JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J. Appellants who are three real sibling brothers, Babu Ram, Ram Kumar and Ram Sudhar, all s/o Lakhan Ram, r/o village Babia, P.S. Cantt, District Bareilly, have preferred this appeal against impugned judgment and order dated 31.7.1981, recorded by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No. 431 of 1980, State v. Babu Ram and others, by which, learned trial Judge has convicted all the three appellants u/s 304/34, I.P.C. and had sentenced them to 5 years' R.I. According to prosecution version, informant Ram Pher and deceased Puttu Lal were real sibling brothers and were first cousins of the appellants, as their fathers, Lakhan Ram and Sundar Lal, were real sibling brothers. Informant had cultivated wheat crop and had stacked it in the empty field of Ganga Prasad for being threshed at appellant's thresher, which was installed there to separate grains from the spikes. For threshing per quintal spikes, to separate grains from the capitulum, appellants were charging 8 Kgs. of wheat grains. On the incident date 12.4.1980 at 3.00 p.m. informant Ram Pher (P.W. 2) alongwith his brother Puttu Lal (deceased) got their wheat spikes threshed on appellant's thresher, but did not pay required 8 Kgs. of wheat grains and instead they started insisting that appellants should first thresh their capitulum (wheat crop knots/ganth) which could not be threshed properly and grain seeds were still attached with it. Accused appellants however, insisted that they will first thresh other spikes taken by them including spikes of Ram Gulam's, as a marriage was to be solemnized in his house, and only thereafter that they will thresh the capitulum (Ganth). Deceased, however, retaliated appellants attitude by saying that if they will not thresh his capitulum (Ganth), then he will not pay 8 Kgs. of wheat grains to them and he (deceased) also removed wheel belt. As a natural consequence, this was followed by hurling of abuses by the appellants which was objected to by the deceased and hence, in midst of exchange of vetuparisation, appellants started belabouring the deceased with clubs. When informant tried to rescue his brother, he too was assaulted as a result of which he also sustained minor injuries. In self defence informant also wielded lathi and caused injuries to Ram Kumar. Sustaining injuries deceased squatted on the ground. Commotion, hue and cry attracted Ram Bahadur. When informant tried to rescue his brother, he too was assaulted as a result of which he also sustained minor injuries. In self defence informant also wielded lathi and caused injuries to Ram Kumar. Sustaining injuries deceased squatted on the ground. Commotion, hue and cry attracted Ram Bahadur. Devi Singh, Rameshwar, Jhunna Lal, Chhimmi and others at the incident scene who intervened into the assault and save informant and his brother. With the help of villagers, Puttu Lal (deceased) was brought to informant's house and after arranging a rickshaw, he was carried to the Police Station where informant Ram Pher (P.W. 2) dictated oral F.I.R. to the head constable and got it lodged same day at 6.35 p.m. 2. After registration of the crime, request letter for medical examination (chithi majrubi) was prepared and Puttu Lal was dispatched for his medical examination alongwith the informant, who did not get himself medically examined because he had sustained very minor injuries and thereafter he returned back to his house. Following day of the incident, deceased lost his life in the hospital. 3. Head moharir Anis Ahmad registered the crime by scribing the F.I.R. and G.D. entry Ext. Ka-3. After demise of the deceased, on 14.4.1980 that Investigating Officer S.I. Mahendra Singh (P.W. 5) commenced investigation into the offence, interrogated informant and penned down his 161, Cr.P.C. statement. Thereafter, following day, Investigating Officer recorded statements of other witnesses, conducted spot inspection and prepared site plan map Ext. Ka. 4 and subsequent thereto interrogated. inquest and recovery witnesses, and recorded their statements. Thereafter, P.W. 5, was transferred. Subsequent investigation was taken up by SI. R.P. Sharma, who recorded statements of witnesses Devi Singh, Brij Lal Singh, Ext. Ka 9, and ultimately wrapping it charge-sheeted accused appellants on 18.5.1980, vide Ext. Ka 10. 4. Medical examination of the injured/deceased was done by Dr. Rajiv Agarwal (P.W. 6), Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bareilly on 12.4.1980 at 7.15 p.m. Doctor had prepared his medical examination report Ext. Ka-6 and had noted following external physical injury on his body, which in his estimation were fresh and were caused by some blunt object: Inj.- (1) L/w 5 c.m. x.7 c.m. bone deep at front of head 8 c.m. above to bridge of nose, UO and Adv. X-ray. (2) Contusion 5 c.m. x 7 cm, around Lt eye. UO and Adv. X-ray (black in colour). X-ray. (2) Contusion 5 c.m. x 7 cm, around Lt eye. UO and Adv. X-ray (black in colour). (3) Swelling 5 c.m. x 4 cm, on the Lt. side head 8 c.m. above Lt. ear. (4) Swelling all over the fore head, it included Rt. Temporal-- Adv X-ray. (5) Contusion 5 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. back of Lt. forearm 6 c.m. above to the wrist joint. (6) L/W 3 c.m. x.5 c.m. x skin on dorsum on Rt. Ring (middle) finger. (7) L/W 1 c.m. x.5 c.m. x skin on dorsum at Rt. middle finger in middle. All injuries were simple except No. 1 to 4, which were kept UO and X-ray was advised. 5. After demise of the deceased, autopsy on his cadaver was performed on 14.4.1980 by Dr. P.K. Bose, P.W. 1, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bareilly at 3 p.m. The cadaver was identified by constable Jagdev Prasad of P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly. In the estimation of the doctor, deceased was 28 years of age and a day had passed since his death. He had an average built body, rigor mortis was present in the lower limbs and the same was diminishing from the upper limbs. Post-mortem staining were present on dependent portions, back of the deceased. In the estimation of the doctor frontal bone and left parietal bone of skull were fractured and subdural hemorrhage was present in the injury. Membranes, brain were congested, stomach was empty and large intestine contained gases and fecal matter. In the autopsy report Ext. Ka-1, Dr. P.K. Bose (P.W. 1) has noted cause of deceased death as comma due to head injury. Following external injuries were detected and noted by the doctor in the autopsy report: Ante Mortem Injuries: (1) stitched wound 3.5 c.m. with three stitches on left side head 14 c.m. above left ear obliquely placed under lying skull bones fractured in many pieces. (2) stitched wound 1.5 c.m. long with two stitches on back of (R) ring finger. (3) stitched wound 1 c.m. long with one stitch present on back of (Rt) middle finger. (4) Abrasion 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. a back of (it) forearm middle region. (5) Injection mark present on left forearm inner aspect a sealed packet containing one bush shirt sent S.O. Kotwali, PMR sealed in original with 8 connected paper sent to S.P., Bareilly. CCP MR sent to S.O. Kotwali, 6. (4) Abrasion 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. a back of (it) forearm middle region. (5) Injection mark present on left forearm inner aspect a sealed packet containing one bush shirt sent S.O. Kotwali, PMR sealed in original with 8 connected paper sent to S.P., Bareilly. CCP MR sent to S.O. Kotwali, 6. Accused/appellants were summoned on the basis of submitted charge-sheet and their case, since triable by Sessions Court was committed to Sessions Court, where it was registered as S.T. No. 431/80, State v. Babu Ram and others. IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, charged all the appellants under Sections 302/34, I.P.C., on 18.2.1981, which charges were abjured by the accused/appellants who claimed to be tried and hence to establish their guilt, their trial commenced. 7. Prosecution, in an effort to succeed and bring home the charge, tendered oral evidences of seven witnesses, out of whom informant Ram Pher (P.W. 2), Ram Bahadur (P.W. 3), Devi Singh (P.W. 4) were the fact witnesses. Formal witnesses included post-mortem Dr. P.K. Bose (P.W. 1), 1st I.O. S.I. M.S. Bhairana (P.W. 5), autopsy doctor Rajiv Agrawal (P.W. 6) and constable K.P. Singh (P.W. 7). 8. In accused statements u/s 313, Cr.P.C. Appellant/accused denied incriminating circumstances appearing against them in prosecution evidences and pleaded a common defence of false implication, besides stating that it was the prosecution side who had started the incident and they were the aggressors. Appellant Babu Ram also pleaded his alibi by stating that he was not present at the spot during the incident and being real sibling brother of Ram Kumar and Ram Sudhar that he has been falsely implicated in a fabricated case. Another appellant Ram Sudhar, stated that at 5 p.m. on the incident date Kishan Lal, Puttu Lal (deceased) and Ram Pher informant got their spikes threshed at their thresher but some capitulum with grain remained unthreshed. Meanwhile, appellants started extracting spikes of one Ram Ghulam, because there was marriage in his house. Deceased and his brother started coercing them to thresh capitulum to separate residue grains from it, but Ram Kumar informed them that it will be done only after spikes of Ram Ghulam is threshed. On this, Puttu Lal (deceased) loosened thresher belt from its wheel and accosted that he will not allow the thresher to function. Deceased and his brother started coercing them to thresh capitulum to separate residue grains from it, but Ram Kumar informed them that it will be done only after spikes of Ram Ghulam is threshed. On this, Puttu Lal (deceased) loosened thresher belt from its wheel and accosted that he will not allow the thresher to function. When appellant Ram Kumar asked them to refrain from such an affront, he was assaulted by Kishan, Puttu Lal and Ram Pher. In self defence of his brother, Ram Sudhar had wielded lathi causing injuries to the deceased. Appellant Ram Kumar had filed a written defence statement approving Ram Sudhar's defence, besides narrating that he has been falsely implicated. To probabilise their defence, appellants had examined Ram Ghulam as D.W. 1. 9. Learned trial Judge, vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.7.1981, held that the incident was a sudden fight and there was no premeditated plan or mens tea to commit murder nor it can be gathered from oral and documentary evidences tendered during the trial and hence while acquitting appellants from the charge of murder u/s 302/34, I.P.C., it held them guilty u/s 304 (II), I.P.C. and resultantly convicted them for that offence and sentenced them to 5 years' R.I., which conviction and sentence is under challenge in the instant appeal. Appellant's appeal was admitted on 5.8.1981. Pending final outcome of the appeal, two of the appellants Babu Ram and Ram Sudhar expired and, consequently, their appeals were abated on 24.7.2006. Now, appeal of only surviving appellant Ram Kumar remains to be considered. 10. In above back drop of preceding facts narrated herein above, I have heard Sri Ram Babu Sharma, learned counsel representing sole surviving appellant Ram Kumar and Sri Sangam Lal Kesarwani, learned A.G.A., for the respondent State and have critically analyzed, both oral and documentary evidences existing on trial court record. 11. What has been submitted by appellant's counsel is that the impugned judgment is indefensible and unsustainable because it was the prosecution sides which indulged into mischief and when Ram Kumar forbade them to desist from such rankled acts they started the assault. Ram Sudhar, therefore, acted in exercise of right of self defence of his brother Ram Kumar. Prosecution story itself revealed that deceased was hell bent not to allow appellant accused to operate their thresher unless they thresh his capitulum to separate grain from the chaff. Ram Sudhar, therefore, acted in exercise of right of self defence of his brother Ram Kumar. Prosecution story itself revealed that deceased was hell bent not to allow appellant accused to operate their thresher unless they thresh his capitulum to separate grain from the chaff. Albeit accused were ready to do it after some times but it was prosecution sides which made the thresher unserviceable and hence incident started because of mischief committed by the deceased and the informant. Appellants did not exceed exercise of right of private defence because deceased had sustained only one fatal blow and rest of all his injuries were simple in nature and it is not known who had caused that fatal injury, and hence crime committed by the appellants will not be outside the purview of Section 325, I.P.C. and recorded conviction u/s 304 (II), I.P.C. is, therefore, illegal. Supplementing the submission, it was urged that fatal injury sustained by the deceased was on the head, whereas rest of his injuries were on non-vital part of his body and, therefore, none of the appellants can be attributed with the knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Except one, rest of sustained injuries, singularly or cumulatively, were insufficient to cause death as none of them were dangerous to life or grievous in nature and hence knowledge to cause death cannot be anointed on all the accused. What is culled out is that it is a case of sudden fight and hence accused act will not fall within the mischief of Section 304 (II), I.P.C. Submitting on the sentence, it was argued that since incident occurred more than three decades ago, and appellant does not have any criminal history to his credit nor he is a previous convict and since he had not been involved into any crime during last three decades, hence he should not be sent to penitentiary and sentence already undergone by him with mollified fine will meet the ends of justice. 12. Learned A.G.A., to the contrary, submitted that because of relationship, there was no occasion or reason for appellant's false implication. Time, date and place of incident is admitted to the defence side and hence injured witnesses cannot be disbelieved. 12. Learned A.G.A., to the contrary, submitted that because of relationship, there was no occasion or reason for appellant's false implication. Time, date and place of incident is admitted to the defence side and hence injured witnesses cannot be disbelieved. It was next submitted that the evidences on record does not establish that it was an incident in which accused had exercised right of private defence and hence guilt of the appellant had been proved clear of all doubts. Conviction of the appellant, therefore, is well merited. On the question of sentence, learned A.G.A. did not harp much and fairly submitted that three decades had lapsed therefore, suitable punishment be given to the appellants. 13. I have considered the arguments raised by both the sides. Some of the facts which are not in dispute in the present appeal are the date, time and place of the incident. It is also not contested by the accused that the incident had occurred because of extraction of wheat grains from the capitulum. Accused appellant have also not contested the prosecution claim that it was the informant and the deceased who had approached them to get their spikes threshed. It is also admitted that deceased and informant had got their spikes threshed but some residue capitulum having grains studded in it remained, which the informant and the deceased wanted to get separated. It is also not disputed that appellants had told them to wait till they thresh spikes of other farmers including Ram Ghulam, in whose house a marriage had to take place. P.W. 1 also admitted that deceased had informed the accused that if they will not thresh the capitulum, they (informant and deceased) will not give them their share of 48 Kgs. of grains for threshing 6 quintals of spikes. Although informant denied that deceased had removed the thresher belt, but he admitted that thresher had stopped working because of some fault. Most of the happenings were not intimated by the informant either to the Investigating Officer nor he had sketched them in his F.I.R., and perusal of his entire depositions reveal glaring omissions and contradictions. Informant had also admitted that Ram Kumar had sustained a bleeding head injury. Most of the happenings were not intimated by the informant either to the Investigating Officer nor he had sketched them in his F.I.R., and perusal of his entire depositions reveal glaring omissions and contradictions. Informant had also admitted that Ram Kumar had sustained a bleeding head injury. Thus critical analysis of evidences, de-hors pedantic acceptance, it is evident that it was the prosecution side, who had picked up the quarrel with the accused and it were they who were the aggressors. Accused defence, therefore, is not improbable and is equally compatible with that of prosecution story. Situations conducive to engineer a brawl/fight was ignited by the deceased. During the incident only he seems to have been assaulted as there is no medical examination report of the informant who never got himself medically examined, which fact is admitted to him. Not only deceased indulged into rankled act, but he also engaged himself in verbal abusive tirade with the accused. Defence version of thresher belt being removed by him seems to be a correct version as admittedly thresher stopped working; according to informant P.W. 1. If it had stopped working because of some fault there was no occasion for the informant and deceased to insist for threshing capitulum second round. Excuse offered by the informant for non-functioning of thresher seems to be a fib, which does not inspire any confidence. Contrary to it defence version of thresher belt being removed by the deceased has an air of reality in it and is a more confidence inspiring version. Deceased act, therefore, was a mischief, as, at that, time spikes of Ram Ghulam was being threshed. In such a view, it can be safely concluded that it was the prosecution side who had created mischief and the incident occurred because of the aforesaid reasons. 14. Adverting towards the crime committed by the appellants, in the back drop of preceding fact situations, it seems that none of the appellants had any intention or knowledge to commit murder of the deceased. Incident started all of a sudden, on grave and sudden provocation, started by the deceased and the informant. Deceased had sustained one fatal injury on his head and rest of the injuries were on his non-vital part, on finger and forearm, which were neither grievous nor dangerous to life. Incident started all of a sudden, on grave and sudden provocation, started by the deceased and the informant. Deceased had sustained one fatal injury on his head and rest of the injuries were on his non-vital part, on finger and forearm, which were neither grievous nor dangerous to life. Head injury, albeit was grave in nature, but it has not been stated as to who was the author of that injury. If one of the accused had hurled a single blow on the head of the deceased, each one of them cannot be imputed with knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and what can be said with any degree of certainty is that, cumulatively, they had the requisite knowledge that grievous hurt will be the likely result of their act. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that deceased had refused to part away with grain seeds, which were the legal charges of the appellants and to which appellants were entitled. Deceased had also made the thresher unserviceable. There was no common intention and in a sudden fight deceased was beaten because of his high handedness. Thus, in my opinion, appellant's guilt will not be beyond the mischief of Section 325, I.P.C., as primary ingredients for making out offence u/s 304 Part (II), I.P.C. is missing. 15. Further it is revealed that accused Ram Kumar had also lodged a F.I.R. against informant, deceased and witness Kishan as crime number 102 u/s 323/504. I.P.C. at P.S. Cantt. district Bareilly on 12.4.1980 at 6.35 p.m., wherein it was alleged that accused thereunder had assaulted informant Ram Kumar with lathis. He had sustained a wound on left side of his head, and swelling on left elbow. Informant had also admitted that Ram Kumar had sustained injuries during the incident. Initially, no reference of his injuries was made by the informant in the F.I.R. or in his investigatory statement u/s 161. Cr, P.C., but during his cross-examination he had tried to explain those injuries. Thus defence version of prosecution side being the aggressor is probabilised. Informant had also admitted that Ram Kumar had sustained injuries during the incident. Initially, no reference of his injuries was made by the informant in the F.I.R. or in his investigatory statement u/s 161. Cr, P.C., but during his cross-examination he had tried to explain those injuries. Thus defence version of prosecution side being the aggressor is probabilised. Ram Kumar had also sustained a bleeding head injury and, therefore, it seems that prosecution side was the aggressor and accused acted in exercise of right of private defence, but in that exercise one of them had exceeded it and hence their crime will be one u/s 325, I.P.C. only as fatal injury is not assigned to any particular accused. In this respect support can be drawn from following decisions: In State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Bhalchandra Gavade and another , it has been held as under: 8. It takes us to consider what offence accused 1 has committed by hitting the deceased Dattaram with a stick on his head and thereby causing his death. There is no evidence either direct or circumstantial to infer that accused 1 entertained an intention to cause the death of Dattaram, The sticks which are produced before the Court and which are alleged to have been used in the crime are not very heavy sticks. Accused 1 gave only one blow on the head of the deceased Dattaram and after he fell down no blow was given by accused 1 to the deceased. From the nature of the weapon, i.e., stick and the single blow given by accused 1 on the head of Dattaram neither intention to cause death of Dattaram nor knowledge that the injury to be caused thereby would result into the death can be Imputed to accused 1. Therefore, we find that the offence committed by him does not fall within the provisions of Section 302, I.P.C. Accused 1 gave a forcible stick blow on the head of Dattaram and thereby caused grievous hurt to him without intending or knowing that thereby he would cause the death of Dattaram and, therefore, the offence would fall squarely u/s 325, I.P.C. and is liable to be convicted for the same. In Kashinath Kisan Bhoye Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 1 BomCR 95 it has been held as under: 12. In Kashinath Kisan Bhoye Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 1 BomCR 95 it has been held as under: 12. Coming, then, to the question of the offence that can be said to have been constituted on the aforesaid facts, it is clear to us that, in the circumstances of the case, and on the background in which the appellant and the deceased had lived together as members of one and the same family over number of years, and further, looking to the paltry nature of the quarrel which had given rise to the fateful incident, there is no reason whatsoever to infer that the appellant had intended to cause the death of the deceased or, in the alternative, that the appellant had intention to inflict on the deceased an injury which he knew to be likely to bring about the death of the deceased. The case does not fall, quite clearly, within the purview of Section 302, or even Section 304 Part I, in spite of the fact that it is proved that a forceful axe blow was given by the appellant, and that it was given with such a force that the blade of the axe also had got stuck up in the head of the deceased. The appellant was in an irritant mood and his irritation had aggravated when he had noticed that deceased Ramdas had taken him for granted and had, without asking the appellant, untethered from the cattle shed the appellant's bullock to be lent for use to Chintaman. In that heated moment, the quarrel ensued and the appellant had lost control over his temper to such an extent that having picked up whatever he could pick up from his house, he had come out of his house and had given a blow thereof to the deceased. It is nobody's case that the appellant had premeditated his action. Further, there is hardly any reason to suppose that, at that late hour of the day, the appellant was selective in choosing for giving a blow of the instrument carried by him, a vital part of the body of the deceased so as to enable us to say that the blow of the axe was given with a knowledge that the appellant would thereby cause death of the deceased. In Vishwanath Vs. In Vishwanath Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 67 , a question fell before the Supreme Court for decision whether or not the action of assault indulged into by the appellant before the Supreme Court fell within the restrictions prescribed by Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from the context in which the observations were made, it was noted that the appellant had given only one blow with a knife which he happened to have had in his pocket. The Supreme Court felt that unfortunately the blow had landed into the heart and had, therefore, brought about the death of the deceased who was concerned in that case. Considering the fact that the appellant had given only one blow with an ordinary knife, which, if it had been a little this way or that, could not have been fatal, the Supreme Court concluded that it could not be said that the appellant before them had inflicted more harm than that was necessary for the purpose of the defence. In this context, their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to an observation in Amjad Khan Vs. The State, AIR 1952 SC 165 which may be quoted here with advantage. It was observed in that case (at p. 850 of Cri LJ): these things cannot be weighed in too fine a set of scales or "in golden scales". In the present case also, if the axe blow had really fallen on a non-vital part of the body of the deceased, that could not have possibly brought about the death of the deceased, much less an instantaneous death. It was only unfortunate that the weapon which had fallen in the hands of the appellant at that passionate moment happened to be an axe, that the blow given by it was from the blade side of it, and further, that it did fall on a vital part like the head of the deceased. On taking a bird's eye view of the facts, we think that there is a reason to hold that everything had happened in a hurry, when the appellant was in a confused state of mind on account of the heat generated because of the sudden earlier quarrel and the shape that it had taken. On taking a bird's eye view of the facts, we think that there is a reason to hold that everything had happened in a hurry, when the appellant was in a confused state of mind on account of the heat generated because of the sudden earlier quarrel and the shape that it had taken. The appellant had really fondled the deceased over a number of years as his younger brother and after the death of the appellant, as it has come on record, even the younger sister of the deceased has been living in the house of the appellant. The appellant himself appears to be the only man in the family who can possibly take care of the family as well as the property of the family. Under such circumstances, it is not possible for us to impute to him an intention which is in excess of an intention of causing grievous hurt. The case falls, In our view, within the purview of Section 326 of the I.P.C. because the act in question would fall within the ambit of the 7th and 8th Clauses of Section 320, I.P.C. 16. From above, concluding the discussion, I am of the opinion that conviction of the surviving appellant Ram Kumar u/s 304(II), I.P.C. is unsustainable and his guilt can be only u/s 325; I.P.C. for which offence he is convicted. 17. Turning towards the sentence part of it, incident had occurred on 12.4.1980. More than three decades have gone by during intervening period. On the date of the incident, appellant Ram Kumar was 32 years of age and, as of now, he must be above 60 years. In the intervening period, there is no report of his involvement in any other crime. Informant and the appellants were close relatives and pattidar. Incident had occurred because of the mischief created by the prosecution side. In such a view, in my humble opinion substantive imprisonment for the period undergone by appellant Ram Kumar alongwith fine of Rs. 15,000 with Rs. 10,000 compensation out of it to the deceased family will meet the ends of justice. Appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant Ram Kumar u/s 304(II), I.P.C. and imposed sentence of 5 years R.I. are hereby set aside and instead, he is convicted u/s 325/ 34, I.P.C. and is imposed the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him with Rs. Appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant Ram Kumar u/s 304(II), I.P.C. and imposed sentence of 5 years R.I. are hereby set aside and instead, he is convicted u/s 325/ 34, I.P.C. and is imposed the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him with Rs. 15,000 as fine, out of which, Rs. 10,000 is awarded as compensation to the deceased family. Appellant is allowed one month time to deposit fine. He is on bail, he need not surrender but his bail bonds and surety bonds shall be discharged only after he has deposited the fine. Failing to deposit the fine, learned trial Judge will get the appellant arrested and will lodge him in jail to serve out four months of rigorous imprisonment as default sentence. Appeal is allowed in part as above. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the trial court for it's intimation.