JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by six accused-appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 03.04.2008 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chhabra, District Baran, in Sessions Case No.88/2007, whereby learned trial court convicted them for offence under Sections 302, 302/149, 148, 323/149, 324, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, and sentenced as under:- Accused-appellants Offence under Section Sentence Ram Jiwan 302 IPC To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment Raghuveer Singh, Kajod, Suraj Mal, Laddu Lal, Sugan Chand 302/149 IPC Each of them to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment Suraj Mal 324 IPC To undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment Raghuveer Singh, Kajod, Laddu Lal, Sugan Chand and Ram Jiwan 324/149 IPC Each of them to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment Raghuveer Singh, Kajod, Suraj Mal, Laddu Lal, Sugan Chand and Ram Jiwan 148 IPC Each of them to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment -do- 323/149 IPC Each of them to undergo six months simple imprisonment Suraj Mal, 4/25 of the Arms Act To undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 22.04.2007 one Ram Pratap lodged a report at Police Station Bapcha, District Baran, to the effect that Kajod Meena S/o Champalal Meena, Surajmal Meena S/o Champalal Meena, Ramcharan S/o Champalal Meena, Ramswaroop S/o Ramcharan Meena, Kajod S/o Shyamlal, Laddulal S/o Shyamlal, Suganchand S/o Shyamlal, Raghuveer Singh S/o Kajod Lal and Mahendra Singh S/o Kajodlal Meena, all residents of Kadarpura and Ram Jiwan Meena S/o Hari Singh, R/o Tulsakheda (M.P.) and Ramsingh Meena S/o Babulal Meena, R/o Chak (M.P.) were passing through the way along his house at 1:00 P.M. Out of these persons, Surajmal Meena, Suganchand, Raghuveer Singh, Kajod, Ram Jiwan and Ram Singh were armed with country made guns (‘deshi katta’). When he restrained these persons from passing through the way near his house having armed with country made guns, they started abusing him and also slapped him as also his daughter Rajbai twice or thrice. He and his daughter raised hue and cry. His son was taking bath on the hand pump. On hearing hue and cry, his son Dhanna Lal rushed to the spot and when he reached there, Raghuveer Singh fired at the throat of Dhanna Lal and Ram Jiwan also fired at Dhanna Lal. Both the fires hit Dhanna Lal, as a result of which he died on the spot. His another son Radhey Shyam, Hemraj and his wife Bhooli Bai and local residents Ramesh and Tulsiram also came there to intervene in the matter, but Murti Bai W/o Kajod, Bhagwati Bai W/o Surajmal, Janki Bai W/o Shyamlal, Guddi Bai D/o Ramcharan and Bhuri Bai D/o Kajod subjected them to beating, as a result of which the family members of the complainant sustained injuries. 3. On the basis of that report, the police registered FIR No.38/2007 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323/149 IPC and arrested accused persons and commenced investigation. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet on 30.07.2007 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra, for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act against six accused, namely, Raghuveer Singh, Kajod, Surajmal, Laddulal, Sugan Chand and Ram Jiwan. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet on 30.07.2007 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra, for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act against six accused, namely, Raghuveer Singh, Kajod, Surajmal, Laddulal, Sugan Chand and Ram Jiwan. Three accused, namely, Ramswarup, Murti Bai and Bhagwati Bai were absconding and therefore charge-sheet was filed against them under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the matter was triable by Court of Sessions, therefore, the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra, committed the matter to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra, which ultimately came to be transferred to the trial court. On 22.10.2007 the trial court, after hearing the arguments, framed charges against the accused persons for offence under Sections 148, 302 or 302/149, 323 or 323/149, 324 or 324/149 of the IPC. That apart, charge for offence under Section 3/25 of the Indian Arm Act was framed against accused Raghuveer and Ram Jiwan and for offence under Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act against accused Surajmal. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses and got forty three documents exhibited from Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P- 43. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence did not examine any witness, however, got eleven documents exhibited from Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-11. After hearing the arguments, learned trial court, vide judgment and order dated 03.04.2008 convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. Mr. S.S. Hasan and Mr. Rajendra Yadav, learned counsel for appellants, argued that the findings arrived at by learned trial court for recording conviction and sentence are patently illegal and perverse to the facts on record. The allegations made in the FIR, even if are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make a case against the accused appellants. The allegation made in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence. The allegations made in the FIR, even if are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make a case against the accused appellants. The allegation made in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence. From the allegations levelled against the accused, it is revealed that no offence is made out against them and such allegations have been levelled on account of some malafides and the present case has been maliciously lodged with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused appellant and with a view to spite them due to personal grudge. 5. It is argued that the learned trial court has failed to consider the evidence in correct perspective. While appreciating the evidence in a case, the trial court should keep in view two cardinal principles that the guilt against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the burden on the accused is not so heavy to prove the plea taken by him as it lay on the prosecution. The burden can be discharged by the accused merely by showing the preponderance of probability in favour of the plea taken by them. In this case there is no evidence that any articles were recovered from the accused appellants but the learned trial court had convicted them without considering the evidence of witnesses and he relied on the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses from whose evidence no case is made out against the appellants. The learned trial court had fallen into an error in holding the appellants guilty without considering that the evidence brought on record do not prove commission of the offence. The learned trial court has further erred in not considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. The findings arrived at by the learned trial court are vitiated as being based on misreading and non-reading of the material evidence in support of the appellants and the findings of the learned trial court are based on mere surmises and conjectures. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the defence version appears to be more plausible as such no offence is made out against the appellants. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the defence version appears to be more plausible as such no offence is made out against the appellants. In any case, the offence against the appellants, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not fall under any of the provision of the Indian Penal Code. The findings arrived at by the learned trial court are vitiated as no critical appreciation and analysis of evidence has been made. The sentence and fine awarded by the learned trial court are very much excessive. No proper appreciation has been made by the learned trial court with regard to the plea taken by the defence produced by them. There are serious defects in the framing of charge against the appellants as well as in recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thus the accused-appellants have been seriously prejudiced thereby. 6. Ms. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment of the learned trial court. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and minutely scanned the evidence available on record. 8. According to the earlier version in the written report (Exhibit P-26), Kajod Meena S/o Champalal Meena, Surajmal Meena S/o Champalal Meena, Ramcharan S/o Champalal Meena, Ramswaroop S/o Ramcharan Meena, Kajod S/o Shyamlal, Laddulal S/o Shyamlal, Suganchand S/o Shyamlal, Raghuveer Singh S/o Kajod Lal and Mahendra Singh S/o Kajodlal Meena, all residents of Kadarpura and Ram Jiwan Meena S/o Hari Singh, R/o Tulsakheda (M.P.) and Ramsingh Meena S/o Babulal Meena, R/o Chak (M.P.) were passing through the way along the house of complainant Ram Pratap at 1:00 P.M. Out of these persons, Surajmal Meena, Suganchand, Raghuveer Singh, Kajod, Ram Jiwan and Ram Singh were armed with country made guns (‘deshi katta’). When he forbade these persons from passing through the way near his house having armed with country made guns, they started abusing him and also slapped him as also his daughter Rajbai twice or thrice. Complainant Ram Pratap and his daughter raised hue and cry. His son Dhanna Lal, who was at that time taking bath on the hand pump, on hearing hue and cry, rushed to the spot and soon he reached there, Raghuveer Singh fired at the throat of Dhanna Lal and Ram Jiwan also fired at Dhanna Lal. Complainant Ram Pratap and his daughter raised hue and cry. His son Dhanna Lal, who was at that time taking bath on the hand pump, on hearing hue and cry, rushed to the spot and soon he reached there, Raghuveer Singh fired at the throat of Dhanna Lal and Ram Jiwan also fired at Dhanna Lal. Both the fires hit Dhanna Lal, as a result of which he died on the spot. His another son Radhey Shyam, Hemraj and his wife Bhooli Bai and local residents Ramesh and Tulsiram also came there to intervene in the matter, but Murti Bai W/o Kajod, Bhagwati Bai W/o Surajmal, Janki Bai W/o Shyamlal, Guddi Bai D/o Ramcharan and Bhuri Bai D/o Kajod subjected them to beating, as a result of which the family members of the complainant sustained injuries. From the above, it is clear that the informant/complainant has tried to implicate as many persons as possible but we have to find out from critical examination of the evidence whether all of them were present at the time of incident and whether all of them assembled with a common object of committing murder of Dhanna Lal. The allegation in the written report is that six of the accused, namely, Suraj Mal, Sugan Chand, Raghuveer Singh, Kajod, Ram Jiwan and Ram Singh were found armed with country made gun, apparently does not find corroboration from the evidence on record as according to Dr. Hariom Goyal (PW-9) the deceased had sustained only one firearm injury. Dr. Rajeev Soni (PW-14) has stated the injuries sustained by all other five injured were simple in nature. Even Investigating Officer Mr. Lakhan Lal (Pw-27) and Hem Raj (PW-8) have also stated that deceased Dhanna Lal (Dhan Raj) sustained only one firearm injury. Rambharose (PW-13) has also stated that he witnessed only one firearm injury caused to the deceased, but the Investigating Officer has shown recovery of a ‘katta’ of 12 bore with empty cartridges at the instance of Raghuveer Singh vide recovery memo Exhibit P-17 and 0.315 bore at the instance of Ram Jiwan vide recovery memo Exhibit P-18. At the same time, sword has been recovered at the instance of Suraj Mal vide Exhibit P-21, one ‘gandasi’ at the instance of accused Kajod vide Exhibit P-22, one bamboo ‘lakdi’ at the instance of accused Laddu Lal vide recovery memo Exhibit P-36. 9. At the same time, sword has been recovered at the instance of Suraj Mal vide Exhibit P-21, one ‘gandasi’ at the instance of accused Kajod vide Exhibit P-22, one bamboo ‘lakdi’ at the instance of accused Laddu Lal vide recovery memo Exhibit P-36. 9. In order to arrive at the conclusion whether all the accused had formed an unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder, we have to analyze the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Ram Pratap, the informant, has alleged that Raghuveer slapped him. When his daughter Rajbai came out of the house, Ram Jiwan slapped her. Bhagwati Bai caused injuries by sword to his wife. Kajod inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow on the person of Radhey Shyam, but then for the injury of deceased Dhanraj, this witness has made allegation against both Raghuveer and Ram Jiwan that they opened fire at him, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his neck and died on the spot. Dhanraj is also known as Dhanna Lal. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that there was previous enmity between them and that he, in his police statement (Exhibit P-1) had mentioned that Bhagwati Bai had inflicted sword blow on his wife but why the police has not mentioned so, he cannot explain. He also mentioned in his police statement (Exhibit D-1) that Ram Jiwan opened fire at Dhanraj but why it was not stated therein, he cannot explain. He also told the police about Kajod having inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow on Radhey Shyam but why the police has not mentioned so, he cannot explain. But then this witness admitted that on that very day Ramesh, Mohan and Radhey Shyam had intervened between the complainant and the accused party. 10. Bhooli Bai (PW-2), mother of the deceased, also claims to be an eyewitness. She alleged against both Ram Jiwan and Raghuveer that they had fired at her son Dhan Raj on the neck. Dhan Raj sustained two firearm injuries. Bhagwati inflicted injuries to this witness by ‘gandasi’. Suraj inflicted ‘gandasi’ blow to Hemraj. Kajod inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow to Radhey Shyam. But, in cross-examination, this witness stated that she came out of the house only after hearing sound of fire and there only she noticed that Raghuveer and Ram Jiwan had ‘kattas’ in their hands. Bhagwati inflicted injuries to this witness by ‘gandasi’. Suraj inflicted ‘gandasi’ blow to Hemraj. Kajod inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow to Radhey Shyam. But, in cross-examination, this witness stated that she came out of the house only after hearing sound of fire and there only she noticed that Raghuveer and Ram Jiwan had ‘kattas’ in their hands. This is indicative of the fact that this witness was not an eye witness but had arrived at the place of occurrence subsequently. 11. Rajbai (PW-3), sister of the deceased, in the examination in chief, has alleged that Ram Jiwan and Raghuveer opened fire at Dhanraj, which he sustained on his neck and then Sugan inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow on his shoulder. Kajod inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow on shoulder of Hemraj and also to Radhey Shyam. Laddu inflicted a ‘lathi’ blow on the person of Tulsi Ram. Suraj Mal inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow on the person of Hemraj. Bhagwati inflicted a sword blow on her mother. Ram Jiwan slapped this witness. But even this witness in cross-examination stated that she came out of the house only after hearing the sound of fire. 12. Hemraj Meena (PW-8) is yet another prosecution witness who also claims to be an eye witness. He has stated that he was sitting in the shop of village under ‘neem’ tree. His cousin Kanhaiya Lal came to him and told that someone had fired at his brother (Dhanna) and that a fight was taking place near his house. Thereupon, when he went near his house, he saw Raghuveer, Ram Jiwan, Kajod, Laddu, Sugan, Suraj Mal, Shyam Lal, Janki Bai, Guddi, Bhoori and Bhagwati present at the place of occurrence. Ram Jiwan and Raghuveer were armed with country made guns. Laddu had a ‘lathi’ in his hand. Sugan had a ‘lakdi’, Kajod had a ‘gandasi’ and Surajmal had a sword in their hands. Ramswaroop had a ‘lakdi’ in his hand. Ram Jiwan had fired at his brother by use of country made gun, which hit his neck and as a result of which he died on the spot. Surajmal inflicted a sword blow on the left hand of this witness. Kajod inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow on the forehead of his brother Radhey Shyam. Sugan inflicted a ‘lakdi’ blow on the hand of Tulsi Ram. Bhagwati inflicted a sword blow on the hand of mother of this witness. Surajmal inflicted a sword blow on the left hand of this witness. Kajod inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow on the forehead of his brother Radhey Shyam. Sugan inflicted a ‘lakdi’ blow on the hand of Tulsi Ram. Bhagwati inflicted a sword blow on the hand of mother of this witness. Raghuveer and Ram Jiwan subjected the sister of this witness to beating by kicks. In cross-examination, however, this witness has stated that he arrived at the seen of occurrence after the quarrel had taken place. His brother did not have any previous enmity either with Ram Jiwan or Raghuveer. Asharam (PW-11) also claims himself to be an eye witness. He has stated that Ram Jiwan had ‘katta’ and the fire opened by him hit Dhanraj at his neck. Raghuveer had also ‘katta’ but the fire opened by him had missed and thus, according to him, Dhanraj died due to the firearm injury caused by Ram Jiwan. Satya Narain (PW-12) has stated that Ram Jiwan slapped Rajbai. Thereupon, the family members of Ram Pratap attacked Ram Jiwan. Then he heard the sound of ‘katta’ and saw Ram Jiwan had ‘katta’ in his hand and Raghuveer had also ‘katta’. He saw Dhanraj lying there, who died due to the firearm injury caused by ‘katta’ of Ram Jiwan. According to him, Ram Jiwan opened fire immediately after the family of Ram Pratap had undertaken the task to catch Ram Jiwan. Ram Bharosi (PW-13) has also alleged that Ram Jiwan and Raghuveer both had ‘katta’ in their hands. The fire opened by Raghuveer did not hit Dhanraj but the fire opened by Ram Jiwan hit him on his neck, as a result of which he died. Then this witness has alleged that Kajod inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow on the head of Radhey Shyam. Suraj Mal inflicted a sword blow on the hand of Hemraj. Sugan inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow on the head of Tulsiram. This witness did not see Laddu Lal and Bhaggi Bai W/o Suraj causing injuries to anyone by ‘lathis’. 13. Ramesh (PW-16) has also stated that Raghuveer first opened fire at Dhanraj, which hit his neck and second fire opened by Ram Jiwan by ‘katta’, hit Dhanraj on his neck, leading to cause his death. The accused also subjected Bhooli Bai, Raj Bai, Radhey Shyam, Tulsiram and this witness to beating. 13. Ramesh (PW-16) has also stated that Raghuveer first opened fire at Dhanraj, which hit his neck and second fire opened by Ram Jiwan by ‘katta’, hit Dhanraj on his neck, leading to cause his death. The accused also subjected Bhooli Bai, Raj Bai, Radhey Shyam, Tulsiram and this witness to beating. Surajmal had sword, Kajod had ‘gandasi’, Ramswaroop had ‘lathi’, Sugan had ‘lathi and Bhagwati had sword in their hands. Radhey Shyam (PW-19), brother of the deceased, has also stated that Ram Jiwan and Raghuveer had ‘kattas’ in their hands. Ram Jiwan opened fire at Dhanraj, as a result of which Dhanraj died. Kajod inflicted ‘gandasi’ blow on the head of this witness and Surajmal gave beating to his brother Hemraj. Ram Jiwan and Raghuveer subjected the sister of this witness to beating. While Dr. Hariom Goyal (PW-9) has proved the postmortem report of deceased Dhanraj (Exhibit P-8), according to which the deceased sustained two injuries, one was firearm wound in the size of 5x4½cmxdeep muscle located at left side of neck and second injury was found to have approximate 45 small holes of pellets in the size of 0.25x0.25 cm located around the main firearm wound. In cross-examination, he has clarified that this was result of single firearm injury. Dr. Rajeev Soni (PW-14) has also proved the injuries on other members of the complainant party. As per injury report (Exhibit P-10), Hemraj sustained two simple injuries. As per injury report (Exhibit P-11), Bhooli Bai sustained one lacerated wound. Exhibit P-12 is the injury report of Ramesh, according to which he sustained one abrasion. Exhibit P-13 is the injury report of Radhey Shyam, according to which he sustained one lacerated wound. 14. Exhibit P-14 is the injury report of Tulsi Ram, according to which he sustained two injuries, one was swelling and another was bruise. 15. Dr. Chunni Lal Jat (PW-15) has proved the injuries of accused Ram Jiwan. His injury report is Exhibit P-16, according to which he sustained five injuries, which were in the nature of linear scar. 14. Exhibit P-14 is the injury report of Tulsi Ram, according to which he sustained two injuries, one was swelling and another was bruise. 15. Dr. Chunni Lal Jat (PW-15) has proved the injuries of accused Ram Jiwan. His injury report is Exhibit P-16, according to which he sustained five injuries, which were in the nature of linear scar. The nature of injuries sustained by all five injured and the fact that the accused also sustained injuries, clearly indicative of the fact that initially the incident had taken place all of a sudden, where the accused had only intention of giving severe beating to the complainant party but the allegations against two accused Ram Jiwan and Raghuveer stand on different footings than the rest of the accused because it is these two accused only who were merely armed with firearms, while, as per the evidence, the fire opened by Raghuveer hit the deceased. There is disparity of the version. Different version has come on record in the statements of large number of prosecution witnesses. While some of them are saying that the fire opened by both of them hit the deceased, certain others are saying that the fire opened by Raghuveer was missed but the fire opened by Ram Jiwan hit the deceased on his neck. One country made gun with 65 mm empty cartridge was recovered at the instance of accused Raghuveer vide Exhibit P-17 on 05.05.2007 and one country made gun was recovered at the instance of accused Ram Jiwan vide Exhibit P-18 on 06.05.2007. The fire opened by one of these two accused hit the deceased, while other one was missed, but these two accused had the common intention of committing murder of the deceased. Since the incident had taken place all of a sudden on the quarrel between the complainant and accused Ram Jiwan, where the members of the complainant party also attacked the members of the accused party. It was a sudden fight at the spur of moment, the act of these two accused, namely, Ram Jiwan and Raghuveer, would fall within the purview of Part I of Section 304 IPC of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, since these two accused suddenly took over the country made gun and opened fire at the deceased. It was a sudden fight at the spur of moment, the act of these two accused, namely, Ram Jiwan and Raghuveer, would fall within the purview of Part I of Section 304 IPC of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, since these two accused suddenly took over the country made gun and opened fire at the deceased. But the other accused only shared the common object to the extent of causing grievous injuries to the members of the complainant party. Accused-appellants Raghuveer and Ram Jiwan would be liable to be convicted for offence under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC. 16. In view of above discussion, present appeal succeeds in part in the terms indicated as below: (i) Conviction of accused-appellants Raghuveer Singh under Section 302/149 and Ram Jiwan under Section 302 IPC is set aside and instead, they are convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC and each of them is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, each of them shall further undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment. (ii) Conviction and sentence of accused-appellants Raghuveer Singh and Ram Jiwan under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149 IPC is maintained. (iii) Since, Raghuveer Singh and Ram Jiwan have completed sentence of more than ten years, they may be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. (iv) Conviction and sentence of accused-appellants Kajod, Suraj Mal, Laddu Lal and Sugan Chand under Section 302/149 IPC is set aside. (v) Conviction of accused-appellants Kajod, Laddu Lal, Sugan Chand for offences under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149 IPC is maintained, however, considering that they have remained in jail for more than six months, they are sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. Accused-appellants Kajod, Laddu Lal, Sugan Chand are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. (vi) Conviction of accused-appellant Suraj Mal under Section 148, 323/149, 324 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act is maintained, however, considering that he has remained in jail for more than six months, he is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Accused appellant Suraj Mal is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds stand discharged. 17. Accused appellant Suraj Mal is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds stand discharged. 17. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants, namely, Raghuveer Singh, Kajod, Suraj Mal, Laddu Lal, Sugan Chand, Ram Jiwan 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, each of them, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.