Revan Sudam Kanhere And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Adn Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 9042 Bom

                                                     1 of 24                 01-apeal-547-18(STM)


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.547 OF 2018

                     1. Revan Sudam Kanhere, &
                     2. Rajabai Sudam Kanhere.                        ..... Appellants

                            Versus

                     The State of Maharashtra
                     and another                                      .... Respondents
                                                      -----
                     Ms. Vilasini B. i/b. Jaydeep D. Mane, Advocate for the Appellants.
                     Mr. Yogesh Y. Dabke, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
                                                       ----

                                               CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 12th SEPTEMBER 2022 PC :

1. This Appeal is placed before the Court by the Registry for

correction of the Sessions Case number which appears in the first

paragraph number of the Judgment and order dated 29/08/2022.

In the first paragraph, the Sessions Case number is mentioned as

Sessions Case No.305 of 2018; the correct number is Sessions Case

No.305 of 2014. It is a typographical error and needs to be

corrected.

Digitally signed by

2. The correction be made in the Judgment and order VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date:

2022.09.12 17:17:38 +0530 Gokhale 2 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

dated 29/08/2022 and the corrected Judgment and order be

uploaded.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

CORRECTED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29th AUGUST, 2022 READS THUS:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.547 OF 2018

1. Revan Sudam Kanhere, &

2. Rajabai Sudam Kanhere. ..... Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra and another .... Respondents

-----

Mr. Jaydeep D. Mane, Advocate for the Appellants. Smt. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.

-----

CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 29th AUGUST, 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants have challenged the judgment and

order dated 31.3.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Solapur in Sessions Case No.305/2014. Both the appellants were

convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section

306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced 3 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

to suffer RI for ten years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each

and in default to suffer further RI for three months each. They

were also convicted for commission of the offence punishable

under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC and were sentenced to

suffer RI for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and

in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for 15 days each. Both

the sentences were directed to run concurrently. They were given

set off for the period undergone as under-trial prisoners under

Section 428 of Cr.P.C.. The appellant No.1 was directed to pay

compensation of Rs.1 Lakh to the parents of the deceased Rekha

under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. within a period of three months

from the date of the judgment and order. Learned trial Judge

directed that if the same was not tendered in the stipulated time,

the same was to be recovered in accordance with law after the

appeal period was over and if there was no stay by this Court.

respectively. There was one more accused i.e. accused No.2

Audumbar Kanhere. He was brother of accused No.1 and son of

accused No.3. He was acquitted from both these charges.

4 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

3. Heard Shri Jaydeep Mane, learned counsel for the

appellants and Smt. Veera Shinde, learned APP for the State.

4. The prosecution case is that the appellant No.1 got

married with Rekha on 15.6.2012. There was a demand of

Rs.50,000/- initially which Rekha's parents somehow managed to

pay. Even after that there was demand of Rs.50,000/- for digging

a well. On both these counts, Rekha was continuously harassed by

both the appellants and other family members. On 21.5.2014, the

appellant No.1 left Rekha at her parental house. There was

continuous demand of Rs.50,000/-. Ultimately, Rekha committed

suicide by consuming poison on 26.5.2014. She was taken to

hospital but efforts to save her were in vain. She died in the

hospital. The FIR was lodged on 5.6.2014 at Kurduwadi police

station vide C.R. No.81/2014. The appellants were arrested on

6.6.2014. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After death of

the deceased immediately postmortem was conducted, viscera was

preserved and it was sent for chemical analysis. Opinion regarding

cause of death was reserved at the time of postmortem

examination. The C.A. report was received. However, no poison 5 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

was detected in the viscera. After that final opinion of the doctor

was sought. It was opined that she had died due to poison. The

investigation was completed. The charge-sheet was filed. The case

was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses

including the mother, uncle and a neighbour of the deceased,

pancha for spot panchnama, the investigating officers, the medical

officers conducting the postmortem examination and one who had

treated the deceased. The defence of the appellants was of total

denial. Learned Judge after considering the evidence on record

and statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments, was satisfied that the

offence was committed. Therefore, he convicted and sentenced

the appellants as mentioned earlier.

6. PW-1 Alka Garad was the mother of deceased Rekha.

She had lodged the FIR. She has deposed that Rekha had got

married with the appellant No.1 on 15.6.2012. She was residing

with the accused No.1, 2 & 3 in her matrimonial house. After 6 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

eight months from the marriage, the appellants' family shifted to a

village known as Masle Chaudhari. After that, the appellant No.2

and Rekha came to PW-1's village. Rekha told her that the accused

were harassing her and were demanding Rs.50,000/- for

construction of their house. PW-1 and her family told the appellant

No.2 that their financial condition was not good and that they

should not harass Rekha. Again after ten days, Rekha and the

appellant No.2 came to PW-1's house. Rekha repeated the demand

made by her in-laws. She told her that she was being harassed.

Therefore, PW-1's family took loan of Rs.50,000/- from one Sudhir

Garad and gave that amount to the appellant No.2. After about

eight to nine months from that, the accused again started

demanding amount of Rs.50,000/- for digging well. They used to

harass her by starving, abusing and beating. Rekha told about the

harassment by making a phone call. After that, PW-1's family told

the accused that their financial condition was not sound. Their

previous loan was not repaid. But there was no change in their

attitude. On 21.5.2014, the appellant No.1 brought Rekha to PW-

1's house. He told them that he would not take back Rekha unless 7 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid. He then went back alone.

Rekha was left at her parental house. After that the appellant No.1

made a phone call on PW-1's sister-in-law's phone. That time,

Rekha had a conversation with the appellant No.1 who told her

that he would take her back for cohabitation only if the amount

was arranged. Rekha told PW-1 about this conversation. Again on

25.5.2014 he made a phone call and asked Rekha whether Rekha's

parents had arranged for Rs.50,000/-. He again repeated his

resolve not to take her back until the said amount was paid to her.

Rekha got disturbed. On the next day, she went to a field of one

Sakhubai Nalavade to wash her clothes near a well. She had gone

there with her friends Bharti and Bhakti. After some time, Rekha

became unconscious. Bharti and Bhakti rushed to PW-1's house

and informed them about it. PW-1 and others went to that spot.

They took Rekha to hospital. PW-1 deposed that there was smell of

poisonous medicine from Rekha's mouth. During treatment in the

hospital, Rekha died at about 3.00 p.m.. The accused did not

come to the hospital or for funeral. The medical officer informed

the police about Rekha's death. PW-1 has specifically deposed that 8 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

as her family's state of mind was not proper, she lodged her FIR

afterwards. The FIR was lodged on 5.6.2014. It is produced on

record at Exhibit-39.

In the cross-examination, she deposed that Rekha was

educated upto 7th standard. Their village i.e. Laul village was a big

village in Madha Taluka. There was a police patil and sarpanch in

their village. The police station was half an hour away from Kadam

hospital where Rekha was treated. During her lifetime, Rekha or

PW-1's family had not lodged any complaint in the police station.

PW-1 denied the suggestion that Masle Chaudhari was a small

village, and that the deceased always stayed at her parental house.

She further deposed that after the doctor had informed the police,

they enquired with her and had recorded her statement. She

admitted that the accused quarreled with her family as the funeral

was performed before their arrival. She volunteered that since the

accused did not come by 11.00 p.m., they waited for the accused

and thereafter they performed the funeral. She further deposed

that on 10th day from the death, at the time of performing the

rituals at Pandharpur, there was a quarrel between the accused 9 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

and PW-1's family and after that PW-1 came to Kurduwadi and

lodged the FIR.

           The    FIR   lodged   on   5.6.2014   corroborates      the

deposition of PW-1.

7.         PW-2 Namdeo Nalavade was a pancha for spot

panchnama. He has produced the spot panchnama at Exhibit-44.

It mentions that the incident of consumption of poison took place

in a hut in the land of Namdeo Nalavade that is the spot pancha

himself.

8. PW-3 Sunil Garad was the paternal uncle of Rekha. He

has corroborated the version of PW-1. He had gone to the house

of accused to make them see reason. He was was a close relative

and he has deposed in the same manner as deposed by PW-1.

9. PW-5 Shrikant Kadam was a neighbour of PW-1. He

was told by Rekha about the demand made by the accused and the

harassment caused to her. He has also corroborated the evidence

of PW-1 and PW-2. He has deposed that on 21.5.2014 when he

was at home he saw that the appellant No.1 had brought Rekha to

the house of PW-1. At that time he went to their house and Rekha 10 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

told him that her in-laws were harassing her on demand of

Rs.50,000/- and unless the amount was paid the accused would

not allow her to go back to her matrimonial house for

cohabitation.

10. PW-7 API Ankush Pawar was the first investigating

officer. He was informed that Rekha was admitted to Kadam

hospital, Kurduwadi and that she had died there. PW-7 then

conducted the inquest panchnama. He recorded the statements of

two witnesses. He recorded spot panchnama on 6.6.2014. He

arrested both the appellants. He had arranged to send the dead

body for postmortem examination, he collected the postmortem

notes.

11. PW-6 PSI Dnyandeo Devkate took charge of the

investigation on 26.7.2014. He deposed that viscera was sent to

the chemical analyzer's office at Pune on 25.7.2014. PW-6 had

then filed the charge-sheet after completion of the investigation.

12. PW-4 Dr. Dineshkumar Kadam is an important witness.

Rekha was brought to his hospital on 26.5.2014. He observed that 11 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

her vital parameters were bad and inspite of his best efforts Rekha

could not survive. She died at about 3.00 p.m. on 26.5.2014. He

has deposed that she was brought with the history of having

consumed foret granules. When she was admitted to the hospital,

he informed the police and even after the death he again informed

the police. Significantly he has deposed that the treatment was

given according to symptoms of poisoning. In his prima facie

opinion the death was caused by organo phosphorous poisoning.

He has further deposed that if the poison is absorbed in blood, the

same may not be detected in viscera.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that there was

no mention in the findings recorded by him that there was smell of

organo phosphorous poisoning from Rekha's mouth. He produced

the medical papers on record at Exhibit-62. As deposed by him,

Rekha was admitted to his hospital at 2.15 p.m. on 26.5.2014 and

the history was given by her relatives that Rekha had eaten foret

granules about one hour before admission to the hospital.

The postmortem notes were produced on record at

Exhibit-88. The defence had admitted that document. It was 12 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

mentioned in the postmortem notes that the opinion was reserved

and viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. The significant

feature of the postmortem notes was description of both the lungs.

It was mentioned that they were severely congested and

oedematous. Advance death certificate dated 26.5.2014 was

produced on record at Exhibit-84 This document was also

admitted by the defence. In that certificate also it was mentioned

that the opinion was reserved and the viscera was preserved for

chemical analysis. After leading this evidence, the prosecution had

closed its case by tendering a pursis on 7.12.2017. The appellants'

statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded.

13. But after that, on 28.3.2018, PW-8 Dr. Santosh Adgale

was examined by the prosecution because the prosecution wanted

to produce the certificate regarding cause of death of the deceased

Rekha. PW-8 deposed that in his view the death was caused due to

severely congested lungs leading to respiratory failure and death.

In his opinion, this had happened because of the ingestion or

administration of poison or poison like substance. His final

opinion was produced on record at Exhibit-88A. He deposed that 13 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

he formulated this opinion after he had received the opinion of

chemical analyzer in respect of viscera. He was an important

witness but he was not cross-examined on behalf of the defence.

Only a suggestion was given to him that his opinion was

erroneous. He denied that suggestion.

14. After his evidence was led, additional statement of the

accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 28.3.2018

They were given an opportunity to answer the questions in respect

of evidence of PW-8. The appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 both

denied the evidence of PW-8 to be true. Learned Judge believed

the evidence of the prosecution. He also relied on the evidence of

PW-8 to conclude that it was a case of suicide. He held that the

prosecution was able to prove the harassment caused to the

deceased Rekha, the involvement of both the appellants and then

convicted and sentenced both of them as mentioned earlier. He

however gave benefit of doubt to the original accused No.2 and

acquitted him because there were no specific allegations against

him compared to those against the present appellants.

14 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

15. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there

was unexplained delay of ten days in lodging the FIR. The FIR

was lodged only after the quarrel that had taken place at

Pandharpur after the 10th day ritual after the death. In the

meantime, there were no allegations of causing any harassment to

the deceased. The allegations of harassment are made only as an

afterthought and because of the quarrel between the two families.

The statements of PW-1 and her family members which were

recorded in the meantime were suppressed and the prosecution

has deliberately kept away that part of evidence and, therefore, an

adverse inference needs to be drawn against the prosecution.

16. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to

prove that it was a case of suicide. The viscera did not show

presence of any poison and, therefore, there was no proof that the

deceased had consumed poison and had committed suicide. The

deceased was staying with her parents on the date of incident and,

therefore, the appellants could not be held responsible for any step

taken by the deceased. The deceased did not like staying in her

matrimonial house which was in a village which was 15 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

comparatively much smaller than the village where here parents

were residing. Therefore, even if it is assumed that it was a case of

suicide it was not because of any harassment caused by the

appellants but it was because of her reluctance to stay in her

matrimonial house.

17. The two companions who had gone with the deceased

in the morning were not examined. Therefore, there is no cogent

evidence as to what exactly had happened in the hut in the field of

Namdeo Nalavade. The deceased was educated but she had not

left any suicide note. The prosecution examined only interested

witnesses. No independent witness was examined. He, therefore,

submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt and, therefore, benefit of doubt must go to the

appellant.

18. On the other hand, learned APP submitted that Rekha

had committed suicide within about two years from her marriage.

Therefore, under the provisions of Section 113-A of the Evidence

Act, presumption operated against the appellants because the 16 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

suicide was committed within a period of seven years from the

date of Rekha's marriage. The appellants have not rebutted this

presumption. She submitted that the medical evidence in the form

of PW-4 and PW-8 was sufficient to prove that Rekha had

committed suicide by consuming poison. It was not necessary that

in every case of poisoning, the poison must be detected in viscera.

In a given case though poison may not be detected, the expert's

opinion, as in the present case, carries more weight.

19. In the present case both the doctors had opined that

the death was due to poisoning and, therefore, the case of suicide

is clearly made out. She submitted that the evidence shows that

the deceased was continuously harassed for demand of

Rs.50,000/-. The demand was made on two occasions. On the

first occasion, it was fulfilled but on the second occasion since the

demand was not fulfilled, she was left at her parental house. The

evidence shows that the husband had left her at parental house

and even after leaving her there he made telephonic calls

demanding money and telling her that she would not be taken

back until the amount was paid. All these instances of harassment 17 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

fall within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC as well as under

Section 107 read with 306 of IPC and thus the prosecution case is

proved.

20. I have considered these submissions. First and

foremost, it is necessary to examine the prosecution evidence in

respect of the allegations of commission of suicide. Though it is

true that the chemical analyzer's report does not show any poison

in the viscera, some important features will have to be taken into

consideration. The record shows that the viscera was sent for

chemical analysis much belatedly i.e. on 25.7.2014. The viscera

was collected immediately on 26.5.2014 when the postmortem

was conducted. The viscera should have been sent for chemical

analysis immediately. Significantly the postmortem notes recorded

after the postmortem examination held on 26.5.2014 had clearly

noted that both the lungs were severely congested and they were

oedematous. This important aspect was taken into consideration

by PW-8 Dr. Adgale and based on this, his opinion was that death

was caused due to severely congested lungs leading to respiratory

failure and death. In his opinion it was due to ingestion or 18 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

administration of poison or poison like substance. This opinion is

unambiguous and categorical. The defence had not cross-

examined PW-8 in respect of this particular opinion noted by him.

21. As far as PW-4 Dr. Kadam is concerned, he has also

deposed that prima facie death was caused by organo phosphorous

poisoning. He has explained that if the poison is absorbed in

blood, the same may not be detected in the viscera. It is also

mentioned in the medical papers that Rekha was brought to his

hospital and at that time the history was given by relatives that she

had eaten foret granules. She was given treatment based on the

symptoms of poisoning. This evidence leads to a safe conclusion

that the deceased had consumed poison and the death was

because of poisoning. Hence, the prosecution theory that it was a

case of suicide is sufficiently proved.

22. As far as harassment caused to Rekha is concerned, the

prosecution has examined PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5. Their evidence

is consistent. All of them have stated that there was demand of

Rs.50,000/- on two separate occasions. On the first occasion, the 19 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

family of the deceased had raised Rs.50,000/- by taking loan.

Even thereafter demand of further Rs.50,000/- was made and the

harassment continued. There is nothing in their evidence to doubt

their veracity. PW-1 had explained as to why the FIR was lodged

on 5.6.2014. She has deposed that their mental state was not

good because of Rekha's death and therefore there was some delay

in lodging the FIR. This explanation does not seem to be

unreasonable. In any case, the burden was on the appellants to

rebut the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act as

submitted by learned APP. Therefore, the prosecution has

sufficiently established that both the appellants had committed the

offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. All these

witnesses were natural witnesses and,therefore, it was not

necessary to examine any other witness to support their versions.

The act of the appellants falls within the explanation (b) of Section

498-A of IPC. Hence, the conviction of both the appellants under

Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC is properly recorded.

23. The next important question would be as to whether

both the appellants can be said to have abetted commission of 20 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

suicide as required under Section 306 read with Section 107 of

IPC. In that context, the prosecution case differs for appellant No.1

and appellant No.2. Though there are common allegations that

the deceased was harassed for the demand of money by all the

accused, as far as the case of suicide is concerned that is directly

attributable to the events which had taken place in May, 2014. It

is the specific prosecution case brought on record through the

evidence of mother of the deceased that on 21.5.2014 Rekha was

brought to her parental house by only the appellant No.1. He had

told them that he would not take Rekha back until Rs.50,000/-

was paid. He then left Rekha and went away. He did not listen to

anybody from the PW-1's family. Even after that, the appellant

No.1 had phoned PW-1's sister-in-law and had conversation with

Rekha. There again, he told her that unless the amount was

arranged he would not take her back for cohabitation. Rekha had

told PW-1 about that conversation. Even thereafter on 25.5.2014

he made another phone call and asked Rekha whether her parents

had arranged for Rs.50,000/- and again repeated his threat that

Rekha would not be taken back for cohabitation unless the amount 21 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

was paid. After all this, Rekha got disturbed and on the next day

i.e. on 26.5.2014 she committed suicide. There was continuous

harassment and demand from 21.5.2014. Thus, there is a direct

connection between the acts of appellant No.1 and commission of

suicide by Rekha. His acts would fall within the meaning of

Section 107 read with 306 of IPC. Therefore, the prosecution has

proved its case against the appellant No.1 alone as far as

conviction under Section 306 of IPC is concerned. To that extent

benefit of doubt can be given to appellant No.2.

24. Considering this discussion, it is held that appellant

No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A

read with 34 of IPC and also has committed the offence punishable

under Section 306 of IPC whereas appellant No.2 has committed

the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC

only. She is acquitted from the charges of commission of offence

punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC.

25. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both

the appellants were arrested on 6.6.2014. They were released on 22 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

bail on 12.8.2014. Thus they were in custody before conviction for

about two months and six days. They were convicted and

sentenced on 31.3.2018. The appellant No.2 was released on bail

after conviction on 28.9.2018. Thus, she had undergone

imprisonment of eight months and six days as of today. As far as

appellant No.1 is concerned, after his conviction on 31.3.2018 he

was taken into custody. Learned APP submitted that for a few

months he was on COVID-19 parole. The incident had taken place

in May, 2014. Thus, more than eight years have passed. There are

no allegations that either of the appellants have misused the

liberty when they were on bail during trial or even after their

conviction. They do not have any other criminal antecedent.

Therefore, taking overall view of the nature of offence committed

by them, the period undergone by the appellant No.2 in custody

till today will be sufficient substantive sentence. The sentence

imposed on both of them can be reduced. Reducing the sentence

of the appellant No.1 from ten years to four year will meet ends of

justice. The other portion of the operative part of the judgment of

directing appellant No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.1 Lakh can be 23 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

retained. Hence, the following order :

:: O R D E R ::

i.       The appeal is partly allowed.

ii.      The appellant No.2 Rajabai Sudam Kanhere is acquitted from the

charges of commission of offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC. The sentence for offence under this section is set aside.

iii. The appellant No.2 Rajabai Sudam Kanhere's conviction under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentence imposed on her for this offence is reduced to the period which she has already undergone. In addition, she is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo further RI for 15 days.

iv. The appellant No.1 Revan Sudam Kanhere's conviction under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentence imposed on him shall be covered for the period which he has already undergone and no further substantive sentence survives against him for Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC. In addition, however, he is directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo RI for 15 days.

v. The appellant No.1 Revan Sudam Kanhere's conviction under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC is altered to that under Section 306 of IPC. He is sentenced to suffer RI for four years instead of ten years. In addition, he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One 24 of 24 01-apeal-547-18(STM)

Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo RI for one month.

vi. All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

vii. Clause (7) of the operative part of the impugned judgment reads thus :

"7] The accused No.1 Revan shall also pay compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- to the parents of the deceased Rekha viz. Alka Dilip Garad and Dilip Madhukar Garad, R/o. Laul, Taluka Madha, District Solapur u/s. 357(3) of CrPC within a period of three months. If the same is not tendered in the stipulated time, then the same may be recovered in accordance with law of course after appeal period is over and if there is no stay by the Hon'ble High Court."

. This clause is modified as follows :

"The accused No.1 Revan shall also pay compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- to the parents of the deceased Rekha viz. Alka Dilip Garad and Dilip Madhukar Garad, R/o. Laul, Taluka Madha, District Solapur u/s. 357(3) of CrPC within a period of three months from the date of judgment and order passed in this appeal. If the same is not tendered in the stipulated time, then the same may be recovered in accordance with law."

viii. The appellants are given benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C..

ix. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)