Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1022 (RAJ)

Ishwariya v. State of Rajasthan

2002-05-20

F.C.BANSAL, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2002
Honble BANSAL, J.–The instant appeal stems from the judgment dated June 29, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana (Distt. Bharatpur) in Session Case No. 85/94, whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- 1. Bane Singh, Ishwariya, Natholi and Smt. Kistoori u/S. 302 IPC Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months R.I. u/S. 148 IPC One year R.I. 2. Smt. Triveni & Smt. Ganga u/S. 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months R.I. u/S. 148 IPC One year R.I. (2). Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (3). Briefly stated the prosecution case in that PW-1 Lalchand S/o Gangi, by caste-Dhakar, R/o Dehgaon, Police Station, Bayana submitted a written report Ex.P1 to S.H.O., P.S., Bayana on September 14, 1994 at 2:30 p.m. with the averments that today at about 12:00 noon, his son Ramesh was present in his field of Bajra (millet) crop known as `Kuiyawala. Natholi, Baniya, Ishwariya, Smt. Kistoori W/o Gangi, Smt. Triveni W/o Natholi and Smt. Ganga W/o Baniya were demolishing Dangar (water course) lying in between his field and that of the accused. There was already a dispute in regard to the water course. His wife Hardei and his daughter-in-law Ratandei W/o Ramesh had brought the food for Ramesh from this house and started cutting grass in their field after Ramesh took his meals. Just before the incident, Ramesh was sitting under the Babool tree. When he (Ramesh) asked the accused not to demolish the Dangar from the side of his field, Baniya became angry and told his brothers and ladies of his family present on the field, to teach a lesson to Ramesh. Thereafter they started giving beating to Ramesh. Baniya, Ishwariya were having `Pharsa, Natholi was having `Spade. Smt. Kistoori was having `Daranti and Smt. Triveni and Ganga were having `Lathies. They inflicted injuries on the person of Ramesh with their respective weapons. Smt. Hardei 7 Smt. Ratandei made hue and cry and on hearing their cries, Shiv Charan and Prabhulal came at the spot and made an attempt to rescue Ramesh. Ramswaroop, who was present at the place of occurrence also asked the accused not to inflict injuries to Ramesh. They inflicted injuries on the person of Ramesh with their respective weapons. Smt. Hardei 7 Smt. Ratandei made hue and cry and on hearing their cries, Shiv Charan and Prabhulal came at the spot and made an attempt to rescue Ramesh. Ramswaroop, who was present at the place of occurrence also asked the accused not to inflict injuries to Ramesh. Ramesh died on the spot instantaneously and his dead body in lying there. Ramswaroop came to his house and informed him about the incident, whereupon he went to the place of occurrence. On the basis of the report (Ex.P1), a formal F.I.R. (Ex.P2) was written and the SHO, P.S., Bayana registered a case u/Ss. 147, 148, 302/149 IPC and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer PW.12 Laxmi Narain reached at the place of occurrence and prepared Site Plan Ex.P3. Blood smeared soil and soil not smeared with blood were seized and sealed vide Ex.P4. Inquest Report of the dead body of Ramesh, Ex.P.5 was also prepared. Autopsy on the dead body of Ramesh was conducted on September 14, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. by PW-8 Dr. Karan Singh, Medical Jurist, UPHC, Bayana and he prepared post-mortem report Ex.P.12. The Investigating Officer took a `Baniyan and a `Safi belonging to the deceased in his possession and sealed them vide Ex.P7. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The appellants were arrested and on their information and at their instance, alleged weapons of offence were recovered. On completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was laid in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, who committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana. Charges u/Ss. 148 & 302 were framed against the appellants Natholi, Baniya @ Bane Singh, Ishwariya and Kistoori. Charges u/Ss. 148 & 302/149 were framed against Smt. Triveni and Smt. Ganga. All the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. (4). The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and produced 33 documents in its evidence. In their statements recorded u/S. 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence and stated that because of enmity, prosecution witnesses have deposed against them. In defence one witness Jai Prakash DW-1 was examined. (5). Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated here- in-above. (6). In their statements recorded u/S. 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence and stated that because of enmity, prosecution witnesses have deposed against them. In defence one witness Jai Prakash DW-1 was examined. (5). Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated here- in-above. (6). We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. With their assistance, we have carefully scanned and scrutinized the material on record. (7). PW-8 Dr. Karan Singh stated in his statement that on September 14, 1994, he was Medical Jurist at UPHC, Bayana and on Police request, he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ramesh and found the following external and internal injuries :- External Injuries (1) Incised wound 10cm. x 1/2 cm. inter parietal region. (2) Incised wound 4cm. x 1 cm. on left parietal region. (3) Incised wound 11cm. x 3cm. camputation of Lobule from chain to below ear lobule. (4) Incised wound 6/1/2cm x 2 cm muscle deep on left side of Trachea. (5) Incised wound 4cm. x 1/x cm. muscle deep below thyroid gland. (6) Incised wound 5cm. x 1/1/2cm. muscle deep involvement of great vessels. (7) Incised wound 5cm. x 2 cm. 1 above the left clavicle. (8) Incised wound 12cm. x 3/1/2 cm. on left wrist joint. (9) Incised wound 9cm. x 2cm. on right buttock. (10) Incised wound 12cm. x 2cm. on left lumber region above the iliac crest. (11) Incised wound 6cm. x 2cm. on left shoulder joint. (12) Incised wound 3cm. x 1/2 cm. on left knee joint. (13) Abrasion 12cm. x 1/2 cm. on left parietal region. (14) Contusion with swelling 3 in number size varied from 3cm. to 2cm. on right scapular region. (15) Contusion 3cm. x 2cm. left shoulder joint. (16) Contusion 5cm. x 2cm. below the injury No. 15. Internal Injuries (1) Left neck vein & artery involved cut causing profuse bleeding. (8). Dr. Karan Singh further stated that in his opinion the cause of death was sudden excessive loss of blood from the open wound leading to syncope. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The death occurred within 24 hours. He prepared the post-mortem report Ex.P.12. (9). There is no dispute that deceased Ramesh met with the homicidal death and this fact is amply established by the statement of Dr. Karan Singh. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The death occurred within 24 hours. He prepared the post-mortem report Ex.P.12. (9). There is no dispute that deceased Ramesh met with the homicidal death and this fact is amply established by the statement of Dr. Karan Singh. The learned counsel for the appellants also did not challenge the truthfulness of Dr. Karan Singh (PW-8). (10). The prosecution case rests upon the testimony of PW-2 Ramswaroop, PW-3 Ratandei, PW-5 Prabhu Dayal, PW-7 Hardei. PW-1 Lalchand is the father of the deceased. He had not seen the incident. He stated that PW-2 Ramswaroop came at his house and narrated the whole incident to him. Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence where dead body of his son Ramesh was lying. Thereafter he went to the Police Station, Bayana and lodged a written report Ex.P1. PW-10 Shiv Charan, who was named as a eye- witness in Ex.P1, did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. (11). Learned counsel for the appellants contended that all the alleged eye-witnesses are interested as well as partisan and so their testimony cannot be relied upon. In support of his arguments, he cited Ram Ratan & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan (1), and Balaka Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Punjab (2). It was also contended that no blood stains were found on the clothes of alleged eye-witnesses and this fact proves that they had not seen the incident. Learned counsel placed reliance on Mada Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan (3). He further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the appellants for causing death of Ramesh. On this ground also, the appellants are entitled to get acquittal in view of Satpal vs. State of Rajasthan (4). He further contended that the written report Ex.P1 being a post investigation document was not admissible in evidence. Investigation was not fair and it was tainted also. It was also contended that no witness had seen the incident. Ocular evidence has not been corroborated by medical evidence. The prosecution has not placed the true version of the occurrence and the incident did not take place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. Site Plan Ex.P3 doesnot help the prosecution. It was also contended that no witness had seen the incident. Ocular evidence has not been corroborated by medical evidence. The prosecution has not placed the true version of the occurrence and the incident did not take place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. Site Plan Ex.P3 doesnot help the prosecution. It was also contended that the prosecution could not establish the place of incident and, therefore, no charge can be held to have been proved against the appellants. The place of incident was shifted by the prosecution. Learned counsel placed reliance on Babu Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan (5). Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have supported the impugned judgment. (12). PW-2 Ramswaroop, PW-3 Ratandevi W/o deceased Ramesh, PW-5 Prabhu Dayal & PW-7 Hardei-mother of the deceased, are said to be the other eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW-2 Ramswaroop stated that on the fateful day, he, Natholi & Baniya @ Bane Singh were constructing Dol in the field of the appellants. Ishwariya, Kistoori, Triveni & Ganga were also there. Ramesh asked them not to dump soil in his field. Ramswaroop further stated that wife of Ramesh & Hardei were cutting grass in their field. When Ramesh asked the appellants not to dump soil in his field, the appellant Baniya told to other appellants that he (Ramesh) be finished today. Thereafter the appellants brought weapons from their field of maize crop. First of all, Baniya gave Pharsa blow on the head of Ramesh, thereafter Ishwariya caused injuries with his Pharsa on the head, jaw, chin and neck of Ramesh. It was also stated by Ramswaroop that Kistoori inflicted injuries with Daranti (sickle) on the shoulder and throat of Ramesh. Ramesh was also caused injuries with Dandas by Ganga and Triveni. Natholi gave a blow with spade on the back of Ramesh. It was also stated by PW-2 Ramswaroop that all the witnesses reached at the spot after the incident. Thereafter, he went to the house of Lalchand and informed him that his son had been killed by Baniya and others, whereupon Ramswaroop came with him at the spot. PW-5 Prabhu Dayal stated that he was returning to his village from village Naoli. When he reached near the well belonging to the appellants and Lalchand, he found the appellants abusing Ramesh. PW-5 Prabhu Dayal stated that he was returning to his village from village Naoli. When he reached near the well belonging to the appellants and Lalchand, he found the appellants abusing Ramesh. Thereafter all the appellants inflicted injuries with their weapons on the person of Ramesh. Ramesh sustained injuries on his head, back, hand, chin and jaw. He also stated that Ramswaroop, Hardei, Ratandevi, W/o Ramesh and Shivcharan were present there. (13). Having considered the entire statement of PW-5 Prabhu Dayal, we are of the opinion that he had not seen the incident. He does not reside or own any land near the place of incident. As per his statement, he had seen the incident while returning to his village from village Naoli and, therefore, he is a chance witness. He could not tell the specific act of any of the appellants. He stated that he could not tell which injury was caused to the deceased by which appellant. Apart from other facts, PW-2 Ramswaroop, whose presence at the time of incident is not doubtful, stated that Prabhu and Shivcharan reached at the place of occurrence after the incident. Looking to the discrepancy between his and Ramswaroops statement, and other facts stated above, it is crystal clear that PW-5 Prabhu Dayal was not an eye-witness of the occurrence and so no reliance can be placed on his testimony. (14). So far as the statements of PW-3 Ratandevi and PW-7 Hardei are concerned, they are the widow and the mother of the deceased respectively and fall within the category of interested witnesses. In State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh (6), the Apex Court held that ``Admittedly all the supposed eye-witnesses are relations of the deceased. As such they fall within a category of interested witnesses. It is not that the evidence ought to be dis-credited by reason of the witness being simply an interested witness but in that event the Court will be rather strict in its scrutiny as to the acceptability of such an evidence. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the testimony of PW-3 Ratandevi and PW-7 Hardei need to be scanned and scrutinized. (15). Both Ratandevi and Hardei stated that they had brought food for Ramesh and just before the incident, were cutting grass in their field of Bajra (millet) crop near the place of occurrence. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the testimony of PW-3 Ratandevi and PW-7 Hardei need to be scanned and scrutinized. (15). Both Ratandevi and Hardei stated that they had brought food for Ramesh and just before the incident, were cutting grass in their field of Bajra (millet) crop near the place of occurrence. As per their statements, they had seen all the appellants inflicting injuries to the deceased Ramesh with Pharsa, Spade, Daranti and Dandas and the incident was also witnessed by Ramswaroop, Prabhu and Shivcharan. On close and careful scrutiny of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, we come to the conclusion that they also had not seen the incident. As already stated, PW-2 Ramswaroop deposed that nobody came at or near the place of occurrence when the incident was taking place. Apart from that, both Hardei and Ratandevi made no attempt to save the deceased. This fact shows their un-natural conduct. It is also clear from the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses that the length of Bajra (millet) crop, where Ratandevi and Hardei were cutting grass, was morethan a mans height and the place of occurrence was not visible from the place where Ratandevi and Hardei were cutting grass, as admitted by Ratandevi in her cross- examination. In her statement Ratandevi stated that on hearing hue and cry made by PW-2 Ramswaroop, both she and her mother-in- law came out of the field and found the appellants causing injuries to Ramesh, whereas Hardei stated that the incident was seen by her from the place where they were cutting grass. Both Ratandevi and Hardei stated that appellant Ganga and Triveni caused injuries with lathies, whereas PW-2 Ramswaroop stated that they were having Dandas. Ratandevi further stated that there was no cause for doing `Marpeet, whereas as per prosecution story, when Ramesh asked the appellants not to demoligh the Danger, the appellants started beating him. In her cross-examination, Ratandevi stated that when she and her mother-in-law came out of the field, they found the deceased Ramesh lying on the ground. She did not depose that any injury was caused to Ramesh by any of the appellants after they came out of the field. As already stated, the place of occurrence was not visible from the field where Ratandevi and Hardei were Ratandevi and Hardei were cutting grass. She did not depose that any injury was caused to Ramesh by any of the appellants after they came out of the field. As already stated, the place of occurrence was not visible from the field where Ratandevi and Hardei were Ratandevi and Hardei were cutting grass. According to them, Shivcharan and Prabhu had seen the incident, whereas PW-2 Ramswaroop stated that Prabhu and Shivcharan came at the spot after the incident. These facts go to show that Ratandevi and Hardei had not seen the incident and their testimony cannot be relied upon. (16). Now, we come to the statement of PW-2 Ramswaroop. On the fateful day, he was working with the appellants Natholi, Baniya and Ishwariya as their labourer. In our opinion, his presence at the time of incident is not doubtful. But his statement is partly reliable in so far as the appellants Ishwariya, Natholi, Baniya @ Bane Singh are concerned. As per his statement, the appellants Baniya @ Bane Singh and Ishwariya had caused injuries with Pharsa and the appellant Natholi inflicted injury with a Spade to the deceased. It cannot be believed that when these 3 appellants were inflicting injuries with Pharsa and the Spade, lady appellants Smt. Kistoori, Smt. Ganga and Smt. Triveni had caused injuries with Daranti and Dandas. Apart from that, Smt. Kistoori, who is stepmother of complainant Lalchand, is an old lady. Her age was around 70 on the date of incident. As per statement of DW-1 Jaiprakash Parashar, Jailor, Central Jail, Bharatpur, Smt. Ganga had given birth to a child on September 23, 1994 while she was in judicial custody. The incident had taken place on September 14, 1994. It shows that the appellant Ganga was at advanced stage of pragnancy on the date of incident. In these circumstances, it doesnot appeal to us that Smt. Ganga also had caused injuries with Danda to the deceased. Besides these facts, PW-2 Ramswaroop could not tell on which part of the body of the deceased, injuries were inflicted by Smt. Ganga and Smt. Triveni. PW-1 Lalchand also stated that written report Ex.P1 was written by Bhudeo in Court premises of Bayana. In view of this, possibility of false implication of the appellants Kistoori, Ganga and Triveni cannot be ruled out. It appears that the written report was written after taking the legal advise. PW-1 Lalchand also stated that written report Ex.P1 was written by Bhudeo in Court premises of Bayana. In view of this, possibility of false implication of the appellants Kistoori, Ganga and Triveni cannot be ruled out. It appears that the written report was written after taking the legal advise. In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that the testimony of PW-2 Ramswaroop is not trustworthy in so far as Kistoori, Ganga and Triveni are concerned and they were wrongly convicted by the trial Court. (17). The testimony of PW-2 Ramswaroop is reliable in so ar as the appellants Natholi, Ishwariya and Baniya @ Bane Singh are concerned. It gets support from medical evidence. As already stated, PW-8 Dr. Karan Singh deposed that on post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, he found as many as 13 injuries of sharp weapon and 3 injuries of blunt weapon. In our opinion, abrasion and two contusions found on the dead body could have been caused by the appellant Natholi with the blunt side of the Spade. PW-2 Ramswaroop stated that he did not lift the dead body. In these circumstances, blood could not be found on his clothes. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the written report Ex.P1 being a post investigation document was not admissible in evidence is concerned, it has no force. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the written report Ex.P1 was submitted at Police Station, Bayana at 2:30 p.m. on September 14, 1994 and thereafter investigation had commenced. It is true that PW-2 Ramswaroop stated that a written paper was given to the Police by PW-1 Lalchand at the spot but, from this statement, it cannot be inferred that Ex.P1 was submitted to the I.O. at the place of occurrence, when he reached there. So far as the motive to commit the alleged offence is concerned, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that while repairing Dangar (water course), the appellants Natholi, Ishwariya and Baniya were taking soil from the field of the deceased to which the deceased objected and told the appellants not to lift the soil from his field and thereafter the deceased was caused injuries. For the sake of argument, if it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the appellants, no benefit can be extended to them. The Apex Court in Rajesh Govind Jagesha vs. State of Maharashtra (7), held that ``the motive in a criminal case based upon ocular testimony of witnesses is not at all relevant. This Court in Gurucharan Singh and another vs. State of Punjab (8), held that ``but it has repeatedly been pointed out by this Court that the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance. Again in Datar Singh vs. The State of Punjab (9), this Court reiterated that mere absence of a strong motive for committing the crime cannot be of any assistance to the accused if the offence could be proved by evidence. Where the direct evidence regarding the commission of offence is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes, more or less, academic, ``motive may be relevant in a case based upon circumstantial evidence only, being one of the circumstance. This Court in Ummed Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan (10), has also expressed the same view. In the instant case, the testimony of PW-2 Ramswaroop is trustworthy with regard to the involvement of the appellants Natholi, Ishwariya and Baniya @ Bane Singh and even if their motive to commit the alleged crime is held not to have been proved by the prosecution, they are not entitled to get acquittal. We are also not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the place of incident was changed by the prosecution and the incident had not taken place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. The contention of the learned counsel that the investigation was unfair as well as tainted has also no force. (18). In view of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed in proving its case against the appellants Smt. Kistoori, Smt. Triveni and Smt. Ganga and they are entitled to get acquittal from all the charges. The prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt that the appellants Natholi, Ishwariya and Baniya @ Bane Singh had caused the death of Ramesh by inflicting injuries with Pharsa and Spade. (19). The prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt that the appellants Natholi, Ishwariya and Baniya @ Bane Singh had caused the death of Ramesh by inflicting injuries with Pharsa and Spade. (19). The appellants Natholi, Baniya @ Bane Singh and Ishwariya have been convicted by the trial Court u/Ss. 302 and 148 IPC. As it has been held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants Smt. Kistoori, Triveni and Ganga, the appellants Baniya @ Bane Singh, Ishwariya and Natholi cannot be held guilty u/S. 148 IPC because only 3 appellants could not form an unlawful assembly. So far as conviction u/S. 302 IPC is concerned, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that it was not a pre-meditated act and the incident took place all of a sudden. It is also clear that the appellants and the deceased had some quarrel over the lifting of soil from the field of the deceased just before the beating. It is also clear from the statement of PW-8 Dr. Karan Singh that there was no grevious injury on the head of the deceased and no bone was fractured. The cause of death was excessive loss of blood from open would leading to syncope. In these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that appellants had intended to kill Ramesh or to cause such injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was also not stated by PW-8 Dr. Karan Singh that any of the injuries found on the dead body was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (20). It is well settled that for an offence to fall under the category of murder (i) there must be bodily injury (ii) the accused must have intended that particular injury and (iii) that bodily injury must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Where a case falls under either of the following clauses, it is within the ambit of Section 304 Part I IPC. (1) When the case falls under one or the other clauses of Section 300 IPC but is covered by the exceptions to that Section. Where a case falls under either of the following clauses, it is within the ambit of Section 304 Part I IPC. (1) When the case falls under one or the other clauses of Section 300 IPC but is covered by the exceptions to that Section. (2) Where the injury caused is not the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression ``sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but it is of a lower degree of likelihood generally spoken of as an injury likely to cause death and the case also not fall under clause (2) of Section 300. (21). Clause secondly appended to Section 300 IPC deals with acts done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom harm is caused. The mental attitude here is two fold. There is first the intention to cause bodily harm and next there is the subjective knowledge that death will be likely consequent of the intended injury. (22). In the instant case as many as 16 injuries were caused to the deceased. Out of these injuries, 13 were of sharp weapon and one injury was on the neck and another on throat. In view of this, it can safely be inferred that the appellants had caused injuries to the deceased with the intention to cause such injury which was likely to cause death and this act of the appellants comes within the mischief of Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. The appellants have been in the custody for more than 7 years 6 months, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing them to 7 years 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to enhance the fine part of sentence. (23). Consequently, the appeal of the appellants Smt. Kistoori, Ganga and Triveni is allowed. While setting aside their conviction and sentence u/Ss. 148 and 302/149 IPC, they are acquitted of all the charges. They are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. (24). The appeal of the appellants Natholi, Ishwariya & Baniya @ Bane Singh is partly allowed. While modifying the judgment and order of the trial Court, they are acquitted of the charge under Section 148 IPC. Their conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC is setaside. They are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. (24). The appeal of the appellants Natholi, Ishwariya & Baniya @ Bane Singh is partly allowed. While modifying the judgment and order of the trial Court, they are acquitted of the charge under Section 148 IPC. Their conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC is setaside. Instead we convict them under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence each of them to suffer 7 years 6 months R.I., but in the facts and circumstances of the case, we enhance the fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 15,000/-. In default of payment of fine they will have to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. (25). The amount of fine shall be deposited before the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. On depositing the amount of fine, the same shall be paid to the widow of the deceased Ramesh and the appellants shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.