JUDGMENT : 1. The prosecution had set out a case that on 15.1.2009, at around 9:00 or 9:15 PM, in a room built on a plot in Shiv Colony, Tijara Phatak, four accused namely Vijay son of Om Prakash, Mahesh Saini @ Kalu son of Gordhan Saini, Amar Singh son of Man Singh Choudhary, and Bachchu Singh son of Kesharam, armed with dandas and pipe caused murder of Subhash Chand. Thus, thereby they committed offences punishable under Section 452 and 302/34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution solely rests on oral dying declaration made by deceased Subhash Chand to his three brothers namely Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3), Laxman (P.W.4) and Murari Lal (P.W.6) and before Radha (P.W.7) wife of the complainant Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3). 3. The prosecution has also made an endeavour to corroborate the oral dying declaration with recovery of weapons and clothes of two accused stained with blood. The clothes contained same blood group which was on the clothes of the deceased. In nutshell, this is sum and substance of the prosecution case. 4. The criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/3), presented by Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) before ASI Mohar Singh (P.W.11), upon which a formal FIR (Exhibit-P/4) bearing No.15/2009, was registered at Police Station Shivaji Park, District Alwar. The above said FIR was investigated and the investigating agency as stated earlier on the basis of oral dying declaration and the corroborative evidence gathered, presented charge-sheet against the accused Vijay, Mahesh Saini, Amar Singh and Bachchu Singh. The above said four accused along with the charge-sheet were committed by the court of concerned Magistrate to Sessions Court and the said court entrusted the trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Alwar. 5. During the trial, the prosecution in all examined thirteen witnesses and proved on record the documents from Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/27A. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating evidence was put to accused and they denied the same and claimed trial. No witness was examined in defence. However, defence counsel before the trial court relied upon the statements Exhibit-D/1 to Exhibit-D/4 recorded by the investigating agency under Section 161 Cr.P.C. These statements were made by Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3), Laxman Ram (P.W.4), Murari Lal (P.W.6) and Radha (P.W.7), prosecution witnesses. 6. No witness was examined in defence. However, defence counsel before the trial court relied upon the statements Exhibit-D/1 to Exhibit-D/4 recorded by the investigating agency under Section 161 Cr.P.C. These statements were made by Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3), Laxman Ram (P.W.4), Murari Lal (P.W.6) and Radha (P.W.7), prosecution witnesses. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Alwar vide impugned judgment dated 4.12.2010, convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 452 and 302/34 IPC. Having convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences, the trial court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellants as under:- U/s.452 IPC- to undergo four years S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional three months imprisonment. U/s. 302/34 IPC- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional six months imprisonment. 7. All the sentences awarded upon the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. The trial court further extended benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C., to the appellants by holding that the period already undergone by the appellants during investigation and trial shall be set off qua the main sentence awarded. 8. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, all the four accused have filed three appeals. The accused appellant Bachchu Singh has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 34/2011, Mahesh Saini @ Kalu and Amar Singh have preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.4/2011 and Vijay has instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No.431/2011. In all the three appeals, common judgment dated 4.12.2010 along with order of sentence passed on even date has been challenged with the prayer that the conviction pronounced and sentences awarded by the trial court be set aside. We shall decide all the three appeals together by this common judgment. 9. Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) on 15.1.2009 at 11:15 PM had presented written report (Exhibit-P/3) before ASI Mohar Singh (P.W.11). In the written report (Exhibit-P/3) Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) stated that in the evening at 8:00 PM, his younger brother after taking meals, to sleep had gone to the plot situated at Shiv Colony, Tijara Phatak. He reached late at the plot. Then 3 to 4 persons armed with lathis, danda and hockey came. They knocked at the door. When his brother opened the door, they gave beating to him. He reached late at the plot. Then 3 to 4 persons armed with lathis, danda and hockey came. They knocked at the door. When his brother opened the door, they gave beating to him. Due to beating, his brother suffered injuries on the head and nose. Thereafter, his brother called Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) on phone and on the receipt of same, this witness went to the spot. It is stated in the written report that Subhash Chand was weeping and lying in a pool of blood. In the written report it is stated that the complainant was already having dispute with neighbour Bachchu Singh, by caste Kumhar and Bachchu Singh used to keep a grudge against him. Therefore, he has given beating to his brother. In the written report it was further stated that thereafter, Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) brought his younger brother to Government Hospital, where he presented a written report for taking legal action. From the written report (Exhibit-P/3), following facts are discernible: a) That younger brother of the complainant alone had gone to sleep in a room built on plot at Shiv Colony, Tijara Phatak. b) That Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) is not an eyewitness of the occurrence and he raised a suspicion that since Bachchu Singh is keeping a grudge with him, therefore, he may have committed the offence. c) That it is also stated in the written report that three to four unnamed and unidentified persons came armed with lathi, danda and hockey and had caused injuries. 10. Time and sequence of events is a prominent feature of this case, to appreciate oral dying declaration, relied by the prosecution to secure conviction of the appellant. Purportedly, the occurrence in the present case has taken place on 15.1.2009, after 8:00 PM but before 9:40 PM. A perusal of the Bed Head Ticket (Exhibit-P/27A), reveals that injured Subhash Chand was admitted at General Hospital, Alwar on 15.1.2009 at 9:40 PM. In the bed head ticket, under the Clinical Provisional Admission Diagnosis, it is noted as “case of emergency and medico-legal case”. It is further noted therein that due to injuries, patient be admitted in the hospital. 11. ASI, Mohar Singh (P.W.11) on the same night i.e. 15.1.2009, had presented an application seeking opinion regarding fitness of the patient Subhash Chand admitted in the hospital. Dr. It is further noted therein that due to injuries, patient be admitted in the hospital. 11. ASI, Mohar Singh (P.W.11) on the same night i.e. 15.1.2009, had presented an application seeking opinion regarding fitness of the patient Subhash Chand admitted in the hospital. Dr. Sushil Kumar Batra (P.W.13) vide Exhibit-P/13 (this document has also been marked as Exhibit- P/13 two documents have been exhibited as P/13) on 15.1.2009 at 11:45 PM, opined that “Patient is not fit to give his statement at present”. 12. Dr. Sushil Kumar Batra (P.W.13) in the court deposed that on 15.1.2009, he was on duty in the Emergency Ward of General Hospital, Alwar. On the said date, at 9:40 PM, Subhash Chand aged 25 years, was admitted in Male Surgical Ward and was allotted Bed No.22. This witness stated that when the patient came, he was conscious, but his pulse and Blood Pressure were normal. His pupils were also normal. As noted earlier, attending doctor on the same night at 11:45 PM, had declared injured Subhash Chand unfit for recording statement. This witness further stated that after giving treatment, he was admitted in the ward. At about 4:30 AM, this witness received a call from the staff of Surgical Ward. Then this doctor (P.W.13) again examined the patient. This witness stated that the patient, Subhash Chand was complaining of vomiting. This witness had given the treatment. Thereafter, the condition of the patient was normal. His pupils were normal and pulse as also Blood Pressure were also normal. 13. This witness (P.W.13) in cross-examination admitted that when patient came, he had not told him regarding the incident. This witness further stated that relations of the patient Subhash Chand have also not disclosed any facts regarding the occurrence. This witness further stated that he had not requested the Police to record dying declaration. In crossexamination, this witness stated that patient Subhash Chand had to vomit and patient had vomited both facts were told to him. This witness (P.W.13) further stated that persons accompanying Subhash Chand had not told him anything regarding the occurrence. This witness further stated that he had not requested the Police to record dying declaration. In crossexamination, this witness stated that patient Subhash Chand had to vomit and patient had vomited both facts were told to him. This witness (P.W.13) further stated that persons accompanying Subhash Chand had not told him anything regarding the occurrence. We shall reproduce the following portion from the cross-examination of this witness, as under:- “ vt[kqn dgk fd ejht mYVh dj jgk gS eq>s crk;k x;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd lqcg lk<s pkj cts Hkh ejht us o mlds lkFk vLirky esa ekStwn ifjtuksa us Hkh ?kVuk dkfjr djus okyks ds uke eq>s ugha crk;sA ” 14. Dr. Sushil Kumar Batra (P.W.13) further stated that in Bed Head Ticket (Exhibit-P/27A), it is nowhere stated that the injured was unconscious and at 6:00 AM in the morning he regained consciousness. This witness further admitted that it is not recorded in the Bed Head Ticket that in the morning, at 4:30 AM, some treatment was administered to the patient Subhash Chand. This witness further stated that it is not noted in the Bed Head Ticket, as to who had brought the patient to the hospital. 15. Dr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta (P.W.1) being posted as Medical Jurist at General Hospital, Alwar, on 16.1.2009, at 9:45 AM, had prepared injury report of injured Subhash Chand. In the injury report (Exhibit-P/1), Dr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta (P.W.1) had noted following injuries:- “i) Lacerated wound 1.5cm x 05cm, muscle deep over nose, blunt. ii) Lacerated wound 4cm x 1cm, muscle deep over left parietal area of skull, blunt. Iii) Lacerated wound 2cm x 1cm over left leg middle 1/3rd, simple, blunt. Patient was unconscious and general condition was poor” 16. As per opinion of the doctor, injury No.3 was simple. To opine regarding Injury Nos. 1 and 2, patient was advised for X-rays and CT Scan Examination. Dr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta (P.W.1) further stated that general condition of the patient Subhash Chand was bad, therefore, his signature could not be obtained on the injury report. In cross-examination, Dr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta (P.W.1) stated that patient Subhash Chand was unconscious, his condition was critical and serious. 1 and 2, patient was advised for X-rays and CT Scan Examination. Dr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta (P.W.1) further stated that general condition of the patient Subhash Chand was bad, therefore, his signature could not be obtained on the injury report. In cross-examination, Dr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta (P.W.1) stated that patient Subhash Chand was unconscious, his condition was critical and serious. We shall reproduce the following portion from the crossexamination of this witness, as under:- “ ;g lgh gS fd vkgr csgks’k FkkA vkgr dh lkekU; fLFkfr esa iqvj fy[k j[kh gS bldk vk’k; mldh gkyr xaHkhj o fparktud Fkh] bl dafM’ku esa ch ih o iYl Hkh ‘kkfey gksrh gSA vkgr dk pksV ua- 1 o 2 dk ,Dljs o flfV Ldsu esjs lkeus is’k ugh gq;s blfy;s eSa ugha crk ldrk fd ;s gq;s ;k ugh gq;sA ” 17. From General Hospital, Alwar, patient Subhash Chand was referred to specialized hospital i.e. SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where he was admitted on 16.1.2009 at 15:21 HRS. At SMS Hospital, Jaipur, Subhash Chand expired on 16.1.2009 at 16:40 HRS. 18. We need not reproduce the injuries noted in the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/2), as it is evident that Subhash Chand was operated upon, hence, injury Nos. 1 and 2 which were on head and nose are stitched wounds and to injury No.2 sutures were also applied. 19. Dr. Ashok Mathur (P.W.2) on 17.1.2009, conducted autopsy (Exhibit-P/2) at 11:00 AM on the dead body of Subhash Chand. As per opinion of the doctor, cause of death was Coma as a result of ante mortem injury to skull and brain, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 20. To sum up, As per written report (Exhibit-P/3), the occurrence had taken place immediately after 8:00 PM on 15.1.2009. Bed Head Ticket (Exhibit-P/27A) reveals that injured Subhash Chand was admitted in General Hospital, Alwar on 15.1.2009 at 9:40 PM. As per opinion of the doctor obtained on Exhibit-P/13 by Mohar Singh (P.W.11), injured Subhash Chand was declared unfit to make statement on 15.1.2009 at 11:45 PM. As per Dr. Sushil Kumar Batra (P.W.13), injured Subhash Chand at the time of admission was conscious and at 4:30 AM, according to doctor, the condition of the patient was normal and he was complaining of vomiting. In cross-examination, Dr. As per Dr. Sushil Kumar Batra (P.W.13), injured Subhash Chand at the time of admission was conscious and at 4:30 AM, according to doctor, the condition of the patient was normal and he was complaining of vomiting. In cross-examination, Dr. Sushil Kumar Batra (P.W.13) stated that he was told that the patient Subhash Chand was complaining of pain. Dr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta (P.W.1) on the next day i.e. on 16.1.2009, at about 9:45 AM prepared injury report (Exhibit-P/1) and at that time, injured Subhash Chand was unconscious and his condition was serious and critical and his Blood Pressure, pulse and pupils were noted as poor. On 16.1.2009 at 3:21 PM, patient was admitted at SMS Hospital, Jaipur. On the same day at 4:20 PM, Subhash Chand had expired. 21. In the context of above, we have to evaluate and determine whether deceased Subhash Chand could make oral dying declaration at the time when Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) reached at the spot in pursuance of telephonic call received or at 6:00 AM on 16.1.2009. 22. So far, assertion made by Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) in the court that immediately when he reached at the spot, injured Subhash Chand had disclosed to him that Bachchu Singh along with three other persons had caused injuries, is concerned, we find that this is not recorded in the written report (Exhibit-P/3). The complainant Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) in his examination-in-chief has stated as under:- “ eSa ogka [kkuk NksMdj rqjUr eksVj lkbZfdy ysdj vius IykV ij igwWpk eSus ns[kk esjs HkkbZ ds flj o ukd esa ls [kwu cg jgk Fkk esjk HkkbZ gks’k esa Fkk vkSj jks jgk FkkA eSaus iwNk rsjs fdlus ekjk mlus crk;k cPpw vk;k Fkk o rhu vkneh mlds lkFk FksA mlus eq>s crk;k eS rhuks vkneh ds uke crk nwWxk igys rq eq>s vLirky ys py ugha rks ;s yksx rq>s Hkh tku ls ekj nsxsA ” 23. Thereafter, Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) stated that on 16.1.2009 at 6:00 AM, his brother Subhash Chand told him the name of all the four accused persons. Thereafter, Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) stated that on 16.1.2009 at 6:00 AM, his brother Subhash Chand told him the name of all the four accused persons. We will reproduce this part being important also, as under:- “ esus fnukad 16-1-09 dks lqcg N% cts esjs HkkbZ lqHkk”k ls ?kVuk ds ckjs esa iwNk rks crk;k fd cPpq dqEgkj us esjk njoktk [kV[kVk;k rks esus njoktk [kksyk rks pkjks vkneh us geyk dj fn;kA cPpw] dkyw] fot;] vej flag Fks ftUgksus geyk fd;k Fkk ;s ckr vLirky esa esjs cMs HkkbZ y{e.k o eqjkjh yky o esjh iRuh jk/kk ds lkeus crkbZ FkhA ” 24. Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) in cross-examination admitted that it is not recorded in the written report (Exhibit-P/3) that deceased Subhash Chand had told him that Bachchu Singh had caused him injuries. We shall reproduce following portion from the cross-examination of this witness as under:- “ ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn’kZ ih&3 es ;g fy[kk gqvk ugh gS fd e‘rd us eq>s ;g crk;k gks fd cPpw flag us mlds lkFk ekjihV dh gSA ;g lgh gS fd esjs HkkbZ us rhu pkj vkneh ykBh M.Ms ysdj vk;s ;g crk;k FkkA ” 25. The complainant Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) further stated in the court that Police had not arrived in the hospital in the night. This witness stated that the police came to the hospital on 16.1.2009 at about 8:00 to 9:00 AM and his brother had not made any statement. 26. A perusal of the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/2) reveals that on dissection of skull, doctor had found haematoma of 10cmx6cm on the left frontal and left parietal area. Upon opening of skull haematoma of dimension 6cmx4cm was found in the right side of occipital region. Doctor further found a thick extra-dural haematoma of size 11cmx8cm on left parietal and left frontal region, which was pressing on left frontal lobe. We are of the view that till haematoma is dissolved by way of medicine or is removed as a result of surgery, any person due to head injury as a result of haematoma had become unconscious, chances of his becoming conscious are very remote. We also find that when Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) had reached at the spot, injured Subhash Chand who died later was lying in a pool of blood - “ og [kwu esa yFkiFk iMk jks jgk FkkA ”. 27. We also find that when Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) had reached at the spot, injured Subhash Chand who died later was lying in a pool of blood - “ og [kwu esa yFkiFk iMk jks jgk FkkA ”. 27. We also find that at the time of admission on 15.1.2009, at 9:40 PM, though it is noted that injured Subhash Chand was conscious, it has also come in evidence that doctor after two hours of the admission on 15.1.2009 at 11:45 PM had declared the injured Subhash Chand to be unfit to make statement. We also cannot ignore that in the morning at 9:45 AM, when injury report was prepared, at that time, as per Dr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta (P.W.1), injured Subhash Chand was unconscious, and his condition was critical and serious. Furthermore, as per the Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) when in the morning of 16.1.2009, Police arrived, injured Subhash Chand had not given any statement to the police. Therefore, it is difficult for us to accept that on 16.1.2009, injured Subhash Chand who was critically ill, became conscious and made an oral dying declaration to his three brothers namely Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3), Laxman (P.W.4) and Murari Lal (P.W.6) and his bhabhi Radha (P.W.7). 28. There is no positive evidence and opinion given in writing that deceased Subhash Chand at any time became fit to make statement. No written opinion or declaration of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured Subhash Chand is on the record. No witness has stated that as to when injured Subhash Chand became fit to give statement. We may also notice here that there is no written dying declaration recorded in the present case by the investigating agency, police official or by the Magistrate. Even in the medical record, no history regarding occurrence has been noted. Neither the persons attending the injured Subhash Chand nor the injured had disclosed the names of the assailants to the attending doctor. In these circumstances, it is very difficult for us to rely upon the evidence of oral dying declaration, made to the close relations of the deceased. 29. We may notice here that Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) in the court has stated that when he reached at the spot, he was told by the deceased Subhash Chand that Bachchu Singh along with three others persons had caused injuries. 29. We may notice here that Suresh Chand Sharma (P.W.3) in the court has stated that when he reached at the spot, he was told by the deceased Subhash Chand that Bachchu Singh along with three others persons had caused injuries. This fact is not recorded in the written report (Exhibit-P/3). Rather, as reproduced above, the witness had admitted that this material fact has not been recorded in the written report (Exhibit- P/3). Therefore, the witness who on the material fact regarding first dying declaration stand belied by the written report, cannot be relied qua the factum of second dying declaration, especially when in the written report it has been specifically stated that the witness was having inimical relations with his neighbour Bachchu Singh. Inimical relations are double edged sword, they can be reason for causing injury, but equally they can be reason for false implication. Therefore, we shall discard the evidence of oral dying declaration. 30. Supreme Court in the case of Arun Bhanudas Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 232 , has held as under:- “It is well-settled law that the oral dying declaration made by the deceased ought to be treated with care and caution since the maker of the statement cannot be subjected to any cross-examination. In the present case, admittedly, the alleged dying declaration had not been made to any doctor or to any independent witness, but only to the mother who, as stated above, arrived at the hospital only on the following day at about 3.30 p.m. when Dr. Nitin had already operated Raju for his injuries and thereafter he was lying on the bed in unconscious condition with oxygen tubes having been inserted in his nostrils. The prosecution has not brought on record any medical certification to prove that after operation the deceased was in a fit condition to make the declaration before his mother. The evidence of alleged oral dying declaration by the deceased Raju to his mother PW Sundarbai relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court and the High Court, in our view, was not cogent, satisfactory and convincing to hold that deceased Raju before his death was in a fit condition to make oral declaration to his mother.” 31. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhanwari Bai vs. State of Rajasthan, 2015(3) WLC (Raj.) 669, noted law regarding oral dying declaration as under:- “41. What is the effect of oral dying declaration made to a relation of the deceased and how the same ought to be appreciated. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [1984 AIR (SC) 1622] held as under: “48. Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses we might mention a few preliminary remarks against the background of which the oral statements are to be considered. All persons to whom the oral statements are said to have been made by Manju when she visited Beed for the last time, are close relatives and friends of the deceased. In view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that this is done consciously but even unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer and, therefore, the Court has to examine such evidence with very great care and caution. Even if the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it, they would be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis against the accused person and in this process certain facts which may not or could not have been stated may be imagined to have been stated unconsciously by the witnesses in order to see that the offender is punished. This is human psychology and no one can help it.” 32. Mr. S.K. Bansal on behalf of Mr. Bipin Gupta, counsel for the complainant has relied upon a Division Bench judgment rendered by this Court in the case Dine Khan & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (2007) 5 RCR (Cri) 108, to contend that the oral dying declaration made by deceased is admissible and same can be made a sole basis of conviction. We have no quarrel with the proposition projected by the learned counsel for the complainant. 33. vs. State of Rajasthan (2007) 5 RCR (Cri) 108, to contend that the oral dying declaration made by deceased is admissible and same can be made a sole basis of conviction. We have no quarrel with the proposition projected by the learned counsel for the complainant. 33. In the present case, we are of the firm view that not only the oral dying declaration is surrounded by suspicious circumstances but it is almost difficult to assume that injured Subhash Chand was ever in a fit condition to speak and make oral dying declaration. Thus, we discard the evidence of oral dying declaration. 34. Having said so, we are left with the recoveries of weapons from the accused and blood stained clothes from the accused appellants Amar Singh and Vijay. 35. We may notice here that all the weapons recovered were not found stained with blood. But merely because from two accused namely Amar Singh and Vijay, blood stained clothes were recovered and same contained same blood group, which was on the clothes of the deceased, we cannot sustain their conviction. 36. We also cannot ignore that for one injury on the head and one injury on the nose, and one simple injury on the foot, four persons have been named as accused. All injuries have been caused with a blunt weapon. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that occurrence may have been caused by a single accused as all injuries can be caused with a single weapon. We also cannot rule out widening of net by complainant and if it so it is one of the most difficult case to sift grain from the chaff. 37. Taking totality of circumstances, we are of the view that it is not safe to uphold the conviction of the appellants. Thus we shall grant benefit of doubt to the appellants. 38. Consequently, as a result of above discussion, we accept all the three appeals and set aside the conviction pronounced and sentence awarded upon the appellants and they are acquitted of all the charges. 39. In view of the acceptance of the appeal, in above terms, we order that the appellants be released forthwith, if in custody and not required in any other case. 40. 39. In view of the acceptance of the appeal, in above terms, we order that the appellants be released forthwith, if in custody and not required in any other case. 40. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Apex Court.