JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan upon leave being granted by this Court, against judgment dated 29.03.1990 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota (for short 'the trial court') whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent Irshad Ali of the charge under Section 302/34, IPC and accused-respondent Asad Ali of the charge under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. 2. Facts of the case are that a written report (Exhibit P-1) was submitted on 02.02.1988 by Abdul Naeem son of deceased Abdul Hanif to S.H.O., Police Station Rampura Kotwali alleging therein that on that day, he and his father were at home. Sister of the informant and daughter of Abdul Hanif, Husanara went to flour mill and upon returning from there, she complained of eve-teasing by Asad. When the informant and his father were going to Police Station Kotwali to make a complaint against Asad, Iqbal, who happens to be paternal uncle of Irshad Ali, met them on the way. He enquired from the informant as to where were they going. They told him that they were going to Police Station to make a complaint against Asad Ali. Suddenly, Irshad Ali and Asad Ali came there and Irshad Ali stated that a lesson has to be taught to Hanif and he should be killed. Irshad Ali caught hold of his father. Asad Ali, with the intention to commit his father's murder, inflicted knife blow into his chest and another knife blow on the side of left arm pit, as a result of which, his father started bleeding profusely and fell on the ground. Thereafter, these two brothers ran after the informant to kill him. The informant for fear of his life ran away from there. While turning back, he saw that his father was following him while covering his injuries by his hands to save the informant from the accused. He saw his father coming towards the lane of Brahmanand Sharma. He had come to Police Station to lodge the report. Nadeem and Alimuddeen were present at spot and had seen the incident. The incident took place around 8.00 a.m. 3. The police on the basis of aforesaid written report lodged FIR No. 16/1988 (Exhibit P-2) for offence under Sections 307 and 34 IPC and commenced investigation. He had come to Police Station to lodge the report. Nadeem and Alimuddeen were present at spot and had seen the incident. The incident took place around 8.00 a.m. 3. The police on the basis of aforesaid written report lodged FIR No. 16/1988 (Exhibit P-2) for offence under Sections 307 and 34 IPC and commenced investigation. Subsequently, when the death of Hanif alias Channu took place, offence under Section 302, IPC was added. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-respondent Irshad Ali for offence under Section 302/34, IPC and against accused-respondent Asad Ali for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 4/25 Arms Act in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota city (South), who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Kota from where it was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused-respondent Asad Ali for offence under Sections 302 IPC and Section 4/25 Arms Act and against accused-respondent Irshad Ali for offence under Section 302/34 IPC, which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 19 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. Thereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. In defence 5 witnesses were produced and 4 documents were exhibited. Upon completion of trial, the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 29.03.1990 acquitted the accused-respondents in the manner indicated above. Being aggrieved, the State of Rajasthan filed leave to appeal before this Court and this Court vide its order dated 16.01.1991 granted leave to the State of Rajasthan to assail aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal of the accused-respondents. 4. Mr. R. S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the learned trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused-respondents of a serious crime by recording erroneous and perverse findings. The learned trial court has wrongly disbelieved testimony of the informant Abdul Naeem (P.W.1) by observing that he could not be an eye-witness of the occurrence and entire story had been concocted by him. In doing so, learned trial court has analysed statement of his sister Husanara (P.W.15) with reference to the part of her statement wherein she stated that when her brother Abdul Naeem (P.W.1) returned back in the night at 10.00 p.m., her father was not with him. In doing so, learned trial court has analysed statement of his sister Husanara (P.W.15) with reference to the part of her statement wherein she stated that when her brother Abdul Naeem (P.W.1) returned back in the night at 10.00 p.m., her father was not with him. Learned Public Prosecutor, in this connection, referred to the discussion made by the learned trial court in para 16 of its judgment where it observed that entire story was concocted in the statement of Husanara (P.W.15) that Abdul Naeem (P.W.1) was actually not with the deceased. The trial court could not make out a third case, which was neither the case of the prosecution nor that of the defence. In fact, defence produced two witnesses namely Syed Iqbal Ali (D.W.1) and Mehfooj Alam (D.W.5), who admitted presence of Abdul Naeem and alleged that Abdul Naeem and Hanif alias Channu inflicted knife blows on right hand. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court should not have disbelieved testimony of Madan Lal (P.W.9) and Pancharam (P.W.16), who were both police constables and their presence at the place of occurrence was quite natural because they were on duty in that area at the relevant time. Madan Lal (P.W.9) has stated that he along with Pancharam was on duty near Ramchandra Ji Temple. They saw Asad Ali and Abdul Hanif alias Channu coming from the lane of "desh ki dharti press". While Channu was running in the front, Asad was running behind him. He and Pancharam, his fellow constable, followed them. Channu after running ahead, slowed down and Asad went ahead of him. Madan Lal (P.W.9) further stated that when Asad took a turn in the lane, he saw a knife in his hand. Pancharam chased him and he chased Channu. Channu fell down near the house of Brahmanand Advocate. Pancharam (P.W.16) also substantiated the same story but the learned trial court has wrongly observed that there were serious contradictions between what they were stating. Pancharam (P.W.16) has stated that when both he and Madanlal were on duty, they saw Asad and Channu coming from the lane of "desh ki dharti press". Channu was leading in the front and Asad was following him. He immediately called Madan and said that a quarrel has taken place. He ran after those two persons and Madanlal also followed him. When he reached near Asad, he saw knife in his hand. Channu was leading in the front and Asad was following him. He immediately called Madan and said that a quarrel has taken place. He ran after those two persons and Madanlal also followed him. When he reached near Asad, he saw knife in his hand. He inflicted a danda blow on his hand, which missed his hand. Asad ran away from there. He followed him up to distance of 200 meters. Then he heard sound of Madan from behind that Channu has sustained knife injuries and that he should come back. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that only because these witnesses have explained the incident in different manner, does not mean that there was contradiction in their statements. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit P-16) and argued that it has been explained by Dr. C.M. Shrivastava (P.W.17) in so many words that right lung of the deceased was completely shrinked with a cut in the upper part in the size of 3/4\" x 1/4\" medial size in the front. Pericardium was cut from the right in the front side in the size of \" x 1/3\" and there was 20 cc blood in the pericardial cavity. There was also cut wound on right oracle horizontal in the size of 3/4\" x 1/4\" inside the cavity. While there was little blood in left chamber, but right ventricle was completely empty. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a blood-stained knife has been recovered at the instance of accused-respondent Asad Ali pursuant to information given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-19 and recovery memo of the same was Exhibit P-11. When the knife contained in packet D was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory it was found to contain human blood of B Group as per FSL Report (Exhibit P-20) and blood of B group was also found on the pants and shirt of the deceased, which was put in packet A and also in blood smeared soil, which was lifted from the place of incident and placed in Packet B. 6. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that the trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting accused-respondents as statement of Abdul Naeem (P.W.1) did not inspire confidence. Learned counsel heavily relied on the testimony of Dr. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that the trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting accused-respondents as statement of Abdul Naeem (P.W.1) did not inspire confidence. Learned counsel heavily relied on the testimony of Dr. C.M. Shrivastava (P.W.17), who has stated that kind of injuries, which the deceased sustained were such that he should have died immediately on the spot. It is therefore that testimony of Abdul Naeem (P.W.1); Madan Lal (P.W.9) and Pancharam (P.W.16) that the deceased was chasing Asad Ali and then he ran from Place A to H indicated in the site plan (Exhibit P-6), can hardly be believed. 7. Learned counsel argued that the trial court was fully justified in not relying on the prosecution story, especially testimony of Abdul Naeem (P.W.1) because the prosecution has not at all explained the injuries of the accused Asad Ali. Reference in this connection has been made to injury report of Asad Ali (Exhibit D-4) to argue that he sustained injury in the size of 3/4\" x 1/2\" x 1/3\" on the right lateral side of chest. The accused were not the aggressor inasmuch as the incident had taken place in front of the house of the accused. Reference in this connection has been made to statements of Syed Iqbal Ali (D.W.1) and Mehfooj Alam (D.W.5) to argue that it was the deceased and his son, who came to the house of the accused-persons and then attacked Asad Ali, who in the scuffle only tried to retaliate in the exercise of right of private defence and therefore, it cannot be held that his action is disproportionate to the intensity of the occurrence. 8. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel argued that so far as Irshad is concerned, he has been falsely implicated in the case inasmuch as allegation of the prosecution that he caught hold of the deceased Channu alias Hanif is absolutely false. Learned trial court was wholly justified in believing the defence witnesses namely Munnawar Khan (D.W.2), Jahid Hussain (D.W.3) and Mohanlal Maheshwari (D.W.4), who have amply proved that Asad at the relevant time was working on a contract at Itawa. Learned trial court was wholly justified in believing the defence witnesses namely Munnawar Khan (D.W.2), Jahid Hussain (D.W.3) and Mohanlal Maheshwari (D.W.4), who have amply proved that Asad at the relevant time was working on a contract at Itawa. Learned counsel argued that Abdul Naeem (P.W.1) has rightly been disbelieved by the trial court because he has made improvements over his original version given in the written report (Exhibit P-1) and police statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-1), which was recorded on the same day, in both of which his categorical stand was that Channu alias Hanif, his father, received both the injuries simultaneously near the house of Gopal Ji. However, in the court while appearing as P.W.1, he has changed the story and alleged that uncle of the accused, Iqbal met them in the gali of Madari Daroga and enquired from his father as to where they were going. Suddenly, Irshad Ali and Asad Ali came there. Irshad then told that he (Hanif) should be finished. Then he caught hold of his father. Asad Ali inflicted first blow of knife on the right side of his chest and then second blow of knife on the right side of his stomach. Then, he said that he also inflicted blow on the chest. His father started bleeding and sat down. This creates substantial difference in between two versions given by Abdul Naeem (P.W.1) and therefore learned trial court was justified in not believing this witness. 9. It is argued that Madan Lal (P.W.9) and Pancharam (P.W.16) are not the witnesses of truth inasmuch as if they were police constables on duty in that area, they would have told that as to what steps they took to prevent the incident. None of them stated that they saw the accused Asad Ali inflicting injury. The deceased was himself a history sheeter of the area and therefore, the informant and the deceased attacked Asad presumably on the complaint of eve teasing by Husanara (P.W.15), the accused-respondents acted in pursuance of their right to private defence. Blood stained kurta of the accused Asad Ali recovered vide memo Exhibit P-13 cannot be an evidence against him because admittedly Asad Ali himself sustained injuries in the scuffle and therefore, it was his own blood. It is argued that the informant mentioned names of two eye- witnesses namely Nadeem and Alimuddin in the written report. Blood stained kurta of the accused Asad Ali recovered vide memo Exhibit P-13 cannot be an evidence against him because admittedly Asad Ali himself sustained injuries in the scuffle and therefore, it was his own blood. It is argued that the informant mentioned names of two eye- witnesses namely Nadeem and Alimuddin in the written report. While Nadeem (P.W.12) has turned hostile, Alimuddin has not been produced by the prosecution, therefore, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the prosecution. Learned counsel argued that attesting witnesses to recovery of blood-stained knife, Latif Khan (P.W.6) and Fakrudheen (P.W.18) both turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, this was a planted recovery and result of police padding. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. 11. On comparative analysis of the testimony of Abdul Naeem (P.W.1) given in the Court as also the written report (Exhibit P-1) and his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-1), we do not find any substantial difference in three versions. While in written report, he had alleged that when Iqbal, uncle of the accused met them near the house of Gopal Ji Luhar and enquired as to where they were going, they told him that they were going to make a complaint against Asad Ali for eve teasing of Husanara. Suddenly Irshad Ali and Asad Ali came there and Irshad Ali openly declared that let Hanif be killed today. While Irshad Ali caught hold of his father, Asad Ali inflicted two knife blows on him as a result of which he started bleeding. When these accused advanced towards informant, he ran away but on turning back, he saw that his father was also chasing them to save his life (informant's life). Statement of the informant Abdul Naeem under Section 161, Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-1) was recorded on the same day i.e. 02.02.1988, on which date written report was also submitted. In this statement, he has now mentioned that Iqbal uncle of the accused met them near the house of Gopal Ji Luhar and enquired as to where they were going. Informant and his father told him that they were going to police station to make a complaint against Asad Ali. Then, Irshad and Asad Ali came there and Irshad declared that Hanif be killed. Informant and his father told him that they were going to police station to make a complaint against Asad Ali. Then, Irshad and Asad Ali came there and Irshad declared that Hanif be killed. By saying that, Irshad caught hold of his father and Asad Ali inflicted a knife blow on the right side of chest and another knife blow on the left armpit in stomach. Resultantly, his father started bleeding. Thereafter, when the accused advanced towards the informant, he ran away for the fear of his life and saw that his father was also following them by covering injuries with his hands. 12. The informant, Abdul Naeem appeared in the trial court as P.W.1 and stated that Iqbal, uncle of the accused, met them in the lane of Madari Daroga. He enquired as to where they were going. They told that they were going to lodge a complaint against Asad Ali. Then, Irshad and Asad Ali both came there. Irshad Ali openly declared that let Hanif be finished today. While saying so, he caught hold of his father. Asad Ali inflicted knife blow on the right side of his chest and then said that on the right side of stomach and then another blow on the chest. Then, he sat on the ground. Suddenly Irshad and Asad ran after him (this witness). He then ran away to save his life. This witness then stated that his father also chased them but he fell in the lane where the house of Brahmanand Advocate was situated. This witness has been subjected to intensive cross-examination wherein he stated that the incident took place in the gali, not in the main market just 2-4 steps away from the shop of Gopal Luhar, which was located in the lane leading towards the main market. Distance between the place where the first injury was caused to his father and the place where his father fell was hardly half a kilometer. Iqbal met them in the gali of Madari Daroga which was 15-20 steps from the main market. After first injury was caused to his father, second injury was caused to him about 15 steps away from there at a place towards Ladpura main market. 13. Iqbal met them in the gali of Madari Daroga which was 15-20 steps from the main market. After first injury was caused to his father, second injury was caused to him about 15 steps away from there at a place towards Ladpura main market. 13. Now, if we see statement of Husanara (P.W.15), we find that it cannot be deduced from what she stated that story has been completely concocted by the prosecution and for that matter Abdul Naeem (P.W.1) is also a planted witness. While appreciating testimony of this Husanara (P.W.15), we have to keep in mind that she is a child witness aged 14 years and was not yet mature enough to understand the implications of cross-examinations. Be that as it may, in the examination-in-chief, he/she has stated that when she went to flour mill for getting the flour, Asad teased her and she came back home crying. She complained of this to her father. This appears to be the reason why quarrel between the accused and the complainant took place. In cross-examination, this witness stated that her father and brother had left home saying that they were going to Police Station Kotwali for making a complaint, but her brother Abdul Naeem alone returned back home at 10.00 p.m. and her father did not return back. Her brother did not tell anything. She and her mother were at home when her brother came back. On the basis of this, learned trial court has concluded that the entire story appears to be concocted and actually Naeem had not accompanied his father because had he gone with his father, he would have definitely disclosed the incident to his sister and mother. Then, the learned trial court also taking note of that part of her statement where she stated that she twice went to flour mill, there were certain other boys and persons with accused Asad, held that why none of them has been produced as witness to prove eve-teasing. Learned trial court, in our view, has not correctly and completely read statement of Husanara (P.W.15) because in later part of the statement, she stated that dead body of her father came home on the following day at about 1.00 p.m., but on the first day, three boys had come to their house and told her and her mother that someone had caused knife injuries to her father. These boys had come at about 7.00 p.m. 14. The trial court, in our view, was also not justified in not believing testimony of Abdul Naeem (P.W.1) and Husanara (P.W.15) on the premise that they being closely related to the deceased were highly interested witnesses. Trial court in holding so has also observed that since sole witness to the incident was Abdul Naeem, he being interested witness, his testimony does not inspire confidence and he has not given any explanation to the injuries of accused Asad. Furthermore, trial court was also not justified in not believing testimony of Madan Lal (P.W.9) and Pancharam (P.W.16). These witnesses were police constables, who were on duty near Ramchandra Ji Temple at that time. They cannot be said to be planted as chance witnesses. Their testimony is substantially similar and cannot be said to be contradictory to each other. Both of them are consistent in saying that they saw accused Asad and deceased Hanif coming from the lane of "desh ki dharti press" was situated. They were going towards the market. Channu was ahead and Asad was following him. Channu then slowed down and Asad came closer to him. Pancharam chased Asad, but then Madanlal came back by saying that Hanif, who fell down on the road, had sustained injuries. Both these witnesses are consistent in saying that Asad was carrying a knife. It is this knife, which the prosecution has recovered at the instance of Asad Ali vide Exhibit P-11 and the same was kept in packet D and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and it was found to contain human blood of B Group which was also the group of blood found on the clothes of the deceased contained in packet A. Blood smeared soil that was lifted from the place of incident was also found to contain blood of B group. Site plan (Exhibit P-6) provides substantial corroboration to testimony of Madan Lal (P.W.9) and Pancharam (P.W.16) as to the manner in which the incident took place. A trail of blood was found from place A where the injury was first inflicted to the deceased up to the place H where he finally fell on the ground. 15. Site plan (Exhibit P-6) provides substantial corroboration to testimony of Madan Lal (P.W.9) and Pancharam (P.W.16) as to the manner in which the incident took place. A trail of blood was found from place A where the injury was first inflicted to the deceased up to the place H where he finally fell on the ground. 15. Considering the evidence on record, we find that though the deceased may have caused injury to Asad but whether such injuries would justify act of causing two severe stab wounds to the deceased by Asad Ali to justify exercise of right of private defence by the accused Asad Ali. Section 100, IPC provides that the right of private defence of the body extends, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions, firstly such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault and secondly, such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Section 102, IPC provides that the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. As evident from the injury report of Asad Ali (Exhibit D-4), the injury which the accused Asad had sustained has been opined to be simple in nature. However, in the facts of the case, we are of the view that act of the accused-respondent Asad Ali would fall in Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC which inter alia provides that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm that is necessary for the purpose of such defence. 16. Dr. 16. Dr. C.M. Shrivastava (P.W.17) has proved Post-Mortem Report of the deceased (Exhibit P-16) and stated that right lung of the deceased was completely shrinked with a cut in the upper part in the size of 3/4\" x 1/4\" medial size in the front. Pericardium was cut from the right in the front side in the size of 3/4\" x 1/3\" and there was 20 cc blood in the pericardial cavity. There was also cut wound on right oracle horizontal in the size of 3/4\" x 1/4\" inside the cavity. While there was little blood in left chamber, but right ventricle was completely empty. Coming now to the argument that Dr. C.M. Shrivastava (P.W.17) has stated that injuries were such which could have caused instant death of the person, but in the cross examination this witness has stated that injury No. 2 should have resulted in immediate death but he could not say that injured would not be in a position to ran or walk immediately after receiving injury No. 2. This witness has not made it clear that as to which injury was caused at first point of time and medical evidence of expert in this behalf cannot be blindly followed to discard evidence of as many as three witnesses namely Abdul Naeem (P.W.1); Madan Lal (P.W.9) and Husanara (P.W.15) as to in what manner the injuries were caused. Therefore, testimony of eye-witnesses in this regard cannot be discarded. Merely because the attesting witnesses to recovery of knife namely Latif Khan (P.W.6) and Fakrudheen (P.W.18) turned hostile, the same cannot discard factum of recovery because Investigating Officer, Rajendra Ojha (P.W.19) has proved this recovery, which has eventually provided corroboration to the credence of the eye-witnesses as it was found to contain human blood. 17. Adverting now to contention that Madan Lal (P.W.9) and Pancharam (P.W.16) have not seen the injuries being caused to the deceased by the accused Asad Ali, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied. 17. Adverting now to contention that Madan Lal (P.W.9) and Pancharam (P.W.16) have not seen the injuries being caused to the deceased by the accused Asad Ali, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied. Although, it may be true that both the aforesaid witnesses have not seen the accused Asad causing injuries to the deceased but immediately after the incident when they saw accused chasing the deceased and accused Asad carrying knife in his hand, deceased falling on the ground and accused running away from there, this part of the incident having taken place in continuity of the main incident, their testimony would be admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 6 of the Evidence Act being evidence of res-gestae. 18. The Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 : ( AIR 2011 SC 2877 ) held as under: "Section 6 of the Act has an exception to the general rule where under, hearsay evidence becomes admissible. But as for bringing such hearsay evidence within the ambit of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there could not be an interval which would allow fabrication. In other words, the statements said to be admitted as forming part of res gestae must have been made contemporaneously with the act or immediately thereafter." 19. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari and Others., (2013) AIR SC 1441 held as under: "In our considered view, the test to determine admissibility under the rule of "res gestae" is embodied in words "are so connected with a fact in issue as to form a part of the same transaction". It is therefore, that for describing the concept of "res gestae", one would need to examine, whether the fact is such as can be described by use of words/phrases such as, contemporaneously arising out of the occurrence, actions having a live link to the fact, acts perceived as a part of the occurrence, exclamations (of hurt, seeking help, of disbelief, of cautioning, and the like) arising out of the fact, spontaneous reactions to a fact, and the like. It is difficult for us to describe illustration (a) under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, specially in conjunction with the words "are so connected with a fact in issue as to form a part of the same transaction", in a manner differently from the approach characterized above." 20. Thus, the act of the accused-respondent would be held to have both intention and knowledge of the fact that the injury that he caused was likely to result in death and would therefore fall in Part I of Section 304, IPC. 21. So far as accused-respondent Irshad is concerned, since Madan Lal (P.W.9) and Pancharam (P.W.16) have not provided any corroboration to the allegation that Irshad was involved in the incident as none of them alleged that they also saw Irshad near or around the place of incident, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of acquittal of the accused-respondent Irshad recorded by the trial court. 22. In view of above, present appeal qua accused-respondent No. 2, Irshad Ali stands dismissed. However, the present appeal qua accused-respondent No. 1, Asad Ali stands allowed and he is convicted for offence under Section 304, Part I, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. Upon deposition of amount of fine of Rs. 25,000/- by accused-respondent No. 1, Asad Ali, the same shall paid to the widow of the deceased and if she is not alive, then the same shall be paid to sons and daughters of the deceased in equal proportions. 23. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-respondent No. 2, Irshad Ali is 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, the respondent aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. Order accordingly.