JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this appeal, preferred under section 378(1) Cr.P.C. the appellant impugns the judgment and order dated 11-5-1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 257 of 1983 acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under sections 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., 307 r/w 34 I.P.C., 326 r/w 34 I.P.C and 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. 2.In short, the prosecution case runs as under :- The informant Balshiram Bhimaji Avte P.W. 1 had two sisters. One of them Babi was married to the deceased Waman and the other Sunanda P.W. 8 was married to Nanabhau Varpe P.W. 3. Balshiram, Waman and Nanabhau used to reside in huts, situated in immediate proximity of one another, in Mahadeo Bagul Chawl, Panchapakhadi, within the limits of Police Station Naupada District Thane. In their vicinity, respondent No. 2 Smt. Vasanti Bhalchandra Chavan also used to reside. Respondent No. 1 Narendra Devaji Chafekar used to frequently visit Smt. Vasanti Bhalchandra Chavan in her hut. The latter had a feeling that the informant and Waman were spreading rumours in the locality about her illicit relationship with Narendra Chafekar. On 18-5-1983, Balshiram had reported on duty in Voltas Company where he had been working since about last 17 years. At about 5 p.m. he returned home from duty. Immediately then, the respondent No. 2 Vasanti Chavan started hurling abuses at him, his sisters and his brothers- in-law. The informant asked Vasanti as to why she was abusing them, and thereupon, the latter replied that in the evening she would show the reason for the same. At about 7 or 7.15 p.m. Balshiram again heard Vasanti Chavan hurling abuses towards them. He also heard voice of respondent No. 1 Narendra Chafekar coming from her house. In order to fetch betel leaf and tobacco from a betel-leaf shop, he came out of his room. It was about 8 p.m. at that time. There was a betel-leaf shop on the highway and he proceeded for the same. He started walking by the left hand side of the highway. He reached the shop of a hawker who used to sell batatawadas and decided to cross the road. Immediately, thereupon he found that respondents Narendra Chafekar and Vasanti Chavan were following her (sic him). Narendra Chafekar asked him to stop and also asked him as to why he was defaming him. He reached the shop of a hawker who used to sell batatawadas and decided to cross the road. Immediately, thereupon he found that respondents Narendra Chafekar and Vasanti Chavan were following her (sic him). Narendra Chafekar asked him to stop and also asked him as to why he was defaming him. Respondent Vasanti Chavan caught hold of the banian of the informant. Thereupon, Narendra Chafekar took out a knife from the pocket of his pant and inflicted with the same, two blows on him; one on right shoulder near the arm-pit and the other on the right arm upper portion. He started shouting. Hearing his shouts, his brothers-in-law Waman and Nanabhau who were returning from the place of their work New Great Marble Company at Thane came to his rescue. Both of them tried to intervene. Narendra Chafekar released his right hand which was tightly held by the informant and inflicted two knife blows on the person of Waman; first one on left side of the chest and second on back of the chest. Nanabhau also received injuries while trying to intervene. The informant and others are said to have recognised the respondents in the light of petromax on the batatawada stall and street-lights on the highway. It is said that Shantaram Jadhav P.W. 2, Rajan Kadam and some others came running there. Shantaram and Rajan over-powered Narender Chafekar and took him in their custody along with blood stained knife. 3.The informant Balshiram and Nanabhau fetched a rickshaw and carried Waman who was in precariously injured condition on the same to Civil Hospital Thane, where the doctor examined Waman and pronounced him dead. 4.Shantaram Jadhav P.W. 2 took respondent Narendra Chafekar who was carrying a blood-stained knife on a rickshaw to Naupada Police Station at about 8.30 p.m. He lodged his F.I.R. there. Narendra Chafekar was taken into custody along with the blood-stained knife by P.S.I. Sarvankar P.W. 11. 5.Injuries of Balshiram and Nanabhau were medically examined same day at 8.40 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. respectively, at Civil Hospital, Thane by Dr. Vijay Sangole P.W. 10. On the person of Balshiram, Dr. Sangole found the following injuries :- 1. Incised wound at the anterior axillary fold of right axilla 1" x ¼" muscle deep. 2. Incised wound at the right arm upper 1/3 rd medial side - 2" x ¼" muscle deep. Vijay Sangole P.W. 10. On the person of Balshiram, Dr. Sangole found the following injuries :- 1. Incised wound at the anterior axillary fold of right axilla 1" x ¼" muscle deep. 2. Incised wound at the right arm upper 1/3 rd medial side - 2" x ¼" muscle deep. They were fresh and attributable to a sharp object. During trial, he was asked whether they could be caused by the knife (article No. 1 knife recovered from Narendra Chafekar) and stated in the affirmative. On the person of Nanabhau, Dr. Sangole found a solitary injury namely abrasions ¼" x ¼" on the left middle finger proximal phalynx. The said injury in his opinion was fresh and attributable to a hard and blunt object. 6.It would also be pertinent to mention that respondent Narendra Chafekar was sent for medical examination and was also examined by Dr. Sangole who found on his person following two injuries :- 1. Contusion and abrasion at the lower lip ½" x ½". 2. Incised wound at the left index finger extensor surface ¼" x ¼" muscle deep. The said injuries were fresh, injury No. 1 was caused by hard and blunt object and No. 2 by a sharp object. 7.The post mortem examination on the corpse of Waman Khandu Varpe was conducted on 19-5-1983 between 11 a.m. to 12.20 p.m. by Dr. S.M. Gupta P.W. 9. On the corpse, the doctor found the following three injuries :- " 1. I.W. on the Lt. chest in Mid clavicular line 8 cms. below and medial to Nipple in 7th I.C.S. obliquely vertical 3 x ½ cms, cavity deep wound, has one angle acute. 2. Abrasion on the Lt. chest on the lateral side, Axillary line, middle 2/3rd, 8 x 1/4 cms, linear. 3. Abrasion on the Lt. upper back shoulder ½ cm in diameter." On internal examination, Dr. Gupta found fracture of 8th rib and incised wound on the middle part of the left lung penetrating the left ventricle. In the opinion of Dr. Gupta, the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the incised wound on the chest and the said injury in his opinion was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 8.The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.S.I. Dnyandev Sarvankar P.W. 11. After completing the same, he submitted a charge sheet against the respondents. 8.The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.S.I. Dnyandev Sarvankar P.W. 11. After completing the same, he submitted a charge sheet against the respondents. 9.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial Court, the respondents were charged for offences mentioned in para 1. They pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. During trial, in all the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. 3 of them namely Balshiram, Nanabhau and Sunanda P.Ws. 1, 3 and 8 respectively were examined as eye-witnesses. Shantaram Jadhav P.W. 2 reached the place of the incident immediately after the assault was over, and took the respondent Narendra Chafekar along with blood- stained knife to police station Naupada where he lodged his F.I.R. His evidence would be admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act. In defence, no witness was examined. The defence of the respondent Narendra Chafekar, as emerging from his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. was that respondent Vasanti Chavan was in employment with him. On the date of the incident, he asked her whether the necessary goods had reached the factory and she replied in the negative. Thereafter, he left the hut of Vasanti Chavan and came on the highway. He found that informant Balshiram, Waman and Nanabhau and another standing on the highway. All of them suddenly came near him, Waman held his hands from the back side and Balshiram and Nanabhau started assaulting him on his face and abdomen. When Balshiram took out a weapon to assault him, he shouted for help and thereupon the nearby residents came running and a scuffle took place. He stated that he did not knew who dealt blows and who suffered blows. Thereafter, Rajan and Shantaram stopped the complainant and others from assaulting him. Immediately, thereafter along with Shantaram, he went to police station. In her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. respondent Vasanti Chavan pleaded denial and stated that she had been falsely implicated. 10.The learned trial Judge did not accept the evidence adduced by the prosecution and acquitted the respondents on all the counts. Hence, this appeal. 11.We have heard Mr. R.Y. Mirza Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant, Mr. A.P. Mundargi with Mr. G.H. Keluskar holding for Mr. S.G. Samant for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.G. Mane for the respondent No. 2. Hence, this appeal. 11.We have heard Mr. R.Y. Mirza Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant, Mr. A.P. Mundargi with Mr. G.H. Keluskar holding for Mr. S.G. Samant for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.G. Mane for the respondent No. 2. We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; statements of the respondents recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., and the impugned judgment. We are satisfied that the impugned order of acquittal is unsustainable in law and warrants our interference. In reaching the said conclusion, we have borne in mind that interference in an appeal against acquittal should only be resorted to if either the conclusions on facts are grossly unreasonable or the impugned order of acquittal is vitiated by any illegality. 12. Mr. Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the evidence of the three eye witnesses namely Balshiram, Nanabhau and Sunanda P.W. 1,3 and 8 respectively inspires implict confidence, and coupled with that of P.W. 2 Shataram Jadhav, warrants that the order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents be set aside. Mr. Mirza learned Additional Public Prosecutor also urged that defence of the respondents is inconsistent and the learned trial Judge erred in holding it to be probable and also erred in holding that the injuries of respondent Narendra Chafekar were of a serious nature and remained unexplained. In his contention, they were injuries of a negligible nature, the prosecution was under no obligation to explain them; and were caused when Shantaram P.W. 2 and Rajan Kadam (not examined) immediately overpowered him after he had assaulted Balshiram and Waman. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of Mr. Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor and find merit in them. 13.In our judgment, Mr. Mirza is justified in canvassing that the evidence of the three eye-witnesses inspires implicit confidence. We would like to deal with their evidence individually. We first take up the evidence of Balshiram P.W. 1. His evidence is that at about 5 p.m. when he returned from Voltas Company where he worked, respondent Vasanti Chavan immediately started abusing him, his sisters and his brothers-in-law. When he asked her the reason for this, she said that she would show him the reason later on. He further stated that at about 7 or 7.15 p.m. Vasanti Chavan again started abusing him. When he asked her the reason for this, she said that she would show him the reason later on. He further stated that at about 7 or 7.15 p.m. Vasanti Chavan again started abusing him. At that time, respondent Narendra Chafekar was in her hut. At about 8 p.m. he started proceeding to the tobacco betel leaf shop on the highway. When he had reached a batatawada stall, he found the two respondents there. Respondent Narendra Chafekar asked him as to why he was defaming them. Thereupon, the respondent Vasanti Chavan caught hold of his banian and respondent Narendra Chafekar inflicted two blows one each on the right shoulder near the arm-pit and upper portion of right arm. In the meantime, Waman and Nanabhau arrived at the spot, and tried to intervene. Narendra Chafekar extricated his hand from his clutches and inflicted two knife blows one on left side chest and one on the upper back portion of Waman. His evidence is that Nanabhau also received injuries. We find the account of this witness to be in harmony with probabilities and medical evidence. In the earlier part of our judgment, we have referred to the injuries of Balshiram and we find they corroborate the manner in which they were caused as deposed to by him. We also find that his statement to the effect that respondent Narendra Chafekar inflicted a knife blow on the left side chest of Waman to be correct because the Autopsy Surgeon found an incised wound on that part of the body. 14.Mr. Mirza Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the statement of Balshiram to the effect that respondent Narendra Chafekar inflicted a knife blow on the back of Waman is also corroborated by the ante-mortem injuries of Waman in-as-much the Autopsy Surgeon found an abrasion which was 1/2 cm in diameter on the left upper back. We regret that it would not be possible for us to accept this submission for two reasons :- Firstly, the suggestion to the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. S.M. Gupta in examination-in-chief is that two abrasions suffered by Waman were caused by a fall. Dr. Gupta was not suggested that they could be caused by a knife blow grazing on the back of Waman as was sought to be submitted by Mr. Mirza. Dr. S.M. Gupta in examination-in-chief is that two abrasions suffered by Waman were caused by a fall. Dr. Gupta was not suggested that they could be caused by a knife blow grazing on the back of Waman as was sought to be submitted by Mr. Mirza. Dr. Gupta in his cross-examination categorically stated that if the knife blow had been dealt on the back, then he would have expected an incised wound on the back. For the said two reasons, it appears that Balshiram has exaggerated when he stated that a knife blow had also been inflicted on the back of Waman. Apart from this blemish, there is no infirmity in his evidence and we accept the same. 15.We now take up the statement of Nanabhau P.W. 3. His evidence is that he and Waman were employed in New Marble Company at Thane and on the date and time of the incident, while they were on the way to their huts, they heard cries of Balshiram and intervened. Respondent Narendra Chafekar released his hand which was firmly gripped by Balshiram and inflicted two knife blows, one on chest and one on the back of Waman. As mentioned earlier, the Autopsy Surgeon found a knife blow on the left side chest of Waman. Like Balshiram, apart from the exaggeration that a knife blow was inflicted on the back of Waman, we find no infirmity in his evidence and believe his evidence. 16.We next take up the evidence of Sunanda Varpe P.W. 8. She stated like Balshiram that on the date of the incident at about 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. the respondent Vasanti Chavan abused Balshiram. At the latter time, respondent Narendra was also there. She further stated that at about 8 p.m. Balshiram proceeded to get betel-leaf and tobacco and the two respondents started following him. Consequently, she also followed them. She saw respondent Narendra Chafekar inflicting two knife blows on Balshiram. At that point of time, Waman and Nanabhau reached there and intervened. Thereupon, respondent Narendra Chafekar inflicted two knife blows on Waman. First one on left side of chest and the second on back. As mentioned earlier, the Autopsy Surgeon only found a knife injury on the left side of the chest of Waman. At that point of time, Waman and Nanabhau reached there and intervened. Thereupon, respondent Narendra Chafekar inflicted two knife blows on Waman. First one on left side of chest and the second on back. As mentioned earlier, the Autopsy Surgeon only found a knife injury on the left side of the chest of Waman. Like Balshiram and Nanabhau, the only blemish in her statement is although she stated that Narendra Chafekar inflicted a knife blow on the back of Waman but, no knife injury on the said part of the body was found on Waman's person by the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Gupta P.W. 9. 17.In our view, the evidence of the said three witnesses amply establishes the involvement of the respondents in the crime and the learned trial Judge was grossly unjustified in rejecting it. 18.The evidence of Shantaram lends a seal of veracity on the prosecution case. He is said to have reached the place of the incident immediately after the assault was over. He along with Rajan Kadam is said to have apprehended the respondent Narendra Chafekar with a knife. The said knife was sent to the Chemical Analyst and he found blood of 'A' group on it. It is significant to point out that the clothes of the deceased namely full pant, chaddi, torn bush-shirt and torn banian were also sent to the Chemical Analyst and his report shows that they were also stained with 'A' group of blood. Since the blood group of the respondent Narendra Chafekar was 'O' it is crystal clear that the blood on the knife was of the deceased. Respondent Narendra Chafekar has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation regarding presence of blood group of the deceased on the knife. 19.In our view, the trial Judge grossly erred in not giving adequate importance to the evidence of Shantaram P.W. 2 and to the circumstances that on the knife recovered from the respondent Narendra there was blood of the blood group of the deceased. In fact, the judgment of the trial Judge shows that he has been more or less oblivious to this aspect. 20.We now take up the defence of the respondents and their case. In para 9 we have extensively set out their defence. We regret that we do not find any merit in the same. In fact, the judgment of the trial Judge shows that he has been more or less oblivious to this aspect. 20.We now take up the defence of the respondents and their case. In para 9 we have extensively set out their defence. We regret that we do not find any merit in the same. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. respondent Narendra Chafekar stated that he was assaulted by the complainant Waman and Nanabhau on his face and abdomen. However, his injuries which we have set out in para 6 do not show that he sustained any injury on the abdomen. Again his statement is that after he had been attacked, he had shouted 'save save' and thereupon some people came and he did not know who assaulted whom. In other words, his statement completely fails to explain the injuries sustained by Balshiram and Waman. We also find that the suggestion given to the eye-witnesses is not in conformity with the defence pleaded by respondent Narendra Chafekar in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. During cross-examination, in para 7, it was suggested to Balshiram P.W. 1 that he sustained injuries in a scuffle with respondent Narendra Chafekar and during the scuffle. Narendra Chafekar, he, Nanabhau and Waman fell in a ditch and Waman accidently sustained knife injuries on his chest. There is another reason as to why we are not inclined to accept the defence of respondent Narendra Chafekar. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. he has stated that Rajan and Shantaram had taken him to police station Naupada. If his defence was true then at the police station, he would have set out his defence version in an F.I.R. 21.The capital circumstance which proves the falsity of the defence case is that the Chemical Analyst found presence of same group of blood namely 'A' both on the clothes of the deceased namely full pant, chaddi, torn bush-shirt and torn banian and the knife which is said to have been recovered from the respondent Narendra Chafekar. If the defence case was true, then there was no reason for the blood of the blood group of the deceased being present on the knife. As we have mentioned earlier, the blood group of respondent Narendra Chafekar was 'O'. The learned trial Judge acted perversely in ignoring this circumstance. If the defence case was true, then there was no reason for the blood of the blood group of the deceased being present on the knife. As we have mentioned earlier, the blood group of respondent Narendra Chafekar was 'O'. The learned trial Judge acted perversely in ignoring this circumstance. 22.We are also not prepared to accept the statement of respondent Vasanti Chavan when she states that she has been falsely implicated. All the three eye-witnesses have categorically implicated her. Balshiram and Sunanda have specifically stated that she had caught hold of the banian of the former. Nanabhau did not state so and the reason for that was that by the time he came, the assault on Balshiram had been over and respondent Vasanti Chavan had ceased holding the banian of Balshiram. 23.We are also inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the learned trial Judge erred in holding that the injuries sustained by the respondent Narendra Chafekar were of a serious nature and have remained unexplained. In para 6 we have set out the injuries of respondent Narendra Chafekar and we agree that the said injuries are not of a serious nature. It is well-settled that if the injuries sustained are of an insignificant nature, the prosecution is under no obligation to explain them. We find merit in Mr. Mirza's contention that the evidence of the eye-witnesses and that of Shantaram shows that Shantaram and Rajan Kadam immediately after the assault overpowered the respondent Narendra Chafekar. Mr. Mirza Additional Public Prosecutor urged and rightly in our judgment, that in that process, two trivial injuries sustained by Narendra Chafekar could have been caused. He pointed out that respondent Narendra Chafekar at that time was holding a knife and in the process, of his being over-powered, he could have sustained an incised wound on his fingers by the said knife. He pointed out that respondent Narendra Chafekar at that time was holding a knife and in the process, of his being over-powered, he could have sustained an incised wound on his fingers by the said knife. 24.A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents mainly on three grounds :-- (i) that the evidence of the eye-witnesses does not inspire confidence; (ii) the defence version of the incident was more probable than the prosecution version; and (iii) the injuries sustained by Narendra Chafekar were of a serious nature and the omission to explain them may give rise to the inference that he may have acted in the exercise of the right of private defence of person. We have already mentioned above as to why we find no merit in the said reasons. In our view, the view of acquittal was grossly unreasonable bordering on perversity and therefore, cannot be sustained. For the said reasons, we find that the trial Judge erred in acquitting the respondents. 25.The only question which remains is as to what is the offence which has been committed by the respondents. There is no dispute that the respondent Vasanti Chavan could not be fastened with common intention in respect of the assault on Waman. The evidence is that Waman arrived on the place of the incident all of a sudden and she is not attributed any role which would demonstrate that she shared along with the respondent Narendra Chafekar the common intention to assault them. For the assault on Waman in our view Narendra Chafekar would only be liable. However, we find that she shared the common intention in respect of the assault on the informant Balshiram because the occular evidence, which we have accepted is that while she caught hold of the banian of Balshiram, Narendra Chafekar inflicted two knife blows on him. Since the said two knife blows caused simple injuries, she would be liable for an offence under section 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. Considering the circumstances that the incident took place more than 15 years ago and she has remained in jail for about 10 days, we think that the sentence on the said count should be reduced to the period already undergone. 26.We now take up the question as to what offences have been committed by the respondent Narendra Chafekar. 26.We now take up the question as to what offences have been committed by the respondent Narendra Chafekar. Firstly, in our view, since he inflicted two simple knife blows on the person of Balshiram, he would be liable for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. simplicitor. Since he has been in jail for about 3 months we reduce his sentence on the said count to the period already undergone. 27.The dilemma staring us is as to what offence was committed by respondent Narendra Chafekar in relation to the assault on Waman. Admittedly, Waman was not original target of the assault. As co-incidence would have it, he reached the place of the incident on hearing the cries of Balshiram and when he intervened to rescue Balshiram, respondent Narendra Chafekar got infuriated, extricated his hand from the grip of Balshiram and inflicted a solitary knife blow on the chest of Waman. In the circumstances in which a knife blow was inflicted by Narendra Chafekar on Waman, it cannot be safely said that Narendra Chafekar intended to inflict an injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence, neither Clause Thirdly nor any other clause of section 300 I.P.C. would be attracted. The Supreme Court in para 15 of the decision reported in A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court page 284 (Jawaharlal v. State of Punjab), has observed that merely because a blow lands on a part of the body is not indicative of the fact that it was intended to be caused on that part of the body. However, we do feel that when respondent Narendra Chafekar inflicted a knife blow on Waman which struck his chest, he had the knowledge of his death as contemplated by 2nd part of section 304 I.P.C. 28.The question is what should be the quantum of sentence which should be imposed on the respondent Narendra Chafekar for the offence under section 304 Part 2 I.P.C. Mr. Mundargi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 strenuously urged that since the incident took place more than 15 years ago, there is nothing to indicate that Narendra Chafekar has any previous history and the circumstances in which Waman was assaulted by Narendra Chafekar, the ends of justice would be amply satisfied if his substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone which is three months and instead a substantial fine is imposed on him and is directed to be paid as compensation to be widow of Waman the Varpe. On the other hand, Mr. Mirza Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant strenuously urged that looking to the circumstance that a fatal knife blow on a vital part of the body of the deceased which resulted in severe internal damage, and in almost instantaneous death of the deceased was inflicted by the respondent Narendra Chafekar, the instant case calls for a jail sentence coupled with a sentence of fine. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. Considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, we feel that ends of justice would be wholly satisfied if the respondent Narendra Chafekar is sentenced to undergo 2½ years R.I. (30 months R.I.) for the offence under section 304 Part 2 I.P.C., coupled with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and one year R.I. in default. In case the fine is deposited, the whole of it should be paid as compensation to Babi, widow of Waman Khandu Varpe and in case she is not alive to his legal heirs. 29.In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of acquittal is set aside. The respondent Narendra Devji Chafekar is found guilty for offences punishable under sections 324 I.P.C. and 304 Part 2 I.P.C. His sentence for offence under section 324 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He is sentenced to undergo a substantive sentence of 2½ years R.I. (30 months R.I.) coupled with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and one year R.I. in default for the offence under section 304 Part 2 I.P.C. In computing the said sentence, the period served by him as an undertrial, shall be included. He is sentenced to undergo a substantive sentence of 2½ years R.I. (30 months R.I.) coupled with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and one year R.I. in default for the offence under section 304 Part 2 I.P.C. In computing the said sentence, the period served by him as an undertrial, shall be included. The fine shall be deposited by him, within 6 months from today in the trial Court and the whole of it shall be paid as compensation to Babi, the widow of Waman Khandu Varpe and in case she is not alive, to such legal heirs as are entitled to receive it. As soon as the fine is deposited, the trial Court shall inform Babi/legal heirs, as the case may be, about this compensation. Respondent Narendra Devji Chafekar is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. Respondent Smt. Vasanti Bhalchandra Chavan is found guilty for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. and her sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by her. She is on bail. She need not surrender. Her bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. *****