Smt. Bhanwari And Anr vs State (2023/Rjjd/012606)
2023 Latest Caselaw 3772 Raj

                                            (1 of 17)              [CRLA-117/1991]


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 117/1991

     1. Smt. Bhanwari, widow of Shri Kishan Singh, by caste Rajput,
       Resident of Village Lal Madri, District Udaipur.
      (At present lodged at Central Jail, Jaipur)
     2. Dalla, son of Shri Kishna, by caste Balai, Resident of Village
       Lal Madri, District Udaipur.
      (At present lodged at Central Jail, Udaipur)
                                                                  ----Appellants
                                      Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


 For Appellant(s)            :    Mr. Vineet Jain, Senior Advocate
                                  assisted by Mr. Ashok Chouhan
 For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP


 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

                    HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA


                                  Judgment

28/04/2023
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE BORANA, J.)

1. This instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused

appellants Smt. Bhanwari & Dalla under Section 374 Cr.P.C. being

aggrieved of judgment dated 23.02.1991 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Session Case No.21/1989 (50/1986)

whereby accused appellant No.1-Smt. Bhanwari has been convicted

for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and accused appellant

No.2-Dalla for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and

sentenced as below :

Punishment Name Offences Smt. Bhanwari u/s. 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of

(2 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991]

payment of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment.

Dalla u/s. 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months' rigorous imprisonment.

                  u/s.201 IPC      Rigorous imprisonment for 5
                                   years and a fine of Rs.200/-, in
                                   default of payment of fine to
                                   further undergo two months
                                   rigorous imprisonment.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Before adverting into the facts of the present case, it is

relevant to mention here that at the first instance, after

investigation, the Sessions Case was registered as 12/84 wherein

trial was completed and vide judgment dated 16.07.1986, both the

accused Smt. Bhanwari and Dalla were found guilty and punished

with life imprisonment. On an appeal being filed by them, vide

judgment dated 15.10.1986, the judgment dated 16.07.1986 was

set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for trial

afresh. Therefore, the case was again registered on 29.10.1986 as

Sessions Case No. 50/86(renumbered as 21/89) and re-trial in the

matter was undertaken.

3. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased

Kishan Singh Rajput was the father of PW 2 Raisingh, PW 3

Khemsingh, PW 4 Khumansingh, DW 1 Kumari Sayari and husband

of accused Smt. Bhanwari. He was living with them in his house in

village Matri P.S. Nathdwara. Kishan Singh was a Compounder in the

Government Hospital, Nathdwara. He used to take up and down

journeys from his village to Nathdwara to attend his duty. On Friday

(3 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991] preceeding 23rd August 1983, Kishan Singh came from the hospital

and reached his house at about 10.00 P.M. He took his meals and

retired to sleep. While he was asleep, accused Mst. Bhanwari and

DW 1 Kumari Sayari went out-side the house and came back with

accused Dalla with them. Accused Dalla came with a big stone in his

hand weighing nearly 20 kilograms. Accused Mst. Bhanwari sat on

the chest of Kishan Singh and DW 1 Kumari Sayari caught his feet.

Accused Dalla struck three blows with the stone on the head of

Kishan Singh. He thereafter pressed his throat. DW 1 Kumari Sayari

also struck a few blows with the stone on the head of Kishan Singh.

Kishan Singh passed away instantaneously on the spot. The incident

was seen by PW 2 Raisingh, PW 3 Khemsingh and PW 4 Khuman

Singh. Accused Mst. Bhanwari threatened them with dire

consequences in case they divulged the secret. The dead-body of

Kishan Singh was taken out-side the house and was burried in a pit.

When the whereabouts of Kishan Singh could not be traced out for

three or four days, PW 1 Vadan Singh son of Devisingh went to

Police Station, Nathdwara and lodged report EX. P 1 of the

occurrence. It was mentioned therein that foul smell was emitting

from the place situated near the house of Kishan Singh. The police

registered a case under section 201 and 302, I.P.C. and proceeded

with investigation. The Station House Officer Badami Lal (PW 17&

17A) arrived on the spot. The dead body of Kishan Singh was

disinterred from the pit and inquest report was prepared. The post-

mortem examination of the victim's deadbody was conducted by

PW16 Dr. S.K. Lodha the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government

Hospital, Nathdwara. He noticed some external injuries over the

(4 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991] deadbody. He was of the opinion that the cause of death of Kishan

Singh was asphyxia resulting from strangulation on throat. The

duration of death was stated to be three to six days preceeding the

post mortem examination conducted on August 23, 1983. The post-

mortem report prepared by him is EX. P 8. Two persons Prithvisingh

and Bhanwarsingh were arrested by the investigating officer on

August 26, 1983. In consequence of the information furnished by

Prithvisingh, blood-stained soil, stone, spade and Getti were

recovered from his house. The investigation thereafter changed

hands and it was entrusted on September 11, 1983 to the Deputy

Superintendent of Police Mr. Duli Chand Sharma (PW 20). He once

again recorded the statements of Raisingh, Khem Singh and

Khumansingh, according to whom their father Kishan Singh was

killed by their mother Mst. Bhanwari, sister Kumari Sayari (DW 1)

and appellant Dalla. These three persons were thereafter arrested

by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On the completion of

investigation, the police presented a challan against the accused

Dalla, Mst. Bhanwari and Kumari Sayari in the Court of Munsif &

Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara. The police further prayed that

Prithvisingh and Bhanwarsingh who were earlier arrested during

investigation be released under section 169, Cr.P.C. The learned

Magistrate disallowed this prayer of the police and refused to

release Prithvisingh and Bhanwarsingh. However, the case of

Bhanwarsingh was referred to the Children's Court as he was found

below 18 years of age. The learned Magistrate committed the case

for trial to the Court of Sessions, who conducted the trial against

accused Dalla, Mst. Bhanwari, Ku. Sayari and Prithvisingh. The

(5 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991] learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated August 6, 1984

discharged Prithvisingh and framed charges under sections 302 and

201, I.P.C. against accused Dalla, Smt. Bhanwari and Ku. Sayari, to

which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It was

contended on behalf of Ku. Sayari that she was below 18 years of

age and as such she could not be tried by the Sessions Judge and

that her case should be referred to the Children's Court. This prayer

found favour with the Sessions Judge and he, by his order dated

June 25, 1985 dropped the trial against Ku. Sayari and referred her

case to the Children's Court. There, thus, remained accused Dalla

and Smt. Bhanwari to face the trial. In support of its case, the

prosecution examined 20 witnesses and filed some documents. In

defence, the appellants examined three witnesses including Ku.

Sayari (DW 1). According to the appellants, they were innocent and

had been falsely implicated by Manoharsingh and others whereas

the real culprits were Bhanwarsingh and Prithvisingh. On the

conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the

prosecution case substantially true against the appellants and no

material worth in the defence raised by them. The appellants were

consequently convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment vide

judgment dated 16.07.86.

4. An appeal was preferred before this Court against the

judgment dated 16.7.86 and this Court vide judgment dated

15.10.86, set aside the judgment dated 16.7.86 and ordered de

novo trial.

5. During the course of re-trial, certain witnesses were re-called

and statements of certain witnesses were admitted by the accused.

(6 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991]

6. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and 3 witnesses were

examined by the defence. On the basis of the evidence led and the

material available on record, the learned trial Court proceeded on to

hold the appellants guilty and punished them as mentioned above.

Against the said order of conviction the present appeal has been

preferred.

7. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that

firstly, the three alleged eye witnesses on the basis of whose

statements the learned trial Court proceeded on to convict the

appellants, are the most unreliable and unworthy witnesses.

According to learned counsel it is clear on record that one of the so

called eye witnesses- Khuman Singh (P.W.4), the youngest son of

the deceased Kishan Singh specifically admitted that he was

sleeping at the time when the alleged incident took place and it was

only on the next morning, his sister Sayari informed him that his

father had been murdered in the night. Therefore, by any stretch of

imagination the said witness cannot be termed to be an eye

witness. Secondly, the alleged eye witness Rai Singh (P.W.2) who

was the eldest son of the deceased Kishan Singh and was about 13

years of age at the time of incident stated that in spite of witnessing

the incident and knowing everything about the same, he did not

disclose the fact of murder of his father for almost 10-12 days to

anyone. Moreover, the witness alleged that on the very next

morning, he went to Badmula to fetch his mother and returned to

his village along with his mother and his maternal uncle on the next

day. But till that time also, he preferred not to disclose the incident

to anybody. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that it is highly

(7 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991] improbable that a child of thirteen years of age having witnessed

the murder of his own father would not disclose the same to

anybody for such a long period. Moreover, there was no reason to

conceal the said fact on the next day when he was out of reach of

the so called person (accused Dalla) who, according to him, had

threatened him not to disclose the incident to anyone. Learned

counsel submitted that therefore, the testimony of so called eye

witness is also wholly misconceived and this witness also cannot be

said to be trustworthy. Thirdly, it is an admitted case on record

that all the three so called eye witnesses, the minor sons of the

deceased, had been in the custody of police for more than 10 days

before recording of their statements. It is also an admitted fact on

record that it is only for the first time after coming out of the

custody of the police that these so called eye witnesses disclosed

the incident and prior to that, they did not narrate any fact to

anyone which is most unnatural for the children below thirteen

years of age. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the

conviction based on the statements of the so called child witnesses

deserves to be set aside.

8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants further

submitted that the stark contradictions in the statements of all the

three eye witnesses also prove that none of them had witnessed

any such incident and the story as framed by the prosecution was

totally concocted one. The most glaring fact in the present matter is

that at the first instance, investigation was done by Badami Lal

(P.W.17) who has been examined by the prosecution and he

specifically admitted that on the basis of material and evidence

(8 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991] investigated by him, he found Prithvi Singh and Bhanwar Singh to

be the main culprits and arrested them. Subsequently, the

investigation was taken over by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

and interestingly, the complete scenario changed after that. After

the Investigating Officer being changed, the investigation took a

complete new turn and the challan was filed against the present

appellants Smt. Bhanwari, Dalla and Sayari (daugter of the

deceased). So far as Prithvi Singh and Bhanwar Singh are

concerned, they were given clean chit by the Investigating

Authority. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the above

facts are sufficient to prove that the appellants had been falsely

implicated by the Investigating Officer at the instance of Manohar

Singh (brother of the deceased) who had an enmity with his Bhabhi,

the present appellant Smt. Bhanwari Devi.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the

motive as alleged to be set up by the prosecution is that Smt.

Bhanwari and Dalla were in illicit relationship and therefore, they

murdered Kishan Singh (husband of Bhanwari Devi) but there is not

an iota of evidence on record to prove the fact of illicit relationship

of the two appellants. None of so called eye witnesses have stated a

single fact to corroborate the said allegation. Only one witness

namely Lal Singh (P.W.5) made a cursory statement to that effect

and he too had turned hostile. Meaning thereby, no motive for the

alleged murder was proved on record against the appellants by the

prosecution, what to say of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

(9 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991]

10. It is submitted that it was very well proved on record that

Bhanwari was not present on the site on the day of incident but the

same fact had been totally ignored by the trial Court.

11. With the above submissions, learned counsel submitted that

the impugned judgment deserves interference and both the accused

deserve to be acquitted.

12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State

supported the findings of the impugned judgment and submitted

that it was clearly proved on record on the basis of the statements

of the eye witnesses that the accused Bhanwari and Dalla had killed

the deceased Kishan Singh. He further submitted that all the three

sons of the deceased who were eye witnesses to the incident

deposed on the same terms and said evidence has remain

uncontroverted. So far as the second investigation conducted by the

Deputy Superintendent of Police is concerned, learned PP submitted

that the inquiry/investigation was changed on the request made by

the complainant only and it was proved beyond doubt on record

that all the three minor sons of the deceased were threatened by

the accused and therefore, they made statements against Prithvi

Singh and Bhanwar Singh at the first instance. The statements

proved out to be made under duress. He further submitted that

even otherwise Prithvi Singh was discharged by the court below

during the course of trial. He also submitted that the allegation of

the accused of the prosecution having framed a concocted story at

the instance of Manohar Singh also falls flat on record as the said

fact has not been proved by any of the defence witness rather the

same has been specifically denied by all the three sons of the

(10 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991] deceased. With the above submissions, while supporting the

impugned judgment, learned Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal

of the present appeal and affirmation of the order of punishment as

passed by the court below.

13. We have heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the

accused appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor, perused the

impugned judgment passed by the court below, appreciated the

evidence and have gone through the complete record of the case.

14. The first aspect for consideration in the matter is whether the

three sons of the deceased actually witnessed the alleged incident.

Rai Singh (PW2), the eldest of the sons, who was 13 years of age at

the time of incident and 16 years while deposing before the court

below on 16.07.87, deposed as under :

"eSa igys ls gh txk gqvk Fkk ;s lkjh ckrsa eSaus ns[khA esjs nwljs nks HkkbZ Hkh tx x;s FksA mUgksaus Hkh okjnkr ns[khA"

Khem Singh (PW3) stated as under :

"eSa ml le; cSBk gqvk Fkk vkSj [kqek.kflag lks;k gqvk FkkA"

Khuman Singh (PW4), who was 7 years of age at the time of

incident and 10 years of age while deposing before the court below

specifically admitted in the cross-examination as under :

"oDr ?kVuk eSa lks jgk FkkA"

15. A bare perusal of the above statements makes it clear that

Khuman Singh was not the eye witness to the incident and the said

fact has been admitted by he himself as well as by Khem Singh. So

far as Rai Singh is concerned, it is clear that he has exaggerated his

statement which is totally contrary to the other alleged eye

witnesses.

(11 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991]

16. Now coming to the fact whether Rai Singh and Khem Singh

were the eye witnesses to the incident and whether they deposed

the correct facts before the court. For the purpose, their statements

as recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, CrPC

and as recorded by the court under Section 164, CrPC become

relevant.

17. Narrating the facts which took place soon after the incident,

Rai Singh submitted that soon after the incident, his sister and all

the three brothers went to their second house situated just in front

of the house where incident took place and Dalla went to his house

and returned back at 4:00 AM in the morning. His mother Bhanwari

went with Dalla at that time. Khem Singh (PW3) stated that soon

after the incident, they all went to other room in the house and

Dalla also left the house. In his cross-examination, he submitted

that Dalla returned back only on the evening of the next day and

did not come back to the house prior to that. The specific

statements made by both these witnesses were as under :

"bu yksxksa us esjs firk dh yk'k ds mij pnj Mkydj iyax ds uhps lqyk fn;kA mlds ckn ge nwljs dejs esa pys x;sA" (PW3 Khem Singh)

"bl ?kVuk ds ckn esjh eka esjh cgu vkSj ge rhuksa HkkbZ gekjk nwljk ?kj tks ?kVuk LFky ds lkeus gh Fkk mlesa pys x;sA nYyk mlds ?kj pyk x;k] ;g dgdj dh lqcg 4 cts vkÅaxkA lqcg 4 cts nYyk vk;k rc eSa tx x;k FkkA esjh eka Hkaojh nYyk ds lkFk pyh xbZ ;s gesa dg x;s Fks fdlh dks dqN er crkukA" (PW2 Rai Singh)

In his cross-examination (PW3 Khem Singh) stated as

under :

"nYyk 'kke dks vk;k FkkA esjk HkkbZ vdsyk gh pyk x;k FkkA nYyk nwljs fnu 'kke dks esjs firk dks xkM+us ds fy;s ?kj vk;k Fkk blds chp esa ugha vk;kA"

(12 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991]

18. From a bare perusal of the statements of the two alleged eye

witnesses, it is clear that there are stark contradictions in their

statements regarding the alleged incident; the circumstances soon

after the incident; and presence of accused Dalla and Bhanwari at

the place of incident. As observed above,

(i) Rai Singh (PW2) submitted that soon after the incident they went

to their second house situated in front of the place of incident

whereas both Khem Singh and Khuman Singh stated that after the

incident, they went to the other room in the house and went to

sleep.

(ii) Regarding the return of accused Dalla to the place of incident,

Rai Singh stated that he returned back at 4 'o' clock in the morning

and his mother went away with him on that day. Whereas both

Khem Singh and Khuman Singh stated that Dalla returned back only

in the evening of the next day and not before that.

(iii) Regarding the leaving of the accused Bhanwari from the house,

Rai Singh stated that she went with Dalla in the next morning at

about 4:00 AM whereas Khem Singh stated that before leaving,

Dalla asked his mother to go to her maternal place and that he

would return in the evening of the next day to bury the dead body.

He also admitted that Dalla did not return before the evening of the

next day.

(iv) Regarding the facts of their maternal uncle Sohan Singh coming

on the next day and narration of the incident to him by accused

Sayari, Rai Singh stated that in the morning when his uncle went to

the backyard (Khandar), he saw the head of the dead body burried

in the ground and then he asked Sayari as to who burried the dead

(13 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991] body there to which Sayari replied that she and three sons jointly

killed him. Whereas Khem Singh stated that when his maternal

uncle went to the backyard(Khandar), he complained of some foul

smell and slapped Sayari and asked her the truth to which she

replied that they all jointly killed their father. Therefore, his uncle,

mother and they all jointly decided to dig out the dead body in the

night to dispose of the same in the Talab nearby. But as the dead

body had deteriorated by then, they put some soil on it and did not

dig out the same. Whereas, Sohansingh (DW-2) himself stated total

new facts. He stated that when he reached the house along with his

sister Bhanwari and Raisingh on Monday, all the other three children

were locked in a room. He opened the door and Sayari, after

coming out, stated that it has been 4 days since her father has been

killed and that Bhanwarsingh and Prithvisingh killed him.

Interestingly, Sohan Singh, who had come in the witness box had

not been cross examined regarding the statements as made by

Khumansingh.

19. The above statements makes it crystal clear that there are

stark contradictions in the statements of all the three alleged eye

witnesses, which makes the complete prosecution story doubtful.

First version of the alleged eye witnesses was that Prithvi Singh and

Bhanwar Singh killed their father; second version was that their

mother, sister and Dalla jointly killed him; the total new version in

the statements is that the fact of the father having been killed

jointly by the three children was informed to their maternal uncle

and after the said information, they all decided to dispose of the

(14 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991] body in the talab nearby but the same could not be done as the

body has deteriorated by then.

20. The next question would be whether the accused Bhanwari

was present on the spot on the date of incident. Although, all the

three alleged eye witnesses have stated that Bhanwari left the spot

early morning the next day, Gopal Singh (PW6) specifically

submitted that he had seen Bhanwari at Village Budgula which is

her maternal place prior to Rakhi festival and that she stayed at

Budgula for 4-5 days and after his son came to take her away, she

went along with her brother Sohan Singh.

21. Gulab Singh (PW10) also stated that he had seen Bhanwari at

Budgula on the days of the festival of Rakhi. Statement of Gopal

Singh have not been controverted by any of the prosecution

witnesses nor has he been cross-examined on the said statement

therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the said witnesses.

22. In view of the clear contradictory statement of all the three

alleged eye witnesses, this Court is under an obligation to reach to

a definite conclusion whether such evidence could have been relied

upon by the Trial Court convict the accused appellants. In

Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of M.P.; 2003 SCC (Cri) 712, Hon'ble

Apex Court, while dealing with the issue as to what extent, the

evidence of child witness can be relied upon, held as under:

"22. It is hazardous to rely on the sole testimony of the child witness as it is not available immediately after the occurrence of the incident and before there were any possibility of coaching and tutoring him......"

The Hon'ble Apex Court further held as under :

"19. The law recognises the child as a competent witness but a child particularly at such a tender age of

(15 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991] six years, who is unable to form a proper opinion about the nature of the incident because of immaturity of understanding, is not considered by the court to be a witness whose sole testimony can be relied upon without other corroborative evidence. The evidence of a child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, always the court looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony.(See Panchhi v. State of U.P.)

20. In the case before us, the trial Judge has recorded the demeanour of the child. The child was vacillating in the course of his deposition. From a child of six years of age, absolute consistency in deposition cannot be expected but if it appears that there was a possibility of his being tutored, the court should be careful in relying on his evidence......."

23. In the matter of Digamber Vaishnav & Anr. Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh; 2019 Cr.L.R. (SC) 256, the Hon'ble Apex Court

again reiterated as under :

"21. The case of the prosecution is mainly dependent on the testimony of Chandni, the child witness, who was examined as PW-8. Section 118 of the Evidence Act governs competence of the persons to testify which also includes a child witness. Evidence of the child witness and its credibility could depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no rule of practice that in every case the evidence of a child witness has to be corroborated by other evidence before a conviction can be allowed to stand but as a prudence, the Court always finds it desirable to seek corroboration to such evidence from other reliable evidence placed on record. Only precaution which the Court has to bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that witness must be a reliable one.

22. This Court has consistently held that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated carefully as the child may be swayed by what others tell him and he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, the evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it can be relied upon. It is more a rule of practical wisdom than law.[See Panchhi and others Vs. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177, State of U.P. Vs Ashok Dixit and another, (2000) 3 SCC 70, and State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745]."

24. Keeping into consideration the ratio as laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the specific opinion that the

(16 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991] statements as made by all the three children alleged to be the eye

witnesses to the incident in the present case cannot be relied upon

because of the following reasons :

(i) The statements as made by the children were not the one made

immediately after the occurrence of the incident;

(ii) Admittedly all the three children had been in police custody for

10 days and it is only after coming out of the said custody that they,

for the first time, accused the present appellants of the murder of

their father. It is clear that the same was a result of some tutoring

and the said fact becomes more relevant when they had at the first

instance, accused two other persons of the murder;

(iii) No independent witness besides these three children have been

examined by the prosecution and none of the other prosecution

witness has corroborated the story of three child witnesses and;

(iv) The statements of all the three alleged eye witnesses are

contradictory to each other and also does not corroborate to the

circumstances as narrated by the prosecution.

25. Therefore, the statements of all the alleged three eye

witnesses could not have been relied upon by the learned trial court

so as to convict the accused appellants.

26. As a consequence of the above discussion, we have no

hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the

charges against the appellants by leading reliable evidence. The

impugned judgment does not stand to scrutiny.

27. As a consequence, the present appeal is allowed. The

impugned judgment dated 23.02.1991 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Session Case No.21/1989

(17 of 17) [CRLA-117/1991] (50/1986) is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are

already on bail and therefore, their bail bonds are ordered to be

discharged.

28. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A

Cr.P.C., the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.40,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount

before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of

six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave

Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof,

the appellants shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

29. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.

(REKHA BORANA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACJ

Vij/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)