Joymalya Bagchi, J.
Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 05.09.2012 and 06.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - I, Uluberia, Howrah, in Sessions Trial No. 232 of 2008 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364/302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year more for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that on 20.10.2007 P.W 1, Amirul Begum was sleeping with her two sons and daughter in her room. At 2 a.m. she took her daughter Hasina and son Ajijul out answer nature's call. She was holding an emergency light in her hand. When she returned to the varanda of her room, she saw Aspear @ Aspi son of Rasid Molla was coming out from her room taking her another son Jahidul aged around 3 years 8 months on his shoulder. She chased him and tried to snatched her son. Moti Molla and other accused persons Mosiar, Murtaja Molla @ Feko, Sayed Mallick, Manirul @ Moni Molla and Jane Alam Molla chased her and abused her in filthy language. Jane Alam threatened her with a gun aiming at her chest and told her to call her husband if she wanted her son alive. Another house of P.W 1 is situated at a distance of 10 minutes walk from the place of occurrence where her husband was sleeping. The accused persons had killed one Asraf Molla. Her mother in law was an eye-witness to the incident. The accused persons had threatened her mother in law and her husband not to depose in court. As a result her husband was not staying with them. P.W. 1 informed her husband. Thereupon, her husband and other villagers came to the spot and started searching for the child but could not found him. At 3 a.m police was informed over telephone. Next morning she came to know from villages that the accused persons had killed her son and thrown his body in a pond at Kayalpara. It is also relevant to note that her sister in law went to the house of Samser Molla and Badruddaja and requested them to rescue her son but Samser told her that they will not get the child back unless they withdrew their names as witnesses in the murder case. On the written complaint of P.W 1, FIR was registered against the accused persons being Uluberia P.S case no. 341 of 2007 dated 21.10.2007 under Sections 364/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of trial charge-sheet was filed in the instant case and the case, being a sessions triable one, was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - I, Uluberia, Howrah for trial and disposal.
3. Charges were framed against the appellants and one Sayed Mallick who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In the course of the trial, prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. One of the accused persons, namely, Sayed Mallick died in the course of trial.
5. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by judgment and order dated 05.09.2012 and 06.09.2012 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.
6. Mr. Basu, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants strongly criticized the evidence of P.W 1. FIR, according to him, was written by a political personality, Secretary to a Minister in the then State government. He was unknown to the family of the victim. P.W 1 also claimed that she did not know the scribe of the FIR, P.W 14. She deposed that prior to the lodging of FIR, police had come and she had stated the facts to the police officer but had not signed the statement. From the cross examination of P.W 18 it appears that there are gross embellishment between her earlier statement before the police and her deposition in court. Hence, version of P.W 1 implicating the appellants in the alleged crime is not reliable. Evidences of P.W 2 and 3 also suffer from embellishment and/or contradiction and does not inspire confidence. Other witnesses are not eye witnesses and claimed to be reported witnesses to the incident. He also criticized the evidence of P.W 13 and submitted that the said witness was examined one month after the incident. Her deposition in court is not consistent with her earlier statement to the police or Magistrate. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Maiti, learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that evidence of prosecution witnesses viz. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 clearly establish the role of the appellants in the murder of the victim. P.W 2 and 3 were minors at the time of the incident and, therefore, it may not have been possible for them to recount the name of all the accused persons in court or before the magistrate. The roles of the appellants Bodruddoja and Samser are clearly established from the evidence of P.W.13. Evidence of P.W.1 to 3 saw the victim being kidnapped by the appellants, namely, Aspiar, Jane, Motiar and Sk. Mosiare from the room at 2.00 a.m. in the early morning and thereafter around 6/6.30 A.M. his body was found dead in a pond. No explanation has been given by the said appellants with regard to the homicidal death of the victim. On the other hand, P.W.13 claimed that Bodruddoja and Samser had informed her that the kidnapped child would not return until and unless they withdrew from deposing in a murder case. The evidence on record clearly disclose the complicity of all the appellants in the murder of the victim. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. P.W.1, 2 & 3 claim to be eyewitnesses to the kidnapping of the victim Jahidul.
9. P.W.1, Amirun Begum is the mother of the victim and the informant of the instant case. She deposed that she is the second wife of Sk. Jalal, P.W.4. On 20.10.2007 at night she was sleeping with her two sons and daughter in her house. Around 2.00 A.M. she took her daughter Hasina and son Ajijul out of the room to answer nature's call. She had an emergency lamp in her hand. When she returned with her son and daughter to the veranda of her house, she saw Aspear running away from her room with her son Jahidul on his shoulder. Jane, Saiyad, Moti, Masiar, Moni and Mortaja were present with him. She chased them and requested them to return her son. At that time Moti abused her and pushed her. Jane threatened her with a pistol on her chest and told her that her husband should meet them else her son would be murdered. They had two houses- a new one and an old one. She was residing in the new house and the other house is situated at a distance 8/10 minutes on foot. The accused persons had murdered one Asraf Molla and her mother-in-law was an eyewitness to the murder case. The accused persons threatened her mother-in-law and husband not to depose in court. Due to fear her husband was staying in the old house. On hearing her cries local people and her husband came to the spot and searched for her son. One of the neighbours informed the matter to the local police over telephone. On the next day her sister-in-law informed her that she met Samser and Badruddaja and requested them to return the child. Both the accused persons told her that if they desisted from deposing in the murder case of Asraf Molla then they would return the child. On next day at 7 A.M. she heard from a boy of their village that the dead body of her son Jahidul was floating in the tank of Kayalpara. She along with her relations and para people rushed to the spot. As per her request an unknown person scribed the petition of complaint and read over and explained the same to her. She put her LTI on the complaint. There was a dispute between her husband and the accused Aspear Molla over the possession of khas land.
10. In cross-examination, she stated that there is no electricity in their residence and they used kerosene oil lamp. Police did not seize any such lamp. There are torch lights in their residence. She narrated the entire fact to an unknown person who had come to her residence. The unknown person scribed the petition of complaint as per her dictation. She was unaware that the said person was the Personal Assistant of a Minister. She further stated that before arrival of the unknown person, police of Uluberia P.S. came to her. She narrated the entire fact to the police officer who reduced the facts in writing and read over and explained it to her. She, however, did not put LTI on the said statement. She was extensively cross-examined with regard to the contradictions between her previous statement to the investigating officer and her version in Court.
11. P.W.2, Hasina Khatun is the daughter of P.W. 1. She stated that her mother took her and her brother Ajibul out of the room to answer natures call. When they returned to the room she found Aspi @ Aspiar took out their brother Jaidul on the shoulder. Jane, Moti, Saiyad and Masiar followed him. Her mother followed them and chased them. She and her brother went inside the room. She narrated the facts to her relations. They tried to find out her younger brother. On the next morning body of her brother has found floating in the water of the pond. Her statement was recorded before the Magistrate. She proved her signature on her recorded statement. She was cross-examined with regard to the previous statement to the police as well as Judicial Magistrate.
12. P.W 3 is the brother of P.W. 2. He submitted that Aspi, Jane Alam and others left room with Jaidul.
13. P.W. 4 is the father of the victim. He deposed that on the fateful night his wife Amirunnesa Begum, Ajijul and his daughter Hasina along with his son Jaidul were sleeping inside a room in one of his house at Kasmul area. He was sleeping in the other house after the incident his wife rushed to him and informed him about the kidnapping of his son. He rushed to the place of occurrence but could not trace out his son. Subsequently, the body of his son was found floating in a pond. Aspi had murdered Asraf Molla. His mother was a witness in the said case. Aspi, Jane and others threatened his mother with dire consequences in order to discourage her from giving evidence. As a result of threat his mother was staying in his old house. He did not lodge any complaint but his wife lodged complaint with the police.
14. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the step sons of P.W. 1. They are also reported witnesses. P.W. 5 stated that on being asked Ajijul and Hasina told him that Aspi and Jane uncle forcibly took away the victim from the room. On the next day the body of the victim was recovered in the pond.
15. P.W. 6 stated that Ajijul and Hasina told him that Apsear and others had taken away the victim.
16. P.W. 9 is the grand mother of the victim. She stated that on the date of the incident Aspiar had forcibly taken away her grand son Jaidul from the room. They searched but could not trace out his grand son. On the next date his body was found floating in a pond. Accused persons had threatened her as she was a witness to the murder of Asraf by the accused persons.
17. P.W. 12 is the father of Asraf Ali Molla who had been allegedly murdered by the accused persons which. He heard from P.W. 1 that Aspiar, Jane and others had taken away the child from her custody.
18. P.W. 13 is the sister of P.W. 4. She received telephonic intimation about the incident from his youngest brother, Sk. Atibar Rahaman. On the next day in the early morning she left for her elder brother's house at Kasmul. On the way she met with Samser and Badar and requested them to return her nephew Sk. Jahidul Islam who had been kidnapped by Aspi, Jane, Syed and others. In reply, Badar and Samser told her that if her mother deposed against them in the murder case, they will not return her nephew. On the way she heard about the murder of her nephew. She went to the pond at Samruk Kayalpara. She found the body of her nephew flouting in the water. She narrated the incident to P.W. 1. She stated the facts before police officer and Magistrate. In cross-examination, she stated that the walking distance between her house and that of her elder brother Sk. Jalal is one hour. Before that day she had no acquaintance with Samser and Badar. She could not state the date in which she narrated the facts to the Magistrate.
19. P.W. 14 is the scribe of the first information report. He is the confidential secretary to a Minister of the then State Government. He deposed he met P.W. 1 near the pond at Smoruk Koyalpara. At that spot he prepared petition of complaint as per instruction of P.W. 1. He read over and explained the complaint to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 put her LTI on the complaint. P.W. 1 lodged complaint with the police officer. In crossexamination he admitted that he had not acquaintance with the parents of the child. Some persons from Media called him to the spot. He is an active member of CPIM party. When he reached the spot he found police personnel were there. He prepared another petition of complaint in connection with Uluberia P.S. Case No. 147/08 dated 01.05.08.
20. P.W. 7 deposed in the morning around 6-6.30 a.m. he found the body of the victim floating in the pond. He raised hue and cry and local people arrived at the spot.
21. P.W. 8 was a photographer who took photograph of the dead child who was recovered from the pond.
22. P.W. 10 received the written complaint from I.C. Uluberia through constable Sudarshan Pathak. He drew up the formal FIR marked exbt.2.
23. P.W. 11 was a police constable attached to Uluberia P.S. He is a signatory to the inquest report. He took the body of the victim to Howrah State General Hospital where postmortem was conducted.
24. P.W. 15 is the P.M. doctor who held postmortem over the dead body of the victim. He deposed that death occurred 12 to 14 hours from the time of postmortem examination. In his opinion the death was due to effect of smothering and throttling which was due to violent asphyxia and temporarily unconsciousness and secondarily due to ante-mortem drowning. He proved the P.M. report.
25. P.W. 16 gave expert opinion with regard to the cause of death and deposed that death was due to the effect of smothering, throttling and drowning which are homicidal and antemortem in nature. He proved the report marked as Exbt. 8.
26. P.W. 17 is the Magistrate who examined P.Ws. 2 and 13 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
27. P.W. 18 is the investigating officer in the case. He deposed on 21.10.2007 he received an information. On the basis of such information he along with police officers left Uluberia P.S. at 7.40 a.m. They went to village Samruk and found the dead body of a boy floating in the water of a pond near Samruk Kayalpara road. As per his direction photographer took photographs of the body. The body of the victim was lifted from the pond. He conducted inquest over the body. He proved the inquest report. Petition of complaint was submitted on that day to I.C. Timir Kr. Banerjee which was sent through police constable Sudarsan Pathak to Uluberia P.S. and specific case was registered. He took up investigation of the case. He recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He sent the dead body of the victim to State General Hospital for postmortem. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared draft sketch map with index marked exbt. 9. He collected postmortem report. He collected petition of complaint and charge-sheet with regard to the murder of Asraf Molla where the appellants Jane Alam and Aspiar were named as accused persons and P.W. 9, grandmother of the victim, was a witness. He seized articles in the course of investigation. He arrested the accused persons and submitted chargesheet. In cross-examination, he deposed that he had examined P.W. 13 one month after the incident. He was extensively cross-examined with regard to the omissions in the statement of P.W. 1 recorded by him in the course of investigation.
28. Appellant Aspiar examined one Sheikh Rabbani as D.W. 1 to establish the alibi that he had slept with the said witness in his arat shop in the night of 20.10.2007. In cross-examination, the said witness stated that the arat shop is situated on railway land but could not produce any document in support of such claim. He admitted distance between Birshibpur Railway station and house of Aspiar was 8-9 kms.
29. Kidnapping of the victim, Jahidul:-
It appears from the evidence on record that on the fateful night i.e. 20.10.2007 P.W. 1 was sleeping with her two sons and daughter in her room. At 2.00 A.M. she went out of the room with her daughter and son for attending nature's call. When she returned to the verandah of their house, she found Aspiar running away with her son Jahidul on his shoulder. Jane, Sayed, Moti, Masiar, Moni and Mortaja were with them. She chased them and tried to snatch her son away. Moti threatened and abused her. Jane put a revolver on her chest and told her that her husband should meet them, otherwise they would kill her child. Her husband was residing in another house. She contacted her husband and other relations. They were unable to find the child. The child was subsequently recovered on the next morning from a pond at Kayalpara. She along with local people rushed to the spot. Police interrogated her and she made statement to the said Police Officer which was reduced in writing and was explained to her. She, however, did not sign the said statement. Subsequently an unknown person, that is, P.W.14 came to the spot and wrote the petition of complaint as per her dictation which was handed over to the then Inspector-incharge, Timir Kr. Banerjee and treated as first information report. Both P.Ws.1 and 14 admitted that they were unknown to one another and that P.W.14 was a member of a political party and the confidential secretary of a Minister to the then State Government.
30. Lodging of first information report by P.W. 14, a political personality, has been seriously criticised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. He submitted that the first information report is a concocted version which was created in order to implicate the appellants due to political rivalry. He also submitted that the prior statement of P.W.1 to the Police Officer has not been produced in court. That apart, there is gross omission with regard to the details of the incident and the roles of the appellants in her earlier statement to the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) at the time of her interrogation when compared with the contents of the FIR and her deposition in Court.
31. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Although the gist of the incident of kidnapping of Jahidul from the room of P.W. 1 remains constant, however, there are some undeniable omissions in the statement of P.W. 1 recorded by P.W. 18 during investigation with regard to the specific roles of the appellants in the incident. In rebuttal, it has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that the FIR contains a graphic detailed account of the incident implicating the appellants. I would have been otherwise impressed by such argument but for the strange conduct of P.W. 1 who while narrating all facts in FIR appears to have been kept mum when interrogated by police on the selfsame day. It is also not out of place to keep in mind the possibility of roping in maximum number of persons out of political vendetta the FIR at the behest of its scribe (P.W. 14) a politician who is otherwise unconnected with the family of the deceased.
32. Hence, I am of the opinion that evidence of P.W. 1 ought to be treated with some circumspection and it would be prudent to seek corroboration from other sources before one relies on her deposition to bring home the guilt against the appellants. In making an endeavour towards that end, I find that her evidence is substantially corroborated with regard to the genesis of the incident by both her children, that is, P.Ws.2 and 3. Their presence is also corroborated by their mother (P.W.1) in her deposition and both of them have deposed that the victim Jahidul was kidnapped from the room at night. Both P.W. 2 and 3 deposed that they had gone out with their mother to answer nature's call and upon returning they had seen Jahidul being kidnapped in the instant case. Hence, the genesis of the prosecution case with regard to kidnapping of Jahidul from the room at night as depicted by P.W.1 finds corroboration from the depositions of her children, that is, P.Ws.2 and 3. The prosecution case in this regard is well established.
33. However, the most vital question is who were the persons who had kidnapped Jahidul from the room on the fateful night?
34. P.W.1 claimed that she saw Aspiar taking Jahidul on his shoulder and he was accompanied by Jane, Sayed (deceased), Moti, Masiar, Moni and Mortaja. P.W.2 corroborated her mother and stated that while Aspiar was leaving the house with her brother on the shoulder, he was accompanied by Jane, Moti, Sayed and Masiar. However, in her statement before the Magistrate recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., P.W.2 stated Aspiar and Jane along with others had kidnapped her brother. P.W.3 also identified only Aspiar and Jane as the persons who had kidnapped the victim along with others.
35. Analysis of the aforesaid evidence on record shows that the role of Aspiar and Jane in kidnapping the victim has been consistently narrated not only by P.W.1 but also by P.Ws.2 and 3 in their depositions. I am unwilling to give importance to identification of Motiar Molla and Sk. Mosiar by P.W.2 in court as she had not named the said persons in her statement to the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and there is every possibility that the said witnesses had been tutored by her parents to implicate the said appellants subsequently.
36. It is also pertinent to note that none of the reported witnesses, apart from P.W. 4 (father of the victim) had disclosed the names of Motiar Molla and Sk. Masiar as the miscreants who had kidnapped Jahidul. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that it would be unsafe to come to a finding that Sk. Masiar and Motiar Molla were responsible for kidnapping the victim from the room on the fateful night.
37. Homicidal death of the victim - live link between kidnapping and his homicidal death:-
After the kidnapping at 2.00 A.M., the child remained untraced till the next morning. Around 6.00 6.30 a.m. P.W.7 found the body of a child floating in a pond at Kayalpara. P.W.1 received this information and went to the spot along with her husband (P.W. 4) and others and identified the body of the victim. Police personnel also came to the spot and inquest was held over the body of the victim by P.W.18. P.Ws.15 and 16, medical witnesses deposed that the victim suffered a homicidal death due to a combined effect of smothering, throttling and drowning. The kidnapping of the child at 2.00 a.m. and the recovery of the dead body at 6.30 a.m. clearly establishes the proximate link between the kidnapping and his brutal end.
38. The aforesaid circumstance casts a heavy burden on the appellants Aspiar and Jane to explain how the victim had suffered homicidal death. No explanation was offered by the said appellants in that regard. Under such circumstances, the only irresistible conclusion is that Aspiar, Jane Alam who had kidnapped the child (a couple of hours prior to his death) had murdered him and had left his body in the pond.
39. Defence plea of appellant Aspiar:-
Aspiar sought to lead defence evidence through D.W.1, Sk. Rabbani who deposed that he was an Aratdar of fish and Aspiar Molla used to carry fruit business on the western side of his Arat (store room). On 20.10.2007 D.W.1 and Aspiar spent the night at his Arat. On the next day in the evening Police Officer came to his Arat to enquire about Aspiar and he stated such fact to police. In cross-examination, he stated that his Arat shop was on the railway land. He could not produce any license/agreement with regard to his shop. Distance between Birshibpur Railway Station and village Kashmul is about 8-9 km. The alibi raised by Aspiar does not inspire confidence. D.W. 1 was unable to produce any document with regard to his Arat shop situated on the railway land. P.W. 18 (I.O.) was not confronted with any question regarding D.W. 1's plea that the latter had been interrogated by police and had disclosed such fact to them. No reason was offered by D.W. 1 why Aspiar was with him in the arat shop on the fateful night. Hence, I am unwilling to rely on the uncorroborated version of D.W. 1 stated for the first time in court that appellant Aspiar was with him on the fateful night.
Appellant Aspiar and Jane Alam were accused in the murder of one Asraf Molla and P.W. 9, grandmother of the victim, was a witness in that case. The victim was kidnapped and murdered to deter P.W. 9 from deposing in that case. Prosecution exhibited FIR and charge-sheet (Ext.19) of the case involving the murder of Asraf Molla to prove Aspiar and Jane Alam were cited as accused and P.W. 9 was cited as a witness in the said case. P.W. 4 (the father of the victim) and P.W. 9 deposed that they had been threatened so that they may not depose in that case. P.W. 1 stated Jane Alam put a gun on her chest and told her to call her husband failing which her son would be murdered. Hence, the motive of appellants Aspiar and Jane Alam to kidnap and murder the child to deter his relations from deposing in another murder case is well established.
41. Roles of the appellants Samser Molla and Bodruddoja Molla:-
Coming to the roles of the appellants, namely, Samser Molla and Badruddoja Molla I find that their names have not been stated by P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 as the miscreants who had kidnapped the victim. Their role in the crime was sought to be established through P.W.13, sister of P.W.4 who claimed after receiving information over telephone from younger brother, Sk. Atibar Rahaman while she was on the way to the residence of P.W. 4, she had met Samser and Badruddoja. When she requested them to return her nephew who had been kidnapped, they stated that her mother must not depose in the murder case, otherwise her nephew would not be returned.
42. Learned counsel appearing for the State argued that version of P.W.13 is corroborated by P.W. 1 and reflected in the first information report also. Hence, the role of Samsher and Badruddoja as conspirators to the crime is fully established. Evidence of P.W.13 suffers from inherent contradictors and/or inconsistencies. Sk. Atibar R
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ahman, younger brother who claimed to have informed her about the incident has not been examined in this case. In her deposition she claimed she met Samser and Badruddoja while she was on the way to her elder brother's residence but in her statement to the Magistrate she stated that she had gone to the residence of Samser and Badruddoja when the said persons had threatened her, as aforesaid. In cross-examination, she admitted she was not acquainted with Samser or Badruddoja. If that were so, why did she go to their residence and enquire of her kidnapped nephew? Fact that P.W. 13 narrated this incident to P.W. 1 is not corroborated by P.W. 4 who was also present at the spot. Furthermore, P.W. 13 was interrogated by I.O. (P.W. 18) one month after the incident casting doubt with regard to the authenticity of her version. 43. In this backdrop, I am constrained to hold that deposition of P.W.3 that she had enquired of Samser and Badruddoja about the whereabouts of the kidnapped victim appears to be highly unnatural and artificial and I am not inclined to rely on her version to convict the said appellants. 44. If the genesis of the prosecution case is otherwise credible, mere exaggerations and/or embellishments therein would not be a ground to throw out the entire case. Hence, I have made an endeavour to separate the grain from the chaff in the instant case and in the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view while the prosecution case has been proved beyond doubt against Aspiar and Jane Alam, it may be prudent to extend the benefit of doubt to Motiar Molla and Sk. Masiar, Samser Molla and Badruddoja Molla. 45. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to acquit the appellants, namely, Sk. Masiar, Motiar Molla, Samser Molla and Badruddoja Molla from the charges levelled against them. 46. Cra 600 of 2012 is allowed. 47. Appellants, namely, Sk. Masiar, Motiar Molla, Samser Molla and Badruddoja Molla shall be discharged from their bail bonds after six months in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 48. Conviction and sentence of appellant Aspiar Molla and Jane Alam Molla are upheld. 49. Cra 91 of 2013 is dismissed. 50. Bail bonds of appellants Aspiar Molla and Jane Alam Molla are cancelled and they are directed to forthwith surrender before the trial court and serve out their sentences in accordance with law failing which trial court shall take appropriate steps to execute the sentence in accordance with law. 51. The period of detention suffered by appellants Aspiar Molla and Jane Alam Molla during investigation, enquiry or trial shall be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 52. Copy of the judgment along with LCR be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance. 53. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. I agree.