JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Singh, J. Both above connected criminal appeals have been filed by appellants Prathavi @ Prathvipal, Verma @ Brahmadeen, Bagees and Mewa against judgment and order dated 4.6.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.4, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 263 of 2000 (State of U.P. Vs. Prathavi @ Prathvipal & three others) arising out of Case Crime No. 172 of 1999, Police Station Bheera, District Lakhimpur Kheri, convicting and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years each and under Section 506(2) IPC two years rigorous imprisonment. Both above connected criminal appeals are being decided by one judgment and order. 2. According to Prosecution case, FIR was lodged by Chandan Lal, father of deceased alleging that on 20.9.1999 at 8:30 A.M. one Ganga Pandey informed that some ladies were quarelling; complainant alongwith his alone son deceased Rajesh Pandey armed with licensee gun went there. Subsequently, Prathavi @ Prathvipal, Verma @ Brahmadeen, Bagees and Mewa encircled deceased Rajesh Pandey; Prathavi @ Prathvipal shot fire at Rajesh Pandey and other three appellants assaulted Rajesh Pandey with sharp-edged weapon(banka). They also broke licensee gun of deceased. Deceased Rajesh Pandey also shot one fire at them. Rajesh Pandey died after sustaining injuries. Several persons have seen the incident and after killing Rajesh Pandey they fled away towards forest. 3. On the basis of written report (Ext. Ka-1), case was registered and investigating Officer started investigation, prepared recovery memo of plain soil and bloodstained soil (Ext. Ka-2); recovery memo of licensee gun of deceased (Ext. Ka-3), inquest report (Ext. Ka-4), postmortem report (Ext. Ka-5), chik FIR (Ext. Ka-6) and entry was made in GD(Ext. Ka-7). Investigating Officer also prepared all other relevant documents, photolash(Ext. Ka-9), police papers for postmortem (Ext. Ka-10), Namuna Mohar(Ext. Ka-11),letter to R.I. (Ext. Ka-12), letter to CMO (Ext.Ka-13), site plan (Ext. Ka-8) and after investigation charge sheet (Ext.-Ka14/A) was submitted under Section 302, 427, 506 IPC and Forensic Science Laboratory report was exhibited as (Ext.Ka-15). 4. After taking cognizance by the concerned Magistrate on the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and after transfer it was received in the court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri. 4. After taking cognizance by the concerned Magistrate on the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and after transfer it was received in the court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri. On 7.6.2001 charges under Section 302/34, 427/34 and 506(2) IPC were framed against accused appellants to which they denied and claimed for trial. 5. In order to prove the charges on behalf of prosecution besides documentary evidence, Court examined P.W.1 Chandan Lal, P.W.2 Bankey Lal, P.W.3 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Singh, P.W.4 Head Constable Ram Naresh Mishra, P.W.5 Om Prakash Verma, SHO and P.W.6 SI Gopal Singh. 6. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accused-persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. They specifically stated in their statements that they are innocent, they have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated. 7. Trial Court after hearing parties, vide impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced accused appellants for the offences under Section 302/34 and 506(2) IPC. Hence this appeal. 8. Heard Sri Rajiv Mishra and Ms. Soniya Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State in both the appeals. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that FIR was lodged ante-timed; in the site plan, P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are not shown from where they have seen the incident, it shows that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were not present, they are chance witnesses and are not eye witnesses; Ganga Pasi, Phool Chand and other neighbours have not been produced. 10. Learned A.G.A submitted that there is sufficient evidence against accused-appellants to convict them under Sections 302/34 and 506(2) IPC. 11. We have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and gone through entire record. 12. This Court after scanning the evidence on record, has to adjudicate whether the prosecution has proved charges levelled against accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt or not. Word 'proved' is defined under Section 3 of Evidence Act as under:- "Proved".-A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists." 13. Word 'proved' is defined under Section 3 of Evidence Act as under:- "Proved".-A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists." 13. The question is whether a prudent man under these circumstances can believe that the facts deposed by the witnesses do exist beyond reasonable doubt. 14. P.W.1 Chandan Lal stated that accused are persons of criminal nature and they bore suspicion that his son Rajesh Pandey(deceased) was informing the police against accused persons and due to that reason on information of Ganga Pasi and after hearing uproar he saw that accused Prathavi with countrymade pistol, Bagees and Mewa with sharp-edged weapon(banka) and Brahmadeen with countrymade pistol caught hold deceased; Brahmadeen and Prathavi shot fire at Rajesh Pandey and others assaulted him with 'banka'. Deceased Rajesh Pandey had also shot one fire. His son Rajesh Pandey died sustaining injuries. Many people reached on the spot and accused persons fled away. P.W.1 Chandan Lal proved exhibits Ka-1, Ka-2, Ka-3 and Ka-4. 15. P.W. 2 Bankey Lal is independent witness. He corroborated the statement of P.W.-1 and stated that accused Prathavi shot fire at Rajesh Pandey and all other accused assaulted Rajesh with 'banka' and when he challenged they fled away. 16. P.W.-3 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Singh who conducted postmortem and prepared postmortem report, proved postmortem report(Ext. Ka-5).P.W.-3 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Singh specifically stated that injuries no. 7, 8 & 9 were caused by firearm, injuries no. 1,3,4 & 10 were caused by sharp-edged weapon(banka) and injuries no.2,5 & 6 were caused by hard and blunt object which may be caused by opposite side of 'banka' or stick(lathi). He further stated that injuries no. 1 & 3 may be caused by same weapon. 17. P.W.-4 Head Constable Ram Naresh Mishra proved chik report (Ext. Ka-6), GD entry ( Ext. Ka-7), site plan (Ext. Ka-8), inquest report (Ext. Ka-4), police papers and other documents submitted for postmortem(Exts Ka-9 to Ka-14). 18. P.W.-5 Om Prakash Verma who investigated case and recorded statements, has proved charge sheet (Ext.Ka-14). 19. P.W.-6 SI Gopal Singh stated that he conducted inquest report, prepared other related documents for investigation, recorded statements of witnesses and prepared site plan. 20. Ka-8), inquest report (Ext. Ka-4), police papers and other documents submitted for postmortem(Exts Ka-9 to Ka-14). 18. P.W.-5 Om Prakash Verma who investigated case and recorded statements, has proved charge sheet (Ext.Ka-14). 19. P.W.-6 SI Gopal Singh stated that he conducted inquest report, prepared other related documents for investigation, recorded statements of witnesses and prepared site plan. 20. According to postmortem report, following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of Rajesh Pandey (deceased): 1. Incised would 7 cm.x 1 cm.x bone cut over right side of head 2 cm above right ear. On dissection under lying right temporal and partial found cut and brain membrane found cut. 2. Lacerated wound 2 cm. X 1 cm.x bone deep over right side of head. 2 cm. Above injury no. one. 3. Lacerated wound 3 cm. X 0.5 cm. X muscle deep over top of head. 6 cm. above injury no. one. 4. Lacerated wound 7 cm. x 1 m. x bone cut over top of head 15 cm. above root of nose. 5. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep over left side head. 10 cm. above left eyebrow. 6. Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep over left side back of head 7 cm. behind left ear. On dissection underlying occipital bone found fractured. 7. Firearm wound of entry 2 cm. x 2 cm. x cranial cavity deep over left side of forehead just above left eyebrow. Margins inverted, irregular echojmosed blackening and tatooing present 1 cm. around wound. On dissection frontal bone on left side SIC brain membrane found lacerated. 8. Firearm wound of Ext. 0.5 cm x 0.5 x over right side of face. 3 cm. below right eye, margins everted, irregular. 9. Firearm wound of ext. 0.5 cm x0.5 cm. over right side of face 2 cm. from right ear on dissection connecting to injury no. 7. 10. Incised wound 8 cm. x 2 cm. x bone cut over chin 2 cm below right angle of mouth. Underlying bone found cut. Cause of death was found due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 21. over right side of face 2 cm. from right ear on dissection connecting to injury no. 7. 10. Incised wound 8 cm. x 2 cm. x bone cut over chin 2 cm below right angle of mouth. Underlying bone found cut. Cause of death was found due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 21. Following clothes and jewelleries, namely, (1) Shirt (2) Trouser (3) Vest (Baniyan) (4) Underwear (5) Towel (6) Janeu (7) Kalawa (8) White Ring (9) Ring (like copper) (10) blood stained soil and plain soil were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow for chemical examination. According to Forensic Science Laboratory, on items no. 1 to 5 human blood was found and on items no. 6, 7 and 10 disintegrated blood was found. After examination items no. 8 and 9 were returned. It proves that the incident took place where shown by the prosecution as the bloodstained clothes were found at the place of occurrence with blood stained soil. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is admitted by P.W.-1 that FIR was not lodged and Investigating Officer went to inquest the dead body of deceased Rajesh Pandey. Hence FIR was lodged ante-timed, but we find no force in this argument because it is admitted fact that written report was submitted in the police station while police went to do inquest proceedings of the dead body. The version of FIR came into knowledge of SHO as well as police of the police station. The purpose of lodging FIR is to inform the police about the incident. It may be in writing or oral. Hence on the basis of admission of P.W.-1, it cannot be said that FIR was lodged ante-timed or ante-dated because the FIR was in existence. 23. At this point, Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is also relevant and is quoted below:- "6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.--Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places." It is pertinent to mention here that acts done in part of same transaction in this incident are relevant facts. 24. 24. The F.I.R was lodged on 20.9.1999 at 2:45 P.M. and incident took place on 20.9.1999 at 8:30 A.M. Distance between place of incident and police station is 23 kilometres, hence F.I.R. was lodged timely. Learned counsel for the appellants on this point submitted that in the FIR distance of police station from the place of occurrence is shown 23 kms while in Ext.Ka-4 it has been shown as 16 kms., it shows that FIR was lodged ante-timed and it is good ground for acquittal of accused persons. We find no force in this argument because shown distance in inquest report is not based on measurement, it has been written approximately. It is also pertinent to mention here that at the time of preparation of inquest report it was not possible for the Investigating Officer to measure the distance between the police station and place of occurrence. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the inquest report, crime number, police station and sections have been properly mentioned. Injuries caused by 'banka' and firearm have also been mentioned. Further, It is also mentioned in the inquest report that SBBL gun of deceased was found in broken condition and that was also taken into custody. These facts show that death was caused by firearm and sharp-edged weapon. 25. From perusal of statements deposed before the Court, it appears that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are eye-witnesses and P.W.-2 is independent witness also. The presence of P.W.-1 is natural because he is father of deceased and deceased Rajesh Pandey was accompanying with him. Purpose of site plan is only to show the place of occurrence of offence. Moreover, absence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in the site plan is omission of Investigating Officer. It can not fatal prosecution case where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent as it was held by Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Hakam Singh (2005) 7 SCC 408 . 26. In the case of State of Karnataka vs. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715 it has been held that mere non-arrival of any neighbour to the scene or silence on the part of him would not reduce the credibility of evidence nor would justify to term reaction as unnatural. The presence of P.W.-1 is natural and he is natural witness. The presence of P.W.-1 is natural and he is natural witness. In the case of Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh & others, 2017 Crl.L.J. 291 (Supreme Court) it has been held by the Supreme Court that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. Hence, in this case evidence of P.W.-1(interested witness) cannot be disbelieved on the ground that he is father of the deceased. Submission of learned counsel on behalf of appellants that there are contradictions, has also no force. 27. Learned counsel on behalf of appellants submitted that there was no motive to kill deceased. This submission has no force. It was held in the State of U.P. vs. Nawab Singh, 2005 SCC (Criminal) 33 that motive is not a sine qua non for the commission of a crime. Moreover, it takes a back seat in a case of direct ocular account of the commission of the offence by a particular person. In a case of direct evidence the element of motive does not play such an important role as to cast any doubt on the credibility of prosecution witnesses even if there be any doubt raised in this regard. If the eye witnesses are trustworthy, the motive attributed for the commission of crime may not be of much relevance. Failure to prove motive or absence of evidence on the point of motive would not be fatal to prosecution case when other reliable evidence available on record unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused. Inspsite of that, motive mentioned in the FIR has been proved by P.W.-1 Chandan Lal as he has deposed that accused appellants bore suspicion that deceased Rajesh Pandey was giving information about them to the police. 28 In the case of Lallu Manjhi & Another vs. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR 2003 SC 854 , the Supreme Court has held as below:- "The Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. {See - Vadivelu Thevan etc. v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 }." 29. After analying judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Lallu Manjhi & Another vs. State of Jharkhand(supra) we find that the testimony of witnesses P.W.1 Chandan Lal and P.W.-2 Bankey Lal are "wholly reliable" and it is also corroborated by medical evidence as well as other documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. 30. From perusal of record, statements of witnesses and according to FIR, specific role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Prathavi while role of assault with 'banka' has been assigned to other accused. P.W.-1 Chandan Lal in his statement stated that Prathavi and Brahmadeen both were armed with countrymade pistols. Prathavi caught hold Rajesh Pandey and Brahmadeen shot fire at him. Bagees and Mewa assaulted Rajesh Pandey with 'banka' and Prathavi shot fire at him first. P.W.-2 Bankey Lal who is independent witness specifically stated that countrymade pistol was in the hand of Prathavi and Prathavi shot fire at Rajesh Pandey. Brahma, Bagees and Mewa assaulted deceased with 'banka'. According to FIR and statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, it has been constantly stated that co-accused Prathavi has shot fire at deceased. The name of Brahma causing injury with firearm was surfaced only on the statement of P.W.-1, father of deceased. This statement of P.W.-1 is improvement because it is neither in FIR nor in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Hence statement of P.W.-1 on the issue of involvement of Brahma in firing, cannot be relied upon as it has been held by Supremem Court in Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 422 . This statement of P.W.-1 is improvement because it is neither in FIR nor in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Hence statement of P.W.-1 on the issue of involvement of Brahma in firing, cannot be relied upon as it has been held by Supremem Court in Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 422 . It is also pertinent to mention here that this fact has not been explained by the prosecution that why this fact was not mentioned in the FIR and also not stated by P.W.-1 in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. There is no other reliable evidence on this point. Even this statement of P.W.-1 is not corroborated by P.W.-2 and any other evidence on record. So, it is very clear that firing was done by Prathavi only. From perusal of record, it transpires that main role about this incident surrounds against this accused appellant Prathavi, also on the basis of injuries received by the deceased and on the basis of act done by this accused for killing deceased. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that due to firearm injury caused by Prathavi on head, Rajesh Pandey died. Hence, offence under Section 302 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt against Prathavi only. 31. So far as other three accused namely, Verma @ Brahmadeen, Bagees and Mewa are concerned, according to FIR, role of having caused injuries to deceased with 'banka' was assigned to them. According to postmortem report as well as statement of P.W.-3, injuries no.7, 8 & 9 were caused by firearm and as stated above, these injuries were caused by Prathavi only. 32. Injuries no.1, 3, 4 and 10(four injuries) are incised wounds caused by sharp-edged weapon(banka). It is not clear from the statements of prosecution witnesses that who was the author of these injuries. General role has been assigned to accused appellants Brahmadeen, Bagees and Mewa to cause these injuries. Injury no. 10 is on chin, injury no.4 is on root of nose and injuries no. 1 & 3 are on head. Seeing the size and deepness, it is not clear whether these injuries were sufficient to cause death or there was intention of these three accused persons to kill the deceased. Injury no. 10 is on chin, injury no.4 is on root of nose and injuries no. 1 & 3 are on head. Seeing the size and deepness, it is not clear whether these injuries were sufficient to cause death or there was intention of these three accused persons to kill the deceased. Hence, on this point, according to role of accused and manner of assault, we find that it is doubtful whether offence under Section 302/34 IPC is made out against accused appellants Brahmadeen, Bagees and Mewa. 33. In a criminal case, every person is responsible for his own act. Hence the question is whether on the basis of Section 34 IPC these three accused appellants Brahmadeen, Bagees and Mewa would be liable to be held guilty under Section 302 IPC or not. Section 34 IPC is reproduced hereunder:- "Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." 34. Word used "common intention" under Section 34 IPC is very material and it can be decided on the basis of case to case facts. It is settled law that if common intention is proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, section 34 of the code will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability but if participation of the accused in the crime is proved and common intention is absent, Section 34 IPC cannot be invoked. In other words, it requires a pre-arranged plan and pre-supposes prior concert, therefore, there must be prior meeting of minds. It is also settled principle of law that burden lies on prosecution to prove that actual participation of more than one person for commission of criminal act was done in furtherance of common intention at a prior concert as it has been held in the case of Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura, AIR 2011 SC 3753 . In this case common intention is absent as discussed above. Hence they are entitled for benefit of doubt under Section 302 IPC. 35. In this case common intention is absent as discussed above. Hence they are entitled for benefit of doubt under Section 302 IPC. 35. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon Motilal and Another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 7 SCC 454 and submitted that there are several discrepancies in statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and other witnesses, hence accused are liable to be acquitted. This submission has no force as there is no material discrepancy which may affect the prosecution case. 36. It is also pertinent to mention here that according to postmortem report and statement of P.W.-3 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Singh, three injuries no. 2, 5 and 6 which are lacerated wounds, were caused by hard and blunt object. According to FIR, statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and other evidences produced by prosecution on record, no stick(lathi) or hard and blunt object was used by any of three accused. P.W.-3 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Singh in his statement stated that these injuries may be caused by using 'banka' from opposite side. If there was intention to kill the deceased by three accused namely Brahmadeen, Bagees and Mewa, they would have not caused injuries by using 'banka' from opposite side. It shows that there was no common intention of these three accused to kill the deceased. Inspite of holding sharp-edged weapon(banka), they used 'banka' from opposite side in assault keeping in mind that deceased Rajesh Pandey may not die. Hence we find that offence under Section 302/34 IPC is not made out against three accused appellants Brahmadeen, Bagees and Mewa. They are guilty of offence under Section 324 IPC. It is made clear that no charge under Section 324 IPC has been framed, but under Section 222 Cr.P.C. they may be convicted under Section 324 IPC. 37. No argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants against conviction and sentence under section 506(2) IPC. 38. For the foregoing discussions and in the backdrop of law laid down by Apex Court, we find that charges levelled against appellant Prathavi @ Prathvipal stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no infirmity and illegality in the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4.6.2004 in respect of accused appellant Prathavi @ Prathvipal. The conviction and sentence in respect of accused appellant Prathavi @ Prathvipal is affirmed. There is no infirmity and illegality in the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4.6.2004 in respect of accused appellant Prathavi @ Prathvipal. The conviction and sentence in respect of accused appellant Prathavi @ Prathvipal is affirmed. The criminal appeal No. 1565 of 2004 is dismissed in respect of appellant Prathavi @ Prathvipal. 39. So far as accused appellants Verma @ Brahmadeen and Bagees are concerned, they are acquitted under Section 302/34 IPC and their conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 are quashed. The appeal No. 1565 of 2004 against conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC in respect of appellants Verma @ Brahmadeen and Bagees, is allowed. They are held guilty of offence under Section 324 IPC. Hence they are convicted under section 324 IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupess one thousand) each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for additional one month. The conviction and sentence of accused appellants Verma @ Brahmadeen and Bagees under Section 506(2) IPC shall remain intact. All sentences shall run concurrently. Thus, Criminal Appeal No. 1565 of 2004 in respect of accused appellants Verma @ Brahmadeen and Bagees is partly allowed. 40. So far as accused appellant Mewa is concerned, he is acquitted under Section 302/34 IPC and his conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC are quashed. The appeal No. 251 of 2006 against conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC of appellant Mewa, is allowed. He is held guilty of offence under Section 324 IPC. Hence he is convicted under section 324 IPC and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for additional one month. The conviction and sentence of accused appellant Mewa under Section 506(2) IPC shall remain intact. All sentences shall run concurrently. Thus, Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2006 is partly allowed. 41. Trial Court is directed to ensure that if sentence awarded to accused appellants Verma @ Brahmadeen, Bagees and Mewa have already been served out, they shall be released forthwith. 42. Copy of this judgment be also supplied to the accused appellants through the concerned Superintendent of Jail. 43. A copy of this judgment be also kept in connected Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2006. 44. 42. Copy of this judgment be also supplied to the accused appellants through the concerned Superintendent of Jail. 43. A copy of this judgment be also kept in connected Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2006. 44. Copy of this judgment alongwith original record of Court below be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court within one month. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.