This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1969 filed by appellants Allah Rakha son of Muhammad Sharif; (2) Muhammad Siddiq son of Allah Ditta, (3) Mohabbat Ali son of Muhammad Siddiq and (4) Natha son of Muhammad Sharif caste Jat, residents of Kachi Abadi, Ghorey Shah, Lahore. Appellant Muhammad Siddiq has a brother Muhammad Sharif whose sons are Allah Rakha appellant No. 1 and Natha appellant No. 4. Appellant No. 3 is son of appellant No. 2. They have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore for various offences by means of his judgment and order, dated 31-7-1969. Appellants Nos. 1 and 3 have been convicted under section 302/34, P. P.
C. And sentenced to transportation for life each. All the accused have also been convicted under section 325/34, P. P. C. On three counts for causing injuries to Muhammad Yusuf (P. W. 13), Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 14) and Mst. Mehtab Bibi (P. W. 16) and sentenced to two years' R. r on each of these counts. The sentences are to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case is that in the Kachi Abadi of a locality known as Ghorey Shah in Lahore at about Namazwela on the morning of 17-8-1968, Mst. Mehtab Bibi threw a heap of filth and sweeping (goat-dung) at an open place located near the kitchen of Allah Rakha appellant.
Muhammad Siddiq appellant took an objection, on which an altercation ensued. Muhammad Siddiq appellant then asked the three other appellants to deal with the complainant party, whereupon a fight ensued. The complainant party consisted of Abdul Ghafoor deceased in this case, Muhammad Yusuf (P. W. 13) brother of the deceased, Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 14) father of the deceased and Mst. Mehtab Bibi (P. W. 16) mother of the deceased. Abdul Ghafoor deceased was armed with a dranti, Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 14) father of the deceased had a sofa, and Muhammad Yusuf (P. W. 13) had a sort. They caused injuries to Allah Rakha and Muhabbat Ali appellants. The other two appellants Muhammad Siddiq and Natha did not receive any injuries.
From the side of the complainant, injuries were received by Abdul Ghafoor deceased, Muhammad Yusuf (P. W. 13), Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 14) and Mst. Mehtab Bibi (P. W. 16). The occurrence besides the aforesaid injured P. Ws., was witnessed by one Muhammad Boota (P. W. 15).
Muhammad Boota (P. W. 15) took Abdul Ghafoor (deceased), Ghulam Muhammad and Mst.
Mehtab Bibi to the hospital, while Muhammad Yusuf`(P. W. 13) remained on the Hussain (P. W. 17) reached the place of occurrence at 8-20 a.m., and recorded the statement of Muhammad Yusuf (P. W. 13) in the form of Exh. P. A., which was sent to the Misri Shah Police Station where formal F. I. R.
(Exh. P. A./1) was prepared on its basis by Muhammad Rafiq A. S. I. (P. W. 7). The investigation was conducted by Ashiq Hussain A. S. I. (P. W. 17) and Faiz Ahmad S. I. (P. W. 18). Allah Rakha and Muhabbat Ali appellants were arrested at 5 a.m., on the day of occurrence. Natha and Muhammad Siddiq appellants were arrested at about p.m. On 19-8-1968. On 21-8-1968, during interrogation, Muhammad Siddiq accused produced hatchet (Exh. P. 4), dang (Exh. P. 5) iron-bars (Exh. P. 7) and.
Another dang (Exh. P. 8), out of which hatchet (Exh. P. 4) and dang (Exh. P. 5) were stained with blood. However, the Serologist found that the blood-stains on the hatchet had been disintegrated and therefore, its origin could not be determined. The dang (Exh. P. 5) was, however found to be stained with human blood. All the accused pleaded not guilty and Natha and Muhammad Siddiq accused made a complete denialof participation in the occurrence. Allah Rakha appellant stated that Mst. Mehtab Bibi used to throw filth in front of his kitchen and would not resist front doing so in spite of protests as a result whereof the appellant abused her. His plea was that Mst. Mehtab Bibi had again thrown filth ear his bed inthe morning of the occurrence and when a protest was made she instead hurled abuses. She was given a slap at which she raised an alarm which attracted her husband and sons who came armed with weapons. The deceased had a dranti with which he attacked Allah Rakha appellant and in this way the appellant caused injuries in self-defence. Allah Rakha stated thathe had picked up a lathi and was not armed with any hatchet. To the same strain was the plea of Mohabat Ali appellant. The accused led no evidence in defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after holding the necessary trial, convicted and sentenced the appellants as hereinbefore mentioned.
3. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce injuries which were received by the deceased, the prosecution witnesses and the two out of the four accused. They are as follows:-
(1) Contused wound, 3" x -- ", left parietal region situated obliquely. Haematoma was present under the scalp. There was fracture of left parietal bone which joins the parieto-frontal suture on left side.
Parietal frontal suture was gap on left as well as on right side. From the right end of the suture the temporal bone was fractured. Fracture line extended to the base of brain. There was extra-dural and sub-dural haemorrhage on both the sides of the brain more mark on the right side.
(2) Bruise 1' x 1' on the occipital region. All the organs in the thorax were healthy except the lungs which were congested. Right side of the heart containing blood left Aide was empty. All the organs in the abdomen were healthy, Stomach contained 2 oz. Of fluid. Bladder contained one oz. Of urine.
The cause of death in the opinion of the doctor was cardio---respiratory failure due to compression of brain Caused by injury No. 1, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury No. 2 was simple. Both the injuries were ante-mortem and caused by blunt weapon. Abdul Ghafoor according to the doctor could have become unconscious immediately on receipt of injury No. 1.
Injuries on the person of Ghulam Muhammad F. I.
(1) A swelling one inch circular at left parietal Eminence.
(2) A contusion mark, 3' x 1' x at back of left shoulder swelling deformity of left shoulder.
(3) A contusion mark, 6' x 1' at back of left chest vertical along vertebral column.
(4) An abrasion, 2' x 1-- ' at back of left lumber region lower part. He was X-rayed and was admitted in the hospital. All these injuries were caused with blunt weapon. injuries on the person of Mst. Mehtab Bibi P. W.
(1) A lacerated wound, 2-- ' x -- ' at back of left forearm, bleeding.
(2) Swelling at dorsal surface of right hand.
(3) An abrasion, -- x 1/8' at dorsal surface of right forearm. She was X-rayed and admitted in hospital. All these injuries were caused with blunt weapon within about 4 hours. Injury No. 2 was declared grievous and rest were simple.
Injuries on the person of Muhammad Yusuf P. W.
(1) A painful tender swelling back of right hand at the base of index finger, 1' in circule advised X- ray.
(2) A painful tender swelling on the outer aspect of left elbow.
(3) An abrasion on the left lumber region 1' x -- ".
Nature of injuries: Injury No. 1 kept under observation. All other injuries are simple. Kind of weapon used: blunt.
Probable duration of injuries within 16 hours Result: According to the X-ray report No. 6788-E dated 21-8-1968, there was fracture of base of first phalanx of right index finger seen. Thus injury No. 1 was grievous Injuries on Allah Rakha accused:
(1) A contused wound crescentic shape left frontal region, 1-- ' x 1/8 x scalp deep.
(2) An incised wound, 1" x 1/8" x skin deep dorsal aspect of left hand lateral side.
(3) Three lacerations -- ' x 1/8" each at the dorsal aspect of left wrist. All the injuries were simple.
Injuries Nos, 1 and 3 were caused by blunt weapon and No. 2 was, accused by sharp-edged weapon.
Injuries on Mohabbat Ali accused:
(1) Contused wound, 1' x 1/8' x scalp deep left side frontal region situated obliquely.
(2) Laceration, -- ' x -- ', left shoulder.
(3) Laceration, -- ' x -- " left thigh upper part of the back.
All the injuries were simple by blunt weapon within the duration of six hours. The injuries on both the above-mentioned accused, according to the doctor could not have been self-inflicted.
From the medical evidence reproduced above, it is firmly established on the record that the deceased died as a result of an assault. The questions which arise for determination however, are as to who are the aggressors and which of the accused took part in the incident and whether those who took part in the incident acted in exercise of their right of self-defence. I pro--ceed to give my views about the prosecution case.
4. Taking up the F. I. R. It has come on the record that it was recorded by Ashiq Hussain A. S. I. (P. W.
17) on the spot. The A. S. I. Has admitted that the police station is 3/4 furlongs from the place of occurrence and that it were Allah Rakha and Mohabbat accused who came to the police station first on that morning. He conceded that at their instance a report in the daily diary was entered incorporating their version of the occurrence. Both of them were injured and the A. S. I. Prepared their injury statements Exhs. P. O. And P. Q. Respectively. This will show that the plea taken by the accused was not an after--thought and was the first-rate narration of the whole affair. The F. I. R.
Exh. P. A. Which was recorded at the spot by the A. S. I., in these circumstances as laid down in Muhammad Siddiq v. The State (PLD 1958 Lah. 601) and Ghulam Qadir v. The State (PLD 1967 Pesh.
269) should be scrutinized with care, especially, when there is no explanation worth the name as to why no F. I. R. From the side of the complainant party was lodged at the police station. On the other hand, the injured P. Ws., went to the hospital along with the deceased and the possibility cannot be ruled out that it was after seeing the medico-legal reports of those persons that an F. I. R. In the form of the statement (Exh. P. A.) was prepared. Ashiq Hussain (P. W. 17) A. S. I. Has admitted in his statement in Court that he had not sent the Zimni on 17-8-1963 to the office of the Superintendent of Police, which means that there was scope for the Police to arrange the various prosecution matters in such a way as it might ultimately suit them. The A. S. I. Stated that after recording the F. I.
R. He went to the Mayo Hospital and even though the injured P. Ws. Were present to that hospital, he conceded that he had not done anything in the hospital till he learnt from the Doctor that Ghafoor had died. In his statement in the committing Court the A. S. I. Had deposed that he visited the place of occurrence at about 12 noon, recorded the statements of witnesses, collected blood-- stained earth made them into a sealed parcel and took that into possession but in the Sessions Court, he stated that he did not remember to have made any such statement earlier. He deposed that he did not obtain the signatures or thumb---impression of Boota P. W. (an eye-witness) in the hospital, though the statement of Boota (P. W. 15) was that he had put his thumb-impression on a paper to the hospital on the asking of the Sub-Inspector and that the A. S. I. Had recorded his statement before leaving the hospital. The deceased, his mother Mst. Mehtab Bibi and his father Ghulam Muhammad had reached the Mayo Hospital at about 6-30 p.m., as is evident from their medico-legal reports Exhs. P. F. P. H. And P. G. Respectively. It appears that after seeing the medico- --legal reports (because they were sent to the Police immediately), the F. I. R. On the spot was written at 8-20 a.m. The facts and circumstances hereinbefore lighted, demonstrate that there was ample scope for the complainant side to deliberate and concoct things in their own manner. The F.
I. R. (Exh. P. A.) for the various reasons hereinbefore given does not appear to me to be an authentic version of the actual incident and seems to have been given after the deliberations by the complainant party. That the investigation was not fair is evident from another factor, and that is that neither the complainant party pro--duced nor the Police otherwise recovered or took into posses--sion their own weapons of attack and thus withheld an important piece of evidence for which a presumption can legitimately be raised against the prosecution version on this count too.
Another feature of investigation is that though Allah Rakha and Mohabbati accused were with the Police earlier in the morning of 17th of August 1968, and they were got medically examined as per their medico-legal reports Exhs. P. O./1 and P. Q./1 respectively, at 8-30 a.m. Through Foot Constable Manzoor Hussain No. 5211, but still their arrest is shown to be at 5 p.m,, from somewhere in Badami Bagh. The other two accused, namely, Natha and Siddiq were allegedly arrested on 19-8-1968 and the recovery is dated 21-8-1968. The recovery is from a different locality. The person from whose house recovery had been made is not a witness. Even otherwise neighbouring persons were not made witnesses and the witnesses made were Allah Ditta (P. W. 11), and Umar Din (P. W. 12), both of whom belonged to a distant and different locality and had no business to be with the Police at a place where they alleged to have joined. Both these witnesses appear to be stock-police- witnesses because they admitted that they had been appearing as prosecution witnesses in the various cases of Police Station Misri Shah. Umar Din (P. W. 12) tried to hide this fact in his statement in the Sessions Court though he had admitted it earlier in committing Court. For all these reasons I would not attach any credence to the alleged recovery attributed to Muhammad Siddiq accused.
5. It is in evidence of Muhammad Yusuf (P. W. 13) that. Mst. Mehtab Bibi used to throw filth near the house of Muhammad Siddiq accused. Five or six days prior to the occurrence, a dispute on this count arose. Even on the evening preceding the day of occurrence, an altercation ensued clue to throwing of -filth by Mst. Mehtab Bibi. Despite these two previous incidents the stupid woman still persisted and on the morning of the day of occurrence, she again threw the filth, which cost her the life of her one son. The action of the woman in the very nature of things was an obnoxious act and when earlier it had been (at least twice) taken exception to, it was desirable on her part to desist repeating it. However, when she threw the filth near the house/kitchen of Muhammad Siddiq on the morning of the day of occurrence, she provoked the matter herself. The accused (or such of the accused who took part in the incident as 1 will be thrashing out later), were justified in taking exception to the aforesaid obnoxious act and nuisance created by the woman. Obviously, the incident provoked abuses on both sides, resulting as admitted by Mohabbat Ali accused himself in a slap which he gave to the woman, One can imagine what followed afterwards. The deceased armed with a dram and Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Yusuf P. Ws. Armed with dangs came forward abusing the accused and opened the attack. That the accused struck the blows first is proved from the fact that he, according to the prosecution, had received two blows simultaneously, where after he became unconscious. If he became unconscious and also had received only two blows on him simultaneously, then it is obvious that the drant injury must have been caused by him to the accused first and the attack on him by the other side must have been made afterwards in self-defence against a contemplated drant attack. Same is the position of Ghulam Muhammad P. W. Who too became unconscious after receipt of injuries, which goes to show that so far as infliction of injuries by hint is concerned, he must have done so before becoming unconscious. These corollaries are self-evident from the deposition of P. W. 13 Muhammad Yusuf where he stated in cross-examination:- "Ghafoor fell down on the receipt of the very first blow. My father also fell down on the receipt of the first blow."
From the aforesaid circumstances it can, therefore, be safely concluded that the attack was opened with various weapons by the complainant party and they were the aggressors and the accused party was justified in defending themselves. It was conceded by the learned counsel for the State that from the overall circumstances and from the evidence on the record it could be inferred that the complainant party was also armed with their respective weapons and that they did cause injuries to the accused. His point, however, was that the aggression was opened by the accused-side and not the complainant --side. I am afraid that for the reasons hereinbefore mentioned and as is evident from the graphic picture of the incident, an aggression must be attributed to the complainant-side and not the accused-side.
6. The prosecution case is sought to be supported from the ocular evidence of Muhammad Yusuf (P. W. 13) brother of the deceased, Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 14), father of the deceased, Muhammad Boota (P. W. 15) and Mst. Mehtab Bibi (P. W, 16) mother of the deceased. Taking up Muhammad Yusuf (P., W. 13), it may be mentioned that he deposed that Allah Rakha accused attacked his brother Abdul Ghafoor with a hatchet and Mohabbat accused gave a dang blow to Abdul Ghafoor. According to this witness Abdul Ghafoor tried to ward off the blows but could not do so. I have already demonstrated that attack from Abdul Ghafoor must have preceded and the manner of narration, as given by this witness, cannot be accepted. Another thing to be noticed is that there is no sharp-edged weapon injury on Abdul Ghafoor nor on any other P. Ws. The introduction of hatchet, in these circumstances, becomes highly doubtful. Learned counsel for the State argued that the hatchet might have been used from the blunt side but I am afraid I cannot accept this suggestion because none of the P. Ws., who posed to be present on the spot, ever stated that the hatchet was used from the-blunt side. My finding in the circumstances of the case would be that actually no accused was armed with any hatchet because had that been the case there must have been a sharp-edged weapon injury on the complainant side. Muhammad Yusuf admits the previous two occurrences on the basis of which it can be held that it was the complainant party which gave a cause of annoyance to all concerned Even though Muhammad Yusuf was armed with a soti, strangely he took up the stand that he did not cause any injury to anyone. Surely, the witness is trying to minimise the role of the complainant party in the whole affair. In the F. I. R. And in his statement before the committing Court he stated that he had taken the injured to the hospital but in his statement in Sessions Court he took a complete somersault and denied to have made any such state--ment earlier. In the committing Court he deposed that he left the injured 'in the hospital and then went to the police station and lodged the report (Exh. P.
A.). In the Court of Session he stated that he never went to the hospital and took an altogether different stand consistent with the prosecution story now being put up. This characteristic of the statement of this witness gives a further support to the view which I have taken that the F. I. R. Was not recorded in the manner in which it purports to have been recorded at the spot and that the things in actual reality were different from what they were presented in Court. The discussion hereinbefore made will show that this witness has perjured in many respects and his statement, especially with regard to the manner of attack, cannot be accepted unless there is some independent material corroboration.
7. Taking up Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 14) rather of the deceased, it may be mentioned that he sails in the same boat as P. W.
13. He rather went a step further in perjury and deposed that it was not correct that his wife had been throwing refuse near the kitchen of Allah Rakha. He denied that Allah Kakha had abused them in the two altercations preceding the occurrence though they were admitted by his son Muhammad Yusuf. In his statement in the committing Court, he deposed that he and his sons were all empty-handed at the time of the attack and remained empty-handed till the own the accused ran away. Seeing the injuries on the person of the accused now, however, he tried to resile from his previous stand and denied that he ever made any such state--ment before the committing Court. The witness is a close relation of the deceased and hostile to the accused and my view regarding his testimony is the same as was about his son Muhammad Yusuf (P. W.
13).
8. Taking pup Mst. Mehtab Bibi ((P. W. 16) mother of the deceased, it is to state that she admits the previous two incidents of throwing filth and sweeping as hereinbefore mentioned. She also deposed that on the morning of the day of occurrence, when she threw the filth, Siddiq accused was lying on a cot in front of his house. He stepped forward. Thereupon there started an exchange of abuses between the two. In the committing Court she had taken up the stand that the accused had come to her house and the occurrence had taken place there and that lot of blood fell in her house. Now she shifted the venue of occurrence and denied to have made any such statement in the committing Court. She admits that her deceased son had a dranti in his hands at the time of occurrence and that he did not inflict any injury on Allah Rakha. My views about this witness are the same as I have given about the previous two witnesses.
9. The last eye-witness to be dealt with is Boota (P. W. 15). He is a resident of Jallu More, which was at a distance of twelve miles from the District Court and would similarly be far away from the place of occurrence. He stated that on the evening preceding the day of occurrence, he had gone from Jallu More to Gowalmandi Lahore where he stayed for the night and next morning went to Ghorey Shah to see Ghulam Muhammad (F. W. 14). He stated to give a graphic picture of the scene of occurrence as if he had seen the same in minute details, but he is given a serious set-back by Muhammad Yusuf (P. W. 13) who deposed that "Boots had arrived when I had fallen down," which means that it was the time when the on--slaught was almost over. This witness had stated in the committing Court that he had business relations with Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 14) for over thirty years though he denied later on to have made any such statement. His stand was that he had gone to Gowalmandi for collecting some money and had proceeded to Ghulam Muhammad's house next morning at prayers" time. According to him, the sun had not yet arisen when he reached Ghulam Muhammad's house. The sunrise on the day of occurrence was at 5-28 a.m. The morning prayers' time is generally one hour prior to sunrise. According to the witness if he had reached the house of Ghulam Muhammad at morning prayers' time, then it must be round about 4-45 a.m. I am not prepared to believe that if at all he was in Gowalmandi, he would have gone so early in the late dark hours of that night to Ghorey Shah. The prosecution did trot bring on record the person from whom he allegedly had to receive money from Gowalmandi. He stated that he did not' see Allah Rakha being given dram blows nor any person was seen by him giving any injury to Allah Rakha. He slid not see Mohabbat accused being beaten by anyone. This will show that the witness had either not seen the occurrence or that he was not truthful in his deposition. He deposed that he went along with the in persons to the hospital but strangely enough in none of the medico-legal examination reports of the injured persons of the complainant side he is shown to have accompanied them. In the committing Court he stated that Muhammad Yusuf (P. W. 13) had accompanied him to the hospital, but in the Sessions Court he denied to have made any such statement. He stated that he was not present in the hospital immediately after the death of Ghafoor and proceeded to his house in Jallu More. He stated that he had given his statement to the A. S. I. Before leaving the hospital and further deposed that he had put his thumb-impression on a paper on the asking of the Sub-Inspector. His evidence has not inspired my confidence and I am not satisfied about his presence on the spot. His presence on the spot could be adjudged inter alia by scrutiny of his statement wherein he stated that he went to the hospital along with the injured persons but as already mentioned this too is not proved from the medico-legal reports. The circumstances in which, by whom and where his statement was recorded by the Police is also a mystery. The fact that he put a thumb-impression on a paper on the asking of the Sub-Inspector is very significant. No paper has been brought to my notice which might contain the thumb- impression of this witness. This shows that the witness had been doing whatever the Police required him to do. I shall completely rule out the evidence of this witness from consideration and I am not prepared to accept that he was present on the spot or that he actually saw the occurrence.
He is a friend of the complainant family and has come forward simply to oblige them on account of his over thirty years commercial relations with Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 14).
10. Proceeding, therefore, with utmost caution and care, two of the accused in this case have no injuries on their persons which goes to show that they had not taken part in the occurrence. One of such accused Muhammad Siddiq is an old man of 55/56 years of age and it is not possible that in the presence of his young son Mohabbat Ali he himself would have participated in any formal assault. Giving these two persons the benefit of doubt, I would, therefore, acquit them.
11. As regards Allah Rakha and Mohabbat Ali, my finding is that they did take part in the occurrence as admitted by them as well. The question, however, is as to whether they can be held to have committed an offence under section 302, P. P. C. In Exception 4 to section 300, it is written:- "Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed with--out premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner."
My view is that all the ingredients of the above Exception stand established in this case. The fight was without premeditation, it was sudden and ensued in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and the accused neither took any undue advantage over the complainant party nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The complainant party was armed with formidable weapon including a drant which could cause fatal or grievous hurt. Actually on the finding which I have recorded, an attack was opened by the complainant party and to disarm them from their respective weapons an attack on them was justified. It is unfortunate that the two blows on the deceased coincided and fell on him, simultaneously, though otherwise only injury No. 1 was fatal. From this point of view, one blow on the deceased was the minimum. In my opinion, therefore, Exception 4 ibid fully covers this case arid the remaining two accused cannot be held to be guilty of an offence of murder. At this stage, it may be pointed out that there was a private revision (Cr. Revision No, 1088 of 1969), filed by Ghulam Muhammad P. W. Which was still at a motion stage. Khawaja Sultan Ahmed learned counsel for the private complainant submitted that the actual section applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case was section 304, Part II and not section 302, P. P. C. The stand of the learned counsel for the State, however, was that on the complainant side there were 12 injuries and on the side of the accused there were only six injuries which, according to him, showed that the accused had acted in a cruel and unusual manner and had taken undue advantage of the complainant party which, per his submission, was weaker in strength. Number of injuries by itself is no conclusive criterion to judge whether a part played by an accused was cruel or unusual.
In my opinion, overall circumstances of the case should be looked at to resolve this matter and number of injuries will of course be a relevant factor but not a conclusive factor. Examined in that perspective, I am of the view that so far as the deceased is concerned, he received only two blows one grievous and on simple. Attack on him was thus not beyond proportions of In usual manner and nor can it be held to border on the limits or cruelty. In my opinion, the case is not covered by section 302, P. P. C. And Allah Rakha and Mohabbat Ali cannot be convicted thereunder.
12. Since my finding is that it was the complainant party who was the aggressor, therefore, the accused had a right of self-defence. The manner in which the complainant party got enraged and the weapons which they had and used could reasonably cause the apprehension that death could otherwise be the consequence of their assault. Since the accused acted in the exercise of this right of private defence, therefore, their action is covered b section 96 read with section 100, P. P. C. The result is that the appeal of the remaining two accused shall also have to be accepted.
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is accepted; the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge are set aside and the convictions and sentences of the appellants are quashed. They, should be set at liberty forth--with if riot required in any other case in accordance with law.