Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2257 (RAJ)

Bharat Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2017-10-26

KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2017
JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. - This appeal is preferred before this Court against the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2015 passed by the learned court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar, who thereby convicted the accused appellants for offence under Section 302 of 34 I.PC. and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to 5 payment of fine, they were to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 341 I.PC. and each of them has been sentenced to one month''s simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sh. Bhavarlal (PW-14), the Sub-Inspector of Police Station Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar recorded ''Parcha Bayan'' of one Rood Singh on 08.09.2009 on Bed No. 6, Ward No. 4, Primary Health Centre, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar at about 6:45 PM. Rood Singh in this ''Parcha Bayan'' stated that on 08.09.2009 while coming back from Bhawani Mandi with his son Peeru Singh on his motor cycle at about 2 PM, when they reached near wall of Maharaj situated between Hathuniya and Kundikheda village, two motorcycles came there from behind Bharat Singh, Dashrath Singh, Mahendra Singh and Meharban Singh were riding on these two motorcycles and they were armed with two iron rods and ''lathis''. According to Rood Singh, all these persons stopped them and pushed them from the motorcycle on the ground and started beating with intention to kill. Meharban Singh caused injury by iron rod on the head of Peeru Singh which his son saved by his hands. Rood Singh stated that remaining accused appellants Bharat Singh, Dashrath Singh, Mahendra Singh started beating Peeru Singh with ''lathis'' and iron rods, due to which many injuries were caused on the hands and legs of the Peeru Singh, as a result of which he started bleeding. 3. On the basis of this ''Parcha Bayan'' of Rood Singh, an F.I.R. No. 359 of 2009 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 307 read with Section 341 of Indian Penal Code in the police station Bhawani Mandi and investigation started. 3. On the basis of this ''Parcha Bayan'' of Rood Singh, an F.I.R. No. 359 of 2009 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 307 read with Section 341 of Indian Penal Code in the police station Bhawani Mandi and investigation started. During investigation, Peeru Singh died and offence of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was added to already registered F.I.R. During investigation, ''panchnama'' of dead body prepared and after all formalities, dead body of Peeru Singh was handed over to his father Rood Singh. A blood stained pent, which was on the body of deceased Peeru Singh, was seized and relevant seizure memos were prepared by the Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer also prepared a site plan of place of occurrence. Investigating Officer seized sample of simple soil and blood stained soil from the place of incident and sized a copper ring which was recovered from the spot and memo was prepared. Investigating Officer seized damaged motorcycle having registration No. RJ 17 2M 9637 and prepared its seizure memo. Blood stained iron rod, blood stained wooden stick and blood stained wood were also recovered and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for necessary examination. Investigating Officer arrested accused/appellants Meharban Singh, Bharat Singh, and Dashrath Singh and prepared their arrest memos. An iron rod was recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Meharban Singh. Relevant memo of recovery was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Likewise, on the information of accused-appellant Mahendra Singh, a wooden stick was recovered by the Investigating Officer and relevant memo was prepared. During investigation, Investigating Officer recovered a wooden stick and on the information of Bharat Singh and likewise on the information of accused/appellant Maherban Singh, two motor-cycles; Bajaj Boxer having registration No. RJ 17 2M 9637 and another motorcycle TVS Sport were recovered and relevant memos were prepared. 4. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer presented a charge-sheet against accused-appellants Meharban Singh, Bharat Singh, Dashrath Singh and Mahendra Singh for offence punishable under Sections 321, 323 and 302 read with Section 341 of the IPC before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar on 22.10.2009 who committed the case for trial to learned Sessions Court, Jhalawar from where this case was transferred to learned court of Additional Sessions Judge, Camp Bhawani Mandi District Jhalawar for trial. After hearing charge arguments, learned trial court date. After hearing charge arguments, learned trial court date. 06.01.2010 framed charges for offence punishable under Section 302 alternatively 302 read with Section 34 and Section 341 of IPC against all the accused appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses namely, Rood Singh S/o Ram Singh (PW-1), Gopi (PW-2), Rood Singh S/o Dulhe Singh (PW-3), Hadmat Singh (PW-4), Govind Singh (PW-5), Kesar Singh (PW-6), Ram Singh (PW-7), Bheru Singh (pW-8), Rafiq Mohmmad (PW-9), Pritam Singh (PW-10), Sardar Singh (PW-11), Jhandel Singh (PW-12), Dulhe Singh (PW-13), Bhanwarlai (PW-14), Gopichand (PW-15), Dr. Sanjay Jain (PW-16) was recorded. On 22 April 2014, all the accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 who pleaded innocence and alleged their false application. On behalf of accused-appellant, the defence statement of Mahendra Singh (DW-1) was recorded. 6. After hearing arguments and perusing the material and evidence on the record, learned trial court pronounced the impugned judgment date. 29.09.2015 thereby convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 7. Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellants submits that the conviction of the accused-appellants is against the available facts and circumstances of the case. According to learned counsel the trial court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in true perspective and has misapplied the law applicable on the subject. Learned counsel also submits that the ''Panchayatnama'' of Peer Singh, which was drawn by Sub-Inspector of Police Station Bhawani Mandi, is anti dated and anti-timed document. But the learned court has failed to consider this aspect of the according to relevant provisions of law. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants also raised the objection of delay in registering First Information Report in this case. According to learned counsel, it is clear from the facts of the case that the occurrence took place at about 2:00 PM and injured persons Peeru Singh and Rood Singh immediately reached the hospital but it has been withheld from the court as to at what time Peeru Singh reached the hospital and who accompanied him to the hospital and whether his injury report was prepared. According to learned counsel, the place of incident is situated only at the distance of 1.5 Kms from the concerned police station but the first information report was lodged after lapse of long time and after due consultation. This clearly shows that the case is antedated and anti-timed. 9. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that it is clear that Peeru Singh died in hospital of Jhalawar, but the documents were not produced before the trial court to show the fact that when Peeru Singh died. According to learned counsel, even post mortem report of deceased Peeru Singh has not been produced before the trial court. The post-mortem of Peeru Singh was conducted by Dr. B.L. Bhatia and due to death of Dr. B.L. Bhatia, prosecution was unable to prove the post mortem report of deceased Peeru Singh. Learned counsel also raised objection about delay in sending the First Information Report to the concerned Judicial Magistrate, who holds the jurisdiction and there is no explanation about this delay. 10. Learned counsel of the accused-appellants further submitted that it is clear from the impugned judgment that conviction of the appellants is mainly based on the statements of Rood Singh S/o Ram Singh (PW-1) and Govind (PW-2), but the impugned judgment also clearly indicated that the statement of these two witnesses have not been correctly read by the learned trial court. According to learned counsel, both these witnesses were not eye witnesses of the occurrence, as such, no opinion can be formed only on the basis of statement of these two witnesses. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants also raised objection about conduct of Rood Singh S/o Ram Singh (PW-1) who is the father of deceased Peeru Singh. He submitted that it is clear from the facts of the case and evidence produced before learned trial court that this case is purely a false case and accused persons cannot be held liable for any offence. No adverse inference can be drawn against the accused appellant on the basis of simple reading of statements of Govind (PW-2), Gopichand (PW-15), Sardar Singh (PW-11). The learned trial court has neither properly appreciated nor critically examined the statements of prosecution witnesses and failed to consider part of their statements, which is favourable to the accused appellants. No adverse inference can be drawn against the accused appellant on the basis of simple reading of statements of Govind (PW-2), Gopichand (PW-15), Sardar Singh (PW-11). The learned trial court has neither properly appreciated nor critically examined the statements of prosecution witnesses and failed to consider part of their statements, which is favourable to the accused appellants. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants therefore prayed that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court be set aside and the accused appellants be acquitted of all the charges proved against them. 12. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the impugned judgment and order of sentence is based on the reliable evidence which was adduced before the court below during the.. ? He submits that the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court is based on the evidence available on record. Impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial court has properly appreciated statement of different witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution. Conclusion of the trial court is completely based on these statements. Hence impugned judgment by proper and legal, does not suffer with any infirmity or irregularity. 13. We have considered all the arguments advanced by Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellants and Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor and examined the material on record. 14. Rood Singh S/o Ram Singh (PW-1) is very important witness of prosecution. He is the father of deceased Peeru Singh. He stated in his examination-in-chief that Bharat Singh, Dashrath Singh, Meharban Singh subjected him and his son Peeru Singh to beating, due to which injuries were caused to them. Rood Singh has clearly i stated that he too was beaten but at the same time he clearly stated that no injury was caused on his body. At another place, he stated in his examination-in-chief that injury was caused on his body by fall in ''pitch''. If beating was given to him on the way after intercepting his motorcycle, then how Rood Singh fell in the ''pitch'', has not been explained. At another place, he stated in his examination-in-chief that injury was caused on his body by fall in ''pitch''. If beating was given to him on the way after intercepting his motorcycle, then how Rood Singh fell in the ''pitch'', has not been explained. In examination-in-chief PW-1 Rood Singh S/o Ram Singh stated that he and his son Peeru Singh was coming back from Bhawani Mandi after purchasing some domestic articles but in his crossexamination, he has stated that though they purchased all these material from the shop where from he used to purchase for a very long time. Yet he did not know the name of the shopkeeper. According to the statement of Rood Singh S/o Ram Singh (PW-1), all four accused came there on different motorcycles. He was seated on as a pillion rider on the motorcycle of his son Peeru Singh. When he and his son fell on the ground, the accused started beating them. According to Rood Singh, they were beaten in the ''pitch'' also. According to statement of Rood Singh, he was unable to tell as to what type of grains were cultivated in the field. Again in his cross-examination, Rood Singh stated that when all four accused-appellants were beating his son Peeru Singh, at that time he was standing nearby and yet he has stated that he was not beaten and no injuries were caused to him. According to Rood Singh, when all the accused-appellants were beating his son, he was standing nearby, but it creates doubt on his presence at the said place at the given time. Statement of Rood Singh (PW-1) clearly create doubt about his presence at the time and place of incident. In our opinion, Rood Singh (PW-1) the father of deceased Peeru Singh was not an eye-witness of the incident in real sense. 15. Rood Singh S/o Ram Singh (PW-1) in his ''Parcha Bayan'' and also in his statement, has clearly stated that when the accused appellants were beating him and his son Peeru Singh, Rood Singh S/o Dhule Singh and Kesar Singh were passing from nearby. According to his statement Rood Singh S/o Dhule Singh and Kesar Singh were the eyewitnesses of the so-called incident. Statement of Rood Singh S/o Dhule Singh was recorded as PW-3. According to his statement Rood Singh S/o Dhule Singh and Kesar Singh were the eyewitnesses of the so-called incident. Statement of Rood Singh S/o Dhule Singh was recorded as PW-3. Rood Singh S/o Dhule Singh (PW-3) stated that police prepared ''panchnama'' (Ex-D-2) and handed over the dead body of Peeru Singh to his father Rood Singh and prepared a memo Ex. P-3 This witness does not tell anything about accused-appellants beating Rood Singh and deceased Peeru Singh. Another eye-witness is Kesar Singh (PW-6). He was declared hostile. He stated that Peeru Singh died but he did not know why and how the death of Peeru Singh took place. Though Rood Singh S/o Ramlal (PW-1), Rood Singh S/o Dhule Singh (PW-3), Dule Singh (PW-6) are the eye-witnesses of the incident, but these two witnesses did not support the prosecution case. 16. Rood Singh S/o Ram Singh (PW-1) clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that when he was on motor-cycle with his son Peeru Singh, all the accused appellants came on motorcycle and intercepted their way. He and his son fell on the ground from the motor cycle, after which they were beaten by the accused appellants. Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the place of incident which is Ex. P-5. Injuries on the body of Peeru Singh and Rood Singh were caused while they lay in the ''pitch''. This fact clearly supports the arguments of the learned counsel of accused-appellants that this was a clear case of accident. This fact also finds support from the seizure memo of the motorcycle Ex. P-10, according to which this motorcycle was lying on the place of incident in damaged condition. Clearly the damage to the motorcycle appear to have been caused due to fall in ''pitch''. 17. According to prosecution, all the four accused-appellants came there on two different motor cycles and injured Rood Singh and deceased Peeru Singh were on another motorcycle. According to prosecution story, when the incident of beating took place, the motorcycle of injured Rood Singh and deceased Peeru Singh having registration No. RJ 17 2M 9637 was found damaged. In this situation, damage must have been caused to motorcycle of the accused. The two other motor-cycle on which accused appellants reached on the place of incident. But according to seizure memo of these two motorcycles (Ex. P-20), there were no damage to these two motor-cycles. In this situation, damage must have been caused to motorcycle of the accused. The two other motor-cycle on which accused appellants reached on the place of incident. But according to seizure memo of these two motorcycles (Ex. P-20), there were no damage to these two motor-cycles. This fact also creates suspicion about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. However, according to Rood Singh (PW-1), his pant and shirt were seized by the police and police prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-4). Rood Singh (PW-1), in his cross-examination, stated that there were blood stains on his and Govind Singh''s clothes. But this fact of ''blood spots'' does not find mention in the seizure memo. 18. According to the statement of PW-2 Govind Singh, he was himself an eye-witness of the incident but as per statement of PW-1 Rood Singh, only Rodu Singh and Kesar Singh passed by the place of incident. Rood Singh has not stated either in his examination-inchief or in cross-examination about the presence of Govind Singh at the time of incident. Presence of Govind Singh at the time of incident thus become doubtful. According to Rood Singh (PW-1), he and his son deceased Peeru Singh were on the motorcycle and during incident Peeru Singh died. Rood Singh is the father of deceased Peeru Singh. When according to prosecution, his son Peeru Singh died in the incident whereas it has also come on record that Police took Peeru Singh in seriously injured condition to government hospital, Jhalawar, but Rood Singh (PW-1) has stated that he did not accompany his son to hospital at Jhalawar, even when his son was in critical condition. Such conduct of Rood Singh (PW-1) creates doubt on the truthfulness of his statement. On this point, overview is supported by judicial pronouncement of Hon''ble Supreme Court in AIR 2003 SC 2293 . At one point of time Rood Singh (PW-1) has stated that there was no beating with him but again in his cross-examination, he has stated that all his clothes become blood stained. When there was no beating with him, how his clothes were blood stained, has not been explained. Due to different version of Rood Singh (PW-1) about beating with him by the accused appellants, his statement became suspects reflectly auderly. When there was no beating with him, how his clothes were blood stained, has not been explained. Due to different version of Rood Singh (PW-1) about beating with him by the accused appellants, his statement became suspects reflectly auderly. On this point, our view is supported by the judicial pronouncement of Hon''ble Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 2013 Tuita Tudu vs. State of Jharkhand decided on 07.05.2014. 19. Govind (PW-2) is clearly presenting himself as an eye-witness of the case but his presence on the place of occurrence at the relevant time is highly doubtful. If he was present at the time of incident, then his name must have been shown in the ''panchnama'' of Peeru Singh. In the ''Parcha Bayan'' of Rood Singh there is nothing about presence of Govind. This creates a doubt about the presence of Govind on the place of so called incident at the relevant time. 20. Kesar Singh (PW-6) has stated that he does not know about the death of deceased Peeru Singh. Ram Singh (PW-7) stated about seizure of simple soil and blood stained soil. He also stated about seizure of motorcycle. Likewise Bheru Singh (PW-8) is a witness of site plan, seizure of cooper ring and seizure of blood stained soil. Rafiq Mohammad (PW-9) also stated that on 23.09.2009 when he was posted as a constable at Police Station, Bhawani Mandi, he took soil packet to Forensic Science Laboratory at Kota and after depositing these packets, took receipt of these packets which is Ex.P-11 and produced this receipt at the Police Station. Pritam Singh (PW-10) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He stated that he arrested the accused-appellants and prepared arrest memo. He also stated that on the basis of information given by accused-appellant Meharban Singh at the residence of Mahendra Singh, he recovered an iron rod and prepared seizure memo Ex. P-17. He also stated that on the information of accused-appellant Mahendra Singh and prepared seizure memo Ex. P-18. Likewise he stated that on the information of Bharat Singh, recovered another ''danda'' and prepared seizure memo Ex. P-19. He also stated that on the information of Mahendra Singh, a ''lathi'' was recovered from the residence of Meharban Singh and prepared seizure memo (Ex. P-20). This witness also stated that he prepared site plan during investigation. 21. P-18. Likewise he stated that on the information of Bharat Singh, recovered another ''danda'' and prepared seizure memo Ex. P-19. He also stated that on the information of Mahendra Singh, a ''lathi'' was recovered from the residence of Meharban Singh and prepared seizure memo (Ex. P-20). This witness also stated that he prepared site plan during investigation. 21. Sardar Singh (PW-11) stated that on 10.09.2009 he arrested Bharat Singh, Dashrath Singh, Mahendra Singh and Meharban Singh during investigation and prepared arrest memos which were Ex. P-13, P-14, P-15, P-16. He also supported recovery of ''lathi'' and an ''iron rod'' recovered on the information of different accused appellants, as stated by Pritam Singh (PW-10). Jhandel Singh (PW-12) stated that he deposited three sealed bags on 14.09.2007 and two motorcycles in the malkhana of the police Station, Kota. He also stated that on 23.09.2009 he sent three sealed bags for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Kota, with constable Rafiq Mohammad who deposited the same in the Forensic Science Laboratory and submitted receipt No. 1062 date. 27.09.2001 before him which is Ex. P-23. Dulhe Singh (PW-13) is a hostile witness and he stated that no one came to him for motor-cycle. Bhanwarlal (PW-14) was the duty officer at Police Station Bhawani Mandi on 08.09.2008. On the basis of ''Parcha Bayan'' of Rood Singh, he registered the FIR No. 359 of 2009. He stated that ''Parcha Bayan'' (Ex. P1) is in his own handwriting. 22. PW-15 Gopichand is the Investigating Officer of this case. He stated that on 08.09.2009 he received an information on telephone about hospitalisation of Bheru Singh. On this information, he sought instruction from Sub-Inspector Bhanwar Lai, who informed him that due to health ground Bheru Singh was advised to be shifted at Jhalawar hospital. 23. He stated that on the basis of ''parchabayan'' of Rood Singh, FIR No. 359 of 2009 was registered and the police started investigation. He stated that injured Pritam Singh died in hospital during treatment. He received the information from the Police Chowki, at government Hospital, Jhalawar. On receiving of information, this witness reached at Government Hospital, Jhalawar and prepared ''panchnama'' of deceased Peeru Singh on 09.09.2009 vide Ex. P-2. He stated that post-mortam of dead body was conducted and thereafter the dead body was handed over to Rood Singh and Ex. P-4 was prepared. He received the information from the Police Chowki, at government Hospital, Jhalawar. On receiving of information, this witness reached at Government Hospital, Jhalawar and prepared ''panchnama'' of deceased Peeru Singh on 09.09.2009 vide Ex. P-2. He stated that post-mortam of dead body was conducted and thereafter the dead body was handed over to Rood Singh and Ex. P-4 was prepared. He also stated that he prepared site plan of so-called place of incident and seized sample of blood stained soil from there. This witness also stated that apart from the place of incident, he recovered a blood stained cooper ring, which was related to deceased Peeru Singh. He stated that he seized damaged motor-cycle from the place of incident vide Ex. P-10, and that during investigation he recorded statement of various witnesses. He also stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses as narrated by them. Photography of place of incident was also conducted. He stated that he arrested the accused-appellants and prepared their arrest memos vide Ex. P-13, Ex. P14, Ex. P-15, Ex. P-16. On information of accused Mahendra Singh, this witness recovered an iron rod and prepared seizure memo vide Ex. P-17. This witness recovered blood stained ''lakri'' and prepared seizure memo Ex. P-18 on the information of Mahendra Singh. As per this witness, information about recovery, which was given by accused Mahendra Singh, was recorded vide Ex. P-27. As per this witness, weapons were recovered at the instance of accused-appellants and memo Ex. P-21 was prepared. Two motorcycles were recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Meharban Singh from his residence vide memo Ex. P-29 and seizure memo of motor-cycle is Ex. P-20. This witness supported sending of the articles for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory vide forwarding letter Ex. P-31. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex. P-30. In the last, this witness stated that he only submitted charge-sheet against the appellants before learned court. 24. PW-16 Dr. Sanjay Jain has stated that he was junior of late Dr. B.L. Bhatia and he identified his signature on the post-mortem report (Ex. P-32) but Dr. Sanjay Jain does not state that post-mortem report (Ex. P-32) is in the handwriting of Dr. B.L. Bhatia (late). Thus on the basis of statement of Dr. Sanjay Jain, post-mortem report (Ex. P-32) cannot be proved against all the accused-appellants. B.L. Bhatia and he identified his signature on the post-mortem report (Ex. P-32) but Dr. Sanjay Jain does not state that post-mortem report (Ex. P-32) is in the handwriting of Dr. B.L. Bhatia (late). Thus on the basis of statement of Dr. Sanjay Jain, post-mortem report (Ex. P-32) cannot be proved against all the accused-appellants. On the basis of statements of Ram Singh (PW-7), Bheru Singh (PW-8), Rafiq Mohammad (PW-9), Pritam Singh (PW-10), Sardar Singh (PW-11), Jhandel Singh (PW-12), Dulhe Singh (PW-13), Bhanwarlal (PW-14), Gopichand (PW-15), no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused appellants about causing of death of deceased Peeru Singh. In our opinion, discussion of all the statements of 16 prosecution witnesses clearly proves that the accused-appellants Bharat Singh, Dashrath Singh, Mahendra Singh and Meharban Singh caused such boding injuries on the person of deceased Peeru Singh with common intention which were sufficient to cause his death. In view of above, this appeal deserves to be accepted. 25. In the result, the appeal, filed by accused appellants Bharat Singh, Dashrath Singh, Mahendra Singh, Meharban Singh, deserve to succeed and is hereby allowed. All these accused-appellants are acquitted of the charge offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Consequently, judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by learned trial court is set aside. 26. The accused-appellants Bharat Singh, Dashrath Singh, Mahendra Singh and Meharban Singh are also acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under section 341 of IPC. They be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. 27. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellants Bharat Singh, Dashrath Singh, Mahendra Singh, Meharban Singh, are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, each, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with an undertaking that in the even of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, they, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.