Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 80 (RAJ)

Khuda Bux v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-05

GOPAL KRISHAN, MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2018
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. In this cr. appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant Khuda Bux is assailing the validity of the judgment dated 15.10.1992 whereby the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh convicted the accused appellant Khuda Bux in Sessions Case No. 14/1990 for offence under Section 302 IPC and passed the sentence for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- and acquitted five other accused persons against whom charge-sheet was filed along with the accused appellant Khuda Bux for offence under Section 302/149, 148, 447, 448 IPC. It is also very important fact that the accused appellant Khuda Bux though convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC but acquitted from the charges under Sections 148, 447, 448 and 302/147 IPC. 2. As per facts of the case on 6.12.1989 at about 11.30 am the complainant Sadar Ali (PW-1) submitted a written report at Police Station Pilibanga alleging therein that his 22 bighas of land is situated at Chak 2LMB in the village Badopal for which dispute is going on in between him and the complainant party. According to the complainant Dhani was made by the complainant party, but possession of the Dani was taken forcibly by the accused appellant Khuda Bux, two months back along with land. Yesterday from 11'O Clock to 5'O Clock in the morning there was turn of water supply for irrigation, therefore, I and my brother Aliser, mother Keena, sister Kalla, Guljara and lassen, brother-in-law Gulam Mohd. and Hanif and Ajmer Singh son of Sh. Darbara Singh went to our agricultural field for the purpose of irrigation in the field. In between 4 to 5'O Clock in the morning when we were going to the chack near the Dhani, accused appellant Khuda Bux and his brother-in-law Kalu Khan were standing in the floor of Dhani and other persons were inside the Dhani. Accused appellant Khuda Bux was having 12 bore gun and Kalu Khan was having Lathi in his hand. Upon seeking us, accused appellant Khuda Bux called them and gave threat that I will give you a taste for entering in the field. On hearing the voice of Khuda Bux, the complainant put torch light upon them, all of sudden, Khuda Bux fired from his gun, which hit my mother Keena and she fell down and died on spot. Upon seeking us, accused appellant Khuda Bux called them and gave threat that I will give you a taste for entering in the field. On hearing the voice of Khuda Bux, the complainant put torch light upon them, all of sudden, Khuda Bux fired from his gun, which hit my mother Keena and she fell down and died on spot. According to the complainant, voice of some persons came from roof of Dhani. The said voice was of Ghammi Khan who was asking Khuda Bux, you have done very good job, now we tackle the situation. Then again, the complaint put torch light towards the roof and saw Ghammi Khan having a 12 bore gun in his hand and other persons Harbhaj Ram was having double berrerm gun, Khusi Ram Kotwal was having 12 bore gun and his son Ghurnam was having to pidar gun in their hands. According to complainant, Ghummi Khan fired from the roof which hit to Ajmer Singh and after that some more fires were made from the side of roof by other accused persons. It is also stated in the complaint that Ajmer Singh fell down and died on spot as a result of gun shot injury. Ajmer Singh was also having 12 bore licensed gun with him, which was taken by Ghummi Khan to the roof after the death of Ajmer Singh. The allegation of the complainant is that accused persons committed murder of my mother Keena and Ajmer Singh from their guns and gave explanation for delay in submitting report that I was not having any means to reach police station for giving report. 3. Upon aforesaid complaint (Ex. P/1) formal FIR no. 201 (Ex. P/2) was registered at Police Station Pillibanga, District Sri Ganganagar on 6.12.1989. After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced. The post mortem of both the dead bodies were conducted and the post mortem reports of Ajmer Singh and Smt. Keena (Ex. P/36 and Ex. P/37 respectively) were obtained by the investigating officer. The dead bodies were handed over to the relatives for cremation. After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced. The post mortem of both the dead bodies were conducted and the post mortem reports of Ajmer Singh and Smt. Keena (Ex. P/36 and Ex. P/37 respectively) were obtained by the investigating officer. The dead bodies were handed over to the relatives for cremation. The usual investigation was conducted on spot and after arresting six accused persons, recoveries of gun were made as per information given by the accused appellants five guns of 12 bore and 315 bore were recovered from the accused persons and on completion of entire investigation, charge-sheet was filed against six persons by the SHO Police Station, Pillibanga in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, and thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh for trial. 4. In the trial, after providing an opportunity of hearing, charge under Section 302,447, 448, 147, 148 and 149 IPC were framed against all the six accused persons. After framing charge, an opportunity was given to the prosecution to lead evidence, in the trial statements of 16 prosecution witnesses were recorded in support of prosecution case, thereafter, the learned trial court proceeded to record statements of all the six accused persons including present accused appellant Khuda Bux under Section 313 Cr. P.C. All the accused persons denied the allegation of prosecution witnesses and said that it is a case of false implication, they are innocent. No evidence was produce in the defence. 4. The learned trial court after recording evidence heard final arguments and acquitted five accused persons Ghummi Khan, Kalu Khan, Khushi Khan, Gurra Ram and Harbhajram from the charges leveled against them and convicted the accused appellant Khuda Bux only for the offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 15.10.1992 in Sessions Case No. 14/1990. 5. Against the acquittal of five accused persons no appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan and no revision petition was filed by the complainant. 6. In this appeal, the accused appellant Khuda Bux has challenged the judgment impugned dated 15.10.1992 on various grounds. 7. 5. Against the acquittal of five accused persons no appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan and no revision petition was filed by the complainant. 6. In this appeal, the accused appellant Khuda Bux has challenged the judgment impugned dated 15.10.1992 on various grounds. 7. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that entire prosecution case is based on false and created evidence by the complainant party, therefore, learned trial court disbelieved the prosecution story and acquitted five accused persons, but erroneously held accused appellant Khuda Bux guilty in spite of the fact that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused appellant Khuda Bux. The learned Senior Advocate Sh. HSS Kharliya assisted by Mr. Dinesh Lol argued that bare perusal of written complaint submitted by the complainant PW-1 Sadar Ali speaks loudly that complaint is based upon unnatural and concocted story of the complainant party because as per the facts incident took place in between 4-5'O Clock in the morning and at that time, there was no light and information was given to the police at 11.30 am in spite of the fact that the distance of police station and place of occurrence is not far. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution case there was water turn of the complainant party in the field in question, therefore, they went on spot, but this fact is totally false because in the FIR itself it is stated by the complainant party that possession was forcibly taken by the accused appellant Khuda Bux two months back and if it is so, then how the fact disclosed in the statements of complainant party is true that due to water supply turn, they went on spot to manage irrigation. The learned trial court gave finding that the accused appellant Khuda Bux was in possession of the land in question, then obviously there was no occasion for the complainant party to go upon the land for water supply as per the turn. 8. Learned Senior Advocate vehemently argued that a false story was fabricated by the prosecution so as to involve all the family members of the appellant Khuda Bux in the alleged crime of murder. It is also argued that no independent witness of recovery or arrest is examined by the prosecution. 8. Learned Senior Advocate vehemently argued that a false story was fabricated by the prosecution so as to involve all the family members of the appellant Khuda Bux in the alleged crime of murder. It is also argued that no independent witness of recovery or arrest is examined by the prosecution. The entire prosecution case is based upon the testimony of interested witnesses, because as a matter of fact PW-1 Sabar Ali is son of deceased Keena, PW-2 Ali Sher is also son of Keena, PW-3 Hanif Khan is son-in-law of deceased Keena, PW-4 Gulam Mohd is also son-in-law of Keena, PW-5 Lal Sen is daughter of deceased Keena and PW-6 Dalbara Singh is father of deceased Ajmer Singh. No other independent witness of recovery or arrest is produced in the trial. 9. It is also argued that as per prosecution case recoveries of weapon gun was made from almost all the accused persons except Harbhaj and Khushi Ram and during trial, all the witnesses from PW-1 to PW-5 did not disclose the name of accused persons Ghummi Khan and Harbhaj so also PW-2 to PW-5 turned hostile. They were confronted to their police statements Ex. P/3 to P/10 in which they assigned specific role of accused Ghummi Khan and Harbhaj. Meaning thereby it is a case in which all the family members of the deceased are the witnesses but as per their statements in the court during trial, none of them come out with truth, therefore, the learned trial court acquitted five accused persons from the charges, but convicted the accused appellant Khuda Bux erroneously, as such, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per statement of PW-1 to PW-5, accused appellant Khuda Bux fired on Keena when he was standing on the floor of Dhani and rest of the accused persons fired from top of the roof but in the post mortem report both the deceased persons Keena and Ajmer Singh sustained injuries were in oval shape and as per the statement of pw-15 Dr. Bhupendra Singh Saini the cause of death of Keena was oval injury and such injury can be caused upon fire from height. Bhupendra Singh Saini the cause of death of Keena was oval injury and such injury can be caused upon fire from height. Meaning thereby, the prosecution has concocted false story so as to involve all accused persons in the alleged crime, but ultimately, the learned trial court acquitted five accused persons but convicted accused appellant Khuda Bux only on the ground that he was in possession of the land where occurrence took place. 11. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that there is no doubt that occurrence took place in the dark night and prosecution witnesses saw the accused persons in the light of torch but this fact cannot be accepted because in the dark night how it was possible for the witnesses to identify the accused in the light of torch. For the said purpose, learned counsel for the accused appellant invited our attention that no torch has been recovered and produced in evidence, therefore, whole prosecution case is false. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention towards the judgment in the case of Kapildeo Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2008 SC 533 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that evidence of identification on the basis of torn light in the dark night cannot be relied upon. 12. With regard to the possession of the land, it is submitted that as per the FIR itself accused appellant Khuda Bux was in possession and if he was in possession then why complainant party went to the agricultural field in the night along with Ajmer Singh who was habitual offender and the gun of Ajmer Singh was recovered by the police. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per findings of learned trial court in para no. 20 of the judgment, occurrence took place upon the land which was in possession of the accused appellant Khuda Bux, therefore, acquitted the accused appellant from the charge under Section 447 and 448 IPC and further held that there was no question for complainant party to go in the dark night upon the land in question in the shape of unlawful assembly with the history sheeter Ajmer Singh with his licensed gun and am munitions. 13. 13. Learned Senior Advocate vehemently argued that the finding given by the learned trial court loudly speaks that occurrence took place in the agricultural field of accused appellant Khuda Bux but it has not been proved that deceased Keena died from the gun shot injury caused by accused appellant Khuda Bux because as per the statement of prosecution witnesses Khuda Bux was standing on the floor of Dhani whereas the injury which is said to be found upon the body of deceased Smt. Keena was in oval shape which can be caused from top of roof. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is a case in which prosecution has completely failed to establish that accused party was aggressor, more so, as per finding given by the learned trial court in para no. 20 of the judgment, the occurrence took place in the land which was in the possession of the accused appellant Khuda Bux, therefore, acquitted the accused party from the charge under Section 447 and 448 IPC. 14. With regard to the plea of prosecution that due to water turn, complainant party went on spot, it is submitted that this fact is not established because PW-13 Ziladar Malkiyat Singh appeared as prosecution witness in the court and said that water turn of the land in question on 5.12.1989 was from 12.27 pm to 10.45 pm. The aforesaid statement is corroborated by the document Barabandi of Chak 2LBM (Ex. P/34 and P/35). The learned trial court in para no. 27 of the judgment specifically observed about the aforesaid fact. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that it is a case in which the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of all the accused persons but somehow on the basis of major contradiction acquitted the five accused persons but erroneously convicted the accused appellant Khuda Bux for the alleged incident without any evidence. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that there is clear finding in the judgment that land in question was in possession of the accused party and it has not been proved by reliable evidence by the prosecution why the complainant party went upon the land of accused appellant Khuda Bux in the dark night. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that there is clear finding in the judgment that land in question was in possession of the accused party and it has not been proved by reliable evidence by the prosecution why the complainant party went upon the land of accused appellant Khuda Bux in the dark night. The learned trial court held that complainant party went upon the land which was in possession of the accused appellant Kuda Bux so also gave clear cut finding that it is not a case of trace pass in the night by the accused party because they were already in possession of the land and Dhani in question. The complainant party went on spot along with one history-sheeter Ajmer Singh who was having gun in his hand, therefore, even if it is accepted that there was right of private defence in favour of the accused party when no injuries were found upon the body of any member of the accused party therefore, held the accused appellant Khuda Bux guilty and acquitted all other accused persons from the charge leveled against them. Although an argument was raised on behalf of the accused party that it may b a case of exceeding right of private defence, therefore, it does not fall under Section 302 IPC but the learned trial court erroneously discarded the said argument without proper consideration. Therefore, even if this court comes to the conclusion that incident took place in the land which was in possession of the accused appellant, then also, the accused appellant Khuda Bux is entitled for benefit of right of private defence and also entitled for acquittal in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that benefit of right of private defence may be granted and accused appellant may be acquitted from the charge under Section 302 IPC. 16. Per contra, learned public prosecution vehemently argued that it is a case in which after due discussion of evidence, the accused appellant Khuda Bux held guilty by the learned trial court for offence under Section 302 IPC because two persons died in the incident which took place in the mid night upon the disputed land in between 5.12.1989 to 6.12.1989. Per contra, learned public prosecution vehemently argued that it is a case in which after due discussion of evidence, the accused appellant Khuda Bux held guilty by the learned trial court for offence under Section 302 IPC because two persons died in the incident which took place in the mid night upon the disputed land in between 5.12.1989 to 6.12.1989. It is true that learned trial court acquitted five accused persons from the charges leveled against them but accepted the fact that the land in question was in possession of accused appellant Khuda Bux, therefore, the learned trial court held that deceased Smt. Keena died due to gun shot injury inflicted upon her by accused appellant Khuda Bux. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that as per evidence, four accused persons were having gun and deadly weapon and land dispute was going on between the party and in quarrel two persons died. It is also pointed out that main dispute was in between the complainant party and the accused appellant Khuda Bux, therefore, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the learned trial court so as to hold accused appellant Khuda Bux guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, it is prayed that this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following facts are not in dispute: A. Admittedly, the land in question was in possession of accused appellant Khuda Bux. B. As per evidence, there was no question of water supply turn at the time of occurrence because land in question was in possession of accused appellant Khuda Bux. Therefore, the plea taken by the complainant party for their presence on spot for the reason that there was water turn is not accepted by the learned trial court. C. Admittedly, the learned trial court gave finding that number of persons of complainant party went on spot in the dark night having torch in their hands and out of the members of the complainant party, Ajmer Singh was habitual offender having gun for which he was having license but said gun was recovered as per the information given by the accused Ghummi Khan who has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. D. Admittedly, as per the prosecution case, it was dark night and in the light of torch the incident was seen by the eye witnesses and all the eye witnesses belongs to one family. E. The learned trial court gave finding that even though the plea of right of private defence is accepted then also it cannot be said that there was any right left with the accused party to cause death of the deceased so as to save their life and possession. 18. Upon assessment of entire evidence on record, we are of the firm opinion that as per the prosecution case, incident took place in between 4-5'O Clock in the dark night on 6.12.1989 and admittedly there was no light at the place where incident took place. In the written complaint it is stated by the complainant that they went on spot for the purpose of managing the water supply in the agricultural land in question, but as per admitted position, the occurrence took place upon the land, which was in possession of the accused appellant Khuda Bux. We have perused the site plans(Ex. P/44 and P/44A) in which it is specifically mentioned that upon the wall of Dhani there were number of mark of gunshot and the said Dhani belongs to accused appellant Khuda Bux. Meaning thereby, it is obvious that complainant party went on spot to take possession of the land in question and made fire upon the wall to create fear, therefore, obviously it cannot be said that accused party was aggressor. The learned trial court gave finding that accused appellant Khuda Bux was having possession over the land in question and of complainant party went there in the night along with habitual offender Ajmer Singh and in the dark night they were having torch and as per prosecution witnesses in the light of torch they saw accused appellant Khuda Bux to fire upon Smt. Keena, but in the post mortem report of Smt. Keena the injury which is said to be caused upon her body could have been caused by the fire from upside not from the floor where accused appellant Khuda Bux was standing. It is true that place of incident is agricultural field of accused appellant Khuda Bux and this fact has not been disputed by the complainant party also but the reason disclosed by them to go on spot for their water supply turn has not been proved by the prosecution. PW-13 Ziladar Malkiyat Singh categorically said that there was no water turn at the relevant point of time. Even if it is accepted that they went for water supply then question arose if accused appellant Khuda Bux was in possession of the land in question, then there was no question for the complainant party to went on spot for irrigation and manage water supply because they were not owner of the land in question nor they were in possession of accused appellant Khuda Bux then how it can be said that there was reason for complainant party to went on spot to perform the work of irrigation. 19. Now, we are dealing with the plea whether prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused appellant for causing injury to the deceased Smt. Keena. For the said purpose, it is worthwhile to observe that as per finding of the learned trial court the land in question was in possession of the accused party and accused appellant Khuda Bux. As per FSL report, all the guns, which were recovered were serviceable, the cartridges were also recovered from the place of occurrence, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that occurrence took place in dark night and admittedly, the complainant party was aggressor because complainant party is accepting that they went on land due to turn of water supply in the mid night in between 4-5 AM. In our view, when there is finding of the learned trial court that land in question was in possession of the accused appellant Khuda Bux and his family, then how plea of the complainant party can be accepted that they went upon the land for the purpose of irrigating crop because on the date of occurrence there was turn of water supply. It emerges from the evidence that in the dark night it was not possible for the parties to focus each other, so also, the allegation of witnesses of prosecution that in the torch light the identified the accused appellant Khuda Bux. It emerges from the evidence that in the dark night it was not possible for the parties to focus each other, so also, the allegation of witnesses of prosecution that in the torch light the identified the accused appellant Khuda Bux. It is true that witnesses stated in their statements that in the light of torch they saw accused appellant Khuda Bux to inflict gun shot injury to the deceased Smt. Keena but no such torch has either been recovered by the investigating agency or produced in the court so as to prove the fact about identification of the accused appellant Khuda Bux. 20. Upon assessment of evidence, we are unable to accept the allegation of the witnesses of the prosecution that injury caused to the deceased Smt. Keena was inflicted by the accused appellant Khuda Bux because in the dark night, being owner of the land in question he was having right of private defence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kapildev Mandal (supra) gave finding in para no. 9 of the judgment that in absence of any evidence of recovery of torch, the plea of identification of accused in the light of torch cannot be accepted. The following adjudication is made in the case of Kapildev Mandal (supra), which reads as under: "9. In the present case, we find from the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution as already noticed that the witnesses are related and their relations were strained with the appellants on account of the litigation. The incident happened at 11.00 o'clock in the night. The witnesses have stated that they have seen the incident and recognised the appellants either in the torch-light or in the lantern light which was burning at their house. It has come in evidence of the witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer that neither the torch or the lantern was seized by the I.O. during the course of investigation nor was it produced before the court. In the circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the appellants have been identified in the torch-light or in the lantern-light. It has come in evidence of the witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer that neither the torch or the lantern was seized by the I.O. during the course of investigation nor was it produced before the court. In the circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the appellants have been identified in the torch-light or in the lantern-light. One of the witnesses Jiten Rabidas (PW-2), who is related to the deceased and reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident of dacoity, said that when he made enquiries from Ramanand Mandal (PW- 9), who lodged the FIR, his brother, and other female members, they specifically told him that they did not identify the persons who had committed the dacoity in the house. Family members told that after committing dacoity, they fled away. PW-7 Bimla Devi, wife of Ramanand Mandal, has stated that the persons who had committed dacoity at their residence had tied gamochha on their faces. All the eye-witnesses have categorically stated that guns and country-made pistols were used by the accused-appellants in commission of the crime. Shreedhar Choubey (CW-2), who was Investigating Officer, has deposed that he did not find any empty cartridge, burnt cotton, burnt paper, pellets inside the house or in the outer verandah and so long he was investigating the case, no bullets or pallets were received at the police station from the hospital. Therefore, it is clear that he has not seized any pallets, cartridges or bullets from the place of incident. There is no evidence on record that either the gun or the country-made pistols were recovered from the accused-appellants by the I.O. The statement of Dr. A.K. Choudhury (CW-1) indicates that the doctor did not find any pellet or cartridge from the body of the deceased in post-mortem. That apart, it is the case of the prosecution that Ramanand Mandal (PW-9) received injury on the head. He was examined by the doctor but no medical evidence was produced by the prosecution to prove the injury on the person of PW-9." 21. That apart, it is the case of the prosecution that Ramanand Mandal (PW-9) received injury on the head. He was examined by the doctor but no medical evidence was produced by the prosecution to prove the injury on the person of PW-9." 21. The aforesaid judgment gives light that prosecution has failed to establish the allegation against accused appellant, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that gun which is recovered at the instance of the accused appellant and other accused persons were found to be serviceable as per FSL report, but it is not established by the prosecution that accused appellant Khua Bux is intentionally inflicted gun shot injury to the deceased Smt. Keena. 22. Upon assessment of entire evidence, we are of the opinion that there was right of private defence because complainant party illegally entered in the land in question, upon that the accused appellant Khuda Bux and his family members were having possession. Admittedly, the complainant party went on spot in between 4-5 am in dark night along with habitual offender Arjun Singh and due to free fight occurrence took place and in said incident gun shot were made by both the parties which is evident from the site plan and due to gun shot by both the parties injury was received by Smt. Keena at the place of occurrence, which resulted into death, but it cannot be said that there was any intention or the accused appellant Khuda Bux for causing such injury. As per assessment of evidence the gun shot injuries were made by both the parties in dark night, therefore, the deceased Smt. Keena died on spot due to gun shot injury. 23. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that finding of conviction for offence under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable in law and this case false under the category of offence under Section 304 Part II IPC against the accused appellant Khuda Bux. 24. In view of the above discussion, the instant Cr. appeal is hereby partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 15.10.1992 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 14/1990, convicting and sentencing the accused appellant Khuda Bux for offence under Section 302 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside and altered to the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. appeal is hereby partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 15.10.1992 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 14/1990, convicting and sentencing the accused appellant Khuda Bux for offence under Section 302 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside and altered to the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. The accused appellant Khuda Bux remained in custody from 8.12.1989 to the date of judgment i.e., dated 15.10.1992. Thereafter, his application for suspension of sentence was accepted by this Court on 5.2.1993 and he was released on 9.2.1993. Therefore, the sentence of life imprisonment imposed against the accused appellant Khuda Bux is hereby reduced to already undergone. However, the fine of Rs. 100/- is hereby enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- and further it is ordered that the said amount shall be deposited by the accused appellant Khuda Bux in the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh within two months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order, failing which, he shall further undergo one year imprisonment. Upon depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000/- the same be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased.