JUDGMENT 1. - These two jail appeals have been filed separately against a judgment delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Sri Ganganagar Camp at Sri Karanpur dated 28.7.1997. D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 412 of 1997 has been filed by Darshan Ram and D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 599 of 1997 has been filed by Smt. Pooja and her sister Reshma. Since both the appeals relate to the same judgment, both are being disposed of together by a common judgment. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the deceased Ram Kishan s/o Narain Dass Arora, aged 65 years was living in village Kharla, Police Station Sri Karanpur. The first wife Smt. Patwati died some 26 years ago and after remaining widower for about 4-5 years, he contracted a 'Nata' with the accused Smt. Reshma some 10 years back. His daughter Sundari Bal who was born from the first marriage, was married to PW 4 Narain Dass, who was residing in nearby village known as "10 'G' Chhoti". Out of the second wedlock, PW 6 Shanker, Bharat Bhushan and Kumari Shalu (PW 1) were born and they were living with their parents when the incident allegedly took place. The co-accused Smt. Pooja Is said to be the sister of the accused Smt. Reshma and was living in village Kharla in the same house with the deceased and Smt. Reshma. 3. Some time during the night Intervening 22/23.4.1995, the said Ram Kishan died in suspicious circumstances. In the morning, on hearing the cries of Smt. Reshma and Smt. Pooja, the persons from neighbourhood collected and discovered the factum of the death of Ram Kishan. Smt. Reshma allegedly told every body that the deceased was drinking liquor and possibly died because of excess intake. However, she was not believed and the cousin of the deceased Prabhu Dayal (PW 3) went to the police station on 23.4.1995 at about 10.30 AM and lodged the report Ex.P/29 at the said police station. It was stated in the report that he and other neighbours came to know about the death of Ram Kishan in the morning at about 7.00 A.M., and there was a suspicion of foul play. It was stated in the report that he and other neighbours came to know about the death of Ram Kishan in the morning at about 7.00 A.M., and there was a suspicion of foul play. The matter was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the S.H.O. Police Station, Sri Karanpur Om Prakash Kataria (PW 10) proceeded and reached the spot where he found the dead-body and prepared the 'Panchayatnama' Ex.P/1 and found that there were injuries on the person of the deceased and suspicion was to the effect that either Ram Kishan succumbed to the injuries present on his person or died on account of consumption of some poisonous substance. A half empty bottle of liquor and a broken glass used for drinking the liquor were also recovered. A turban, which was lying near his head and was found stained with blood was also recovered vide Recovery Memo Ex.P/2. The shirt and sheet of cloth found on the person of the deceased were also found to be blood-stained and were taken Into possession vide Memo Ex.P/3. A photographer was called and the dead-body was photographed. The Site Map Ex.P/5 and Site Memo Ex.P/5A were prepared on 23.5.1995. However, the S.H.O. Om Prakash Kataria, in his wisdom, neither made any enquiries about the cause of death of the deceased nor proceeded to record the statements of any witnesses including the three kinds of the deceased and other relations who were available and present on the spot. The Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Jaswant Singh on 23.4.1995 and the following 10 ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased vide the report Ex.P/16: (1) Contusion of 11/2" x 1/2" on the posterior aspect of right shoulder joint. (2) Contusion of 1" x 1/2"back of, at the base of neck. (3) Contusion of 2" x 1" on the right Ischial Tuberosity. (4) Three lacerated wounds of 1/4" x ⅛" x ⅛" on the posterior aspect of left pinna. (5) Lacerated wound of 1/411 x 1/811 x 1/811 on the left mastoid process. (6) Two Abrasion of 1" x ⅛" on the right side of fore-head. (7) Abrasion of 3/4" x ⅛" on the lateral side of right side of fore-head. (8) Contusion of 1" x 1/2" on the lateral side of right knee joint. (9) Contusion 11/2" x 1" on the lateral side of right thigh. (6) Two Abrasion of 1" x ⅛" on the right side of fore-head. (7) Abrasion of 3/4" x ⅛" on the lateral side of right side of fore-head. (8) Contusion of 1" x 1/2" on the lateral side of right knee joint. (9) Contusion 11/2" x 1" on the lateral side of right thigh. (10) Abrasion of 1/2" x 1/4" lateral side of lower lip (left side). 4. The doctor gave a finding that the death was on account of respiratory asphyxia due to strangulation. 5. This report Ex.P/16 was made available to the S.H.O. On 24.4.1995 and continuing the enquiry under Section 174 of the Cr.PC., he examined Kumari Shalu (PW 1), Prabhu Dayal (PW 3), Narain Dass (PW 4) and Shankar (PW 6) under the provisions of Section 174, Cr.P.C. It may be made clear that Kumari sHalu and Shanker who are the children of the deceased, were the eye-witnesses of the incident as per the prosecution story, PW 3 Prabhu Dayal is the cousin of the deceased and PW 4 Narain Dass is the son-in-law, who was married to the eldest daughter Sunderi Bai. PW 1 Kumarl Shalu and PW 6 Shanker in their respective statements narrated that in the evening of 22.4.1995, there was a quarrel between the deceased and his wife Smt. Reshma. Smt. Reshma was demanding Rs. 100/- as fare, so that, her sister Pooja may be sent back to their maternal place but the deceased was not prepared to part with the money. They further stated that the deceased was drinking liquor in the evening and because of old age and indifferent health, first he got injured when his head collided with the gage of the room and he fell down. Thereafter, he further received injuries twice or thrice while going to the toilet, when he fell down and was further injured. Ultimately, he was helped by the accused persons Smt. Reshma and Smt. Pooja and was brought from the toilet back to the room and was made to sleep. Thereafter Salt: Reshma and Smt. Pooja, and three kids also went to sleep. After sometime, the accused Darshan Ram came to their house and Smt. Reshma and Smt. Pooja requested him to kill Ram Kishan by strangulation. Thereafter Salt: Reshma and Smt. Pooja, and three kids also went to sleep. After sometime, the accused Darshan Ram came to their house and Smt. Reshma and Smt. Pooja requested him to kill Ram Kishan by strangulation. Darshan Ram got hold of a rope which was lying nearby and with its help, strangulated Ram Kishan to death while the other two accused-persons were standing nearby and watching. Darshan Ram threw the rope inside the room itself and left the scene. In the morning when Ram Kishan was to awake, he was no more and the accused Smt. Reshma raised hue and cry and the neighbouring villagers collected. PW 3 Prabhu Dayal and PW 4 Narain Dass, whose statements were also recorded on 24.4.1995, narrated the same story, which according to them, they learnt from Kumari Shalu. 6. According to the prosecution story, thereafter, on 24.4.1995, the S.H.O. Om Prakash Kataria lodged the F.I.R. Ex.P/22 at the police station. A case under Section 302/34, of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The statements of other witnesses namely; Bhadhava Ram, Kishan Dass, Ram Kishan, Rakesh Kumar, Har Bhagwan, Sunderi Bai and Kunti Devi were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. Bhadhava Ram and Kishan Dass stated to the effect that they learnt on 23.4.1995 itself from the kids that Darshan Ram and the two ladies were responsible for killing Ram Kishan. Bhadhava Ram stated that he is married to the sister of the deceased. Kishan Dass stated that his mother is the sister of the first wife of the deceased. Ram Kishan, Rakesh Kumar and Har Bhagwan are the neighbours who stated that they also learnt from the kids about the incident. Har Bhagwan, Sunderi Bai (daughter of the deceased) and Kunti Devi in their respective statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. stated that on 25.4.1995, the accused Reshma made extra-judicial confession before them and admitted that the deceased was done to death in the manner stated above. According to the prosecution story, the investigating officer also recorded the statement of Heera Lal who is father of the accused Darshan Ram. Heera Lal allegedly stated that his son Dharshan Ram had developed illicit relations with Smt. Reshma and he had arranged his marriage elsewhere but prior to that, Ram Kishan was murdered by the three accused-persons. According to the prosecution story, the investigating officer also recorded the statement of Heera Lal who is father of the accused Darshan Ram. Heera Lal allegedly stated that his son Dharshan Ram had developed illicit relations with Smt. Reshma and he had arranged his marriage elsewhere but prior to that, Ram Kishan was murdered by the three accused-persons. Ultimately, the challan was filed in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, from where, the case was committed to the said trial court. 7. The three accused-persons were charged for the offences under Section 302 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. and all the three pleaded not guilty. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor then opened his case and examined PW 1 Kumari Shalu, PW 2 Mehar Singh, PW 3 Prabhu Dayal, PW 4 Narain Dass, PW 5 Bharat Raj, PW 6 Shanker, PW 7 Jawahar Lal, PW 8 Dr. Jaswant Singh, PW 9 Randheer Singh and PW 10 Om Prakash Kataria in support of the prosecution story. The statements of the accused-persons were then recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and they denied the whole prosecution story. The accused Smt. Reshma got examined herself as D.W 1 and stated that on the evening prior to his death, the deceased was drinking and in a state of intoxication while going to the toilet, fell in the bath-room and received injuries. She further stated that nothing happened during the night in her knowledge and in the morning, he was found dead. The accused Darshan Ram also examined himself as D.W2. He denied that he had illicit relations with any of the other accused-persons and pleaded ignorance in respect of the death of Ram Kishan. The learned trial court then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 28.7.1997. The learned trial court found that the offence under Section 201 of the IPC was not proved and all the three accused persons were acquitted of the said offence. However the learned trial court found them guilty under Section 302/34 of the IPC. All the three were awarded life imprisonment and further they were fined Rs. 500/- each. For non-payment of fine it was ordered that each one will suffer simple Imprisonment for six months. Against this judgment, the two jail appeals have been filed. 9. However the learned trial court found them guilty under Section 302/34 of the IPC. All the three were awarded life imprisonment and further they were fined Rs. 500/- each. For non-payment of fine it was ordered that each one will suffer simple Imprisonment for six months. Against this judgment, the two jail appeals have been filed. 9. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record of the learned trial court carefully. 10. As pointed out earlier PW 1 Ku. Shallu and PW 6 Shanker have been examined as eye-witnesses and both have tried to support the prosecution case against the accused-persons. PW 3 Prabhu Dayal has stated to the effect that Reshma had developed illicit relations with the accused Darshan Ram and left the deceased and started to live In the house of Darshan Ram. However, she was persuaded to return to the house of the deceased where also Darshan Ram continued to visit her. The witness stated that he heard the cries of the accused Reshma in the morning at 7.00 AM and went there to find that Ram Kishan was lying dead in the house. On enquiry, Reshma informed him that the deceased was consuming liquor and has died on that account. The witness stated that he was able to notice the injuries around the neck of the deceased which the accused could not explain. He further stated that he enquired from Ku.Shalu who told him that during the night, darshan Ram strangulated her father at the behest of Reshma and Pooja. She informed that the rope with the help of which, the deceased was strangulated was lying near the cement bags. 11. PW 4. Narain Dass is the son-in-law of the deceased and has stated that five years prior to his death, the deceased had married Reshma. Shanker, Bharat Bhushan and Ku. Shale were bom out of this wed-lock. As and when he visited his father-in-law, the latter told him that his life was in danger tfeecause Darshan Ram and Reshma are likely to murder him. He has stated that the relations between Reshma and the deceased continued to deteriorate and the village 'Panchayat' was convened on 2.1.1994 where Reshma promised that henceforth she will not allow her paramour Darshan Ram to visit the house of the deceased. He has stated that the relations between Reshma and the deceased continued to deteriorate and the village 'Panchayat' was convened on 2.1.1994 where Reshma promised that henceforth she will not allow her paramour Darshan Ram to visit the house of the deceased. However, Darshan Ram continued to visit the house and four months prior to his death, the deceased told him that the danger to his life has Increased. The witness has stated that on 23.4.1995 Dinesh Kumar informed him about the death of his father-in-law and also informed that needle of suspicion indicated towards the three accused-persons. He has stated that he reached on the spot but did not talk to the accused Reshma because of strained relations and on 23.4.1995 after cremation of the dead-body, Ku. Shalu informed him about the incident in detail. According to the witness, the rope which was used during the offence was recovered by the police and it was found stained with blood. 12. PW 8. Dr. Jaswant Singh has stated that on 23.4.1995 he conducted the post-mortem and found ten injuries on his person and also found that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. 13. PW 2. Mehar Singh is a 'Motbir' witness who has stated that the 'Panchayatnama' of the dead-body was prepared by the police. PW 5 Bharat Raj IS a 'Motbir' witness of the preparation of the site map Ex.P/5. PW 7 Jawahar Lal Is the Photographer who has stated that the dead-body was photographed by him. PW 9 Randheer Singh Constable has stated that seven packets were handed-over on. 16.5.1995 by the Malkhana Incharge Bhagirath which he carried to FSL Jaipur. Bhagirath has not been examined. 14. PW 10. Om Prakash Kataria is the S.H.O. and Investigating Officer. He has stated that on 23,4.1995, Prabhu Dayal came to the police station and Informed him about the death of Ram Kishan and suspected a foul play. On this report, he registered the matter under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and proceeded to-the spot to conduct further inquiry. He has stated that during investigation under Sec-174 of the Cr.PC., he recorded the statements of Ku.Shaiu, Shanker, Prabhu Dayal and Narain Dass and obtained post-mortem report and then he himself lodged the report Ex.P/22 on 24.4.1995. On this report, he registered the matter under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and proceeded to-the spot to conduct further inquiry. He has stated that during investigation under Sec-174 of the Cr.PC., he recorded the statements of Ku.Shaiu, Shanker, Prabhu Dayal and Narain Dass and obtained post-mortem report and then he himself lodged the report Ex.P/22 on 24.4.1995. The witness stated that thereafter he examined the witnesses namely; Bhadhava ftm, Kishan Dass, Rakesh Kumar, Har Bhagwan, Hans Raj, Balwant, Kunti Devi and Heera Lal under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He has stated that thereafter he arrested the accused-persons and ultimately filed the challan. According to the witness, two chemical reports Ex.P/27 and P/28 were received from the F.S.L. It may be mentioned here that as per the report Ex.P/27 no human blood was found on the rope which was allegedly used In the crime. The report further states that the 'Safa' (Turban), shirt and Cheddar of the deceased were found stained with human blood. According to the report Ex.P/28, the contents of the viscera disclosed the presence of Ethyl Alcohol. Glass tumbler and steel tumbler which were chemically examined gave negative results in respect of presence of any metallic poisons, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides. 15. After considering the whole evidence, we find that it is not possible to agree with the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court and both the appeals deserve to be allowed. 16. It Is true that PW 1 Kumari Shalu as well as PW 6 Shanker who both are the off-springs of Smt. Reshma have tried to support the prosecution case but their evidence is highly unsatisfactory and unacceptable. Their statements are contradictory in material respects with the earlier statements recorded under Section 174 of the Cr.PC. Kumari Shalu has given her age as 5 years on 25.11.1995 and has stated that during night, there was quarrel between the deceased and her mother. She does not make any mention about the ten injuries found on the person 'of the deceased in her examination-in-chief and has stated straight away that the accused Darshan Ram came to their house and the three accused-persons jointly strangulated the deceased with the help of a rope. Thereafter she states that Reshma and Pooja caught hold of the feet of the deceased and strangulation job was performed by Darshan Ram. Thereafter she states that Reshma and Pooja caught hold of the feet of the deceased and strangulation job was performed by Darshan Ram. She has stated that in the morning, the people assembled and she informed the whole thing to her brother-in-law Narain Dass. 17. PW 6. Shanker has made a deposition to the effect that during night, all of them were sleeping. He does not say that In the evening or during night, there was a quarrel in the house. His narration of the Incident is significant and is being reproduced verbatim: " le; jkr dk FkkA esjs eEeh us esjs ikik ds gkFk idM+s] esjh ekSlh iwtk us esjs ikik ds ikao idM+s vkSj n'kZu yky us lhesUV ds dV~Vs ds ikl iM+h jLlh dks mBdj esjs ikik dh xnZu esa yisV dj mls tksj ls [khapk] ftlds dkj.k esjs ikik ej x;sA " 18. The witness has made no mention about the injuries received by Ram Kishan in his examination-in-chief. According to him, previous day during day time, there was a quarrel between the deceased and Reshma as the deceased used to object to the visits which Darshan Ram used to make to their house. The witness further stated that at the time of the incident, during night, when Reshma made a demand in respect of Rs. 100/-, the deceased replied that he had no such money with him and at that very time, Reshma and Pooja caught hold of the deceased and Darshan Ram strangulated him. According to the witness, Reshma told Darshan Ram that Ram Kishan was unconscious and he should be killed. We find that the testimony of the two witnesses does not inspire any confidence. According to PW 1 Kumari Shalu, the accused Darshan Ram was present when the demand of Rs. 100/- was made by Smt. Reshma whereas in her earlier statement Ex.D/1, she has stated to the effect that Darshan Ram was nowhere when the demand for money was made and he arrived after all had gone to sleep. PW 6 Shanker has stated that after the incident and the death of their father, he and Ku.Shalu remained awake for whole of the night while Reshma and Pooja were in sound sleep. PW 6 Shanker has stated that after the incident and the death of their father, he and Ku.Shalu remained awake for whole of the night while Reshma and Pooja were in sound sleep. He, however, states that neither they raised any hue and cry nor they thought it proper to go to their uncle and informed him about the incident in the neighbourhood. PW 1 Ku. Shalu, in her earlier statement Ex.D/2 has not ascribed any role to Reshma and Pooja in the incident. However, In the court, Ku. Shalu states that the deceased was caught by his legs by Pooja and Reshma. According to PW 6 Shanker, Pooja caught hold of the hands of the deceased while he was being strangulated by Darshan Ram. PW 6 Shanker has stated that they were sleeping inside the room because of winter season. The fact remains that the incident is dated 22/23.4.1995 which cannot be termed as winter season. 19. PW 6. Shanker has given his age as 10 years and Kumari Shalu's age as 5 years. It is not in dispute that the second son Bharat Bhushan who was elder to Kumari Shalu was also present in the house throughout the night. It is very strange that Om Prakash Kataria, the S.H.O. decided not to examine him. It is argued that he was sleeping while all others were awake. Even in that case, it is desirable and natural that he was examined, so that, he could say that he was asleep and was thus not in the know of anything. The non-examination of Bharat Bhushan is a circumstance which puts question mark on the impartiality of the Investigating officer. It is not in dispute that, after the arrest of the accused-persons. Ku. Shalu and Shanker are residing with PW 4 Narain Dass and the possibility that they deposed under the influence of Narain Dass. cannot be ruled out. It is very strange that in a case of death, in which, the suspicion of foul play was expressed from very beginning, the S.H.O. Om Prakash Kataria thought it proper not to examine any witness on 23.4.1995. It was natural and most desirable that he should have made enquiries, without any loss of time, atleast from Ku.Shalu, Bharat Bhushan, Shanker, Reshma and Pooja. It was natural and most desirable that he should have made enquiries, without any loss of time, atleast from Ku.Shalu, Bharat Bhushan, Shanker, Reshma and Pooja. He has stated that he did not make any enquiry in respect of the incident on 23.4.1995 and recorded the statements of Ku. Shalu, Prabhu Dayal, Narain Dass and shanker for the first time on 24.4.1995. 20. Needless to say, that the post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Jaswant Singh on 23.4.1995 and according to it, the cause of death was strangulation. In these circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned amicus Curiae becomes acceptable which is to the effect that although no witness including Ku.Shalu, Shanker and Bharat Bhushan disclosed any foul play, the whole story was concocted after the result of the post-mortem report became clear. Learned Amicus Curiae has argued that it was a blind murder but the suspicion was on Darshan Ram and the two sisters; Reshma and Pooja because of the belief that Darshan Ram was having an affair and had developed illicit relations with Reshma in respect of which, the deceased was unhappy and the case was created against the three appellants solely on account of suspicion. 21. It is very strange that no F.I.R. regarding the crime was lodged by Prabhu Dayal, Narain Dass, Badhava Ram or any other relation of the deceased, even after, they came to know about the details of the alleged incident. The prosecution has tried to meet the situation by coming with the case that Ku. Shalu and Shanker.kept the story to themselves on 23.4.1995 and did not disclose the same to anybody till the after-noon of 23.4.1995. We find that the evidence is to the contrary. 22. PW 3 Prabhu Dayal, during his cross examination by the learned Amicus Curiae on 11.7.1996 admitted that before he went to the police station to lodge the FIR, Kumari Shalu and Shanker had informed him about the whole incident in detail. The learned Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention towards the re-cross-examination of this witness, wherein, he has tried to say that during his first visit to the police station, no such information was given to him by the kids. We are very clear in our minds that this explanation during the re-cross-examination is not at all acceptable. It is no-body's case that Prabhu Dayal visited the police station more than once. 23. We are very clear in our minds that this explanation during the re-cross-examination is not at all acceptable. It is no-body's case that Prabhu Dayal visited the police station more than once. 23. PW 1 Ku.Shalu, in her examination-in-chief has made it clear that in the morning when the villagers collected, she narrated the whole incident to Narain dass. That goes to show that according to Ku.Shalu, the details of the crime were furnished to Narain Dass by Ku.Shalu in the morning of 23.4.1995. If that Is to be believed then it was most natural that the FIR In respect of the crime was recorded on 23.4.1995 by Narain Dass or some body else at his asking. 24. PW 3 Prabhu Dayai, In his examination-in-chief, has stated that he informed Narain Dass through some messenger and he himself want to the police station with Kishan Dass. In continuation, he states that he had enquired from Ku. Shalu about the cause of death of Ram Kishan and she had informed him in detail. The witness does not say that this information was received on the next day. In his cross-examination dated 4.6.1996, Prabhu Dayal states that culprits were named by him to the SHO but he did not record their names. He has stated that on 23.4.1995 when the police came on the spot, they were informed in no uncertain terms that the murder was committed by Darshan Pam, Reshma and Pooja. If that was the case, then there was no reason on the part of Om Prakash Kataria not to examine Ku. Shalu, Bharat Bhushan and Shanker then and there. Prabhu Dayal has stated in "clear terms that the three accused-persons were named by him on 23.4.1995 and all the three were arrested on that very day. However, as per the arrest memos Ex.P/23, Ex.P/24 and Ex.P/25, Reshma and Pooja were arrested on 25.4.1995 and Darshan Ram was arrested on 27.4.1995. 25. PW 4 Narain Dass, the son-in-law, has stated that he was informed about the murder In the morning of 23.4.1995 and the informer Dinesh Kumar told him that three accused persons were suspected to be the murderers. Still not enquiries were made from the kids nor any F.I.R. was lodged. 25. PW 4 Narain Dass, the son-in-law, has stated that he was informed about the murder In the morning of 23.4.1995 and the informer Dinesh Kumar told him that three accused persons were suspected to be the murderers. Still not enquiries were made from the kids nor any F.I.R. was lodged. The prosecution story Is to the effect that Badhava Ram, Kishan Dass and Ram Kishan and Rakesh Kumar were the persons who were informed about the Incident by the kids. These are the witnesses whose statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded by Om Prakash Kataria. Strangely enough, none out of them has been examined and they have been willingly discarded by the concerned Public Prosecutor. According to the prosecution story, the extra-judicial confession In respect of murder in question was made before Mar Bhagwan, Sunderi Sal and Kunti Devi by accused Reshma and these three persons got recorded their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In that respect. Strangely enough, the learned Public Prosecutor did not deem it proper to examine any of them in the Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the wholesale non-examination of large number of Important witnesses by the Public Prosecutor casts a serious' doubt q~t the reliability of the prosecution story. 26. . In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the Judgment in respect of the finding of guilt against the accused-appellants cannot be sustained and the appeals are "fit to be allowed.Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. The accused persons are acquitted of the charge and they shall be released in this case forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case. The amount of fine, if deposited by them, shall be refuded to them.Appeal Allowed-Conviction Set Aside. *******