JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed by two accused-appellants Vijendra Sahu and Smt. Lalita @ Laddu, assailing the judgment and order dated 10.08.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Kota (for short 'the trial court') whereby the accused-appellants have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC, but convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 or 302 read with Section 34 IPC and each of them has been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default whereof, they would have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Similarly, each of the accused-appellants has been convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default whereof, they would have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 29.03.2005, accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu submitted a report at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota stating therein that on that day in the night at about 11.00 PM. her husband Ramswaroop had gone from the house without informing her and yet not comeback. The accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu also gave description of her husband by stating that his height was 5 ft. and 6 inch. The police after registering the report started investigation in the matter. During investigation, on 01.04.2005, dead body of Ramswaroop was found in Kishor Sagar Talab. Thereupon, the police registered Mrig Report No. 2/2005 (Exhibit P-21) and investigation started under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Dead body of the deceased was subjected to post mortem and panchayatnama thereof was also prepared. The police, prima facie, found the case of murder and F.I.R. No. 130/2005 (Exhibit P-1) was registered at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against unknown persons and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu for offences under Sections 302, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC and against accused-appellant Vijendra Sahu for offences under Sections 302, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC as well as under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots), Kota. The case was transferred to Special Court (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Cases), Kota, who vide its order dated 26.07.2005 did not found any case against accused-appellant Vijendra Sahu under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 an remanded the case again to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots), Kota here from the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota, who transferred the same to the trial court. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellants under Sections 302 or 302/34, 201, 420, 467, 468 IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution produce 28 witnesses and exhibited 101 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. In defence, 3 documents were exhibited. The trial court, on conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 10.08.2006 acquitted the accused-appellants of the charges under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC, but convicted and sentenced them in the manner indicated above. 3. We have heard Mr. Jagdish Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Vijendra Sahu, Mrs. Kamla Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu and Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and examined the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that the trial court has mechanically convicted the accused-appellants on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel submitted that most of witnesses, whose testimony has been relied by the learned trial court to convict the accused-appellants, are constables of the police. The deceased Ramswaroop was himself constable in the police. Neither the post mortem report (Exhibit P-5), nor statement of Dr. G.S. Vishnar (P.W. 21) prove it to be a case of homicidal death. Rather cause of death and opinion of doctor prove it to be a case of suicidal death. The trial court has mechanically accepted testimony of the witnesses without subjecting them to proper scrutiny and getting any corroboration from any other independent witness or evidence. The trial court has relied on the testimony of fellow constables of the deceased, who have been made to say that the deceased was having strained relations with the accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu and he use to tell them that-Smt. Lalita @ Laddu had illicit relations with accused-appellant Vijendra Sahu. The trial court has relied on the testimony of fellow constables of the deceased, who have been made to say that the deceased was having strained relations with the accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu and he use to tell them that-Smt. Lalita @ Laddu had illicit relations with accused-appellant Vijendra Sahu. In this connection, learned trial court has relied upon the statements of Daulat Ram (P.W.5), Bheem Singh (RW.7J and Mahendra Khatik (P.W.8), who have been made to say that the decease knew swimming and it cannot be, therefore, accepted that he died due to drowning and that the deceased had strained relations with his wife, accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu because she had illicit relations with accused-appellant Vijendra Sahu. The trial court has also relied upon the testimony of brother of the deceased, Devi Shankar (P.W.6), who has stated that the relations were strained because the deceased did not like roaming of accused-appellant Smt. Laiita @ Laddu with accused-appellant Vijendra. 5. Learned counsel submitted that when the dead body of decease Ramswaroop was recovered, it was found that there was minor abrasion of the size of 1/2 x 1/4 on second, third and fifth toes on dorsum of distal phalanx of left foot. The police concocted the story that the accused-appellants had carried dead body of deceased on the motor cycle and threw the same into 'talab'. In this connection, the prosecution had produced Ram Naresh, constable-driver (P.W.14) and Vijay Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.16) who stated that they were on the duty of 'naka bandi' in the mid night of 28-29th March, 2005 on the road near Chambal Garden leading towards Kishorpura. They checked a bus coming from Rawatbhata and thereafter, a motor cycle came from the side of Keshopura. One person was sitting on the rider seat. Another person was sitting behind him, who was covered by a shawl and on the pillion seat, a woman was sitting. When signal was given to them to stop, they did not stop and flew away. These witnesses stated that they did not follow the motor cycle because they had the instructions of the Superintendent of Police that if any woman was sitting on the vehicle, such vehicle should not be checked. When signal was given to them to stop, they did not stop and flew away. These witnesses stated that they did not follow the motor cycle because they had the instructions of the Superintendent of Police that if any woman was sitting on the vehicle, such vehicle should not be checked. The shawl of the person sitting on the motor cycle between two from left side was touching the road and they thought that he must be a patient which was being carried. Learned counsel submitted that prior to lodgment of FIR (Exhibit P-1), a missing person report was lodged by none other than the accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu on 29.03.2005, which was entered in Rojnamcha (Exhibit P-34A). Shambhu Dayal (P.W.15) has categorically state that he made the investigation in respect of missing person report and also recorded statements of Smt. Lalita @ Laddu, Smt. Kamla bai and Bhanwarlal and in his investigation, it revealed that the deceased had left alone on his motor cycle at around 11.00 PM. on 28.03.2005 and thereafter, his whereabouts were not known. Learned counsel took the Court through statements of all the witnesses as also the statements of investigating officer, Bhagwat Singh Hingad (P.W.28) and Pawan Jain (RW.23). Radhey Shyam (RW.19), who is also a constable, has been produce to say that he called the deceased on his cell phone on 28.03.2005, which was picked up by his wife, Smt. Lalita @ Laddu. The deceased was to replace him on duty, but his wife told him that he could not presently come on duty as he was away and would come around 10-11 RM. On enquiry, she told that the deceased had forgot his cell phone at home. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the police has registered a false criminal case against the accused-appellants. If the motor cycle was found by the police on 29.03.2005 itself, then how its recovery has been shown belatedly on 09.04.2005, has not been explained by the prosecution. This is particularly when Ram Karan (P.W.27), witness of police submitted that soon after lodgment of missing person report by Smt. Lalita @ Laddu, information was flashed on wireless to all the PCRs and Mahendra Singh (P.W.12) has stated that an abandoned motor cycle was found on 29.03.2005 at 4 O' clock in front of House No. C-7, RPS Colony. This is particularly when Ram Karan (P.W.27), witness of police submitted that soon after lodgment of missing person report by Smt. Lalita @ Laddu, information was flashed on wireless to all the PCRs and Mahendra Singh (P.W.12) has stated that an abandoned motor cycle was found on 29.03.2005 at 4 O' clock in front of House No. C-7, RPS Colony. Number of motor cycle was also noted and it was brought to police station and when its dicky was opened, diving license of the deceased (Exhibit P-18) as found therein and this fact was entered in the Rojnamcha, but the recovery of motor cycle was shown on 09.04.2005 vide Exhibit P-17. Key of the motor cycle was shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Vijendra Sahu vide Exhibit P-9 whereas there is no evidence to show whether this key was of the same motor cycle which was recovered or not. How the motor cycle was brought from RPS Colony to police station has also not been explained. Besides, accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu was arrested on 02.04.2005 vide Exhibit P-35 and at her instance one saree and two wrappers of sleeping pills were recovered vide Exhibit P-6 on 04.04.2005 from the iron box of her room. A cell phone and rubber seal of Dharampura Gram Panchayat was also recovered vide exhibit P-11. 7. Learned counsel have argued that the story that was sought to be concocted was that accused Smt. Lalita @ Laddu had given excessive sleeping pills to the deceased and he became unconscious and in that state, both the accused-appellants strangulated his neck and then threw his dead body in the 'talab'. Learned counsel have referred to statement of Dr. G.S. Vishnar (RW.21), who in is cross-examination has categorically stated that he in response to an application of S.H.O., Police Station Mahaveer Nagar dated 02.04.2005 (Exhibit P-2) to requisition his opinion whether the deceased might not died due to strangulation, his opinion was to the effect that possibility of strangulation could not be ruled out. In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit P-5), the cause of death was not opined and it was stated that the same would be given after receipt of F.S.L. and H.P.E. reports for which stomach, pieces of small intestine, pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, blood, common salt as controlled samples, whole heart, pieces of liver, spleen, kidneys, lungs etc. In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit P-5), the cause of death was not opined and it was stated that the same would be given after receipt of F.S.L. and H.P.E. reports for which stomach, pieces of small intestine, pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, blood, common salt as controlled samples, whole heart, pieces of liver, spleen, kidneys, lungs etc. were preserved. F.S.L. Report (Exhibit P-24) clearly proves that on chemical examination, portions of viscera and blood samples gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides. Besides, Dr. G.S. Vishnar (P.W.21) in his statement ruled out possibility of strangulation and state that larynx trachea and thyroid cartilage were found intact and he opined that lividity was present on face, neck and chest region of the deceased and it could be possible when a person would drown alive in the water. 8. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and supported the judgment of the trial court in to. He also referred to statements of both the investigating officers and submitted that the trial court rightly convicted the accused-appellants. 9. On hearing learned counsel for the accused-appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and perusing the material on record, we find that the accused-appellants have not only been convicted for the serious offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, but also for causing disappearance of the deceased which is punishable under Section 201 IPC not on the basis of direct evidence, but entirely on circumstantial evidence. On examination of the circumstances, which have been taken as proved by the learned trial court forming a chain of circumstances, we find that several links in such chain are missing which we shall presently discuss. 10. Sanjay Sharma (RW.1), the then S.H.O., Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota has prove that wife of the deceased, accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu appeared before him on 29.03.2005 and lodged the report with regard to missing of her husband. He handed over investigation thereof to Shambhu Dayal, ASI (P.W.15). He himself conducted investigation and during investigation, fellow constables of the deceased namely Mahendra Kumar and Daulat told him that Ramswaroop was a good swimmer, therefore, there was doubt that he might have been murdered and his dead body might have been thrown into the water. He handed over investigation thereof to Shambhu Dayal, ASI (P.W.15). He himself conducted investigation and during investigation, fellow constables of the deceased namely Mahendra Kumar and Daulat told him that Ramswaroop was a good swimmer, therefore, there was doubt that he might have been murdered and his dead body might have been thrown into the water. Therefore, when opinion of medical jurist was sought, medical jurist opined that possibility of his being murdered due to strangulation cannot be ruled out. 11. Daulat Ram (RW.5) stated that Ramswaroop told him that his wife was a ward member of gram panchayat and that he used to doubt her chastity. Bheem Singh (P.W.7), another constable of the police has also stated that Ramswaroop used to tell him that he had a doubt that his wife had illicit relations with Vijendra and owing to this fact, Ramswaroop was under stress and used to tell him that either he will kill himself or murder both of them. Mahendra Khatik (P.W.8) has also stated that Ramswaroop was a good swimmer. Ramswaroop told him that he had a doubt on chastity of his wife because she was an active politician and many people use to visit her. Hanuman Singh (RW.10) head constable had stated that accused Smt. Lalita @ Laddu on 04.04.2005 got recovered two wrappers of sleeping pills and one sari from iron box in her house. 12. The prosecution has also produced Radhey Shyam (RW.19), who was fellow constable and stated that Ramswaroop was to replace him on duty in the night around 8 O' Clock on 28.03.2005. When he called on his cell phone at 8.30 PM., his wife picked up the cell phone and told that he would reach on duty late at about 10-11 P.M. On enquiry, his wife told that Ramswaroop had forgot his cell phone at home. When he further enquired and again requested her to send Ramswaroop on duty, Smt. Lalita @ Laddu took flimsy excuses and lastly told that now he would not come on duty. He informed this fact to Dharampal, Head Constable, who in the morning told him that despite repeated calls, Smt. Lalita @ Laddu did not give any satisfactory answer and, therefore, he (Dharampal) marked absence of the deceased. He informed this fact to Dharampal, Head Constable, who in the morning told him that despite repeated calls, Smt. Lalita @ Laddu did not give any satisfactory answer and, therefore, he (Dharampal) marked absence of the deceased. This witness stated that Ramswaroop even told him that his wife contested elections and one Vijendra Sahu used to accompany her and he can murder him (Ramswaroop) any day. At this stage, we have noted that neither Dharampal has been produced as witness, nor it has been shown whether any report about alleged threat perception to himself from Vijendra Sahu was lodged by Ramswaroop. The fellow constables and other police personnel appear to have given exaggerated version of the story, but, in any case what is evident from the statements of these witnesses that entire investigation of the police proceeded on the line that the deceased was a perfect swimmer and he should not have drown by himself and that the deceased used to tell his fellow constables that he had doubt on the chastity of his wife, who according to him had maintained illicit relations with Vijendra Sahu and that the accused-appellants gave him excessive sleeping pills and after committing his murder by strangulation carried his dead body on the ' motorcycle. The appellant Vijendra Sahu was sitting on the riding side and the appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu was the pillion rider and the deceased whose body was covered by a 'chaddar' was made to sit in the middle of the accused-appellants. 13. Interestingly, Ram Naresh (P.W.14), constable-driver was on duty of 'naka bandi' with Vijay Kumar, who both have stated that when they noticed such motor cycle, they gave signal to stop, but they did not stop, but then, they did not follow them because there was instruction/order from Superintendent of Police not to follow any such vehicle in which a woman is sitting, which is rather a strange explanation. No such direction/order of the Superintendent of Police has been produced by the prosecution, nor any such order or direction could be issue by the Superintendent of Police because on any suspicious circumstances in a vehicle, it is the duty of the police to intercept such vehicle and check the same. No such direction/order of the Superintendent of Police has been produced by the prosecution, nor any such order or direction could be issue by the Superintendent of Police because on any suspicious circumstances in a vehicle, it is the duty of the police to intercept such vehicle and check the same. Upon noticing the minor injury of insignificant nature of abrasion of the size of 1/2 x 1/4 on second, third and fifth toes on dorsum of distal phalanx of left foot in the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit P-5), there is apparent attempt on the part of the police to introduce this parallel story of the motor cycle. In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit P-5), the cause of death was not opined and it was stated that the same would be given after receipt of F.S.L. and H.P.E. reports for which stomach, pieces of small intestine, pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, blood, common salt as controlled samples, whole heart, pieces of liver, spleen, kidneys, lungs etc. were preserved. F.S.L. Report (Exhibit P-24) clearly proves that on chemical examination, portions of viscera and blood samples gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides. 14. Dr. G.S. Vishnar (P.W.21) has falsified case of the prosecution completely. Opinion that possibility of strangulation cannot be ruled out, appears to have been procured by S.H.O., Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota on 02.04.2005 (Exhibit P-2) even before receipt of report from F.S.L., but when this witness appeared in the trial court, he in his cross-examination was asked to explain this and he stated that in a case of strangulation, fractures of larynx trachea and thyroid cartilage would be highly possible, but none of them was fracture in the case of the deceased. Besides, he has stated that in the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit P-5), he has made a remark that lividity was present on face, neck and chest region of the deceased. These signs would be possible only if a person has drown while alive. If any person is put to death by strangulation, it is quite possible that there would be bleeding from his nose, ear and mouth and none of which was present in this case. These signs would be possible only if a person has drown while alive. If any person is put to death by strangulation, it is quite possible that there would be bleeding from his nose, ear and mouth and none of which was present in this case. In response to further question, he has stated that if a person dives from height into the water, the kind of injuries which have been received on the toes of left foot of the deceased could be possible. The evidence, thus, show that the deceased appears to have left his house in the night of 28.03.2005, the fact which has been proved by Shambhu Dayal (P.W.15), Sub Inspector, who was entrusted investigation in missing report lodged by accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu and he has stated that in investigation it revealed that the decease left the house alone on motor cycle on 28.03.2005 at 11.00 P.M. Conduct of the accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu in immediately approaching the police was quite natural and the motor cycle of the deceased was recovered from RPS Colony in front of House No. C-7 and it was taken to police station. The evidence also show that Smt. Lalita @ Laddu is a politician and she contested elections for the post of ward panch from Gram Panchayat Dharampura. The evidence also prove that accused Vijendra Sahu had campaigned for Smt. Lalita @ Laddu during her contesting elections and in that connection, not only the accused Vijendra Sahu, but also certain other people used to visit her. Deceased Ramswaroop used to doubt her chastity and did not like her roaming with accused Vijendra Sahu and, therefore, it was possible that he might have committed suicide, which is also established from the medical evidence available on record. 15. It is trite that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of evidence which should lead to conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed offence and none else. Each of circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with innocence of the accused. Each of circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with innocence of the accused. Analysis of the evidence that we have made above, makes it evident that there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances, which cannot be accepted to be so complete as to point out to guilt of the accused and none else and when ever single possibility of accused being innocent and not the real culprit, is ruled out. 16. The Supreme Court in Ashish Batham v. State of M.P. 2002(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 616 : 2002(7) SCC 317 , in Para 8 of the judgment, held as under:- Realities or Truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption' in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between 'conjectures' and 'sure conclusions' to be arrived at on the touch stone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record." 17. It may be noted that in Ashish Batham, supra, the case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence in which recovery of chain of the deceased and knife used in the commission of offence as well as blood stained clothes of the accused crept suspicion about role of the accuse but recovery being delayed, having been made after second remand of the accused, was itself held to be doubtful and the factum about motive that accused was in love with the deceased was also not accepted. It was held that only for this reason it cannot even remotely presumed that this could be the cause of murder unless it was substantiated by credible evidence that affair broken beyond redemption. Motive factor was held to have no legal basis to constitute sufficient circumstance to connect the appellant with the crime. The accused was, therefore, acquitted. 18. In Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi) - 2011(13) SCC 621 , the Supreme Court held that each of the circumstances has to be assessed on its own merits. Quality rather than quantity of evidence is crucial factor in a case of circumstantial evidence. The court has to be cautious against imaginary inferences or its prejudices, which may unwittingly creep in. Its verdict must be based on clean and irrefutable logic. Responsibility of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence is more as compare to the cases where ocular testimony or the direct evidence is available. 19. In Kulvinder Singh v. State of Haryana - 2011(5) SCC 258 , also it was held by the Supreme Court that in exceptional cases conviction of accused can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but in that case the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot derive any strength from weakness of defence put up by accused. Circumstances from which guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should be of a conclusive nature and exclude all possible hypotheses except the one to be proved. Facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused and chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by accused and none else. 20. Facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused and chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by accused and none else. 20. In Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David, 2011(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 680 : 2011 (5) SCC 509 , also the Supreme Court sounded a word of caution that the court must be cautious against conjectures and surmises taking place of proof. Circumstances so proved must form a chain of events pointing to guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt without there being possibility of any other hypothesis. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form chain of proof from which natural and irresistible conclusion could be drawn as to the guilt of accused and no other hypothesis against guilt is possible. It was further observed by their Lordships that in a Case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjectures and surmises may take place a legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such complete chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. There is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. It was further observed that when important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped. This is what has happened in the present case because of failure of the prosecution to connect the recovered handle of the sword from the place of incident with the sword recovered at the instance of the accused, and also the evidence of last seen and recovery against the accused stands on shaky ground. 21. In view of above discussion, we are persuaded to allow both the appeals, which are, accordingly, allowed. 21. In view of above discussion, we are persuaded to allow both the appeals, which are, accordingly, allowed. Impugned judgment dated 10.08.2006 passed by the trial court is quashed and set aside and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 302 or 302 read with Section 34 and 201 IPC. Accused-appellant Vijendra Sahu, who is in jail for last more than ten years be released forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. Accused-appellant Smt. Lalita @ Laddu, who is on bail, need not surrender and her bail bonds and surety stand discharged. 22. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants, namely, Vijendra Sahu and Smt. Lalita @ Laddu 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 Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, these appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.Both appeals allowed. *******