentionally left out her name because he did not like to drag her to Court regard being had to the fact that there were several other eye‑witnesses. The second theory that the omission was intentional cannot be accepted having regard to the positive assertion by P, W. 2 Abdul Mutleb in his cross‑examination that he did state in the Ejahar that his wife also saw the occurrence. It is thus necessary to examine the other contention to see whether the omission was due to mistake on the part of the informant. In this connection, it is to be noted that in cross examination this witness clearly stated that the F. I. R. was read over to him and he found it correct. The sequence of events as narrated by P. W. 2 Abdul Mutleb in his evidence makes it clear that according to him, Chandan. Bibi went to the spot after Jainullah had been injured and the appellants had run away" and after P. W. 2 had gone to the injured. The relevant evidence of P. W. 2 is as under: "Accused Nyatir struck on the head of Jainullah with the sharp cutting side of the spade. After this spade‑blow the other accused gave up Jainullah and Jainullah fell down. Blood fell from the injury. The accused party then ran away leaving behind the spade with which Jainullah was injured. I went to the injured Jainullah. My wife Chandan Bibi also went there." ' Of course, in cross‑examination the witness stated that he mentioned in the Ejahar that his wife saw the occurrence. But that seems to be an utterly incorrect statement inasmuch as there is no reference whatsoever to his wife in the whole framework of the F. I. R. Now, the evidence of P. W. 3 Chandan Bibi is that she followed her husband to the place of occurrence, that her husband was only 3 cubits ahead of her and that her husband was near her when Jainullah was struck with his spade. P. W. 2 Abdul Mutleb who has nowhere stated that his wife followed him closely to the place of occurrence and was near him at the time of assault does not corroborate this version of Chandan Bibi. On the contrary, this version is belied by the evidence of Mutleb himself, according to whom she went after the incident and after the appellants had fled away after the murder. Had Chandan Bibi's version been true, there was no reason whatsoever for Mutleb to omit to mention her name in the F. I. R. and that as an eve‑witness to the occurrence. Thus we do not find ourselves in a position to accept either of the explanations offered on behalf of the State for non‑mention of the name of Chandan Bibi in the F. I. R. either as an eye‑witness or as having gone to the spot immediately after the occurrence. There are, besides, certain important discrepancies between the evidence of Mutleb and that of Chandan Bibi which also, apart from rendering their evidence open to grave doubt, leads to the conclusion that Chandan Bibi did not see the occurrence. As regards the first order alleged to have been given by Sonaullah, the evidence of Mutleb is that he said "catch the basturd" while according to Chandan Bibi, he said "kill the basturd". Similarly, as regards the alleged second order, the evidence of Mutleb is that Sonaullah said "strike him, strike him". But Chandan Bibi's testimony is that he said "strike the basturd". If both of them were present at the spot at the same time, there would not have been such a wide discrepancy in their evidence on a vital point. If Mutleb is believed, the first order was to catch hold of the man but according to Chandan Bibi, it was to strike the man. It is also noteworthy that the evidence of Nlutleb is that he himself, Hanifullah, Wajidullah, Giasuddin and Fazar Muhammad carried injured Jainullah to the courtyard. He did not mention the name of his wife Chandan Bibi as having been one of the carriers. And yet, Chandan Bibi asserted in her examination‑in‑chief. "We brought Jainullah to his courtyard" and then in cross‑examination she stated. "Myself, my husband, Hanifullah, Fazarullah and Wajedullah carried Jainullah to his courtyard. We carried him on our hands. Blood was oozing out from the injury. There were blood marks on the cloth of each of us. It is not a fact that the spade Exh. 1 belongs to my husband. Accused Watir struck on the head of Jainullah with the spade with both his hands. Hanifullah, Fazarullah, Giasuddin and Wajidullah also saw the occurrence. They have been gained over by the accused. I showed the Daroga my blood‑stained cloth. The Daroga asked me to wash my cloth. It is not a fact that I did not see the occurrence. I am not deposing falsely." Hence, she not only introduced her name as one of the carriers but also told a new story that they carried Jainullah on their hands. According to her, "There were blood marks on the cloth of each of us" and she also showed the Daroga her blood stained cloth. She also said that Daroga asked her to wash her cloth. This nature of the evidence as given by Chandan Bibi, indicates some amount of over‑zealousness on her part as a witness. She has sought to make out that she was more effectively present at the occurrence than even her husband, which we find too hard to believe. In trying to support what her husband stated about the occurrence, she has greatly overshot herself. Another significant circumstance in this connection is that in his deposition Mutleb stated at the outset: "This tank belonged to Jainullah and his step‑brothers Hanifullah and Wajedullah. Jainullah was not on good terms with his step brothers Hanifullah and Wajedullah. They have been gained over by the accused and will not depose against the accused. Giasuddin is son of Hanifullah. He has also gone over to the side of the accused. Fazar Muhammad and Kanarullah Chowki dar have also been gained over and they will not depose truly." The names of the above witnesses said to have been gained over by the accused, were mentioned in the F. I. R. by Mutleb. His evidence referred to above shows that none of them would support the prosecution story and it appears to us that for that reason Mutleb introduced the name of Chandan Bibi that she also went to the place of occurrence. He could not make bold to say that she went with him or followed him closely. He only stated that she also went there. This he did after narrating the whole incident and saying that the appellants had taken to flight and he went to the injured, thus clearly indicating that she was not an eye‑witness of the occurrence itself but went there immediately after the occurrence. In cross‑examination, as pointed out above, he made bold to say that he mentioned in the F. I. R. that Chandan Bibi also saw the occurrence. In these circumstances, it would appear that when it was found that the witnesses mentioned in the F. I. R. would not lend support to the prosecution story that the prosecution thought of introducing Chandan Bibi as an eye witness who, as shown before, sought to excel even her husband in unfolding the narrative. The subtle way in which. she had been introduced by P. W. 2 after declaring that the witnesses mentioned in the F. I. R. have all been gained over, may well be regarded as a sinister motive to save a losing situation. Even at that what has been stated in substance is that she went after it was all over and the accused party had run away and when the husband P. W. 2 went to the injured she followed. It is not known how long after. It was in cross‑examination that P. W. 2 was made more eloquent and sought to bring P. W. 3 to the pedestal of a real eye‑witness, he having stated "Myself, my wife, Hanifullah, Wajedullah, Giasuddin and Fazarullah saw the occurrence including the assault. I stated in the Ejahar that my wife saw the occurrence." In such circumstances, we feel that Chandan Bibi is a witness of convenience only, which fact reacts upon the credibility not only of P. W. 3 but also of P. W. 2 himself. As for the other witnesses of corroboration, namely, P. W. 4 Jainullah and P. W. 6 Harisullah, it will be observed in the first instance that both .of them have testified to having been told about the occurrence by P. W. 2 Abdul Mutleb; but the latter did not make any statement in his evidence to the effect that he narrated the occurrence to the aforesaid two witnesses. Under section 157 of the Evidence Act, in order to corro borate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by him relating to the same fact at or about the time of occurrence, is admissible. But under section 136 "If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last‑mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first mentioned." Thus, where a previous statement by a person is sought to be given in evidence under section 157 to corroborate him, he must be examined as a witness on the point before his statement is given in evidence to corroborate him. Applying this principle of law in the instant case, the statements of P. Ws. 4 and 6 that Abdul Mutleb told them about the occurrence, is not admissible inasmuch as the latter made no such statement in his evidence. P. W. 6 Harisullah has made a statement in his evidence that Chandan Bibi narrated the occurrence to him. This statement of Haris also does not impress us much having regard to the fact that we ace of the opinion that Chandan Bibi was not present at the spot and did not see the occurrence and inasmuch as she herself did not witness the occurrence, the question of her narrating the occurrence to Haris Ali did not arise. More over, the I. O. P. W. 7 has said: "P. W. Harisullah did not state that P. W. Chandan Bibi narrated occurrence to him." Reference may incidentally be made hereto another objection as to the admissibility of the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 6 given after recall which has been pressed by the learned Advocate for the appellants, Mr. Salam has strenuously urged that no specific permission was obtained by the prosecution from the trial Court to the introduction of new matters in evidence in re‑examination which was done in the present case. Our attention has been drawn in this connection to the provisions of sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act and more particularly, to latter section. Section 138 provides inter alia that after examination‑in‑chief and cross‑examination of a witness he may be re‑examined by the party calling him and "the re‑examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross‑examination and if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross‑examine upon that matter." Thus ordinarily re‑examination should relate to explanation and clarification of the matters brought out in 6 cross‑examination but new matters can be introduced in re-examination with the leave of the Court. Mr. Salam endeavoured to show that such leave was not taken specifically and as such, the introduction of new matters in re‑examination of P. Ws. 4 and 6 was wholly illegal and unwarranted. The new matters, so far as P. W. 4 goes, introduced on 26‑9‑64 four days after cross‑examination on 22‑9‑64, are as under:‑ "Abdul Mutleb stated that Batir, Watir, Afiz, Rafiz, Shona, Shadhu were taking earth from his tank, that Jainullah raised protest and that Watir struck on the head of Jainullah with the spade." It is the introduction of Batir, Watir, Afiz, Rafiz, Shona and Shadhu for the first time in connection with the taking of earth which has not been stated in examination‑in‑chief that has been objected to. So far as P. W. 6 Haris Ali goes, the lines objected to are as under: "Abdul Matleb stated to me inter alia that Shonaullah gave order and Batir, Afiz, Rafiz and Shadu caught hold of Jainullah and Watir dealt the cutting blow of spade. Wife of Mutleb also stated to me that Shonaullah gave order and Batir, Afiz, Rafiz and Shadu caught Jainullah and Watir struck spade‑blow on the head of Jainullah." Here also the objection is that for the first time the names of Batir, Afiz, Rafiz and Shadu have been introduced and further that it was elicited from the witness for the first time that wife of Matleb also stated to him that Shonaullah gave order and Batir, Afiz, Rafiz and Shadu caught Jainullah and Watir struck the spade blow on the head of Jainullah. In answer to the contention of Mr. Salam, Mr. Talukdar has pointed out a portion of the order sheet of the trial Court dated 23‑9‑64 which shows that prayers were made by the learned Public Prosecutor for recalling P. Ws. Harisullah and Jainullah which were objected to by the defence and after bearing both sides and perusing and considering the records, the Court allowed both the witnesses to be recalled and re‑examined. It can hardly be contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not conscious of the fact that in re‑examination of these witnesses new matters were being introduced and yet he allowed' them to be re‑examined in the manner it was done. It may safely be assumed in these circumstances that the new matters in the evidence of these witnesses were introduced with the permission, of the Court. It may also be mentioned here that the matters deposed to by the witnesses on re‑examination, though new in their evidence, were not new to the case inasmuch as such allegations were made in the F. I. R. and supported by P. W. 2 Abdul Matleb, the informant, in his evidence. We, therefore, find no substance in the objection of the learned Advocate for the appellants on this score. It follows from the discussion and finding that the prosecution story rests on the solitary testimony of P. W. 2 Abdul Matleb uncorroborated by any other witness. In the decision in Nura and another v. Emperor (A I R 1936 Lah. 778) it was held by a Division Bench that in a murder case, where the rest of the evidence has to be rejected; the accused should not be convicted on the solitary statement of one witness only but should be given the benefit of doubt. But it was held by the Supreme Court of India in Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, and Chinniah Servai v. The State of Madras (P L D 1957 S C (Ind) 525), "the proposition that in a murder case the Court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated". Section 134 of the Evidence Act has categorically laid down that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. It was further observed by their Lordships in that case: "The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the Court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution . . . . . . the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence" necessary for proving or disproving a fact." Thus, in the present case the accused persons might be convicted on the evidence of P. W. 2 Abdul Mutleb if he could be held to be absolutely reliable. A scrutiny of his evidence reveals that his evidence cannot attain and has not attained that high standard. In the F. I. R. Mutleb did not state that Chandan Bibi went to the place of occurrence. But in his evidence he asserted that she went to the spot and in the cross-examination he went further and stated that he had mentioned in the F. I. R. that Chandan Bibi also saw the occurrence. It also appears that in the F. I. R. the witness stated that among others Wajedullah came on hearing the outcries and that they narrated the occurrence to him while in Court the witness stated that Wajedullah saw the occurrence including the assault which is marked improvement in favour of the prosecution sought to be effected by this witness. It is also palpable that Mutleb diligently told a lie when he affirmed that Chandan Bibi repaired to the scene of occurrence and also saw the occurrence. He cannot, therefore, be accepted as an absolutely truthful witness. At least, he is not of that standard on which the conviction can be based on his solitary testimony. We may here dispose of another criticism levelled against the merit of the prosecution case by the learned Advocate for the appellants, namely, that for non‑examination of Fazar Muhammad, Hanifullah, Giasuddin, Wazedullah and Kanarullah Choukidar, an adverse presumption should be drawn against the prosecution, that had they been produced as witnesses, they would not have supported the prosecution case, under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. Reference had already been made to the evidence of P. 4V. 2 Mutleb that all these witnesses were gained over by the accused and would not depose against the accused. This statement has gone un-controverted. The defence did not challenge it by cross‑examination. Hence, the question of any adverse presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act does not arise. It may, however, be noted that it is the very prosecution case that these witnesses would not support1the prosecution story., the reason being that they were gained over. The fact remains that there is no legal evidence against the accused, save and except the solitary testimony of P. W. 21 Abdul Mutleb and as we have already held, he is not an absolutely dependable witness and of such a character that conviction in a murder case can be based solely on his evidence. Further there seems to be an unseemly delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. The thana is only 5 miles away. The occurrence took place at 18‑30 hours on 21‑2‑64 and it was not till 09‑30 a.m. next day, 22‑2‑64, that the F. I. R. was lodged in the present case. It is true that the informant has stated in the F. I. R. that they became enfeebled and distressed. Yet we feel that there was no justification for the delay in the morning hours. From 6 to 9‑30 in the morning one, in the usual course, could cover a distance of 10 miles or above. Considering all the circumstances, we feel constrained to allow the appeal which we hereby do allow, and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and acquit them all of the charges against them. The reference is rejected and the appeal allowed. We direct that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other connection. A. SUBHAN CHOUDHURI, J.‑‑I agree. K. B. A Appeal accepted.