' AJMAL M1AN, J.-This is a criminal appeal and as well as confirmation case in respect of the judgment dated 30-5-1978, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thatta, whereby 4 appellants were convicted under section 302/34 and sections 323/34, P. P. C. The appellants Raheb son of Sher Muhammad and Bachayo son of Sher Muhammad were awarded death sentences for having committed murder of deceased Shadi and Bijar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and were also further sentenced six months' R. I. For causing injuries to Ghazi, Lal Khan and Soomro (hereinafter referred to as injured) and whereas accused Gul Hassan and Hashim were awarded life imprisonment for the aforesaid murders of the aforesaid two persons and were also awarded 12 months' R. I. Under section 323 read with section 34. P. P. C. For causing injuries to the aforesaid three persons.
2. The prosecution case is that the aforesaid four accused had waylaid and attacked five persons, namely, Shadi son of Soomro, Bijar son of Kabool, Ghazi son of Soomro, Lal Khan son of Soomar and Soomro son of Bachal with hatchets and lathis in the evening of 10th October, 1974 at deh Kharian, Taluka Sajawal, District Thatta thereby causing death of Shadi son of Soomro and Bijar son of Kabool and injuries to Ghazi son of Soomro, Lal Khan son of Soomar and Soomro son of Bachal. The alleged motive attributed to which prompted the accused to attack was that in the evening of the preceding day of the incident accused Raheb after having come to know that Pir Muhammad had visited the deceased and the injured on the same evening and had asked them to do harvesting of his paddy crop on his land came over to the deceased and the injured and warned them not to do any harvesting for Pir Muhammad, but the deceased and the injured ignored the aforesaid warning and had done harvesting for Pir Muhammad on the fatal day. The F. I. R. Was lodged by P.
W. Khuda Bux son of Bijar on 10-10-1974 at 5-30 p. m. At the Sujawal Police Station, which was situated about ten miles from the place of the incident. The incident is said to have taken place at 4-00 p. m. On the aforesaid day. In the F. I. R. The complainant had narrated the fact of the visiting of Pir Muhammad with the object of asking the deceased and the injured to do harvesting of his paddy crop on the following day and also the fact that soon thereafter Raheb also visited the deceased and the injured and asked them not to do any harvesting for said Pir Muhammad. It was also stated that the deceased and the injured were coming back after doing harvesting when they were waylaid by the accused and were attacked with hatchets and lathis. It was also stated that accused Raheb and Bachayo were armed with hatchets and whereas accused Gul Hassan and Hashim were armed with lathis. It was further stated that accused Raheb remarked that despite of his asking the deceased and the injured not to go for doing harvesting for Pir Muhammad that happened so, and after that Raheb instigated other !Accused not to spare the deceased and the injured. It was also alleged that while Shadi, Bijar and Soomro were coming back on foot and whereas Ghazi and Lal Khan were coming back in the complainant's bullock cart with him. It was also stated that the complainant had brought the injured in his bullock cart to the police station for lodging the F. I. R.
3. Thereupon, the incharge of the Police Station, Sujawal, A. S. I., Police Miandad registered the case and after that he referred all the injured to the Medical Officer, Taluka Hospital, Sujawal and also prepared mashirnama of injuries of all the injured in the presence of Pir Muhammad and Muhammad Umar mashirs. The A. S. Police also recorded the statements of the injured Ghazi, Soomro and Lal Khan, but could not record the statements of Shadi and Bijar as they had gone unconscious. The A. S. I. Police also inspected the vardat on 11-10-1974 and collected blood-stained earth from there in the presence of mashirs Pir Muhammad and Muhammad Umar. After that further investigation was taken over by Ashfaq Hussain Shah S. H.
0. The injured were examined by the Medical Officer Dr. Muhammad Afzal, however, injured Shadi died at the hospital at about 2.00 a. m. On 11-10-1974, which information was conveyed to the incharge, Police Station, Sujawal. Thereupon, Alma Khan A. S. I. Police went to the hospital in the morning and prepared mashirnama and inquest report of the corpse in the presence of Muhammad and Piroo mashirs and requested the Medical Officer to conduct the post-mortem, The S. H.
0. Ashfaq Hussain Shah also inspected the place of vardat in the evening of 11-10-1974, and, thereafter, he arrested all the four accused from their village at about 4-30 p. m. It was alleged by the prosecution that there were blood stains on the shirts of the two accused which the S. H.
0. Seized. It was further alleged by the prosecution that a bloodstained hatchet was recovered from each of the accused Raheb and Bachayo and a blood-stained lathi was recovered from the house of the accused Gul Hassan and a lathi without blood-stained was recovered from the house of accused Hashim by the S. H.
0. The S. H.
0. Also recorded the statement of Pir Muhammad on 12-10-1974. The second injured Bijar also died at the hospital on 14-10-1974 at about 5-00 p. m. Which information was also conveyed to the Sujawal Police Station. Thereupon, the S. H.
0. Visited the hospital and prepared mashirnama and inquest report of the corpse and requested the Medical Officer to conduct the post-mortem examination of the deceased Bijar. It was also alleged that the S. H.
0. Also recorded the statements of Usman Pareri and Umardad on 22-10-1974 who had also allegedly witnessed the incident. The S. H.
0. Also forwarded the bloodstained articles and weapons to the Chemical Examiner on 28-10-1974.
4. The accused were charged under sections 302/34 and 323/34, P. P. C. But all of them pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges. The prosecution had adduced ocular evidence by examining the Medical Officer, Dr. Muhammad Afzal (P. W. 1), Noor Ahmed Tapedar (P. W. 2), Khuda Bux complainant (P. W. 3), Ghazi (P. W. 4), Soomro (P. W. 5), Lai Khan (P. W. 6), Pir Muhammad (P. W. 7), Umar (P. W. 8), Usman (P. W. 9), Juma Khan A. S. I. Police P. W. 10). A shfaq Hussain Shah S. H.
0. (P. W. 11) and Miandad A. S. I. (P. W. 12). In addition to the above ocular evidence the prosecution had also relied upon the motive and the recoveries of the bloodstained articles referred to hereinabove and the Chemical Analyzer's reports. The learned Sessions Judge discarded the recoveries for the reason that one of the mashirs namely Umar P. W. 8 who was examined as a prosecution witness did not support the prosecution case for the recoveries inasmuch as he stated that no hatchet was recovered from the house of the accused Bachayo in his presence and that accused Gul Hassan and Hashim had produced two hatchets and two lathis and that the police had obtained signatures inter alia on plain (unwritten papers) and that the police also did not make any search in his presence of the house of accused Raheb. There was also discrepancy in the identity of the blood-stained shirts inasmuch as the S. H.
0. P. W. Ashfaq Hussain Shah had deposed before the Sessions Court that the shirts of accused Raheb and Hashim had bloodstained but whereas mashirnama of the aforesaid shirts mentioned that the aforesaid shirts belonged to accused Bachayo and ('Jul Hassan. The learned Sessions Judge also discarded the Chemical Examiner's report because of the fact that the same had become redundant because of discarding of the recoveries for the aforesaid reasons. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of ocular evidence-cum-motive recorded the aforesaid convictions.
5. In support of the above appeal, Mr. Ghulam Haider Memon, the learned counsel for the appellants/accused had urged the following points :-
(1) That on the basis of the evidence on the record, it has been proved that Khuda Bux was not an eye-witness and that the F. I. R. Lodged by him cannot be relied upon.
(ii) That the alleged motive has not been proved.
(iii) That the police investigation was not conducted properly.
(iv) That there are material contradictions in the ocular evidence.
(v) That the ocular evidence is also not reliable for the reason that the alleged eye-witness had deliberately made false statements.
(vi) That the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses inasmuch as they are related inter se and, therefore, cannot be relied upon on the absence of any independent corroboration.
' On the other hand, Mr. Ghulam Ali Agha, the learned counsel for the State has argued that the incident had taken place in the broad daylight and that F. I. R. Was lodged within 1i hours from the time of the incident at the police station which was situated about 10 miles and that the ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence and, therefore, the convictions recorded by the learned Sessions Judge was justified.
6. Reverting to the first contention that Khuda Bux was not an eyewitness to the incident, it may be observed that we were inclined to agree with the above contention, for the following reasons :-
(1) P. W. Khuda Bux in the F.
1. R. Had stated that yesterday on evening time Pir Muhammad came to their village and asked for harvesting his paddy crop to which Shadi, Bijar, Soomro, Lal Khan and Ghazi son of Soomro (wrongly mentioned in the F. I. R. As Soomro son of Ghazi) agreed to do harvesting from the following day. He had further stated that today (i. e. On the day of lodging of the report) in the morning Shadi, Bijar, Soomro, Ghazi and Lal Khan went for harvesting the crop at the evening time they were coming back when they were waylaid by the accused. It may be observed that in the F. J.
R. P. W. Khuda Bux has not given his name as one of the persons who agreed to do harvesting for Pir Muhammad nor he has stated that he had gone for harvesting with the deceased and injured.
However, in the F. I. R. He has asserted that Ghazi and Lal Khan were sitting in his bullock cart and that he carried injured persons to the police station. It may be observed that if P. W., Khuda Bux was not engaged by Pir Muhammad and had not gone for harvesting, it is not explained as to how he reached the place of the incident.
(ii) P. W. Pir Muhammad in his statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. Had stated that he had asked Shadi, Bijar, Ghazi, Lai Khan and Soomro that they should do harvesting of his paddy crop. He had also stated that on the next day Ghazi, Shadi, Bijar, Lal Khan and Soomro came for harvesting. It may be observed that he did not mention the name of P. W. Khuda Bux whom he had engaged for harvesting. It may further be observed that however, before the Sessions Court this witness attempted to improve upon his previous statements and came out with the assertion that he had also engaged P. W. Khuda Bux for harvesting. But the latter statement does not inspire any confidence as it is apparently false.
(iii) P. W. Ghazi in his statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. Also does not mention the name of P. W.
Khuda Bux as one of the persons who was either engaged by Pir Muhammad or had gone for harvesting though in his statement before the Sessions Judge he attempted to improve upon his previous statement.
(iv) The most important fact which persuaded us to hold that P. W. Khuda Bux had not witnessed the incident is the fact that he had not received any personal injury. It is highly improbable that a son would not have run to rescue his father viz. Deceased Bijar along with his companions Gul Hassan and Hashim who were allegedly sitting with him in his bullock-cart. It has been deposed by Khuda Bux as well as by P. W. Gul Hassan and Hashim that after hearing cries Gul Hassan and Hashim ran to rescue the deceased Bijar and Shadi and injured Soomro.
(v) The questions put to the accused under section 342, Cr. P. C. By the Sessions Judge also do not contain any assertion to the effect that P. W. Khuda Bux was engaged by P. W. Pir Muhammad or that he had gone for harvesting.
' In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to hold that Khuda Bux was not present at the time of the incident and his testimony and F. I. R. Cannot be relied upon.
6. Reverting to the second contention that the prosecution has failed to prove alleged motive and, therefore, an adverse inference is to, be drawn against the prosecution case, it may be observed that the motive attributed which had allegedly prompted the accused persons to attack the deceased and the injured is said to be that Raheb had asked the deceased and the injured not to do any harvesting for Pir Muhammad. P. W. Pir Muhammad has deposed before the Sessions Court that the accused party had no dispute with him on land or over any other matter. It has not been brought on record by the prosecution what was the reason which had prompted accused Raheb to ask the deceased and the injured not to do any harvesting for Pir Muhammad. It may be observed that the learned Sessions Judge while discussing the question of motive found another motive though not urged by the prosecution namely, that Pir Muhammad's field where harvesting was done on the land of one Nizar Khwaja and that the deceased and the injured had remained harts on the land of said Nizar Khwaja, and that the accused party was also haris of the aforesaid landlord, who had allegedly terminated their tenancy. The latter motive which found favour with the learned Sessions Judge was not pleaded by the prosecution, on the contrary the accused in replies to the Court questions under section 342 of the Cr. P. C. Had come out with the plea that they were falsely implicated at the instance of said Nizar Khwaja as they had differences with the said landlord. It may be observed that the aforesaid alleged motive, if any, the accused would have against said Nizar Khwaja and not against Pir Muhammad who was merely' a tenant of the land like many other tenants. Nothing has been brought on the record as to when the tenancy in favor of the accused persons was terminated by said Nizar Khwaja, and what was the nature of dispute. In the absence of the material particulars the learned Sessions Judge, in our view, was not justified in relying upon the said motive as a piece of corroboration to the other testimony. It is an admitted position that the prosecution has failed to adduce reliable evidence to prove the alleged motive attributed to the accused persons. It was urged by Mr. Ghulam Hyder Memon counsel for the appellants that as the prosecution had failed to prove motive alleged by it, an adverse inference should be drawn. Reliance was placed on the case of Hakimali and 4 others v. The State and another (1), in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that it is not necessary for the prosecution to set up a motive in every case but where the prosecution had set up motive and failed to establish it, then it is the prosecution which must necessarily suffer on that account and not the defence. Apart from the fact that in the instant case the prosecution has failed to prove motive in our view the nature of the alleged motive is not such which would
(I) 1971 SCM R 432 ' have prompted the accused to use violence to the extent of causing death to two persons and injuries to three other persons. In our view the motive alleged by the prosecution as well as the second alleged motive found favour with the learned Sessions Judge are to be discarded.
7. Referring to the learned counsel for the appellant's contention that the police did not conduct the investigation of the case properly, it may be observed that the above contention is not devoid of any force. There are many apparent reasons on the record which adversely reflect on the investigation conducted by the Police. In this regard the following are some of the facts which may be noticed :
(i) P. W. Miandad A. S. I. Police had deposed that he had conducted investigation of the case upto 5-6 p. m. On 11-10-1974 where after he handed over the papers to the S. H.
0. P. W. Ashfaq Hussain Shah. Whereas P. W. Ashfaq Hussain Shah has deposed that he reached at the place of vardat on 11-10-1974 at about 3 p. m. And that he arrested the appellants accused at about 4-30 p. m. On the same day.
(0i) P. W. Ashfaq Hussain S. H.
0. Had deposed that when he arrested accused Raheb, Bachayo, Gul Hassan and Hashim at about 4-30 p. m. The clothes of the person of accused Raheb and Hashim had blood stains. Whereas Mashirnama Exh. 38 mentions that the blood-stained shirts belonged to accused Bachayo and Gul Hassan. The above recovery has been discarded by the learned Sessions Judge.
(iii) Tbat the incident is said to have taken place very close to the place where the deceased and the injured had gone for doing harvesting for Pir Muhammad on the fatal day. It was necessary to prepare a mashirnama of the place where harvesting was allegedly done in order to ascertain the truthfulness of the story set up by the alleged eye-witnesses. However, this was not done.
(iv) P. W. Umar Bano who (was the only mashir examined to prove the various mashirnamas) has deposed that the police had obtained his signature on plain (unwritten) papers. He has also denied the factum that any search was carried out in his presence in the house of accused Raheb and Bachayo. The above mashir has also deposed that accused Gul Hassan and Hashim had produced two hatchets and two lathis, which statement is quite contrary to what is reflected in the various mashirnamas of the alleged recoveries.
(v) That no mashirnama of the injury on the person of deceased Shadi was prepared by the police.
(vil That the S. H.
0. Also attempted to introduce P. W. Usman and one Umer as independent eye-witnesses not related to the deceased and the injured. One of the aforesaid persons viz. P. W. Usman was examined by the prosecution before the Sessions Judge. The above witness has been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge.
Mt. Ghulam Ali Agha the learned counsel for the State was fair to concede that the Investigation Officer should have prepared a mashirnama of the place where the alleged harvesting was done by the deceased and the injured and that such a mashirnama would have been very material. The af'oresaid facts noticed hereinabove indicate that in fact the investigation was not conducted as was expected of.
8. The remaining contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants relate to the veracity of the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses and, therefore, the same can be taken up together.
' It may be observed that after discarding the recoveries and motive we are left with the ocular testimony plus medical evidence. The ocular testimony of an alleged independent eye-witness P.
W. Usman has been discarded by the learned Sessions Judge and we may say rightly so, as his evidence does not inspire any confidence. We are, therefore, left with the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses viz. Khuda Bux complainant (P. W. 3), Ghazi (P. W. 4), Soomro (P. W. 5) and Lal Khan (P. W. 6). The above alleged witnesses are related inter se. The description of the relationship has been given inter alia by P. W. Khuda Bux who has deposed that deceased Bijar was his father, deceased Shadi was his cousin as well as his brother-in-law. P. Ws. Ghazi and Lal Khan were his cousins and P. W. Soomro is his father-in-law. We have also noticed hereinabove in para. 6, for the reasons mentioned therein that Khuda Bux in fact was not an eye-witness.
' The testimony of the other eye-witnesses, namely, P. Ws. Ghazi, Soomro and Lal Khan cannot furnish safe basis to sustain the convictions for the following reasons:
(i) All the above witnesses have deposed before the Sessions Court that P. W. Khuda Bux was also employed by P. W. Pir Muhammad for harvesting his paddy crop and that he had accompanied them for harvesting on the fatal day. The above statement is false for the various reasons discussed hereinabove in para. 6.
(ii) That all the above witnesses have attempted to introduce two alleged independent eye- witnesses, namely, P. W. Usman Pareri and one Umer Daraz and have deposed that the aforesaid two persons had also witnessed the aforesaid incident. It may again be observed that out of the above two persons only P. W. Usman was examined by the prosecution before the Sessions Judge but his testimony has been rightly discarded by the learned Sessions Judge for the cogent reasons.
It is clear that the aforesaid witnesses have deliberately falsely stated that the aforesaid two persons had witnessed the aforesaid incident.
(iii) P. W. Soomro has deposed that accused Raheb had given him 2-3 hatchet blows on his head.
The above statement is belied by the medical evidence inasmuch as P. W. 1 Dr. Muhammad Afzal has deposed that Soomro had the following two injuries :-
(1) Contused wound 2" x 11" skin deep on the right side of the head.
(2) Contused wound x scalp deep on the right side of head.
(iv) P. W. Soomro before the Sessions Court has deposed that he had regained senses at the police station but in his statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. Exh. 27 he had stated that he had recovered senses at the dispensary.
(v) According to P. W. Soomro a number of lathi blows were given by accused Gul Hassan and Hashim to all the persons i. e. To the deceased and the injured. According to the medical evidence, namely, P. W. 1 Dr. Afzal and the injury certificate Exh. 9 the deceased Bijar had the following two injuries.
(1) Incised wound 1' x X brain deep on vertex.
(2) Incised wound 1" x I f" X brain deep on the vertex.
' Whereas the deceased Shadi had only one incised wound on the left side of the forehead measuring 2" x I" brain deep. The above medical evidence belies P. W. Soomro aforesaid statement that lathi injuries were inflicted on all the persons.
(vi) According to P. W. Soomro no other person than the deceased and the injured persons had done havesting on the land of Pir Muhammad on the fatal day. Whereas according to P. W. Khuda Bux there were about 20 other labourers who had done harvesting at the land of Pir Muhammad on that day, and whereas according to P. W. Ghazi some other persons had also gone for harvesting at the land of Pir Muhammad on that day but he was unable to give the number of the persons before the Sessions Judge. However, in his statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. He had deposed that about 30/40 people were engaged on that day for doing harvesting by Pir Muhammad.
(vii) P. W. Khuda Bux has deposed that they were to get 1/10th in kind of the harvest made by them as their wages, but where in his statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. (Exh. 21) he has deposed that they were not paid for the harvesting done by them on the land of Pir Muhammad nor they were promised to be paid anything. The other witnesses have not stated as to the consideration which they were to receive in return for doing harvesting for Pir Muhammad.
(viii) There is also discrepancy about the number of injuries inflicted by accused Raheb and Bachayo, inasmuch as P. W. Khuda Bux has deposed that Raheb caused hatchet blow to the deceased Bijar and that accused Bachayo caused a hatchet blow to Shadi. P. W. Ghazi has deposed that accused Raheb gave hatchet blows to the Bijar and accused Bachayo gave 2-3 hatchet blows to the deceased Shadi and that accused Gul Hassan and Hashim gave lathis blows to Shadi, Bijar and Soomro. P. W. Soomro has deposed that accused Raheb gave hatchet blow to Bijar and accused Bachayo gave hatchet blows to Shadi and whereas P. W. Lal Khan has deposed that accused Raheb gave hatchet blows to Shadi and that all four accused then gave blows to Soomaro. The above statements are not only contradictory but are also contrary to the medical evidence inasmuch as deceased Bijar and Shadi had no lathi injuries and injured Soomro had no hatchet injury.
(ix) P. W. Khuda Bux has deposed that some of them were carrying sickles in the bullock cart and that after the incident he dropped the sickles and grass at the place of vardat, but the mashirnama of the place of vardat Exh. 37 which was prepared on the following day does not mention any sickle or grass having been found at the place of vardat. Nor P. W. Miandad A. S. I., Police who is said to have visited the place of vardat before the S. H. O. Has stated anything about sickles or grass.
9. We are mindful of the fact that merely the fact that the witnesses are related inter se would not render their testimony unreliable or inadmissible. However, in the instant case as pointed out hereinabove that the alleged eye-witnesses are not only related inter se but have misstated certain facts with the object to obtain convictions, and there are also contradictions on material facts noticed hereinabove. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it will not be safe and proper to rely solely upon their ocular evidence for the purpose of sentencing two persons to death and awarding life imprisonment to the 2 other accused. In our view the aforesaid ocular evidence requires independent corroboration. It is significant to note that not a single accused person out of four accused persons had any personal injury though the incident is said to have taken place at about 4 p. m. i. e. In the day light and that the deceased and the injured resisted the attack. No doubt that the incident had taken place and it is also possible that it had taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution with certain variations but as the alleged eye-witnesses have over-stated the prosecution and in fact were overanxious to obtain conviction, the possibility of implicating an innocent person or more in the instant case cannot be ruled out.
' The appellants/accused Raheb, Bachayo and Hashim are real brothers and whereas appellant accused Gul Hassan is a nephew of the aforesaid accused. It is not uncommon that an aggrieved party' tries to implicate as many members of the accused person's family as far as possible. In the case of Bajoo and 2 others v. The State (1), a Division Bench (comprising of Tufail Ali, Abdul Rehman, C. J. And Abdul Hafiz Memon, J.) (Judgment of which was written by Tufailally, C. J.) while accepting the appeal of three appellants observed that "I am conscious that the case against one or more appellants might well be true, any possible miscarriage of justice is at least partly due, I think to the careless investigation conducted by the police". Their Lordships of the Division Bench allowed the appeal in respect of all the three appellants, though their Lordships were conscious of the fact that the prosecution case might be true against one or more appellants. The above case on all fours is applicable to the instant case. We are in respectful agreement with the above view. We may observe that it is better to let off one or more guilty persons than to hang them, with one or more innocent persons. In the instant case even if the prosecution case 'is to be accepted on the basis of the ocular evidence the question will remain as to how many appellants were responsible for the alleged offences. In our view their identity cannot be determined free from doubts, and, therefore, the appeal is to be allowed as whole. It may also be pertinent to refer the case of Habibullah and others v. The State (2) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe that a witness has to be taken on his own words and if he has made a false concession in favour of the accused persons and has compromised his integrity, his veracity is evidently damaged and that if he is capable of making false statement for one party he is equally capable of making for the sake of the other party. We are also not unmindful of the case Tawaib Khan and another v. The State (3), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe that the rule that the integrity of a witness is indivisible despite its moral virtue, has not been endorsed by the superior Courts of this country without reservations and cannot be accepted as one of universal applications and that "the grain has to be shifted from the chaff" in each case in the light of its own particular circumstances.
We have sifted the record in order to look for an independent corroboration to support the testimony of the aforesaid alleged eye-witnesses. It wa urged by Mr. Agha Ghulam Ali, the learned counsel for the State, that the aforesaid ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence.
In ou view the medical evidence cannot identify the number of the accused person who had committed the offences in question. It may also be observed that there are material contradictions between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence already noticed hereinabove.
' We are, therefore, of the view that in the absence of any independent corroboration, the convictions cannot be sustained and, therefore, we accept the appeal and set aside the convictions and sentences of all the appellants and order their release forthwith if not required under any other law.