JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of four accused-appellants, namely, Banay Singh, Pooran, Bharat Singh @ Bhulli and Rambharosi, all sons of Shri Girraj, assailing judgment and order dated 30.08.1990 passed by the Special, Court (Dacoity Affected Area) Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No. 12/89 (106/88), whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Accused-appellants Conviction u/Section Term of Sentence Banay Singh, Pooran, Bharat Singh @ Bhulli and Rambharosi 302 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50/- each; in default, each to further undergo 15 days additional rigorous imprisonment Bharat Singh @ Bhulli 326 IPC To undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.50/- each; in default, to further undergo 15 days additional rigorous imprisonment Banay Singh, Pooran, and Rambharosi 326 read with Section 34 IPC Each to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.50/- each; in default, each to further undergo 15 days additional rigorous imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that a written report (Exhibit P-1), scribed by Mohan Singh (PW-6), was submitted under the signature of Bhuwal Singh (PW-2) S/o deceased Shyama, on 24.9.1988 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Bharatpur, (which was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur), alleging therein that his father Shyama and brother Pachvir (PW-5) were milking the animals on 24.09.1988 at 5:45 PM, suddenly Pooran, Banay Singh, Bharat Singh @ Bhulli and Rambharosi, all sons of Girraj, etc. came there armed with ‘ballam’ and ‘pharsas’ and attacked his father and brother with a view to kill them. Banay Singh was armed with ‘pharsa’, Bharat Singh @ Bhulli was armed with ‘ballam’, Pooran was armed with ‘ballam’, Rambharosi was armed with ‘katta’ and their wives were armed with ‘lathis’. They caused injuries to father and brother of the complainant, resulting in serious injuries to them. The complainant further stated that he ran away from the place owing to fear to his life. The accused left his father and brother taking them as dead. His neighbours took them to hospital and admitted them. They were in critical condition. It was further stated that at that time, Prahlad, Bheem and Bachchu were present at the place of occurrence. The accused left his father and brother taking them as dead. His neighbours took them to hospital and admitted them. They were in critical condition. It was further stated that at that time, Prahlad, Bheem and Bachchu were present at the place of occurrence. It was prayed that action be taken against the culprits. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, the police registered a regular first information report bearing F.I.R. No. 485/88 for offence u/Secs. 147, 323 and 307 IPC and commenced investigation. The doctor examined Shyama on 24.09.1988 at 07:15 PM. His injury report is Exhibit P-15, according to which he sustained eight injuries. Injuries No. 1 to 7 were caused by blunt object, whereas injury no. 8, which was incised wound, was caused by sharp object. The doctor also examined Pachvir Singh on 24.09.1988 at 07:00 PM. His injury report is Ex. P/14, according to which he sustained six injuries. All the injuries sustained by him were caused by sharp object. Injury no. 1 was found to be grievous in nature with fracture of first and second knuckles. Thereafter, Shyama died at 04:15 AM on 25.09.1988. His postmortem report is Ex. P/17, which was conducted at 08:00 AM on 25.09.1988, according to which injuries no. 1 and 2 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death individually as well as cumulatively. The postmortem report in its Column 2 shows that the vault of skull showing fissure fractures in the right left and left parietal and this fracture is extending upto the left temporal and left frontal bone on the outer side forming question mark shape starting from vault to left side skull. 4. The police, after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused for offence under Sections 302, 307, 324 read With Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. The defence examined one witness and exhibited five documents. The accused in their examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. alleged their false implications and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial court, after conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 5. Mr. Dharam Gopal Chaturvedi, assisted by Mr. The defence examined one witness and exhibited five documents. The accused in their examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. alleged their false implications and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial court, after conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 5. Mr. Dharam Gopal Chaturvedi, assisted by Mr. Anurodh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the accused-appellants, has argued that that the trial court has erred in mechanically convicting the accused-appellants for the alleged offence, even though it has in discussion at para 47 of the judgment concluded that there was delay of five hours in lodgement of the F.I.R. It has also taken note of the fact that names of eye witnesses, namely, Prahlad, Bheem and Bachchu were subsequently inserted in the written-report (Exhibit P-1) at the instance of Munshi Singh, S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur. This was in the handwriting of Sugad Singh (PW-1). There were lot of improvements in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses when they appeared before the court have changed the version with regard to weapon which the accused were wielding at the relevant time. While in the written report Banay Singh and Pooran were shown to be armed with ‘pharsa’, Bharat Singh @ Bhulli armed with ‘ballam’ and Rambharosi armed with ‘katta’, but in the court statement, informant Bhuwal Singh (PW-2) has alleged that Bhulli was armed with ‘ballam and remaining three accused had ‘lathis’ in their hands. All the four accused attacked his father. Bhulli inflic-ted a ‘ballam’ blow on the person of his father, like a ‘lathi’, which hit middle of the elbow and ankle of right hand of his father. Remaining accused also inflicted blows by ‘lathis’ on the person of his father. When his brother Pachvir came to his rescue, Bhulli started causing blows on the person of Pachvir by ‘ballam’. Thereafter Bhulli caused nearly 10-20 blows on the person of Pachvir by ‘ballam’. Other accused inflicted ‘lathi’ blows on the person of Pachvir. In fact, the prosecution witnesses have rather admitted that allegation in the FIR that Pooran and Banay Singh caused injuries by use of ‘pharsa’ was false. 6. Thereafter Bhulli caused nearly 10-20 blows on the person of Pachvir by ‘ballam’. Other accused inflicted ‘lathi’ blows on the person of Pachvir. In fact, the prosecution witnesses have rather admitted that allegation in the FIR that Pooran and Banay Singh caused injuries by use of ‘pharsa’ was false. 6. It is argued that analysis of the evidence by the trial court clearly indicate that statements of Sugad Singh (PW-1), Bhuwal (PW-2), Bhim Singh (PW-3) and Prahlad (PW-4), all of whom were claiming to be eye witnesses, have been found false. Trial court has also found that Pachvir has given improved version while appearing as (PW-5) in the court in relation to accused-appellant Banay Singh for causing two ‘lathi’ blows on the scalp of deceased Shyama, which was not stated by him in his delayed examination to the police and therefore the trial court rightly concluded Pachvir as an unreliable witness in this regard and that the statement of this witness did not inspire confidence. The trial court also disbelieved the evidence of Bhuwal Singh (PW-2), Bhim Singh (PW-3) and Prahlad (Pw-4) and found their statements to be unnatural as these witnesses were interested in the deceased and his family members. The trial court concluded that Pachvir’s statement that 10-20 ‘lathi’ blows were inflicted upon him and injuries were caused to him by using ‘ballam’ like a ‘lathi’ is in contradiction with his police statement (Exhibit D-5). In the police statement, Pachvir did not state that ‘ballam’ was inflicted upon him as ‘lathi’ which was an improved version and that no injury was caused to him by ‘ballam’. The trial court further concluded that he has given similar statement to that of other prosecution witnesses and thus rightly concluded his evidence to be not wholly reliable. 7. The trial court in para 59-60 of the judgment therefore rightly disbelieved the evidence of Bhuwal (PW-2), Bhim Singh (PW-3) and Prahlad (PW-4). The trial court found that the Investigating Officer Munshi Singh (PW-13) did not immediately proceed to the spot and that statement of Pachvir was not recorded by the police at the earliest. Statements of Bhuwal (PW-2), Bhim Singh (PW-3) and Prahlad (PW-4) were also not recorded immediately, which was necessary. The trial court found that the Investigating Officer Munshi Singh (PW-13) did not immediately proceed to the spot and that statement of Pachvir was not recorded by the police at the earliest. Statements of Bhuwal (PW-2), Bhim Singh (PW-3) and Prahlad (PW-4) were also not recorded immediately, which was necessary. The trial court concluded that as per statements of Pachvir (PW-5) and Sugad Singh (PW-1), presence of wives of Hari Singh, Laxman Singh and Samandar Singh, and mother of Sugad Singh was not proved. Bachchu Singh, who was mentioned in the F.I.R. as eye witness, and Brij, who gave information to Sugad Singh and other neighbours, have not been produ-ced by the prosecution. Non production of mother of Sugad Singh as a witness was fatal to the prosecution. Even despite recording of this finding, conviction of the accused appellants was wholly illegal. The trial court has committed serious error in holding that deceased Shyam and injured Pachvir sustained injuries at the place mentioned in the site plan (Exhibit P-3). Munshi Singh (PW-13) has admitted that the site plan was not prepared as per the version of the eye-witnesses. This site plan is therefore inadmissible in evidence. 8. Learned counsel argued that genesis of the incident has been completely suppressed from the court inasmuch as first version in the FIR was given a complete go bye by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution at the stage of FIR was not that any of the accused-appellant was armed with ‘lathi’ and caused injuries to the deceased. However, the witnesses when they appeared before the court have made lot of improvement, especially injured Pachvir, who asserted that the accused had ‘lathis’ in their hands. In this respect, Pachvir is wholly unreliable witness not only qua the injuries of the deceased but also for his own injuries. Testimony of Pachvir is not corroborated by medico legal evidence as Dr. Bhopal Singh (PW-10) has not stated that injury no. 5 sustained by Pachvir could not be caused by ‘ballam’ while using the same as ‘lathi’. It is argued that the alleged recoveries are planted recoveries. The ‘ballam’ alleged to have been recovered was a new one. Recovery of ‘ballam’ has not been connected with the injury caused to deceased Shyama and injured Pachvir. Even then, the trial court has not given a definite finding that injury no. It is argued that the alleged recoveries are planted recoveries. The ‘ballam’ alleged to have been recovered was a new one. Recovery of ‘ballam’ has not been connected with the injury caused to deceased Shyama and injured Pachvir. Even then, the trial court has not given a definite finding that injury no. 8 of Shyama and all other six injuries on the body of Pachvir could be caused by ‘ballam’. 9. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that none of the injuries of the deceased and the injured could have been caused by use of ‘ballam. The weapons were shown to be recovered at the instance of the accused-appellants from open house, for which no site plan was prepared. It is argued that the arrest-memo (Exhibit P-25) of accused-appellant Banay Singh indicated that he has received two injuries but no explanation has been received for these injuries. ‘Ballam’ recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Bharat Singh @ Bhulli was found stained with blood but its group could not be ascertained. 10. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, has relied on judgments in Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 425 : AIR 1980 SC 638 , Babu Maulana v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 RLR 573, Keshav Das v. The State of Rajasthan, 1979 (4) Raj. Crl. Cases 399, Teja Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 WNL (UC) 360, Ishwar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1976) 4 SCC 355 : AIR 1976 SC 2423 , Kanbi Nanji Virji v. State of Gujarat, (1970) 3 SCC 103 : AIR 1970 SC 219 , Pooran v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1993 (2) 61, State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, (2009) 12 SCC 308 : 2009 (3) RLW 2755 (SC), The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Autar, (1971) 3 SCC 774 , Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 Cr.L.R. (S.C.) 203, SK Yusuf v. State of West Bengal, 2011 AIAR (Criminal) 613 : 2011 (4) RLW 3221 (SC) and Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, 2011 AIAR (Criminal) 667. 11. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the ‘ballam’ though is a sharp edged weapon but it can also be used as ‘lathi’. He referred to statement of Munshi Singh (PW-13). 12. Mr. 11. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the ‘ballam’ though is a sharp edged weapon but it can also be used as ‘lathi’. He referred to statement of Munshi Singh (PW-13). 12. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the appeal and submitted that the accused, after their sentence was suspended by order of this court, were again found indulging in the offence of beating the members of the complainant party. Learned counsel has produced copy of judgment dated 30.06.1992 in Sessions Case No. 30/1991 - State v. Rambharosi passed by the court of Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur, for offence under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 341 and 307 of the IPC, wherein the accused Lakkhi and Banay Singh were held guilty of committing offence under Sections 147, 323 and 325/149 IPC and accused Hansa, Bharat Singh, Rambhorisi were held guilty of committing offence under Sections 147, 325 and 323/149 IPC and accused Shambho was held guilty of committing offence under Sections 147, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and minutely scanned the material on record. 14. Earliest version given in the written report submitted to S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali, District Bharatpur, through the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, was that Banay Singh had ‘pharsa’, Bharat Singh @ Bhulli and Pooran had ‘ballam’, and Rambharosi had ‘katta’. They caused injuries to deceased Shyama and injured Pachvir. Apparently, names of Prahlad, Bheem and Bachchu were added therein as eye-witnesses subsequently by different handwriting. Their testimony therefore cannot be believed without the greatest amount of scrutiny. Even though, Bhuwal Singh (PW-2), the informant, has signed the written report but the scribe thereof was Mohan Singh (PW-6). Bhuwal Singh, in his court statement, has changed his version from the one given in the written report and has stated that Bhulli alone had a ‘ballam’ and other three accused had ‘lathis’ in their hands. All of them attacked his father. Bhulli inflicted a blow of ‘ballam’ by using the same as ‘lathi’ on the person of his father Shayam, which he sustained between elbow and ankle of right hand. Other accused caused injuries by ‘lathis’ to his father. There was only one injury caused by Bhulli. At that time, his brother Pachvir came in rescue of Shyama. Bhulli inflicted a blow of ‘ballam’ by using the same as ‘lathi’ on the person of his father Shayam, which he sustained between elbow and ankle of right hand. Other accused caused injuries by ‘lathis’ to his father. There was only one injury caused by Bhulli. At that time, his brother Pachvir came in rescue of Shyama. Bhulli then started beating Pachvir by ‘ballam’. He inflicted 10-20 injuries by ‘ballam’ by using the same as ‘lathi’. Other three accused also caused 10-20 ‘lathi’ blows to injured Pachvir. Surprisingly not a single injury has been sustained by Pachvir by blunt weapon i.e. ‘lathi’. Besides, it is difficult to believe that when other three accused are shown to be wielding ‘lathis’, Bhulli who was allegedly having ‘ballam’, which otherwise was a sharp edged weapon, could be used as ‘lathi’. The statement of Bhuwal (PW-2) that his father Shyama sustained only one injury by ‘ballam’ appears to have been made keeping in view the injury report of Shyama (Exhibit P-15), according to which he received eight injuries. While first seven injuries were caused by blunt weapon, only injury no. 8 was an incised wound. When we look at the written report and at the statement of Bhuwal (PW-2), he does not appear to be an eye witness as there is lot of mismatch in his ocular evidence and the medical evidence. There is hardly any disparity between all other evidence and their statements in the court. 15. Mohan Singh (PW-6), the scribe of the written report, has stated that it was written in his hands and that he wrote exactly what was told to him by Bhuwal. Part ‘G’ to ‘H’ of the written report (Exhibit P-1) that after seeing the brutal attack, he fled away from the place of incident was written on the saying of Bhuwal. Part ‘I’ to ‘J’ of the written report (Exhibit P-1) that the injured were taken to the hospital by the neighbours was also written on the askance of Bhuwal. From the above, it is clear that when the neighbours took the injured to the hospital, Bhuwal was not present at the scene of occurrence and subsequently arrived at the hospital and, as per Mohan Singh (PW-6), the F.I.R. (Exhibit P-2) was drafted by Sugad Singh. Mohan Singh (PW-6) has also stated that several people assembled in the hospital. Initially there was no police personnel there. Mohan Singh (PW-6) has also stated that several people assembled in the hospital. Initially there was no police personnel there. He has stated that Sugad Singh reached there 15-20 minutes after he prepared the written report (Exhibit P-1) and gave the same to Bhuwal for submitting to the police. He rather gave the report to Sugad Singh. This part of his statement has not been explained why three names were added to the written report subsequently in different handwriting and different ink, who have been described as eye witnesses. Sugad Singh (PW-1), who was a Constable in the Police Department, happened to be the son of deceased Shyama. As per his own statement, at the relevant time he was posted in the Police Lines. In his statement, he has stated that he received the information about the incident when he was in the market. He rushed to his house, where his mother told him that Pooran Singh, Banay Singh, Rambharosi and Bhulli @ Bharat have given beating to his father and brother. He then rushed to the hospital. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that in the hospital he saw Bhuwal weeping. The report had already been written before he reached there by Mohan Singh at the askance of Bhuwal. In cross-examination, this witness has also stated that it was corrected that his brother Bhuwal and father Shyama have not received any injury by use of ‘pharsa’, except one injury which his father received by sharp edged weapon. He denied the suggestion that his father was history-sheeter of Police Station Kotwali. 16. Bheem Singh (PW-3), whose name was subsequently added in the written report, has been produced as eye witness. He has stated that it was between 5:30 and 6:00 PM in the evening that he was going towards the house near water tank in search of his buffalo. When he reached near the water tank, he heard sound of hue and cry coming from the house of Shyama Gurjar. When he went at that place, he saw four accused causing injuries to deceased Shyama. Bhulli had ‘ballam’ in his hands and other three had ‘lathis’. Bhulli was using ‘ballam’ as ‘lathi’. Other three accused persons caused injuries by ‘lathis’. Banay Singh caused two injuries on the head of Shyama by use of ‘lathi’, as a result of which he fell on the ground. Bhulli had ‘ballam’ in his hands and other three had ‘lathis’. Bhulli was using ‘ballam’ as ‘lathi’. Other three accused persons caused injuries by ‘lathis’. Banay Singh caused two injuries on the head of Shyama by use of ‘lathi’, as a result of which he fell on the ground. Then Pachvir came there from the courtyard (‘nohra’) through a street and on his arrival, Banay Singh caused two ‘lathi’ blows on the head of Shyam Singh. Pachvir was given beating by Bhulli by ‘ballam’ using it as a ‘lathi’. Bhulli caused 8-10 injuries on the person of Pachvir and on account thereof, he became unconscious and fell on the ground. At the time of incident, Prahlad was standing 15-20 steps away towards the courtyard (‘nohra’) of Pachvir. Bachchu was standing towards the house of Devlal. Bhuwal was standing near the platform (‘chabutra’) of the house of Bhumiya. After beating, the accused-persons fled away towards their homes. Pachvir and Shyama both were taken to the hospital in the rickshaw. This witness has named Prahlad and Bachchu as eye witnesses, whose names have been added in the written report along-with Bheem after Sugad Singh, the Police Constable, arrived at the Hospital, ostensibly to show their presence at the scene of occurrence, stating them as eye witnesses. 17. Prahlad (PW-4) has also similarly stated that Bhulli had ‘ballam’ and others had ‘lathis’. Accused caused 10-12 ‘lathi’ blows on the persons of Shyama. Bhulli used ‘ballam’ as ‘lathi’ while causing injury to Shyama. Banay Singh caused ‘lathi’ blows on the head of Shyama. Suddenly, when Pachvir came from nearby ‘nohra’, Bhulli caused 8-10 blows on the person of Pachvir by ‘ballam’ using the same as ‘lathi’. Even this witness has taken care to state that Bheem and Bachchu were also present there and had seen the occurrence. Bachchu has not been produced as a witness but then injured Pachvir has appeared as PW-5. He has stated that while he was milking buffalos inside the ‘nohra’, his father was milking the cow outside the ‘nohra’ in the street. When he heard the sound of his father, he rushed towards him, where he saw Banay Singh, Pooran, Rambharosi and Bhulli @ Bharat Singh beating his father. Bhulli had ‘ballam’ and other three accused had ‘lathis’. All the four accused were beating his father. When he heard the sound of his father, he rushed towards him, where he saw Banay Singh, Pooran, Rambharosi and Bhulli @ Bharat Singh beating his father. Bhulli had ‘ballam’ and other three accused had ‘lathis’. All the four accused were beating his father. Banay Singh caused two ‘lathi’ blows on the head of father of this witness in his presence. When he tried to save him, Bhulli @ Bharat Singh caused blow on the head of this witness by ‘ballam’ by using it as ‘lathi’ and continued to cause injuries to him, one of which hit his left shoulder. Even this witness has taken care to say that at that time Bheem Singh, Bhuwal, Prahlad and Bachchu were present there at different locations. 18. Analysis of the evidence clearly shows that initial version disclosed in the written report that Rambharosi had ‘katta’ in his hand, Banay Singh and Pooran had ‘pharsa’, and Rambharosi had ‘katta’, has been completely discarded. The only part of original story set up by the informant that has been maintained in the court is that Bharat Singh @ Bhulli had ‘ballam’, but it is strange that all the witnesses are saying that ‘ballam’ was used as a ‘lathi’, meaning thereby the ‘ballam’, which is otherwise a sharp edged weapon, was used as a blunt weapon and not as a sharp weapon., It is difficult to believe that when a fight is on, each time Bhulli would have used ‘ballam’ as a ‘lathi’ to inflict blows to deceased/injured. Obviously none of the witnesses, who have claimed to be the eye witnesses, except the injured, were present at the scene of incident. They have been made to change their statements only to suit the medical evidence, which subsequently disclosed that out of all the eight injuries of deceased, seven were caused by blunt weapon. Though the fact is also that all six injuries of injured Pachvir were by sharp edged weapon. Even Pachvir while appearing as a witness has not stated the truth because he had compulsion to toe the line set by other witnesses, who claimed to be the eye witnesses, namely, Bhuwal, Bheem Singh, Prahlad etc. But even their version did not find any corroboration from the medical evidence. 19. All the weapons were shown to have been recovered from the house of the accused-appellants, but no site plan of such recovery was prepared. But even their version did not find any corroboration from the medical evidence. 19. All the weapons were shown to have been recovered from the house of the accused-appellants, but no site plan of such recovery was prepared. As per the FSL report (Exhibit P-20), the ‘ballam’ and three ‘lathis’ recovered from the accused-appellants as also ‘kurta’, ‘toliya’ (safi), ‘baniyan’, ‘bu-shirt’ and a piece of cloth, were stained with human blood. But mere fact that the blood stains were found at ‘ballam’ and ‘lathis’ recovered at the instance of accused-appellants, would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. Allegation of the defence is also that since Sugad Singh (PW-1), another son of deceased Shyama, happened to be police constable posted in the Police Lines, Bharatpur, tried to falsely implicate the accused appellants and therefore the entire prosecution case is a concocted one. This can not be said to be completely unfounded because the prosecution witnesses in their zeal to implicate as many persons as possible, have deviated from the truth and introduced lot of falsehood in their testimony. Truth and falsehood in this case are intermingled in such a way that it is difficult to disengage the truth from falsity by applying the doctrine of segregation of grain from the chaff. In our considered view therefore the accused-appellants have made out a case for extending them benefit of doubt. 20. In view of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to succeed and the same is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated dated 30.08.1990 is set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail as their sentence was suspended during pendency of the appeal. They need not surrender. 21. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Sec. 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellants, namely, Banay Singh, Pooran, Bharat Singh @ Bhulli and Rambharosi, all sons of Shri Girraj, 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. In the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appe-llants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.