Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2153 (RAJ)

Mohammed Altaf v. State of Rajasthan

2017-10-05

KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. These three criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been separately filed by three accused-appellants, namely, Mohammed Altaf, Smt. Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa, assailing the judgment and order dated 22.11.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No. 51/2011 (41/2010), whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced them as under:- Accused-appellants Conviction for offence Sentence Mohammed Altaf S/o. Shri Usman Ghani (Criminal Appeal No. 138/2013) Under Section 302 IPC To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- Smt. Rani @ Noorjahan W/o Mohmmad Samoon Ali (Criminal Appeal No. 1019/2012) Under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- Mehrunissa W/o Firoz Khan (Criminal Appeal No. 201/2013) Under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- 2. Since all the three appeals arise out of a common judgment and order of the learned trial court and the facts of these appeals are also common, therefore, the same were heard and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that on 30.12.2009 one Abdulla S/o. Mohammad Yusuf, R/o Dabi Gate, Maler Kotla, District Sangrur (Punjab) submitted a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhun, to the effect that his daughter Rukaiya Bano was married to Mohammed Altaf around 15 years ago. Out of this wedlock, she gave birth to two sons and two daughters. But, now for last two years, Mohammed Altaf, his mother Nazra, his father Mohammad Usman and his younger brother Mohammed Ramzan have been harassing his daughter. Mohammed Altaf was having illicit relations with two other girls, and mother and brother of Mohammed Altaf were aware of these illicit relations. They have forced his daughter to die as she was subjected to severe beating in the previous night. In the morning of 30.12.2009, he came to know about the death of his daughter and her three children and immediately thereafter he along-with certain members of his community visited the Civil Hospital, Jhunjhunu, where the family members of her in-laws ill treated them. The complainant expressed the doubt in the report that these persons have killed his daughter and her three children by administering poison in the food. 4. The complainant expressed the doubt in the report that these persons have killed his daughter and her three children by administering poison in the food. 4. On the basis of the above written report, the police registered FIR No. 428/2009 for offence under Sections 302, 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and commenced investigation. The accused-appellants were arrested. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against appellant Mohammed Altaf for offence under Section 302 of the IPC; and against appellants Smt. Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa for offence under Section 302 read with 120-B IPC. After committal of the case to the court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jhunjhunu, framed charge against appellant Mohammed Altaf for offence under Section 302 of the IPC; and against accused-appellants Smt. Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa for offence under Section 302 read with 120-B of the IPC. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 21 witnesses and got 46 documents exhibited. Statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence examined one witness as DW-1 and got four documents exhibited. On conclusion of the trial and after hearing the parties, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated above. Aggrieved thereby, the accused-appellants have separately preferred these three criminal appeals. 5. Mr. Amin Ali assisted by Mr. Riyasat Ali, Mr. Rajneesh Gupta assisted by Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. Mohammad Aslam, learned counsel for accused-appellants, have argued that the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2012 of the learned trial court is based on no evidence. The prosecution failed to produce any direct evidence, muchless any circumstantial evidence in order to bring home the alleged guilt of the accused-appellants. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court merely on conjectures and surmises. There was no evidence worth the name before the learned trial court to convict the appellants. The prosecution also failed to prove any motive of the appellants behind the alleged crime and still the learned trial court went ahead to convict the appellants solely on the basis of suspicion. It is argued that the learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellants on the basis of alleged circumstantial evidence. The prosecution also failed to prove any motive of the appellants behind the alleged crime and still the learned trial court went ahead to convict the appellants solely on the basis of suspicion. It is argued that the learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellants on the basis of alleged circumstantial evidence. It is well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence and law of evidence that the chain of circumstances must be so complete, without there being any missing links, as to conforming that nobody other than the accused, could have committed the offence as alleged. In the present case the alleged chain of circumstances is broken at many places. The prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances in order to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 6. It is argued that the learned trial court, while convicting the appellants, failed to appreciate the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused should be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, meaning thereby, the prosecution should not only make the guilt of the accused highly probable, but any alternative hypothesis in favour of the accused must be extremely improbable. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that the hypothesis of "suicide" was extremely improbable. There was every possibility that deceased Rukaiya might have committed suicide along with her children owing to alleged immoral life of appellant Mohammed Altaf. Learned trial court failed to appreciate the fact that investigation in the matter was fraught with illegalities. The Investigating Officer did not prepare any report under Sec. 174 of the Cr.P.C., despite having knowledge of the incident before the death of the deceased persons. The Investigating Officer did not proceed to the Hospital where the deceased were admitted before their death. The statements of the deceased could have been recorded by the Investigating Officer before their death. The Investigating Officer also did not try to record the statements of the Doctors/Nursing Staff, who were stated to have attended the deceased. Even the time of the death of the deceased was not ascertained by the Investigating Officer. Harjinder Singh, the Investigating Officer, (PW-18) has himself admitted that he started the investigation only after the family members of deceased Rukaiya arrived there from Punjab. Even the time of the death of the deceased was not ascertained by the Investigating Officer. Harjinder Singh, the Investigating Officer, (PW-18) has himself admitted that he started the investigation only after the family members of deceased Rukaiya arrived there from Punjab. The whole story of the prosecution has been thus concocted in order to obtain conviction at the behest of the in-laws of the appellant Mohammed Altaf at any cost. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that the learned trial court wrongly relied upon the recovery of pesticide (Endosulfan) from the shop of appellant Mohammed Altaf in consequence of the information received by the police from him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act inasmuch as one of the independent witness of recovery turned hostile and he did not corroborate the story of the prosecution. Otherwise also, the recovery of bottles from the shop of appellant Mohammed Altaf pursuant to information under Section 27 is not reliable because the police already knew about the place where the bottles were allegedly hidden by him. The Investigating Officer himself has admitted that appellant Mohammed Altaf told him about the place where he got the bottle of pesticide hidden. It is well settled that if the police already knew about the material object in a particular place then the provisions of Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act have no application. It is argued that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the said recovery of pesticide from the shop of appellant Mohammed Altaf was also not relevant because the deceased had allegedly consumed the poison at the house of the appellants, which is far away from the shop. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellants administered the pesticide to the deceased at home and took away the remaining container to the shop and hide it there. It is highly unnatural for an accused to hide poison or, for that matter, any implement of crime, in his own shop, after commission of crime at his home. Had appellant Mohammed Altaf committed the alleged crime, he would have certainly thrown the remaining container elsewhere but would not have hidden it in his own shop in order to conceal the evidence. Had appellant Mohammed Altaf committed the alleged crime, he would have certainly thrown the remaining container elsewhere but would not have hidden it in his own shop in order to conceal the evidence. There is every likelihood that the bottles of pesticide and corex might have been recovered by the police from the house of the appellants immediately after receiving information about the incident and later planted the same in the shop of the appellants along with alleged mobile phone in connivance with the in-laws of appellant Mohammed Altaf in order to create evidence of murder. 8. It is argued that the learned trial court has wrongly discarded the plea of alibi of appellant Mohammed Altaf, who specifically stated in his defence under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that at the time of alleged incident he was not present in the house, rather he was attending a "goth" (feast) along with his father, mother and son Afzal and other persons at the house of one Mohammed Ali and it was only there when he got news from his son Afzal that his wife Rukaiya and children were not well at the home. It was also stated by the appellant that on hearing the news, he, his mother and son, all three, came to the house and took Rukaiya and children to the B.D.K. Hospital, Jhunjhunu. The said statement of appellant Mohammed Altaf has also been corroborated by Afzal, son of the appellant. There was only a minor discrepancy in the statement of Afzal as to who gave him information about the ailing condition of his mother and siblings, but that minor discrepancy did not discredit the value of the evidence of the son of the appellant inasmuch as the only relevant fact was as to whether the appellant was at the time of incident present in the 'goth' (feast), and not the fact as to who told Afzal about the ailing condition of his mother and siblings. The learned trial court has committed an error in believing irrelevant and hearsay statements of the prosecution witnesses. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory, upon which conviction cannot be sustained. Learned trial court has ignored the material evidence in favor of the accused-appellants, which clearly established the falsity of the implication of accused-appellants. 9. Learned counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the criminal conspiracy in the present case. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory, upon which conviction cannot be sustained. Learned trial court has ignored the material evidence in favor of the accused-appellants, which clearly established the falsity of the implication of accused-appellants. 9. Learned counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the criminal conspiracy in the present case. Even the relation between accused Altaf and Smt. Rani @ Noorjahan as also between accused Altaf and Mehrunissa has not been proved. Even otherwise, the fact of having illicit relation is not sufficient to hold that accused Smt. Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa were conspirator for committing murder of deceased Rukaiya and her children. The entire case of the prosecution seems to be improbable. No complaint was lodged either by the complainant or his deceased daughter about illicit relations between the accused-appellants. There was no material on record to prove that accused Mohammed Altaf had purchased the poison. The prosecution has examined Sudesh (PW-20), the owner of shop of seeds and fertilizers, but he has failed to state as to who purchased endosulfan from his shop. Even the prosecution has failed to establish as to whether present one is a case of suicide or homicide. Even there is no material available on record to prove that who had prepared meal in which poison was detected. It is submitted that the present one is a case of suicide, however, the prosecution has given a colour of homicide to obtain conviction of the accused-appellants. 10. Mrs. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, opposed the appeals and supported the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and minutely scanned the entire material available on record. 12. According to the written report (Exhibit P-1) submitted by informant Abdulla, father of deceased Rukaiya, accused-appellant Mohammed Altaf murdered his wife Rukaiya and his own son Mohammad Asharaf (aged 11 years) and two daughters, namely, Ashma (aged 8 years) and Ayasha (aged 8 months), by administering poison. According to the complainant, the motive for this was that accused Mohammed Altaf had illicit relations with co-accused Smt. Rani @ Noorjahan and also with Mehrunissa. Abdulla (PW-1) has stated that his daughter Rukaiya was married to accused-appellant Mohammed Altaf 16 years ago. Farzana, the sister of accused Mohammed Altaf, was married to Ramzan, son of this witness. According to the complainant, the motive for this was that accused Mohammed Altaf had illicit relations with co-accused Smt. Rani @ Noorjahan and also with Mehrunissa. Abdulla (PW-1) has stated that his daughter Rukaiya was married to accused-appellant Mohammed Altaf 16 years ago. Farzana, the sister of accused Mohammed Altaf, was married to Ramzan, son of this witness. Out of the wedlock, Rukaiya gave birth to two sons and two daughters. The wife of this witness came to Jhunjhunu to attend the wedding ceremony of younger brother of accused Mohammed Altaf, which took place two-three months before the incident. At that time, Rukaiya told her mother that since she had visited Jhunjhunu, she should settle her dispute once and for all, which she had with her husband Altaf. When his wife enquired, Rukaiya told her that Altaf never come to her in the night and whenever she objected to his such attitude, he used to beat her and that Altaf was having illicit relations with some other women. Thereupon, the wife of this witness advised her daughter Rukaiya to make complaint of this to her mother-in-law. Rukaiya told her that she had already spoken to her mother-in-law but she did not pay any heed. On the contrary, her mother-in-law reprimanded Rukaiya. Altaf also threatened Rukaiya that if in future she made any such complaint, he would murder her. In cross-examination, this witness has expressed doubt that Altaf, his father Usman, his mother Najra and his younger brother Ramzan murdered Rukaiya (daughter of this witness) by administering poison for the reasons best known to them. Rukaiya had doubt that Altaf had illicit relations with some other women. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he never lodged any police case against the accused on allegations of beating his daughter. He also stated that though he mentioned the fact about Altaf not visiting his daughter Rukaiya in the night and, on her askance thereabout, subjecting her to beating but why the police has not mentioned so in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-1), he could not explain. He also mentioned to the police that when his daughter Rukaiya complained to her mother-in-law thereabout, she did not pay any heed and to the contrary threatened her to keep silence, but why the police has not mentioned so in his police statement Exhibit D-1 he could not explain. He also mentioned to the police that when his daughter Rukaiya complained to her mother-in-law thereabout, she did not pay any heed and to the contrary threatened her to keep silence, but why the police has not mentioned so in his police statement Exhibit D-1 he could not explain. The fact that Altaf threatened Rukaiya that in future if she would make any such similar complaint he would kill her, was also told by him to the police but he could not explain why the police has not mentioned so in Exhibit D-1. 13. Farooq Ahmad (PW-2), the maternal uncle of deceased Rukaiya has also made allegation against her mother-in-law Nazra, father-in-law Usman and brother-in-law Ramzan that it is they who administered poison to her. Rukaiya used to tell him that Altaf had illicit relations with some other women and did not come home for 10-11 days. When she complained for this to her father-in-law and mother-in-law, they asked her to keep silence or else they would kill her by poisoning, but in cross-examination this witness has also named Altaf along-with his mother, father and brother as those, who were responsible for administering poison to deceased Rukaiya, her one son and two daughters. Ramzan (PW-3), brother of Rukaiya, has also stated that he received a phone call that his sister Rukaiya and her three children have been murdered by administering poison. He along-with other members of the family came to Jhunjhunu and stayed at Hospital. Rukaiya had told to him that Altaf had illicit relations with Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa and therefore they believed that it is at their instance that accused Altaf has murdered his sister. Rukaiya used to tell him that due to illicit relations with these women, Altaf did not turn up home for many days. This witness has stated that on the birth of youngest daughter of Altaf, his family members wanted to give clothes but Altaf forbade them. She used to complain that Altaf was harassing her as also her children. When he came to attend the wedding of Ramzan, the younger brother of Altaf, Rukaiya at that time also told them that Altaf was having illicit relations with Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa. She used to complain that Altaf was harassing her as also her children. When he came to attend the wedding of Ramzan, the younger brother of Altaf, Rukaiya at that time also told them that Altaf was having illicit relations with Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa. Samim Bano (PW-10), mother of the deceased, has also stated that when she came to attend the wedding of younger brother of accused Altaf, Rukaiya told her that Altaf was having illicit relations with Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa. She made complaint of this to her father-in-law and mother-in-law but they did not pay any heed. She stated that Rukaiya told her that Altaf used to threaten her that he would kill Rukaiya and her children. This witness further stated that Altaf came to them at Maler Kotla (Punjab) and he threatened them not to bring any customary clothes, which were to be given on the birth of his youngest daughter. When they telephoned Rukaiya on the festival of Eid, she told that Altaf had threatened her that he would kill her and her children. 14. It is indeed a very unfortunate case where Rukaiya, the mother of four children, died of poisoning and along-with her also died her one son and two daughters. Postmortem reports of Rukaiya is Exhibit P-14, that of her daughter Ashma is Exhibit P-15, her son Mohammed Asharaf is Exhibit P-16 and her another daughter Ayasha is Exhibit P-17. All the postmortem reports have been proved by Dr. Sahiram (PW-6), according to whom, the cause of death of all of them was due to circuitry and respiratory failure may be due to poisoning, but the final opinion was reserved to be rendered after the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was received. The report of F.S.L. is on record as Exhibit P-41, according to which various samples that were sent to them, gave positive tests for presence of Organochloro Insecticide and gave negative tests for metallic poisons, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides. The portions of viscera gave negative test for ethyl and methyl alcohol. The report of F.S.L. is on record as Exhibit P-41, according to which various samples that were sent to them, gave positive tests for presence of Organochloro Insecticide and gave negative tests for metallic poisons, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides. The portions of viscera gave negative test for ethyl and methyl alcohol. All the deceased, no doubt, died of poisoning but the learned trial court has convicted accused-appellant Mohammed Altaf for the offence of murder on the sole basis of recovery of two bottles; one of Endosulfan (an insecticide) and another with packaging of Corex Cough Syrup containing a liquid substance, which too has eventually been opined to be the same poison of insecticide. According to the prosecution, the accused had concealed this poison in a shop. The accused was a blacksmith and was having a shop of steel furniture. The incident had taken place in the night of 29.12.2009 and the F.I.R. was registered on 30.12.2009 and the accused was arrested on 31.12.2009 vide arrest memo Exhibit P-13. Pursuant to his information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-33), recovery of the aforesaid bottles was made vide recovery memo Exhibit P-24. There were two attesting witnesses to these recovery memos; one was Rajesh Kumar (PW-14) and another was Abbas Ali (PW-16). Rajesh Kumar (PW-14) happens to be a Constable of the same Police Station and therefore he supported the recovery but Abbas Ali (PW-16) has stated that no such recovery was made in his presence and that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by telling him that the keys of the shop of accused Altaf would be handed over to his brother Ramzan. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he is an educated person and understands the result of speaking false in the court. He denied that he was speaking false to save the accused. He also denied that bottles of Endosulfan and Corex Caught Syrup were recovered in his presence. He admitted his signatures on recovery memo (Exhibit P-24) and site plan (Exhibit P-25) but denied that site plan was prepared in his presence. 15. He denied that he was speaking false to save the accused. He also denied that bottles of Endosulfan and Corex Caught Syrup were recovered in his presence. He admitted his signatures on recovery memo (Exhibit P-24) and site plan (Exhibit P-25) but denied that site plan was prepared in his presence. 15. Harjinder Singh (PW-18), the Investigating Officer of the case, has not been able to give any definite evidence as to the illicit relations of accused Mohammed Altaf with Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa, who have been convicted for offence of murder with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC. The entire evidence, which has in this respect been collected, is the call details (Exhibit P-36 to Exhibit P-38) showing that both Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa used to have conversation with accused Mohammed Altaf on cell phone. The certificate as required by Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been produced and therefore the call details so produced would not be admissible in evidence in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Others - (2014) 10 SCC 473 . Besides, the argument of the defence is that these two accused women were related to deceased as also accused-appellant Mohammed Altaf, and therefore, mere fact that they had conversation with accused Mohammed Altaf would not be sufficient to prove the fact that accused-appellant Mohammed Altaf was having illicit relations with co-accused Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa. Even if the call details are looked into, all that they proved is that two women had conversation with the accused on certain dates. Besides, all that the evidence of the prosecution indicate is that mother and father of the deceased, with reference to information given to them by deceased Rukaiya, stated that accused Altaf had illicit relations with one woman but at later stage they developed such allegation with respect to two women as they alleged in respect to both of them that they had been having illicit relations with accused Altaf. It does not appeal to reason that a husband would murder his wife by hatching up a conspiracy not with one but two women simultaneously. It does not appeal to reason that a husband would murder his wife by hatching up a conspiracy not with one but two women simultaneously. Rather it appears that the deceased doubted character of her husband and the result was her unfortunate death by consuming poison, as also the death of three children, whom apparently she administered poison because one of the children was a female child of eight months old, who till then in normal circumstances was surviving on breast feeding. 16. While accused-appellants Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa set up the defence that they do not know how to operate the cell phone and they did not talk to accused Altaf on cell phone. Accused Mehrunissa has stated that the police has illegally recovered the cell phone of her son. Accused Rani @ Noorjahan has alleged that her parents' house was in village Sultana and the village of complainant is also Sultana and that there was an old enmity in between her parents and the complainant and therefore she has been falsely implicated in the case. The defence set up by accused Mohammad Altaf is quite relevant, in which he has alleged that on 29.12.2009 at 5-5:30 PM he along-with his mother and son Afzal Iliyas and Balkesh had gone to the house of Mohammad Ali at Jhunjhunu to take part in a feast. Deceased, being ill on that day, did not go with them for taking part in the feast. Afzal told him there that his grandmother informed him that his mother, two sisters and one brother have been fallen ill and then they rushed back to their house and took all of them to B.D.K. Hospital, Jhunjhunu, for treatment. In the normal course, if the accused had provided the insecticides containing poison and had administered poison to the deceased, such poison would have been found in the room of the deceased where she along-with her children was found dead and if accused Altaf was so cunning he, after administering poison, would have gone to his shop and concealed bottle of the poison at that place, there should have been some evidence to show that even after he had taken his wife and children in critical condition to Government Hospital, Jhunjhunu, for treatment, he went back to his home, collected the poison bottle from there and thereafter concealed the same in the shop. The evidence in this regard is absolutely lacking. Therefore the recovery of two bottles from the shop of accused-appellant Mohammed Altaf does not inspire confidence. Besides, the only independent witness Abbas Ali (PW-16) has not supported such recovery and has stated that no such recovery was made in his presence and that his signatures were obtained on blank papers showing that the keys of the shop of accused Altaf would be handed over to his brother Ramzan. This case being based entirely on circumstantial evidence and this is an important missing link as the chain of circumstances against the accused is not so complete so as to unerringly point towards his guilt and none else. But the other possibility that the deceased being annoyed with accused Altaf as she doubted his character and also doubted that he was having illicit relations with co-accused Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa, took the extreme step of committing suicide and before doing so gave poison to her three children including the daughter of eight months old, cannot be ruled out. However, in the facts of the case, accused Altaf can at the best be held guilty for abetting the suicide as the evidence has proved that he used to harass deceased Rukaiya at times and did not turn up home during night and remained absent from the house for number of days. Deceased Rukaiya also used to complain about this to her parents and brother and also about the accused being in relationship with Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa. But the evidence against them falls short of the proof beyond reasonable doubt, thus entitling them to benefit of doubt. 17. While therefore we are persuaded to hold accused-appellant Mohammed Altaf guilty of commission of offence under Sec. 306 of the IPC, his conviction and sentence for offence under Sec. 302 IPC is liable to be set aside. Accused-appellants Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa are liable to be acquitted of the charge for offence under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 120-B IPC. 18. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 138/2013 filed by accused-appellant Mohammed Altaf is partly allowed. His conviction and sentence for offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside and instead he is convicted for offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 18. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 138/2013 filed by accused-appellant Mohammed Altaf is partly allowed. His conviction and sentence for offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside and instead he is convicted for offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. He is in jail and has to undergo the remaining sentence. 19. Criminal Appeals No. 1019/2012 and 201/2013 filed by accused-appellants, namely, Smt. Rani @ Noorjahan and Mehrunissa, respectively, are allowed. They are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. They are on bail and need not to surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. The impugned judgment and order is accordingly modified. 20. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants, namely, Smt. Rani @ Noorjahan in Criminal Appeal No. 1019/2012 and Mehrunissa in Criminal Appeal No. 201/2013 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. A copy of this judgment be placed in connected appeals.