Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1700 (RAJ)

Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-10

SANGEET LODHA, VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar Mathur, J. This Cr. Appeal under sec. 374(2) CrPC has been filed against judgment dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.79/2012, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for offence under secs.304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced as under: Sec.498-A IPC: 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months' simple imprisonment Sec.304-B IPC: imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 06 months' simple imprisonment Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bhuvana Regar submitted a report Ex.P1 on 15.06.2012 at Police Station Shahpura and stated that he is resident of Kanechal Kalan. Her daughter Parvati was married to Mukesh Regar, resident of Tahnal Gate, Shahpura. Parvati used to go to her in-laws house for last one year. It was further stated that 5-7 days ago his daughter went from Kanechan Kalan to Shahpura by bus. It was also stated that he had no knowledge about the fact that there exists any dispute between Mukesh Regar and Parvati. Mukesh was working as labourer and his father has taken land on contract-farming (sijara) from Raghu Nandan Soni and they have been performing agriculture operations. 2. The in-laws informed him that Parvati has consumed some poisonous substance. He was not aware about the substance which she consumed. On 13.06.2012, Kamla wife of Ramswaroop Regar resident of Kanechan Kalan informed him about the fact that Parvati consumed poisonous substance. On this he along with other persons of the village went to Shahpura hospital. When they reached at Bhilwara hospital, they came to know that Parvati was referred to Ajmer from Bhilwara. There he & his wife along with father-in-law of Parvati, Mukesh Regar and Lal Chand have been attending her Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer for the treatment of Parvati. During the course of treatment, Parvati died and they have no suspicion about it. On this, an inquest case No.5/12 under sec.174 CrPC was registered. 3. During inquiry before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahpura, it was revealed that it was a case of dowry death and Parvati has died due to harassment & cruelty by the in-laws, husband Mukesh Regar, father-in-law Om Prakash and mother-in- law. On this report, FIR No.104/2012 was registered for offence under sec.304-B IPC. 4. 3. During inquiry before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahpura, it was revealed that it was a case of dowry death and Parvati has died due to harassment & cruelty by the in-laws, husband Mukesh Regar, father-in-law Om Prakash and mother-in- law. On this report, FIR No.104/2012 was registered for offence under sec.304-B IPC. 4. After investigation, Police filed challan against accusedappellant Mukesh for committing offence under secs.498-A and 304-B IPC. Charges were framed against the accused-appellant. The prosecution produced 17 witnesses and 23 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under sec.313 CrPC wherein the accused-appellant claimed that he is innocent. No witness was examined in defence. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court convicted the accused-appellant and sentenced as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.10.2015, the appellant has filed this appeal on various grounds. It was contended that the findings arrived at by the trial court are perverse and contrary to the material available on record and against law, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. It was also contended that there are various discrepancies and serious infirmities, which go to root of the case and render the entire prosecution case highly doubtful. There is no evidence to show that the deceased was ever subjected to maltreatment for demand of dowry nor is there any evidence to establish the allegation that cruelty was meted out to her soon before her death. 6. It was also contended that the ingredients essential to constitute offence under secs.498-A and 304-B IPC are missing in the evidence led by the prosecution and from the evidence placed on record, it can be inferred that a false case has been foisted against the appellant with ulterior motive. 7. It was contended that in the present case, the incident took place on 13.06.2012 at agriculture field of the accused-appellant, she was taken to the hospital by her in-laws, her parents were informed promptly and they also attended the hospital. Thereafter she was shifted to District hospital and then to a higher medical center. After her death, the complainant submitted an application (Ex.P1) to the SHO, Police Station Shahpura but no allegation of demand of dowry or any kind of cruelty was made therein. An inquest report was lodged under sec.174 CrPC and thereafter, the complainant materially improved his version, which creates doubt in truthfulness of his statement. After her death, the complainant submitted an application (Ex.P1) to the SHO, Police Station Shahpura but no allegation of demand of dowry or any kind of cruelty was made therein. An inquest report was lodged under sec.174 CrPC and thereafter, the complainant materially improved his version, which creates doubt in truthfulness of his statement. Having not considered this aspect of the matter, the trial court passed the impugned judgment, which deserves to be set aside. 8. It was also contended that there is no explanation for inordinate delay in lodging the FIR while presence of complainant and other near relatives of the deceased at the time of her death is very well established. Thus, possibility of concoction and false implication can not be ruled out. It was further contended that the witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and even near relatives of the deceased opposed the prosecution case. The impugned judgment is totally based on surmises and conjectures instead of sound legal prepositions and evidence. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the contentions put forth by the accused-appellant and contended that Parvati D/o complainant Bhuvana Regar was married 3 years before the incident with accused-appellant Mukesh Regar. Parvati started going to her in-laws' house before one year of the incident. The accused continued to behave with cruelty on account of demand of dowry and asked her for two bighas land and motorcycle from her father. Deceased Parvati went to her in-laws' house just 5-7 days before the incident. It was further submitted that complainant's daughter stayed with her father for about a month on account of demand of dowry by her husband with cruelty. Om Prakash, Father-in-law of the deceased, came to her parental house and then Bhuvana and his other brothers and Panchas assembled there and on assurance given to them by her father-in-law, she was sent to her in-laws' house. The accused continued to behave and treat her with cruelty after marriage on the ground of demand of dowry and on 13.06.2012, she was poisoned and due to consumption of poisonous substance she died. It was submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved all the charges beyond reasonable doubts. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the evidence placed on record. 10. It was submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved all the charges beyond reasonable doubts. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the evidence placed on record. 10. On 15.06.2012, PW13 Udai Lal Meena received a written report Ex.P1, which was signed by complainant Bhuvana, in which it was stated that his daughter Parvati Regar has consumed poisonous substance and on receiving this information, they reached to hospital. Mrs Parvati in the meanwhile was referred to Ajmer hospital. During treatment at Ajmer, Parvati died. Postmortem was conducted and proceedings under sec.174 CrPC were undertaken. Statement of Bhuvana was recorded on 20.06.2012, which is placed on record as Ex.P2. 11. In his cross-examination, PW13 stated that the father of deceased is Bhuvana and it is true that in Ex.P1 there is no allegation of beating his daughter on account of demand of dowry. In Ex.P1, no suspicion was expressed on death of Parvati and therefore, proceedings under sec.174 CrPC were undertaken. At the time of lodging written report Ex.P1, Bhuvana and Sohni were present and one Lal Chand Regar was also present. It is also true that in-laws' family was also present during treatment of Parvati. PW15 Dr Sumer Singh was examined, who was posted as Medical Jurist in JLN Hospital, Ajmer on 15.06.2012. This witness stated that as per FSL report Ex.P19, cause of death was presence of Organochloro insecticide and gave negative test for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates and tranquilizers. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that Organochloride insecticide is generally used for killing crop insects. Complainant Bhuvana was examined as PW1. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he is father of deceased Parvati. She was married to accused Mukesh s/o Om Prakash Regar two years before her death. Parvati started going to her in-laws' house just after marriage. He further stated that Mukesh had stated that she is short in height, so he will not keep her and if a motorcycle is given to him then he will keep her. Bhuvana further stated that he performed marriage of his daughter after selling 4 bighas land. He conferred with the accused, who assured that he will take proper care of her. Then Bhuvana send her to in-laws' house. Bhuvana further stated that he performed marriage of his daughter after selling 4 bighas land. He conferred with the accused, who assured that he will take proper care of her. Then Bhuvana send her to in-laws' house. He also stated that 2-4 days prior to her death, he had brought the deceased to his parental house but his daughter did not tell anything. He further stated that the accused used to say that if your father gives motorcycle and land in his name then he will keep her. His daughter was beaten whole night and in the morning, she consumed insecticide. He further stated that whether she herself consumed or she was forcibly given the insecticide he can not say but she died. 12. He further stated that on receiving this information, he along with Durga, Badri and Radhey Shyam went to Bhilwara and thereafter to Ajmer, she lived for one day and on the next day she died. He gave report to the SHO, report was signed by him and he do not know what was written. The villagers also gave report to the Magistrate. His statements were recorded by the Magistrate, which is Ex.P2. 13. In the cross-examination, he stated that it is true that money was paid for the treatment by the accused and in Ajmer, treatment expenses were borne by father of the accused. It is true that his daughter died during treatment. In Ajmer, report was written by Police after asking him, what was written he do not know. This witness further stated in the cross-examination that he did not see any injury marks on body of Parvati. He further stated that this fact of sale of 4 bighas land at the time of marriage was told to Police but why this fact was not written in Exhibits P1 and P2 he do not know. 14. Pw2 Sohni, mother of the deceased, in her examination-in-chief supported the statement of PW1. In the cross-examination, she stated that it is true that Parvati was brought from Shahpura to Bhilwara by her in-laws and also when she was taken from Bhilwara to Ajmer, Parvati's in-laws were there. She also accompanied her husband to Ajmer. Her husband was also not well and he was forced to sign report at Ajmer. In the cross-examination, she stated that it is true that Parvati was brought from Shahpura to Bhilwara by her in-laws and also when she was taken from Bhilwara to Ajmer, Parvati's in-laws were there. She also accompanied her husband to Ajmer. Her husband was also not well and he was forced to sign report at Ajmer. She further stated that at that time, she was not in conscious state and thus, was unaware of the things. 15. Pw3 Bhanwar Lal in his examination-in-chief stated that he has one field at Asind Road and nearby there is field of Raghu Nandan Soni and Om Prakash Regar has taken this field on contract. Two years ago, at about 9 O'clock in morning he was at the field. Om Prakash's wife called him to come to field of Raghu Nandanji. On this, he along with Mool Chand and Babloo reached at the field. People from neighbouring field also reached there. 16. There we saw that Parvati wife of Mukesh- son of Om Prakash was not feeling well. Upon asking, she told that she took water from 'matki' (earthen pot). Parvati herself told this fact. In this situation, she was taken to hospital and on third day, she died. 17. At the request of the prosecution, this witness was declared hostile. In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that deceased Parvati had no knowledge that insecticide was poured in water in the 'matki' (earthen pot). It is also true that Parvati and mother of Mukesh told that she consumed water from 'matki' (earthen pot). PW5 Badri Regar stated that Parvati was his cousin sister. 18. This witness was also declared hostile. In the cross-examination, he admitted that his sister used to meet him but she never talked about demand of motorcycle and land, she never told about harassment being caused. Whenever she comes to parental house, he used to ask about her welfare and she always told that she is well. He further stated that Parvati took the field on contract. At the time of incident, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law were not there and neighbours of the field took her to the hospital. On asking, Parvati told that medicine was sprinkled and she consumed its water by mistake. When Parvati was taken to Bhilwara, Shahpura and Ajmer; at that time his uncle and in-laws were there for treatment. At the time of incident, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law were not there and neighbours of the field took her to the hospital. On asking, Parvati told that medicine was sprinkled and she consumed its water by mistake. When Parvati was taken to Bhilwara, Shahpura and Ajmer; at that time his uncle and in-laws were there for treatment. He specifically stated that during engagement and marriage and after the marriage, in-laws of his sister never demanded dowry. 19. Pw6 Durga Lal was also declared hostile. In the cross-examination, he stated that he has not given statement Ex.P7 before Police. He further stated that it is wrong to say that to save Mukesh he is giving false statement. He disclosed that he is deceased Parvati's brother in distant relation. He further stated that he came to know that she consumed medicine, which is used for sprinkling in fields, considering it water. 20. Pw7 Radhey Shyam was also declared hostile. In the cross-examination, he stated that Parvati used to go to her in-laws' house for last one year. Whenever she comes to her parents house, she used to meet him because she was his sister. She never told about beating given by her husband or mother-in-law nor did she tell anything about beating on account of demand of dowry. She has not told anything about demand of motorcycle and two bighas land. He further stated that Parvati's in-laws were there for treatment up to Ajmer. This witness further stated that Parvati's husband and other in-laws were not there at the field. 21. When they reached in the field, father of Parvati and neighbours told that Parvati has consumed insecticide considering it as drinking water and she consumed insecticide by mistake. PW9 Simla was also declared hostile. In the cross-examination, she stated that her sister had not met her during 2-3 days or a month before her death. She heard about consumption of poisonous substance and on the basis of hear-say, she is making the statement. She never heard about cruelty and beating to her. She also heard that she consumed insecticide considering it as drinking water. 22. Pw10 Kamla was also declared hostile. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that parental house of Parvati is 4-5 houses away from her own house. She never heard about cruelty and beating to her. She also heard that she consumed insecticide considering it as drinking water. 22. Pw10 Kamla was also declared hostile. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that parental house of Parvati is 4-5 houses away from her own house. She used to meet her but she never told about harassment by the in-laws or demand of dowry or demand of motorcycle and land. PW11 Ram Pratap in his examination stated that he was posted as HDM Shahpura on 20.06.2012 and he performed proceedings under sec.174 CrPC. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he received report Ex.P1 along with Panchnama and Supardaginama and postmortem report, in which date of death was written as 15.06.2012. He further stated that he can not say that the fact of demand of dowry etc was written in the report. He further stated that the villagers came to him on 20.06.2012. He also stated that Bhuvana told him that Police got his signature on blank papers and what was written in the report, he does not know. He further stated that it is true that from 13.06.2012 to 15.06.2012, parents of deceased did not give any report before him. He also stated that he recorded statements of father, mother and sister of the deceased only and he has not recorded statements of any neighbour. He has not summoned neighbours of Parvati's parental house. He also stated that it is true that he never issued summons to neighbours of in-laws' house to enquire how was behaviour of in-laws with deceased Parvati. 23. It is true that Durga Lal, Badri Lal and Radhey Shyam went to Ajmer with Bhuvana- father of the deceased. He initiated proceedings on the basis of Ex.P14 and it is true that it does not bear the signature of father of the deceased. It is also true that he had not recorded statements of Ram Karan, Ramdhan, Ramswaroop, Badri Lal, Gopal and Durga Lal, who had given report Ex.P14. He also stated on his own that he recorded statements of father and mother of the deceased. Further, he stated that the report given by father and mother was not available on the record. He also stated that relations of six persons named in report Ex.P14 with the deceased was not known to him. He also stated on his own that he recorded statements of father and mother of the deceased. Further, he stated that the report given by father and mother was not available on the record. He also stated that relations of six persons named in report Ex.P14 with the deceased was not known to him. He also admitted that Ex.P14 report does not contain the fact of demand of motorcycle and land. He admitted that report Ex.p16 was prepared by him. He admitted that there is mention of inquest report No.5. After perusing of report Ex.P1, he stated that this is morgue No.5 and it is true that in this report, there is no mention of demand of dowry, demand of motorcycle and demand of land. Bhuvana told in his statement that Police persons had written the report in a room and they got his signature on plain paper. He did not summon any Police personnel. From perusal of statement of this witness, the conclusions of his report as given in Ex.P16 can not be relied on. 24. Pw13 Udai Lal was posted as ASI at Police Station, Shahpura on 15.06.2012. In his cross-examination, he stated that Bhuvana is father of the deceased, who lodged Ex.P1. He admitted that in Ex.P1, there is no mention of beating given to his daughter for demand of dowry nor of subjecting her to cruelty on account of dowry. On receipt of Ex.P1, he took steps for proceedings under sec.174 CrPC as there existed no suspicion about cause of death of Parvati. At the time of lodging report Ex.P1, Bhuvana & Sohni were present and one Lal Chand was also present. 25. Pw16 Panna Lal was posted as SHO Shahpura on 13.06.2012, who received information on telephone about consuming of poisonous substance by Parvati. On this information, he sent ASI Udai Lal to Bhilwara. On return, ASI Udai Lal informed that Parvati was unconscious and therefore, her statement could not be recorded. On 14.06.2012, Control Room informed that Parvati has been admitted at JLN Hospital, Ajmer then I.O. was sent there. On 15.06.2012 at about 4PM ASI Udai Lal gave report Ex.P1 received from Bhuvana. On that report, there was endorsement of inquest report No.5/12 under sec.174 CrPC and investigation was handed over to Udai Lal. After investigation, challan was filed. 26. On 14.06.2012, Control Room informed that Parvati has been admitted at JLN Hospital, Ajmer then I.O. was sent there. On 15.06.2012 at about 4PM ASI Udai Lal gave report Ex.P1 received from Bhuvana. On that report, there was endorsement of inquest report No.5/12 under sec.174 CrPC and investigation was handed over to Udai Lal. After investigation, challan was filed. 26. In the cross-examination, he stated that the proceedings under sec.174 CrPC was started because there was no mention of demand of dowry. He also admitted that in Ex.P1, father of the deceased stated that he had no doubt on in-laws over his daughter's death. It is true that in Ex.P1, father of the deceased never stated about any incident of beating or harassing due to demand of dowry before this incident. It is also true that after giving Ex.P1 no family members of the deceased was brought for giving statement about harassment by in-laws on account of demand of dowry. He admitted that there was no signature of Bhuvana on Ex.P14. He also admitted that persons who lodged Ex.P14, Ramkaran, Ramswaroop, Ramdhan, Badri, Durga Lal were not examined by him. He admitted that on the basis of Ex.P1, proceedings under sec.174 CrPC were started. 27. Pw17 Ram Singh also stated that there is no mention about demand of dowry, beating, demand of motorcycle etc. in Ex.P1. It is true that father of the deceased, her mother and sister did not give any written report about harassment by in-laws. During investigation, parents of the deceased and her sister gave statements of harassment by demand of motorcycle and two bigha land. He further stated that in the neighbours of parental house, there is no witness who stated that whenever Parvati comes to parental home, she ever stated about harassment on account of demand of dowry. 28. Pw16 Panna Lal, who was posted as SHO Shahpura, received information on telephone about consumption of poisonous substance by Parvati. On this information, he sent ASI Udai Lal to Bhilwara. Statement of Parvati could not be recorded as she was unconscious. On 14.06.2012, Control Room informed that Parvati has been admitted at JLN Hospital, Ajmer then I.O. was sent there. On 15.06.2012 at about 4:00PM Udai Lal gave report Ex.P1 received from Bhuvana. On that report, there was endorsement of inquest report No.5/12 under sec.174 CrPC and investigation was handed over to Udai Lal. On 14.06.2012, Control Room informed that Parvati has been admitted at JLN Hospital, Ajmer then I.O. was sent there. On 15.06.2012 at about 4:00PM Udai Lal gave report Ex.P1 received from Bhuvana. On that report, there was endorsement of inquest report No.5/12 under sec.174 CrPC and investigation was handed over to Udai Lal. After investigation, challan was filed. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that there was no mention of demand of dowry and there was no suspicion expressed by the father of the deceased on death of her daughter against the in-laws family. It is also admitted by the witness that in Ex.P1 father of the deceased never stated about any incident of beating or harassing of her daughter due to demand of dowry before this incident. He also stated that after giving Ex.P1 no family members of the deceased was brought or gave statement about harassment on account of demand of dowry. It was also admitted that there was no signature of Bhuvana on Ex.P14, which was a letter written to the SDM for conducting fair inquiry in the matter. The persons- Ramkaran, Ramswaroop, Ramdhan, Badri, Durga Lal; who signed Ex.P14 were not examined by the Investigation Officer. He admitted that on the basis of Ex.P1 proceedings under sec.174 CrPC started. 29. In order to prove dowry death, the prosecution has to establish that the victim died during seven years of the marriage and she was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death and such cruelty or harassment was for dowry. The expression "soon before her death" is not defined in either of the statutes (Indian Penal Code or the Indian Evidence Act), therefore, in each case, the court is to analyze the facts and circumstances leading to death of the victim and decide whether there is any proximate connection between demand of dowry, act of cruelty or harassment and the death {State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram, (2008) 12 SCC 51 } 30. Pw2 Sohni, mother of the deceased, in her statement disclosed that her husband was not well at Ajmer and he was forced to sign the report at Ajmer. PW3 Bhanwar Lal, who was declared hostile, in the cross-examination admitted that the deceased Parvati had no knowledge that insecticide was poured in the water. PW5 Badri, who is cousin brother of the deceased, was also declared hostile. PW3 Bhanwar Lal, who was declared hostile, in the cross-examination admitted that the deceased Parvati had no knowledge that insecticide was poured in the water. PW5 Badri, who is cousin brother of the deceased, was also declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he stated that Parvati never told him about demand of motorcycle and land. This witness further stated that whenever Parvati came to the parental home, he used to ask her about her well-being and she had always told that she is well and happy. He further stated that at the time of incident, Parvati's husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law were not at the field and neighbours took her to the hospital. Presence of husband of the deceased, her mother-in-law and father-in-law was not shown by any of the witnesses in the field where incident took place. 31. Pw6 Durga Lal, who was also declared hostile, in his cross-examination stated that he came to know that she consumed medicine, which being used for sprinkling in fields, considering it as normal water. PW7 Radhey Shyam was also declared hostile. In the cross-examination he stated that whenever Parvati comes to her parental home, she used to meet him because she was his cousin sister. She never told about beating on account of demand of dowry. She has not told anything about demand of motorcycle and 02 bighas land. He further stated that Parvati's in-laws were there for treatment up to Ajmer. This witness further stated that Parvati's husband and other in-laws were not there in the field. PW9 Simla was also declared hostile. In her cross-examination, she stated that she never heard about cruelty and beating given to deceased Parvati. She further stated that she also heard that Parvati consumed insecticide considering it as drinking water. PW10 Kamla, who was also declared hostile, in her cross-examination stated that the parental house of Parvati is 4-5 houses away from her own house. Parvati used to meet her but she never told about harassment by the in-laws on account of demand of dowry or demand of motorcycle and land. 32. There is no such evidence from which it can be inferred that deceased Parvati was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. There is no evidence about presence of husband, mother-in-law or father-in-law in the field at the time when deceased Parvati consumed the poisonous substance. 32. There is no such evidence from which it can be inferred that deceased Parvati was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. There is no evidence about presence of husband, mother-in-law or father-in-law in the field at the time when deceased Parvati consumed the poisonous substance. There is no evidence from which it can be inferred that the poisonous substance consumed by the deceased was administered by any of relatives of husband or by the husband himself. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that soon before her death Parvati was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband, his parents or by any relative of husband, for or in connection with demand of dowry. 33. The statement of PW1 Bhuvana before the court wherein he stated about harassment and cruelty on account of demand of dowry by the accused-appellant can not be relied on because it is admitted position that Bhuvana has not stated about harassment, cruelty or demand of dowry in the report Ex.P1. It is also admitted fact that no suspicion was expressed on the death of Parvati and therefore, the endorsement of inquest report was made. There existed no signature of PW1 Bhuvana on Ex.P14. Further, the persons who signed Ex.P14 were not examined. The report Ex.P14 also does not contain any fact about demand of motorcycle and two bighas land by the accused-appellant. PW2 Sohni, mother of the deceased, specifically stated that her husband was forced to sign report at Ajmer. 34. In view of this, the evidence placed on record are not conclusive and the chain of evidence forms a reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused-appellant. 35. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of punishment dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.79/2012 is set aside and appellant Mukesh s/o Om Prakash Regar is acquitted of the charge levelled against him in this case. He be released from the imprisonment immediately, if not required in any other case. 36. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of sec.437-A CrPC, the appellants Mukesh s/o Om Prakash Regar is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. He be released from the imprisonment immediately, if not required in any other case. 36. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of sec.437-A CrPC, the appellants Mukesh s/o Om Prakash Regar is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.