JUDGMENT : Sadhana S Jadhav, J. The appellants herein are convicted by the District Judge-7 & Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik vide Judgment and Order dated 13/4/2017 in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2014. The appellant-Paul Joseph Shirole is convicted for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- I.d. to suffer S.I. for one month. He is further convicted for the offence punishable under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- I.d. to suffer S.I. for one months. The appellant-Suman Genu Randive is convicted for the offence punishable under section 374 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 8 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- I.d. to suffer S.I. for one month. The appellant-Ujwala Sitaram Nagrik is convicted for the offence punishable under section 374 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 8 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- I.d. to suffer S.I. for one month. 2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows : (i) P.W.1 Ms. X happens to be the victim in the present case. According to her, her date of birth is 14/7/1998. She was original resident of village Shindad, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon and she was admitted in Manorama Sadan at Manmad by her father when she was studying in 1st standard. In fact, she was admitted in the said hostel by a lady advocate. She was attending Swami Vivekanand School at Manmad. (ii) That accused No. 2 Suman Randive was the superintendent of the said hostel. Accused No. 3 happens to be a friend of the original accused No. 2. That she is not in any way concerned with Manorama Sadan. In fact, Manorama Sadan is run by Child Welfare Committee, Nashik and Christian Medical and Education Fellowship Trust. The trust also runs Bible Fellowship Center as an administrator, original accused No. 4 Shelar was working as an accountant. (iii) It is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 1 was residing with original accused No. 3 and her nephew namely Rohit, who is not examined. (iv) According to the prosecution, on 31/3/2014 victim P.W. 1 had called her cousin Mr. (iii) It is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 1 was residing with original accused No. 3 and her nephew namely Rohit, who is not examined. (iv) According to the prosecution, on 31/3/2014 victim P.W. 1 had called her cousin Mr. Bhavesh on the cell phone of the watchman of Ushakiran Society, where she was residing in the house of accused No. 3. She had informed her cousin that she is being harassed by accused No. 3. That she is assaulted by her and she is fed up of staying with her. (v) On 1st April, 2014 instead of Bhavesh, her another cousin namely, P.W. 3 Pallavi. The victim had informed her cousin that she was assaulted by means of chair. She was weeping. P.W. 3 Pallavi had then informed the other relatives about the ill-treatment meted out to the victim at the hands of accused No. 3. The issue was discussed between P.W. 3 and other relatives and thereafter, they had approached Gangapur Police Station. They had informed the police that the victim has been confined in the house of accused No. 3. 3. The facts as revealed in the course of trial are as follows : (i) FIR Exh. 12 was lodged on 2nd April, 2014 at about 10 p.m. The victim was called to the police station on 2nd April, 2014 at about 14 hours i.e. 2 p.m. She was in the custody of the police till 1.30 a.m. of 3rd April, 2014. Thereafter, she was sent for medical examination to Civil Hospital, Nashik. She was examined by the Doctor. Medical case papers are at Exh. 161. The notes in the medical case papers would show that the victim was brought by PSI Mrs. Jadhav of Gangapur Police station to be examined as a rape victim. The history of the victim is not recorded. In the case papers of 3/4/2014, it is mentioned in the coloumn of clinical notes as follows : History of sexual assault by known person twice. It is also noted that there was no fresh injuries. Hymen was not in tact. However, it was not possible to admit two fingers. (ii) The statement of the victim was recorded by P.W. 17 on 3rd April, 2014 after her clinical examination. It is also noted that there was no fresh injuries. Hymen was not in tact. However, it was not possible to admit two fingers. (ii) The statement of the victim was recorded by P.W. 17 on 3rd April, 2014 after her clinical examination. It is pertinent to note that the victim was present in the police station when the complaint of P.W. 3 was recorded on 2nd April, 2014 at about 10 p.m. There is no material to indicate that as to why the victim was summoned to the police station at about 2 O'Clock in the afternoon. (iii) On 9th April, 2014 statement of the victim was recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the said statement which was recorded on oath. The victim had disclosed that in the month of December, 2013, children of the neighbour had been to the house of Ujwala for watching T.V., at that time original accused No. 1 had been to the house of Accused No. 3. That Accused No. 3 was not present in the house at that time. That she was not feeling well on that day and therefore, accused No. 1 had offered to purchase medicine for her. She had declined the said offer. Thereafter, he had sexually assaulted her. He had brought eatables for her and also asked her to take the medicine. That soon thereafter, accused No. 1 had also performed unnatural sex with her on the same day. (iv) It is further stated that on the next day, at about 7.30 p.m. she was washing clothes in the house of Ujwala. He had again come to the said house and had once again sexually assaulted her and thereafter, threatened her of dire consequences, in case she disclosed about the said incident to anybody. She had informed accused No. 3 about the said sexual assault. However, accused No. 3 had ignored the same. It is specifically stated that one day when accused No. 3 had been to attend a wedding, the victim had taken the dog of accused No. 3 for a stroll in the compound and at that time, she had informed the watchman that she desires to call upon her cousin Bhavesh. The watchman had connected her to her cousin. It is specifically stated that one day when accused No. 3 had been to attend a wedding, the victim had taken the dog of accused No. 3 for a stroll in the compound and at that time, she had informed the watchman that she desires to call upon her cousin Bhavesh. The watchman had connected her to her cousin. Accused No. 3 had learnt about the said complaint and therefore, she took the victim back to the house and assaulted her brutally with kitchen equipment. (v) It is also stated that Accused No. 3 had sent the victim to the house of Accused No. 1 for one month to work as housemaid and she was directed to perform all the domestic chores done by wife of accused No. 1. On 31st March, 2014 she was directed by the accused No. 3 to perform certain kitchen work and at that time, the victim had left cooking gas on and therefore, she was assaulted with chair by accused No. 3. The assault was continued by gagging mouth of the victim. Thereafter, the accused No. 3 had attempted to drive her out by throwing away her belongings and therefore, the victim was constrained to call upon her cousin to complain about harassment meted out to her at the hands of accused No. 3. She has therefore, disclosed to the Magistrate that when Pallavi came to her, she could disclose to Pallavi about the assault made upon her by Ujwala Madam. (vi) That according to her, on the same day she had gone to the police station along with Pallavi. The investigation was set in motion. Accused No. 1 was arrested on 19th May, 2014 whereas accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 were arrested on 3rd April, 2014 and accused No. 4 was arrested on 9th April, 2014. It appears from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that thereafter, the prosecution case had proceeded on different footing and more particularly, against accused No. 1, as there were serious charges against him. (vii) The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. 4. The case would rest upon the evidence of P.W. 1 Ms. X i.e. victim, P.W. 3 Mrs. Pallavi Shimpi, P.W. 6 Anil Shimpihusband of the complainant who was present with her on 31/3/2014, P.W.7 Dr. Pramod R. Choudhari, P.W.8 Dr. (vii) The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. 4. The case would rest upon the evidence of P.W. 1 Ms. X i.e. victim, P.W. 3 Mrs. Pallavi Shimpi, P.W. 6 Anil Shimpihusband of the complainant who was present with her on 31/3/2014, P.W.7 Dr. Pramod R. Choudhari, P.W.8 Dr. Vandana Shevale, P.W. 10 Deepali Ashok Mankar, who acted as panch, P.W.11 Manisha Shimpi who is another cousin of the victim. P.W.12 has been examined to substantiate that in the course of recording of evidence on 6th February, 2016, the advocate representing accused No. 1 Mr. Kasliwal had attempted to win over the witness by taking them to his office. P.W. 16 i.e. father of the victim and P.W. 17 who has admitted that he had recorded the statement of the victim on 3/4/2014 after her medical examination. In the present case, it would be necessary to appreciate evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.3. 5. P.W.1 had no knowledge that the accused No. 3 was associated or working with Bible Fellowship Center, as she knew accused No. 3 as friend of accused No. 2. According to her, she was kept in the house of accused No. 3 as a maid servant. The relative of accused No.3 namely, Rohit was also residing with them. According to her, accused No. 3 had introduced accused No. 1 to her. She has deposed before the Court that one fine day when she was washing the clothes in the house of Ujwala, accused No. 1 had entered into the house, taken her in one room, denuded her of her clothes and sexually assaulted her some time between 9 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. That she had disclosed the said incident to Ujwala, which was ignored by her. That accused had repeated the said act on three occasions. 6. Initially before the Court, she had disclosed that nothing has happened thereafter. However, she resiled and stated that it had occurred on 3 occasions. That she had called upon her cousin and disclosed that she was assaulted by Accused No. 3 as one of the mixer pot was damaged by her. That her mouth was gagged by Accused No. 3 by shoving a piece of cloth in her mouth and thereafter assaulted her. That she had called upon her cousin and disclosed that she was assaulted by Accused No. 3 as one of the mixer pot was damaged by her. That her mouth was gagged by Accused No. 3 by shoving a piece of cloth in her mouth and thereafter assaulted her. She was given some food by her cousin, who then dropped her at the house of Ujwala and on the next day, her sister had lodged a report at the police station at Nashik. 7. It is pertinent to note that in the examination-in-chief, P.W.1 has not stated that she had disclosed to her cousin about the sexual assault by accused No. 1 and the complaint was only against accused No. 3. In the cross-examination, it is admitted that she was not knowing her birth date at the time of recording of her statement and therefore, the same was not informed to the police. She has admitted that she is 20 years old on the date of recording of her evidence. She has also admitted following things in her cross-examination that she cannot read and write properly and the contents of her statement recorded by the police were not read over to her and the said statement was read over to her just before commencement of her deposition. That Ujwala was treating her as daughter and had admitted her in tailoring class and that she assaulted her whenever she committed mistake. It is specifically reiterated that she had complaints only against Ujwala and no other person on the day when the FIR was lodged by P.W. 3. 8. It is also admitted that she was not sexually assaulted by anybody in the month of December, 2013 and that accused no. 1 never misbehaved with her or sexually assaulted her by denuding her of her clothes. That she was tutored how and what to depose before the court or else she would be facing dire consequences. That she was happy in Manorama Sadan, but the accused No. 2 had brought her to Nashik after obtaining consent from her father. That she had not disclosed to Ujwala about any sexual assault since no incident had taken place of sexual assault. That Pallavi was also not informed about any sexual assault. 9. That she was happy in Manorama Sadan, but the accused No. 2 had brought her to Nashik after obtaining consent from her father. That she had not disclosed to Ujwala about any sexual assault since no incident had taken place of sexual assault. That Pallavi was also not informed about any sexual assault. 9. There is specific admission that on 2nd April, 2014 she was detained in the police station and the people of the trust were communicating with the police. According to her she had seen accused No. 1 for the first time outside the court hall. The witness was not declared hostile but the prosecution had chosen to re-examine her on 26th February, 2016, in which she has stated that on 10th October, 2015 she was taken to the office of Advocate Kasliwal by one Megha and her husband. She was tutored not to name the accused No. 1. He had told her not to tell the truth. That the complainant and her husband had accompanied her to the ofce of Mr. Kasliwal. Her uncle was threatened by Megha and her husband as the victim had declined to give statement as per his communication. That advocate Kasliwal had shown the amount and assured her of material benefits on exonerating accused No. 1. She has resiled from her cross-examination on the ground that the said admissions were given at the behest of advocate Kasliwal. At this stage, it would be relevant to consider the application given by Pallavi Shimpi and Manisha Shimpi to District Judge, Nashik, which is at Exh. 129. 10. Exh. 129 is an application fled before the Principle District Judge, by Pallavi and Manisha, who happen to be the cousins of the victim. It is stated in the said application that the applicants were before the Principle District Judge on 6/2/2016. According to her, the accused Shirole had sent Megha Bachhav and her husband along with 8 to 10 people to call for Pallavi and Manisha. They were taken to the office of Advocate R.J. Kasliwal just before they were to appear before the Court as witness and he had asked them not to speak a single word against the accused called Shirole. Advocate Kasliwal had shown money to the witnesses. That the said witnesses were also threatened of dire consequences. They were taken to the office of Advocate R.J. Kasliwal just before they were to appear before the Court as witness and he had asked them not to speak a single word against the accused called Shirole. Advocate Kasliwal had shown money to the witnesses. That the said witnesses were also threatened of dire consequences. It is alleged that they had been to the house of one of the applicant and had threatened that in the eventuality that the witnesses would not oblige, her husband would be eliminated. It is pertinent to note that the date and time of visit to her house has not been stated. The evidence of Pallavi Shimpi was concluded on 1/8/2016 where as the application is dated 6/2/2016. It is pertinent to note that the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of P.W. 1 was concluded on 4/1/2016. It is specifically mentioned in the application at Exh. 129 that a threat was extended and money was shown to the witness by advocate Mr. Kasliwal on the date when she had come to the court for giving evidence. It also shows that the said incident had occurred just before she was brought to the Court for giving the evidence. 11. At this stage, it would also be relevant to see that the examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 victim and her cross-examination by advocate Kasliwal was concluded on 10/10/2015 when she had already turned hostile in the cross-examination and thereafter, an application was given on 26/2/2016 by the prosecutor for re-examination of the victim and her evidence was then recorded on 26/2/2016 and concluded on 1/8/2016. The question remains as to why the application was not fled for almost four months. In fact, if the witness was to be won over by advocate Kasliwal on the day of giving evidence, the said incident could have happened on 10/10/2015 itself. This by itself would show that the contents of the application at Exh. 129 are concocted only to justify cross-examination of the victim which was concluded by Advocate Kasliwal on 10/10/2015. 12. P.W. 3 Pallavi Shimpi is the signatory to the said application. She had specifically stated in her examination in chief that on 31st March, 2014 she had received a phone call from the victim alleging therein that she has been assaulted by accused Ujwala and according to her she met the victim on the next day itself. 12. P.W. 3 Pallavi Shimpi is the signatory to the said application. She had specifically stated in her examination in chief that on 31st March, 2014 she had received a phone call from the victim alleging therein that she has been assaulted by accused Ujwala and according to her she met the victim on the next day itself. And thereafter, she had lodged FIR alleging therein that the victim was assaulted by Ujwala, she was confined in her house. The witness has specifically stated that she had not read the contents of the FIR but has only signed the statement. She has also stated categorically that she has not narrated the rest of the contents of the FIR to the police. She has denied to have stated in the FIR the portion marked A, which shows that the husband of Ujwala had ill-intention towards the victim and that Paul Shirole has actually assaulted her. The said statement was recorded on 4/1/2016. It is clear that the said application was not forwarded in the office of the Principle District Judge since the Principle District Judge has endorsed upon the same application on the same day that the Additional Sessions Judge to take steps as per the Supreme Court direction in the case of Jahira Shaikh and the order is dated 6/2/2016 and therefore, this would clearly show that the application was fled on 6/2/2016. 13. P.W. 16 Gopal Shimpi had specifically stated that on 1/4/2014 he had met all his relatives. They had discussed the issue with his relatives and then fled the complaint. He has also admitted that the person from the trust had met him on 1/4/2014 and a person from Manorama Sadan had told him to file complaint and therefore, he had fled the complaint. He had also feigned ignorance about the contents of the statement recorded by the police. 14. The intervention of the witnesses is apparent from the recording of the court. In the midst of the cross-examination of P.W. 1 the Presiding Officer has recorded that P.W. 3 had interrupted and informed the court that the victim has not understood the question and therefore, she has stated wrongly. 14. The intervention of the witnesses is apparent from the recording of the court. In the midst of the cross-examination of P.W. 1 the Presiding Officer has recorded that P.W. 3 had interrupted and informed the court that the victim has not understood the question and therefore, she has stated wrongly. However, the Court has made it clear that every question was explained to the victim, and that P.W. 3 was allowed to attend the court proceedings as contemplated under section 38 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 15. In the application dated 6/2/2016 P.W. 3 has stated that she had not received summons about the scheduled date before the Court and therefore, in fact, she has no reason to remain present before the court on 26/2/2016. The question remains as to whether the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.3 are of sterling nature. The question also remains as to whether the said witnesses can be considered to be reliable witnesses. At this stage, it would be relevant to consider the medical case papers. In fact, when the victim was medically examined, she was not under any pressure while giving statement. Her statement is recorded after her medical examination. 16. P.W.8 Dr. Vandana Shewale had examined the victim at about 12.05 a.m. i.e. in the midnight and has admitted that in Exh. 161 the date of admission was mentioned as 3/4/2014 at 1.20 a.m. The evidence is not corroborated by the medical case papers. In the cross-examination, the witness has further stated that since 12.05 a.m. till examination of victim by Gynecologist at about 7 a.m., the victim has not stated the history of sexual assault despite the fact that the doctor enquired with her about the history. Similarly, medical examination report for sexual assault at Exh. 110 also does not show that the victim had given history of sexual assault. 17. P.W.11 has admitted the contents at Exh. 129 and has also admitted that the victim has not signed on Exh. 129. P.W. 11 has further admitted that when they came to Nashik to fle the complaint, she was in the police station from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. and was being enquired by the police. However, the police had not recorded her statement on that day. According to her, she has signed on the said statement only when accused Nos. 129. P.W. 11 has further admitted that when they came to Nashik to fle the complaint, she was in the police station from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. and was being enquired by the police. However, the police had not recorded her statement on that day. According to her, she has signed on the said statement only when accused Nos. 2 and 3 were brought by police in the police station and thereafter, they had lodged the complaint in the police station. By inference, it can be said that the complaint is signed on 3rd April, 2014 i.e. the date when the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested. The evidence of P.W. 11 would show that on 2nd April, 2014, the victim was brought to the police station. 18. P.W.14 has specifically stated that on 31st March, 2014 the victim had informed him that she has been assaulted by accused No. 3 and therefore, she wants to contact her relative. In fact, till 3rd April, 2014 there was no allegation against the accused No. 1. The evidence would further show that the victim was taking the dog for stroll; she was not kept in confinement as such. But she has not disclosed to the watchman also that she has been sexually assaulted and therefore, she desires to inform her brother about the same. According to P.W. 14, he learnt about fling of the complaint by the brother. 19. All this would lead to an inference that initially the victim had complaints only against accused No. 3 that she was being ill-treated at the hands of accused No. 3 and that she was being sent to work as maid-servant at different places. At this stage, evidence of P.W. 2 Ragini will also have to be considered. P.W. 2 Ragini was also residing in the same hostel, as she is an orphan. P.W. 2 had also gone to the house of one Vaidande and stayed there for 4 to 5 days. She has specifically stated that there was nobody in the hostel and therefore, she was sent to the house of Vaidande. That Mrs. Shering Sorains and Mrs. Victoria Naidu were aware that she was taken out of Manorama Sadan. 20. At this stage, it would be relevant to consider the notice sent to accused No.3 Suman Randive by the Managing Trustee on 16/8/2014. That Mrs. Shering Sorains and Mrs. Victoria Naidu were aware that she was taken out of Manorama Sadan. 20. At this stage, it would be relevant to consider the notice sent to accused No.3 Suman Randive by the Managing Trustee on 16/8/2014. One of the allegation against Suman Randive was as follows : "You are sending and taking girls out of the Boarding without the permission of the Trust, knowing that girls are not to be taken out or sent out without the permission of the Trust." Another allegation is that "She had interfered and obstructed the construction of a boundary wall, as decided by the Trust between Manorama Sadan and Good Shepherd School against the instructions of the trust and i.e. despite being warned about it". 21. In fact, the accused No. 1 is working as a contractor for the said trust. There are various irregularities and illegalities in the administration of Manorama Sadan and Bible Fellowship Center. 22. One of the contents of the said notice are as follows : Accused No. 2 Suman Randive was expected to give written instructions to the parents that their children would not be admitted in June 2013 until necessary permission by the Child and Women Welfare Department for the Balgruh is received and yet, she had admitted 30 children against the instructions of the Trust. In all probabilities, she had given a clarification about the said notice, which was not accepted by the trust and an enquiry was initiated against her. In the first place, the victim should not have been removed from Manorama Sadan by accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 without the permission of the Trust. There is no material on record to show that the Trust had permitted the children to stay outside. 23. In the case of Suraj Mal v/s. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) AIR SC 1408, the Apex Court has observed as follows : "It is well-settled that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses." 24. In the present case, special circumstance is carved out after 4 months, when the witnesses had almost turned hostile. After the cross-examination, the victim was not declared hostile. In the present case, special circumstance is carved out after 4 months, when the witnesses had almost turned hostile. After the cross-examination, the victim was not declared hostile. But at belated stage, the application was fled for re-examination of the witness and witnesses were recalled by an order dated 26/2/2016. The prosecution had not declared the witness hostile nor fled an application for re-examination. However, an application was purportedly made on 6/2/106 and on the same day, the learned Judge had passed an order to recall the witness for re-examination. The delay in fling the application would show that there is an after thought and the witnesses had been tutored to that effect. It is in these circumstances that the accused No. 1 deserves to be acquitted of the charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. As far as accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the charges stands proved since the accused No. 2 had kept the victim in her house without the permission of the trust. It is the defence of the accused No. 3 that the father of the victim had permitted the victim to stay with her. At this stage, the statement of the victim under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also needs to be considered. In the statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the victim had stated that the accused No. 3 had sent her to work as maid servant in the house of accused No. 1 and she had stayed there for one month. At this stage, it would be relevant to consider that when the accused No. 1 had every opportunity to molest the victim during that course of one month. He had not made any attempt to do so. However, it was only in the house of accused No. 3 that the said incident has occurred. In any case, the statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is recorded on 9/4/2014 and it is an improved statement which shows the charges under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused No. 1 and there was no medical examination to that effect on 3rd April, 2014 as the victim had not given any history of sexual assault and therefore, the said statement cannot be relied. At this stage, learned APP upon instructions submits that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are being prosecuted in another offence. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are also being prosecuted in Crime No. 111 of 2014 before the Court at Manmad for similar charges i.e. under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. There is ample material to show that the accused Nos. 2 to 4 are guilty of the charges levelled against them and hence, their conviction and sentence deserves to be maintained. 26. Learned Counsel Mr. Nikam submitted that accused No. 2 Suman Randive is arrested on 3/4/2014 and released on bail on 1/9/2014. In view of this, Accused No. 2 Suman Randive who is appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2017 shall surrender before the Special Court at Nashik on or before 11/10/2019, upon failure the prosecution is at liberty to seek non-bailable warrant from the Special Court. She shall serve her remaining sentence. Learned Counsel Mr. Nikam has submitted that accused No. 3/appellant No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2017 Ujwala Sitaram Nagrik has undergone the sentence of 8 months as an under-trial as she has been arrested on 3/4/2014 and released on bail on 8/12/2014. There is no appeal for enhancement fled by the State and therefore, her conviction sentence and sentence of fine is maintained. 27. Hence, following order is passed : ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 2017 is allowed. The conviction of the Appellant-Paul Joseph Shirole for the offence punishable under sections 376 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the District Judge-7 & Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik vide Judgment and Order dated 13/4/2017 in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) The appellant Paul Joseph Shirole be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence. (iii) The amount of fine, if paid, be refunded. (iv) Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2017 is dismissed. The conviction of the appellants i.e. Suman Genu Randive and Ujwala Sitaram Nagrik for the offence punishable under section 374 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the District Judge-7 & Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik vide Judgment and Order dated 13/4/2017 in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2014 is hereby upheld and conviction and sentence is maintained. Sentence of fine is also maintained. Sessions Judge, Nashik vide Judgment and Order dated 13/4/2017 in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2014 is hereby upheld and conviction and sentence is maintained. Sentence of fine is also maintained. (v) The appellant Suman Genu Randive in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2017 shall surrender before the Sessions Court at Nashik on or before 18/10/2019. Upon failure, the prosecution is at liberty to seek non-bailable warrant from the Sessions Court at Nashik. She shall serve her remaining sentence. Her bail bond stands cancelled. (vii) The appellant Ujwala Sitaram Nagrik in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2017 has undergone the sentence of 8 months as an under-trial. Her bail bond stands cancelled. She be set at liberty, if fine amount is paid. (viii) Writ be issued forthwith. 28. Both the Appeals are disposed of accordingly.