Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by accused-appellants Gajendra Singh and Smt.Hungam Kanwar against the judgment dated 19/04/2005 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer in Sessions Case No.127/2003 whereby, they were convicted and sentenced, as under:- Accused-appellant No.1-Gajendra Singh was convicted for offence u/S.304B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and further convicted for offence u/S.498A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was required to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months. Accused-appellant No.2-Smt.Hungam Kanwar was convicted for offence u/S.304B IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and further convicted for offence u/S.498A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of which, she was required to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a written report (Exb.P/18) was submitted by Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9) to S.H.O. Police Station Christian Ganj, Ajmer at 4.00 p.m. on 17/06/2003 alleging that her daughter Gayatri was married to Gajendra Singh R/o Jawahar Nagar, Lohagal Road, Ajmer on 26/5/2002 as per hindu customs and rites. She had given dowry items in the marriage as per her capacity. The behaviour of her in-laws for some time remained cordial but thereafter they started subjecting her to cruelty on demand of dowry. At the time of engagement on 20/5/2002, the complainant had to pay Rs.51,000/- to the accused under pressure from the mother-in-law of the deceased, Smt.Hungam Kanwar and husband Gajendra Singh, Sampat Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Narayan Singh, elder brothers of Gajendra Singh and other family members. They started taunting her daughter for not bringing the sufficient dowry. When Kiran, younger sister of Gayatri and brother Ram Niwas went to meet her at her in-laws place, her mother-in-law Hungam Kanwar and husband Gajendra Singh both complained them about poor quality of furniture and jewelery given in dowry and stated that they had better offers and that they regretted having married their son with Gayatri. All the aforesaid accused used to subject the deceased to mental and physical cruelty inasmuch as, they used to force her to do the domestic work right from 4.00 a.m. in the morning till 11.00 p.m. like a domestic servant. All the aforesaid accused used to subject the deceased to mental and physical cruelty inasmuch as, they used to force her to do the domestic work right from 4.00 a.m. in the morning till 11.00 p.m. like a domestic servant. They did not give her food on time, as a result of which, she became physically weak. They did not permit her to use the electric items like, television, tape recorder, telephone, cooler etc. on the pretext that it would raise the electricity bill. On 3/1/2003 at 10.00 p.m., Gayatri suddenly came to her maternal-grandfather (nana) weeping and complained that her husband Gajendra Singh, his elder brothers Sampat Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Narayan Singh and mother-in-law Smt.Hungam Kanwar had beaten her on demand of dowry. Thereupon, the informant along with her father Bhagirath Singh and brother Raghunath Singh along with Gayatri, went to their house at Data Nagar and gave a sum of Rs.35,000/- to Sampat Singh so that matrimonial house of Gayatri may not be disturbed. After sometime, all the accused again subjected the deceased to beating on 9/4/2003 and then her husband Gajendra Singh left Gayatri in the house of the complainant. Father of the informant, Bhagirath Singh and her daughter Kiran tried to persuade Gayatri to go back to his in-laws. She stated that they were demanding Rs.3 lacs so that her husband Gajendra Singh could start some business. On 13/6/2003, Gayatri Kanwar returned back to the house of the informant. She complained that her mother-in-law Smt.Hungam Kanwar and elder brother of her husband gave her beating on demand of Rs.3 lacs stating that either this demand should be fulfilled or else, they would kill her. Gayatri informed about this to her younger sister Kiran and her husband Prakash Singh on telephone. Informant and other relatives persuaded Gayatri to go back to in-laws and sent her to her matrimonial house with father of the informant, her daughter Kiran and nephew Jogendra Singh and assured the accused that they would try to satisfy the demand of Rs.3 lacs so soon they could arrange the money. Gayatri insisted that she should be taken back to her parents house, otherwise, she would be murdered. After one hour, Gayatri called informant on telephone requesting her that they should come to her in-laws house and try to persuade them not to harass her. Gayatri insisted that she should be taken back to her parents house, otherwise, she would be murdered. After one hour, Gayatri called informant on telephone requesting her that they should come to her in-laws house and try to persuade them not to harass her. Informant assured her that she would come in the evening. However, at about 3.00 p.m. on that very day, Bhagwan Singh - elder brother-in-law of Gayatri informed on telephone that Gayatri was unwell and informant should come back. Informant along with her 'bhabhi' Smt.Suman Kanwar went by auto-rickshaw to her in-laws place. There, they met with Bhagwan Singh, who directed them to the room of Gayatri. They were shocked to see Gayatri hanging with her neck tied by a nylon belt from the hook of the roof. The informant somehow cut the nylon belt and rushed her to J.L.N. Hospital, Ajmer, where she was declared brought dead. She was cremated on the same day but the report was being submitted on 17/6/2003 after third day ceremony performed on 16/6/2003. 3. On the basis of the above written report (Exb.P/18), police registered FIR No.76/2003 (Exb.P/16) on 17/06/2003 for offence u/Ss.304B and 498A IPC and started investigation. After investigation, police filed challan against them for offence u/Ss.304B, 498A and 406 IPC. On committal of the case, the trial court framed the charge against the accused-appellants for offence u/Ss.304B and 498A IPC, which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced ten prosecution witnesses and exhibited thirty five documents to prove its case, whereas the defence produced three defence witnesses and exhibited five documents in rebuttal. After conclusion of trial, trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Shri Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that it was a case of plain and simple suicide. Neither was there any demand of dowry nor the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before the death. Learned trial court has erred in law in relying on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 5. Shri Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that it was a case of plain and simple suicide. Neither was there any demand of dowry nor the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before the death. Learned trial court has erred in law in relying on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The accused party had not only informed the police but also immediately informed the parents of the deceased about the incident, which is evident from written report (Exb.P/15), given to the SHO Police Station Christian Ganj, Ajmer by Bhagwan Singh Hada, elder brother of accused-appellant Gajendra Singh. All the prosecution witnesses have admitted that they were given information about deceased Gayatri Kanwar on telephone by Bhagwan Singh. Report (Exb.P/17) prepared by the executing magistrate u/S.174 Cr.P.C. also makes reference in column 1 to the fact that Bhagwan Singh gave the information. Dead-body was cremated without any protest or murmur by the complainant-party. Not only the cremation but also the other rituals were attended by the accused-party. It is only by way of afterthought that the complainant-party has lodged first information report at the instance of Ramniwas Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, who is uncle of Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9). 6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that there is no explanation, much less any convincing justification, why the first information report was lodged with the delay of three days. Statement of Bhagirath Singh (PW3) was recorded u/S.161 Cr.P.C. 2½ months after the incident. There is no explanation why his statement was recorded with such enormous delay. There are serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of Bhagirath Singh (PW3) maternal-grandfather (nana) of the deceased, Smt.Kiran Kanwar (PW7) younger sister of the deceased and Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9) mother of the deceased as to the allegations of alleged cruelty and harassment on demand of dowry. Learned counsel further argued that the learned trial court has erred in law in not giving any credence to the statements of the defence witnesses Smt.Lata Mittal (DW1), Smt.Raj Shree Chandnani (DW2) and Ram Singh Solanki (DW3), who have deposed in their natural way. Ignoring their testimony, has occasioned miscarriage of justice and resulted in unjust conviction of the innocent accused-appellants. Ignoring their testimony, has occasioned miscarriage of justice and resulted in unjust conviction of the innocent accused-appellants. Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9), informant and mother of the deceased in cross-examination stated that the first information report was lodged on 14/6/2003 itself and that her statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the police on the same day, whereas neither such first information report was produced by the prosecution nor any such statement has been brought on record. Evidence thus proves it to be concocted case. Conviction of the accused-appellants on such shaky evidence cannot be sustained. 7. Shri Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that in any case, the evidence only point to the accused-appellant Gajendra Singh. There was matrimonial dispute between the two. Appellant No.2 – Smt.Hungam Kanwar has been victimized only because she is mother of Gajendra Singh. Learned counsel in this behalf referred in particular extensively to the statements of Bhagirath Singh (PW3), Smt.Kiran Kanwar (PW7) and Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9). Learned counsel argued that the offence of Section 304B IPC as also the offence u/S.498A IPC cannot at any rate be held to have been proved against accused-appellant No.2–Smt.Hungam Kanwar. There is no justification for the trial court while convicting accused-appellant Gajendra Singh for offence under Section 304B IPC to sentence him to life imprisonment. Only because Section 304B IPC provides the life imprisonment as the maximum sentence, does not mean that court should mechanically proceed to impose the maximum sentence, more particularly when there is no allegation that it was homicidal death and minimum sentence is seven years. There is no justification for awarding the maximum sentence of life imprisonment in the present case when death is suicidal and not homicidal. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in Hem Chand vs. State of Haryana : (1994) 6 SCC 727 . 8. Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and submitted that delay of three days in lodging the first information report is not fatal to the prosecution case because Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9) in her statement has explained reason for the delay in lodging the first information report, which reason has also been mentioned in the first information report. The reason was that she and other family members were to first perform the last rites of deceased-Gayatri on 16/6/2013. The reason was that she and other family members were to first perform the last rites of deceased-Gayatri on 16/6/2013. Her statement that she gave to the SHO Police Station Christian Ganj, Ajmer on 14/6/2013 and that her statement was recorded by the SHO on that very day has to be understood in the context of proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in which also, enquires may have been made from her. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that testimony of the witnesses especially, Bhagirath Singh (PW3), Smt.Kiran Kanwar (PW7) and Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9) clearly bring home guilt of the accused-appellant Gajendra Singh. Learned trial court has rightly chosen penalty of life imprisonment for accused-appellant Gajendra Singh gravity of whose offence is found more than the gravity of offence of appellant Smt.Hungam Kanwar, who has been awarded a lesser sentence of ten years. It lies in the discretion of the trial court to choose a particular sentence within the available range from minimum to maximum and in the present case, the discretion has been judiciously applied. The impugned judgment therefore does not warrant any interference. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 10. Although it is true that first information report was lodged with the delay of three days, yet the delay in a case like this, would not be fatal because evidence of the prosecution witnesses has substantiated the allegations, if not against appellant No.2-Smt.Hungam Kanwar, atleast against accused-appellant No.1-Gajendra Singh, which we shall discuss shortly hereinafter. The case of the prosecution cannot be therefore thrown only because of delay of three days in the background in which the deceased was found dead in the house of appellant Gajendra Singh within a year of the marriage. She was found dead in the house of the accused-appellant Gajendra Singh in mysterious circumstances and therefore presumption of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has to be drawn against him, which presumption shall exist till it is not rebutted by evidence of the required degree of proof viz. by preponderance of probabilities. What has to be therefore seen is whether the defence has been probabilised by the accused. by preponderance of probabilities. What has to be therefore seen is whether the defence has been probabilised by the accused. From the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses, we find that there is distinction between the case of appellants-Gajendra Singh and that of Smt.Hungam Kanwar as the quality of evidence against both of them is not the same. Before however we proceed to embark on that exercise, we must at the outset notice the statement of Dr.P.K. Saraswat (PW2), member of the medical board, who has proved that the deceased died due to strangulation. He has proved the post-mortem report Exb.P/8, wherein the following findings have been recorded by the medical board:- “Ligature mark : Ante mortem in nature:- There is a ligature mark and contused abrasion on the upper part of neck above the thyroid cartilage placed obliquely with breach on Right of neck near the mastoid process and below the ear. The ligature mark is 32cm in length x 4cm in breadth size. The mark is slightly followed and has brownish appearance because of parchmentigation. On dissections the ligature mark:- The subcutaneous tissue underneath the ligature mark is white to glistering with multiple tissue hemorrhagic spots. The hyoid bone is suture thyroid cartilage is health. Carotid injury of sheath along with vegens nerve Health cerical spinus healthy.” 11. Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9), mother of the deceased has in the opening part of her statement made allegation against Smt.Hungam Kanwar, mother of accused-appellant Gajendra Singh, Sampat Singh, Narayan Singh, Bhagwan Singh elder brothers of accused appellant Gajendra Singh and their wives that under their pressure, she had to pay Rs.51,000/- at the time of engagement though originally agreed amount was Rs.21,000/-. She has stated that she also gave gold ornaments of 17 tolas and other articles to the deceased in her marriage, yet when her younger daughter Kiran and son Ram Niwas went to meet Gayatri at her in-laws place, Gajendra Singh, Hungam Kanwar and Sampat Singh complained them about giving poor quality of articles in dowry. Later, she has stated that she tried to make her daughter Gayatri understand the implications of the situation and assured that gradually, everything would become normal. Thereafter, again her daughter complained that her husband and mother-in-law were demanding the motorcycle. In January 2003, when she came to the house of her mother Smt.Prem Kanwar, she made the similar complaint. Later, she has stated that she tried to make her daughter Gayatri understand the implications of the situation and assured that gradually, everything would become normal. Thereafter, again her daughter complained that her husband and mother-in-law were demanding the motorcycle. In January 2003, when she came to the house of her mother Smt.Prem Kanwar, she made the similar complaint. On 13/1/2003, this witness (Smt.Prem Kanwar PW3) along with her father Bhagirath Singh, went to the house of the accused and gave Rs.35,000/- to Sampat Singh, elder brother of accused-appellant Gajendra Singh to purchase motorcycle for Gajendra Singh. In later part of her statement also, she has made allegations against not only husband Gajendra Singh and mother-in-law Smt.Hungam Kanwar but also against Sampat Singh, Narayan Singh and Bhagwan Singh, elder brothers of accused appellant Gajendra Singh and their wives Kiran Kanwar, Sonal Kanwar, Lali Kanwar and even against the sons of elder brother of Gajendra Singh, Shiv Singh and Pankaj Singh. There is thus a tendency in the statements of these witnesses to implicate all family members of the accused. But in the middle part of her statement, there is distinction between the role of accused Hungam Kanwar vis-a-vis the role of Gajendra Singh, husband of the deceased when she stated that Gajendra Singh subjected her to beating in April, 2003 and then left her at her maternal-grandfather's (nana) house Bhagirath Singh. Bhagirath Singh happens to be the father of this witness Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9). She has stated that Bhagirath Singh informed her on telephone that Gajendra Singh had subjected the deceased to beating and then left her at his house. He is demanding Rs.3 lacs. She requested her father to go to her in-laws house and somehow settle the matter as presently, she did not have money. Gajendra Singh that day dropped Gayatri at her nana's place in Ajmer. Gayatri then made general allegations against all the family members of the accused that they all subjected her to beating and were not even giving her proper food to eat. Gajendra Singh that day dropped Gayatri at her nana's place in Ajmer. Gayatri then made general allegations against all the family members of the accused that they all subjected her to beating and were not even giving her proper food to eat. When statement of this witness is examined along with statement of her father Bhagirath Singh (PW3), though he has made substantially similar statement against all the family members of the accused but he has corroborated statement of this witness Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9) atleast in part that on 13/6/2003, Gajendra Singh dropped Gayatri to her house and Gayatri stated that her in-laws were demanding a sum of Rs.3 lacs and on the following day, when he along with Kiran Kanwar, younger sister of the deceased and nephew Jogendra Singh went to the house of the accused, family members of the accused told him that Gajendra Singh presently was unemployed and they were demanding money so that he could settle his own business. Smt.Kiran Kanwar (PW7), younger sister of the deceased, has also made substantially similar allegation against accused-appellants but in respect of Gajendra Singh, she too has stated that on 13/6/2003, Gayatri came to her crying and stated that her husband was harassing her. He was demanding motorcycle and that he also gave her beating. Her complaint was that the elder brothers of accused-appellant Gajendra Singh and their wives did not say anything to her husband, rather they favour her husband over her and told her (the deceased) that what is wrong if Gajendra was demanding motorcycle as after all, she would also ride the motorcycle with him and that her mother was having so much money and would not carry all the money with her when she dies. It is thereafter that Bhagirath Singh, maternal-grandfather (nana) and Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9) mother of Gayatri went to the house of the accused-appellants and gave Rs.35,000/- for purchase of motorcycle. 12. Evidence of these three witnesses when read in conjunction with each other, thus proves allegation of cruelty and harassment on demand of dowry soon before the death against accused-appellant Gajendra Singh. 12. Evidence of these three witnesses when read in conjunction with each other, thus proves allegation of cruelty and harassment on demand of dowry soon before the death against accused-appellant Gajendra Singh. As regards, the allegation against mother-in-law Smt.Hungam Kanwar, a careful reading of the statements of all these three witnesses namely; Bhagirath Singh (PW3), Smt.Kiran Kanwar (PW7) and Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9) clearly shows that there is no qualitative difference in the evidence against accused-appellant Smt.Hungam Kanwar, and the evidence against her sons Sampat Singh, Narayan Singh and Bhagwan Singh and her daughter Smt.Kiran Kanwar (PW7). In fact, the prosecution witnesses especially, Smt.Kiran Kanwar (PW7) has gone to the extent of naming the sons of elder brothers of accused-appellant Gajendra Singh, Shiv Singh and Pankaj Singh, also on allegation that they used to taunt the deceased for bringing the less dowry and she was left at her parental house to bring more money from her mother. The other family members obviously cannot be mechanically held guilty of the alleged offence as the pre-requisite condition that this should be evidence of cruelty or harassment soon before the death is satisfied only as against accused-appellant Gajendra Singh and therefore presumption of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would be attracted only quo him and not for others. This is because in the statements of all the witnesses, general allegations are made against all other family members including accused-appellant Smt.Hungam Kanwar. It was Gajendra Singh, who insisted for purchase of the motorcycle and demand of Rs.3 lacs to start his business. Reason for this was that Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9), mother of the deceased, a widow, had only two daughters. She as per statement of Prakash Singh (PW4), younger son-in-law of Smt.Prem Kanwar (PW9) was working as A.N.M. in Government Hospital at Govindpura, Sikar. 13. In view of above discussion, the charges for offence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, cannot be held to have been proved against accused-appellant Smt.Hungam Kanwar beyond reasonable doubt. She is therefore held entitled to benefit of doubt. However, conviction of accused-appellant Gajendra Singh for the said offence, it is liable to be sustained. 14. Coming now to the quantum of sentence, we find that the trial court has itself while convicting accused-appellants Gajendra Singh and Smt.Hungam Kanwar, it has awarded sentence of life imprisonment to Gajendra Singh and sentence of ten years to Smt.Hungam Kanwar. However, conviction of accused-appellant Gajendra Singh for the said offence, it is liable to be sustained. 14. Coming now to the quantum of sentence, we find that the trial court has itself while convicting accused-appellants Gajendra Singh and Smt.Hungam Kanwar, it has awarded sentence of life imprisonment to Gajendra Singh and sentence of ten years to Smt.Hungam Kanwar. Though we have held her entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal but we find no justification why the trial court chose to impose sentence of life imprisonment when minimum sentence is seven years. 15. The trial court thus ought to have given reasons why it has chosen to award maximum sentence of life imprisonment in preference to minimum sentence of seven years. There was no extraordinary reason in the present case to award the maximum sentence of life imprisonment when the legislature has otherwise intended “imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years” as the minimum sentence “but which may extend to imprisonment for life” as the maximum sentence, a criminal court in making choice of maximum in preference to minimum has to give reasons for such choice. The sentence order must reflect application of mind in this behalf, which is found wanting in the present case. 16. The Supreme Court in Hem Chand supra held that extreme punishment of life imprisonment should be awarded in rare cases and not in every case. Absence of direct connection of the accused with the death of the deceased is a mitigating factor. In the present case, that ratio would apply with full force because it is a case of suicidal death as no evidence of direct involvement of the accused-appellant Gajendra Singh is there though indirectly he may have been held responsible for such death. The Supreme Court in G.V. Siddaramesh vs. State of Karnataka : (2010) 3 SCC 152 also, reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to ten years in which case, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself within one month of marriage. It was held that sentence of life imprisonment was excessive considering that appellant was young and has already undergone six years of imprisonment and in those facts, sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment was held sufficient to meet the ends of justice. It was held that sentence of life imprisonment was excessive considering that appellant was young and has already undergone six years of imprisonment and in those facts, sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment was held sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti and another vs. State of Haryana : (1991) SCC 1 371 also held that in a case where there is no evidence as to the cause of death and the actual part played by the accused, minimum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and thus altered the sentence of life imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court in Pathan Hussain Basha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh : (2012) 8 SCC 594 held that keeping in view the prosecution evidence, attending circumstances, age of the accused and the fact that they remained already in jail for considerable period, the court may take lenient view as far as quantum of sentence is concerned. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that ends of justice would be met if punishment of life imprisonment is reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court in Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2010) 3 SCC = 2011(1) RLW 29 (SC) also similarly reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment holding that in a case where there is no evidence as to the role played by the accused in the death of the deceased, punishment of ten years would serve the ends of justice. 17. In the result, appeal of accused-appellant Hungam Kanwar succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. She is acquitted of the charges for offence under Sections 304-B IPC and 498-A IPC. She is on bail. She needs not surrender. Her bail bonds and sureties stand discharged. 18. Appeal preferred by accused-appellant Gajendra Singh is allowed in part. His conviction for offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC is maintained. His sentence for offence under Section 498-A IPC is also maintained. Considering that accused-appellant Gajendra Singh has already undergone imprisonment of ten years and five months, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him for offence under Section 304-B IPC is altered to the period of sentence already undergone by him. His sentence for offence under Section 498-A IPC is also maintained. Considering that accused-appellant Gajendra Singh has already undergone imprisonment of ten years and five months, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him for offence under Section 304-B IPC is altered to the period of sentence already undergone by him. He is in jail and be set at liberty forthwith subject to deposit of fine of Rs.5000/- as awarded by the trial court, if not required in any other case. 19. The judgment dated 19/04/2005 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer in Sessions Case No.127/2003, impugned in this appeal, is accordingly modified. The appeal stands disposed of. 20. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants Gajendra Singh and Smt.Hungam Kanwar are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.