Judgment J.R. Vora, J.—Both the appeals are directed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 10th February, 2003 delivered by learned Sessions Judge at Rajkot in Session Case No. 39 of 2002 whereby both the appellants being accused of the said Sessions Case came to be convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. 2. Appellant No. 1 - Shobhanaben Naranbhai Chhantbar was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 to read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one year. Accused - appellant No. 2 - Hareshbhai Babubhai Chhantbar was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 to read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two years. Both the appellants i.e. accused No. 1 and 2 also came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and each of the appellants was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The trial Court directed to give set off as well as also directed that sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 3. As per the brief facts of the prosecution case, accused No. 1 - Shobhnaben Naranbhai was staying at Village : Para Pipadia in Quarter No. 468 along with her husband, who is deceased in the matter named Naranbhai Babulal Chhantbar along with accused No. 2, younger brother of her husband as well as one son and three daughters of accused No. 1 were also staying together. On 23.12.2001, incident occurred. In one room, family of accused No. 1 were sleeping on the floor, while accused No. 2 was sleeping on the cot in the same room and in early morning at about 5.30 a.m., son of accused No. 1 Mahesh awakened on account of cough, at that time her husband deceased Naranbhai also awakened and insisted to have intercourse with her which was refused by the accused No. 1 and, therefore, deceased was excited. In the meantime, accused No. 2 also awakened and deceased brought a sword from the kitchen and attempted to inflict sword upon accused No. 1, at that time, accused No. 2 intervened. Accused No. 2 snatched sword from the deceased, inflicted the blows on stomach of the deceased, on account of which deceased had fallen on the ground and it was found that he had died. Thereafter, accused No. 1 and 2 both excavated a ditch in the kitchen and after wrapping the dead body in quilt, the same was buried in that ditch and, thereafter, the floor was repaired with the help of P.W. 7 - Lakhmanbhai Devshibhai, who attached new tiles on floor on asking by accused No. 2. Thereafter, accused No. 1 and 2 along with the children, after locking the said Quarter No. 468 by the accused No. 1, had gone to Gandhigram and started residing there on rent. It is also an allegation that mainly the cause of dispute was that the deceased insisted illicit demand in respect of daughter Kavita aged about 15 years and Kavita had conveyed this fact to the accused No. 1 and 2. Ultimately, on 10th January, 2001 neighbour found that some peculiar smell coming out from Quarter No. 468 where the dead body was buried and Kishorpuri Mahadevpuri Goswami being President of the society found out that accused No. 1 and 2 were residing at Gadhigram and upon that it appears that accused No. 1 presented herself before Gandhigram Police Station at about 16.30 hours and offered her complaint and that complaint is placed on record at Ex.23. P.W. 5 - Batuksinh Fatehsinh Jadeja, P.S.I. Gandhigram Police Station recorded the complaint and forwarded the papers to Rajkot Taluka Police Station because incident had occurred in that jurisdiction. At Rajkot Police Station, a crime came to be registered upon complaint of accused No. 1, at the instance of P.W. 10 - Mahendrasinh Kanui Padhiyar, the then P.I. of Rajkot Taluka Police Station and investigation was entrusted to him. At 21.00 hours, a panchnama was drawn by him in presence of panchas which is at Ex.27 by which both the accused had shown the place at Quarter No. 468 where the dead body was buried and on excavation the said dead body, was taken out. At 21.00 hours, a panchnama was drawn by him in presence of panchas which is at Ex.27 by which both the accused had shown the place at Quarter No. 468 where the dead body was buried and on excavation the said dead body, was taken out. A discovery panchnama of recovery of the sword from the said Quarter as well as recovery of the clothes of accused No. 1 was also prepared on 11th January, 2002 at 4.15 a.m by P.W. 10 - Mahendrasinh Kanuji Padhiyar. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against both the appellants - accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was numbered as Sessions Case No. 39 of 2002. A charge was framed on 29th April, 2002 by the learned Sessions Judge against both the appellants - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and hence, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and produced on record documentary evidence as under. P.W. Ex.No. Name Particulars & remarks 1 10 Rameshchandra Executive Magistrate : in his presence Chunilal Limbasia dead body is discovered and he pre- pared a inquest panchnama. 2 13 Kavita Naranbhai Child witness : Eye witness and daughter of deceased Naranbhai and accused No. 1 Shobhanaben : declared hostile. 3 17 Ganeshbhai Medical Officer : He had done Pyarelal Govekar postmortem on dead body of the deceased Naranbhai (Ex.18, P.M. Report) 4 21 Kishorpuri Independent Witness : residing in Mahadevpuri the same - society where the incident had taken place. Dead body is discovered in his presence. 5 22 Batuksinh Fatehsinh PSI : Accused No. 1 Shobhanaben had given information about the death of the deceased and her complaint is recorded by this witness (Ex.23 complaint) 6 24 Sangitaben Naranbhai Child witness : Eye witness and daughter of deceased Naranbhai and accused No. 1 Shobhanaben, Aged 8 years. 7 25 Lakhman Devsinh Independent witness : fixed the tiles on the floor of kitchen. 8 26 Anubhai Devayat Panch witness : about the panchnama of discovery of place from where body is discovered (Ex.27 discovery panchnama). 9 28 Lakhabhai Panch witness : Discovery of sword and clothes with blood stains (Ex.29 discovery panchnama) 10. 30 Mahendrasinh Investigating Officer 4. 7 25 Lakhman Devsinh Independent witness : fixed the tiles on the floor of kitchen. 8 26 Anubhai Devayat Panch witness : about the panchnama of discovery of place from where body is discovered (Ex.27 discovery panchnama). 9 28 Lakhabhai Panch witness : Discovery of sword and clothes with blood stains (Ex.29 discovery panchnama) 10. 30 Mahendrasinh Investigating Officer 4. After the evidence was over of the prosecution, further statements of both the accused were recorded in which each of the accused, after denying the evidence of prosecution, written explanation was submitted and it was stated that before one month of the incident, husband of the accused No. 1 had been to Surat for earning and, thereafter, police took both the accused at Quarter No. 468 where the police had taken out the dead body of husband of the accused No. 1. They have denied in written statements the evidence of prosecution in toto. It was alleged in written statements that the case which was resting on the evidence of child witnesses and since child witnesses were not reliable, could not be believed. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Judge came to the above conclusion to convict both the accused for the above said offences and to sentence each of the accused and hence, both these appeals filed separately by each of the accused of Sessions Case No. 39 of 2002. 5. In these appeals, we have extensively heard learned advocate Ms. Sadhna Sagar for both the appellants in both the appeals. It has been vehemently argued that motive of committing crime, about the illicit relation with accused No. 1 and 2 has not been established anywhere from the prosecution evidence. Both the child witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The FIR filed by the accused No. 1 is not admissible in evidence nor the statements made by the accused No. 1 and 2, in panchnama at Ex.27 and Ex.29. It is submitted that even considering the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish the link between the crime and the accused beyond doubt and hence, the appeals are required to be allowed. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the role of the accused No. 1 through cogent evidence. It is submitted that even considering the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish the link between the crime and the accused beyond doubt and hence, the appeals are required to be allowed. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the role of the accused No. 1 through cogent evidence. None of the child witnesses attributed any role to accused No. 1 and 2 and in panchnama also which is at Ex.27, a key of Quarter No. 468 from where the dead body was found was with accused No. 2 and, therefore, there is no role at all of accused No. 1 is established through the prosecution evidence. It is submitted that the learned Judge, therefore, erred in coming to the conclusion that there was an illicit relationship between the accused No. 1 and 2 and, therefore, conspiracy between them. Learned Judge also erred in convicting both the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and hence both the appeals are required to be allowed and accused are required to be acquitted. 6. As against that learned APP Ms. Chetana M. Shah for the respondent, supporting the judgment and order in appeals, submitted that there is evidence to connect both the accused with the crime as both the child witnesses to some extent supported the prosecution case and stated in depositions that they had seen the accused No. 2 inflicting the sword injuries to the deceased. It is submitted that accused No. 1 and 2 surrendered to the Police Station and Batuksinh Fatehsinh, P.S.I., of Gandhigram Police Station drew panchnama at Ex.27 whereby in the presence of Executive Magistrate, P.W. 1, dead body was discovered at the instance of accused No. 1 and 2 and this is sufficient evidence to connect both the accused with the crime. Independent witness Lakhmanbhai Devshibhai, P.W. 7 deposed before the Court that accused No. 2 had employed this witness to re-set tiles of the floor of the kitchen below which the dead body was buried by accused No. 1 and 2. The discovery panchnama of weapon is placed at Ex.27 is also proved wherein FSL, on examination of sword, the blood group of “O” pertaining to deceased was found and hence, both the appeals being meritless are required to be dismissed. 7. The discovery panchnama of weapon is placed at Ex.27 is also proved wherein FSL, on examination of sword, the blood group of “O” pertaining to deceased was found and hence, both the appeals being meritless are required to be dismissed. 7. We have undertaken careful scrutiny of the Record & Proceedings in great detail. We have re-appreciated the evidence recorded during the trial with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities arising out of the case. We have gone through the threadbare scrutiny of the record and the evidence of each of the witnesses and the documents produced. We have appreciated the contentions raised on both the sides. 8. On re-appreciating the evidence, it is clear that the death of the deceased Naranbhai was culpable homicide which is proved by P.W. 3 - Dr. Ganeshbhai Pyarelal Govekar who deposed that death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon multiple stab injuries sustained. All injuries were antemortem in origin and could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 9. It is amply established through the evidence that the death of Naranbhai was culpable homicide then the role of the accused are required to be examined in detail with reference to the evidence recorded and reasonable probability arising out of the appreciation of evidence. Now appreciating the evidence of child witnesses, we have gathered an impression that the evidence of child witnesses are neither here nor there as to come to definite conclusion. P.W. 2 - Kavita Naranbhai, though she was aged about 15 years when the incident occurred, turned hostile in examination-in-chief and stated that according to her information, her father had been to Surat for earning. She was declared hostile as she denied that she had seen the incident. In examination-in-cross, she attributes the role to the accused No. 2 stating that accused No. 2 was inflicting injuries with muddamal article No. 11 sword upon her father and her mother was mute spectator. She has changed her version at different places. Likewise, P.W. 6 - Sangitaben Naranbhai also though stated that she had seen the accused No. 2 inflicting injuries upon her father and it must be remembered that when the incident occurred, she was aged only 8 years. She has changed her version at different places. Likewise, P.W. 6 - Sangitaben Naranbhai also though stated that she had seen the accused No. 2 inflicting injuries upon her father and it must be remembered that when the incident occurred, she was aged only 8 years. An attempt on the part of this child witness also is obvious through the evidence that this child witness exonerates the role of accused No. 1 and attributes the role of accused No. 2. Again in her evidence, she has changed the version and in affirmatively, stated that she had read in the newspapers that accused No. 2 had inflicted injuries on body of her father. In the evidence recorded in the form of questions and answers, she again stated affirmatively that she was sleeping when the incident took place and when she had awakened, she noticed her father in bleeding condition. She also admitted that she has not stated this fact that accused No. 1 inflicted injuries to her father, to any one or even to her nearest relative. 10. Therefore, it is clear that no much reliance could be placed upon evidence of any of the child witnesses because firstly they have changed the version and on account of their age and on account of the capacity of each of the child witnesses owing to their tender age, they were not able to represent the incident in cogent manner so as to come to any definite conclusion. The benefit of the confession of the evidence of both the child witnesses naturally goes to the accused. 11. Learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of child witnesses in its proper perspective and came to the conclusion that on account of illicit relationship between the accused No. 1 and 2, they were in conspiracy and taking the aid of evidence of these child witnesses, learned trial Judge erroneously came to the conclusion that hatching conspiracy, accused No. 1 and 2 murdered Naranbhai, husband of accused No. 1. We have gone through the evidence carefully and nowhere it could be established by the prosecution that there were any illicit relationship between the accused No. 1 and 2. We have gone through the evidence carefully and nowhere it could be established by the prosecution that there were any illicit relationship between the accused No. 1 and 2. True that dead body was found from below the same house where accused No. 1 and 2 were residing along with the children of accused No. 1, but that would not, automatically, lead to the presumption that the accused No. 1 and 2 had illicit relationship and, therefore, there was a strong presumption of conspiracy. The presumption has to be drawn from the proved facts. When the fact is not proved that there was illicit relationship between the accused No. 1 and 2, from any of the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, it was erroneous on the part of the learned trial Judge to draw the presumption that because of illicit relationship between the accused No. 1 and 2, both of them hatched conspiracy to murder Naranbhai, husband of accused No. 1. To that extent, we do not accept the conclusion of the trial Court. 12. However, as aforestated, it is established beyond doubt by the prosecution that the death of Naranbhai was culpable homicide and it is also established by the prosecution beyond doubt that accused No. 1 and 2 both surrendered before Gandhigram Police Station and accused No. 1 gave the complaint. In pursuance of that complaint, P.W. 10-Mahendrasinh Kanuji Padhiar, P.I., Rajkot called Executive Magistrate, P.W. 1, and an inquest panchnama was prepared, which is at Ex.12 and from this inquest panchnama also, it is clear that both the accused had shown the place where the dead body was buried and dead body was taken out. This panchnama is proved beyond doubt. Further, P.W. 10-Mahendrasinh Kanuji Padhiar, P.I. also drew the panchnama at Ex.27 by which both the accused No. 1 and 2 had shown the place where the dead body was buried. Panch witness P.W. 8-Anubhai Devayatbhai examined at Ex.26 to prove the panchnama at Ex.27. He has supported the prosecution case and stated that both the accused voluntarily prepared to show the place and from Police Station, in mobile van, panchas and police were taken to Quarter No. 468 and both the accused had shown the place where dead body was buried. He has supported the prosecution case and stated that both the accused voluntarily prepared to show the place and from Police Station, in mobile van, panchas and police were taken to Quarter No. 468 and both the accused had shown the place where dead body was buried. Panchnama at Ex.29 of discovery of sword and clothes of the accused was proved, by evidence of P.W. 9 - Lakhabhai Merubhai and evidence of Investigating Officer, P.W. 10 - Mahendrasinh Manuji Padhiyar. What is established from this evidence is that accused No. 1 and 2 only and only had knowledge that where the dead body was buried. It is also proved through the evidence of P.W. 7 - Lakhmanbhai Devshibhai that he was called and was employed by accused No. 1 to fix the tiles on the floor of the kitchen below which the dead body was buried. Accused No. 1 had paid an amount of Rs. 80/- for this labour work. All these witnesses i.e. panch witnesses of panchnamas at Ex.27 and Ex.29 and P.W. 7 - Lakhmanbhai Devshibhai who fixed the tiles are independent witnesses and, therefore, it is established beyond doubt that accused No. 1 and 2 had knowledge that where dead body was buried and all these evidence are considered collectively and though the evidence of child witnesses may not be useful as aforestated, it is established beyond doubt that accused No. 1 and 2 were duty bound to explain the circumstances that how the dead body was buried in Quarter No. 468 where all of them residing together and how the incident had occurred. This is more so because from the evidence as to the incident is concerned, nothing could be concluded cogently. 13. When the evidence is re-appreciated in its proper perspective then it is found that alleged eye-witnesses i.e. child witnesses are not helpful to the prosecution and other circumstances appearing in the evidence pointing out that accused No. 1 and 2 were involved in the burying the dead body of the deceased in the Quarter No. 468 wherein all of them were staying together. 14. We do not find any explanation all through out the evidence in this respect and it is not disclosed conclusively that how and in what manner the incident had occurred. 14. We do not find any explanation all through out the evidence in this respect and it is not disclosed conclusively that how and in what manner the incident had occurred. Though, it is established beyond doubt that dead body of the deceased was buried by accused No. 1 and 2 in Quarter No. 468. At the same time, it is necessary to take into consideration that First Information Report in this respect is offered by accused No. 1 which is placed at Ex.23. Some portion of the complaint, which is not inculpatory is admitted to the evidence, while rest of the whole part of FIR has not been admitted to the evidence and rightly so that confessional statement of the accused before the police is not admissible in evidence and then the question arises that in what manner and how the incident took place. In this regard, we refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Shri Murli alias Denny vs. State of Rajasthan, as reported in AIR 1994 SC 610 . In Paras-4 and 5, the Apex Court has observed as under. “4. Learned counsel who appeared for the appellant before the courts below contended that FIR which is in the nature of confession could not be proved against the accused as the same was hit by S.25 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel, however, wanted to rely on a part of the statement in the FIR wherein the accused has stated that the deceased came near his shop and hurled the abuses virulently and having been provoked in a sudden manner, he inflicted injuries. The courts below was not prepared to give the benefit of the exception No. 1 to S.300, since the statement as a whole should be eschewed from the consideration. 5. Having examined the circumstances on record, we are satisfied that it was the accused who inflicted injuries on the deceased person, as a result of which he died. But the learned senior counsel, Shri Sibal submits that there are any number of circumstances indicating that the accused acted on a grave and sudden provocation and, therefore, exception No. 1 to S.300 is attracted. We find considerable force in this submission. But the learned senior counsel, Shri Sibal submits that there are any number of circumstances indicating that the accused acted on a grave and sudden provocation and, therefore, exception No. 1 to S.300 is attracted. We find considerable force in this submission. To start with, the prosecution evidence itself indicates that the deceased was a man of violent nature and had no regard for law and was creating terror and fear in the minds of common people. In such an aggressive mood, he must have gone to the shop of the accused. As to what exactly preceded the attack is not borne out by the evidence. However, there is a clear indication in the first statement given by the accused, himself which formed the FIR in this case to the effect that the deceased in an aggressive manner went to the shop of the accused and showered virulent abuses. It may be mentioned here that we are not using the statement of the accused before the SHO for any purpose in favour of prosecution and against the accused. The only admission which we find in the statement in favour of the accused is being taken into account to examine whether the case falls under exception No. 1 to S. 300, IPC, particularly, in view of the fact that there is no other evidence disclosing as to how the quarrel ensued and attack took place. Having carefully considered the entire material, we are of the view that Exception No. 1 to S.300 is attracted in this case. The exception lays down:— “Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident”. This Exception is no doubt subject to certain limitations. In the instant case, the provocation is not sought or provoked by the accused. The medical evidence also shows that most of the injuries were found on the hips and the possibility of having received injuries by the deceased during grappling cannot be ruled out. In such case, it cannot be said that the accused caused the injuries by way of an excuse for killing the deceased. The medical evidence also shows that most of the injuries were found on the hips and the possibility of having received injuries by the deceased during grappling cannot be ruled out. In such case, it cannot be said that the accused caused the injuries by way of an excuse for killing the deceased. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and imprisonment for life awarded thereunder and, instead, we convict him under Section 304, Part I, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years.” 15. Thus, this is a peculiar case where certain facts have been established by the prosecution, still manner in which the incident occurred, could not be established. In such circumstances, the use of FIR is not barred, even if given by the accused to examine whether the case falls under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the fact that there is no other evidence disclosing as to how the incident occurred and in what manner. Thus, we also do not take the aid of FIR given by accused No. 1 either in favour of prosecution or in favour of the accused No. 1 but we refer to Ex.23 FIR only to examine as to in what manner the incident occurred especially whether the case falls under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and we noticed from the facts of the FIR that deceased demanded insistently from accused No. 1 to have intercourse which was refused by accused No. 1 and hence, the deceased fetched the sword from the kitchen and when he was about to inflict sword upon accused No. 1, accused No. 2 intervened and in those circumstances, accused No. 2 inflicted blows of sword upon the deceased on account of which deceased died and the offence of culpable homicide was committed. The circumstances, therefore, squarely covered under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, so far as the accused No. 2 is concerned. While accused No. 1 is concerned, no role is attributed either by evidence or otherwise by which she might have inflicted injuries upon the body of her husband. The circumstances, therefore, squarely covered under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, so far as the accused No. 2 is concerned. While accused No. 1 is concerned, no role is attributed either by evidence or otherwise by which she might have inflicted injuries upon the body of her husband. What is disclosed is that the fatal injuries were inflicted by accused No. 2 and that too under the above circumstances, as to attract Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Though, at the same time, it is established beyond doubt that both the accused in abetment concealed the fact of the incident and buried dead body of the deceased in their kitchen and flooring was repaired. None of them informed the police till 10th January, 2001 of the incident which had occurred on 23rd December, 2000. Therefore, both the accused No. 1 and 2 become liable for the offences punishable under Section 201 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. While accused No. 1 and 2 are required to acquit for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and accused No. 2 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal code as the case is covered by Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Learned trial Judge acquitted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and no acquittal appeal is preferred by the State against that conviction. 17. In view of the above, we set aside the judgment and order dated 10th February, 2003, challenged in both the appeals, delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2002, convicting both the accused - appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 to read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of the appellant. We acquit each of the appellants i.e. accused No. 1 and 2 for the charges levelled against them for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code instead we find accused No. 1 and 2 guilty for the offences punishable under Section 201 to read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and we also find accused No. 2 - Hareshbhai Babubhai Chhantbar guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code. It is found from the record that accused No. 1 - Shobhanaben wife of Naranbhai is on bail by virtue of the order passed by this Court, but jail remarks shows that she has till today undergone imprisonment of 02 years, 11 months and 22 days, while jail remarks of accused No. 2 - Hareshbhai Babubhai Chhantbar shows that he has undergone imprisonment of 7 years, 6 months and 4 days. Therefore, in view of the circumstances of the case, we sentence accused No. 1 - Shobhanaben wife of Naranbhai for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code for imprisonment which she has already undergone. We sentence the accused No. 2 - Hareshbhai Babubhai Chhantbar for imprisonment which he has already undergone for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code. We sentence accused No. 2 - Hareshbhai Babubhai Chhantbar for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code for rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. It is directed that the sentences imposed upon the accused No. 2 - Hareshbhai Babubhai Chhantbar shall run concurrently. Thus, both the appeals are partly allowed to the above extent. Bail bonds of accused No. 1 - Shobhanaben wife of Naranbhai stands cancelled. It is directed that accused No. 2 - Hareshbhai Babubhai Chhantbar be set to liberty forthwith if he is not required to detain in jail for any other purpose. The order of the learned trial Judge in respect of muddamal is not interfered with.