Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2842 (ALL)

Niyamullah v. State of U. P.

2019-12-20

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed by Niyamullah, Mahendra, Sahendar, Wakeel, Naushad, Kalimullah, Anaruddin and Enmul Huda @ Dugru against judgment of conviction and sentence made therein in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 2004 (State Vs. Niyamullah and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 151 of 2004, under Sections 147, 304/149, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kolhuee, District Maharajganj with connected Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2005 (State Vs. Anaruddin) and Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2005 (State Vs. Enmul Huda @ Dugru) by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Maharajganj, whereby each of the convicts-appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 304 Part-I read with 149, 147, 504, 506 I.P.C. and they have been sentenced with ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-each under Section 304 Part-I read with 149 I.P.C., one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C., six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 504 I.P.C. and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 I.P.C. In case of default in making fine, each of the convicts-appellants were to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. There was direction for concurrent running of sentences and adjournment of previous imprisonment, if any. 2. Memo of appeal contends that learned trial court failed to appreciate facts and law placed on record. The convicts-appellants No. 5 and 8 were not named in first information report, which was lodged by first informant himself, wherein PW-2 Izhar Ali was shown to be the eyewitness, accompanying the first informant, but subsequently, they were added. It itself shows that both these witnesses of fact were not with clean hands. Rather, they have falsely implicated convicts-appellants due to their personal enmity. PW-3 Nandlal and PW-4 Jumrat Ali were also not shown to be the eyewitness account in first information report, but subsequently introduced as eyewitness account. There was no intention to cause death of deceased. Rather, the only said intention was, though not admitted, for offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. Hence, the conviction of appellants under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. was unsustainable and was against the evidence on record. X-ray report of deceased has not been proved by the prosecution or any witness. On the score of this too, finding was erroneous. A general allegations against appellants, except appellant nos. X-ray report of deceased has not been proved by the prosecution or any witness. On the score of this too, finding was erroneous. A general allegations against appellants, except appellant nos. 5 and 8, was levelled with no disclosure as to who had caused the stone injury on the lower back of deceased. It seems that the said injury, which could be a reason for the death of deceased, situated on the left lower back, was due to falling down from a height into a pit hole, in which he got his limbs and lower back injured, but subsequently due to previous enmity, this false implication occurred. Appellants are in jail since 20.12.2013. The conviction and sentence of appellants is contrary to law, on the point of sentencing too. The same is not proportionate to offence. Rather, it is too severe. Hence, this appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, this appeal be allowed and judgment of conviction and sentence made therein be set aside. Further, appellants be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 3. From the very perusal of record of trial court and impugned judgment, it is apparent that first information report (Ext.Ka-3) was got lodged by way of presenting a written report, signed by informant Mahboob Alam at Police Station Kolhuee, District Maharajganj on 25.09.2004 at 21.50 P.M. against Anaruddin, Kalimullah, Niyamullah, Wakeel, Mahendra and Sahendar, all R/o Saakinaan Kamharia Bujurg, Tola Bargadhia, P.S. Kolhuee, Maharajganj, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 308, 325 I.P.C. for an occurrence, which took place at about 4 P.M. on the same day i.e. 25.09.2004, within the area of village Kamharia Bujurg, with this contention that informant Mahboob Ali along with his cousin Izhar Ali, was on his way to their home from 'Eksadawa Chauraha' on 25.09.2004 and when about 4 P.M. they reached near wooden bridge, they found that Anaruddin, S/o Ali Hasan, Kalimullah, S/o Jafar, Niyamullah, S/o Jafar, Wakeel, S/o Furd, Mahendra and Sahendar, S/o Chinni Lal, were beating informant's brother Mashoor Alam, by lathi, who was lying on ground and shouting for help. Upon this noise, he and his cousin along with Yogender, S/o Sundar rushed on spot. They intended to save injured, but accused persons, while seeing those persons, reaching on spot, ran towards river. His brother was unconscious, having fracture over both upper and lower limbs. This assault was owing to previous enmity. Upon this noise, he and his cousin along with Yogender, S/o Sundar rushed on spot. They intended to save injured, but accused persons, while seeing those persons, reaching on spot, ran towards river. His brother was unconscious, having fracture over both upper and lower limbs. This assault was owing to previous enmity. Injured was taken to Bankati, Farenda Hospital from where doctor opined for taking to Sadar Hospital, Gorakhpur, where he was got admitted and this information was submitted for taking legal recourse. Injured was medically examined at District Hospital, Gorakhpur and medico legal report (Ext.Ka-16) was got prepared by Dr. Hiralal of District Hospital, Gorakhpur. Injured was having following injuries:- 1. Traumatic swelling 9cm x all around on upper part of right forearm just below elbow joint. K.U.O. Advised X-ray right forearm. 2. Traumatic swelling on upper part of left forearm 9cm x all around just below left elbow. K.U.D. Advised X-ray left forearm. 3. Lacerated wound 1cm x 0.5cm x muscle deep on anterior aspect of right lower leg just below the right knee joint. 4. Lacerated wound 3cm x 2cm x bone deep traumatic swelling all around the leg, 5cm above the right ankle joint. K.U.O. Advised X-ray right lower leg. 5. Lacerated wound 1cm x 0.5cm on front of left lower leg, 7cm below the left knee joint. 6. Lacerated wound 2cm x 1cm x bone deep in front of left lower leg traumatic swelling all around leg. K.U.O. Advised X-ray left lower leg. 7. Abrasion 2cm x 2cm on lateral aspect of left lower leg. 7cm above the left ankle joint. Owing to above injuries, while being under treatment, injured succumbed and this information was transmitted at above police station, whereupon inquest proceeding was got conduced by Investigating Officer at District Hospital, Gorakhpur on 26.09.2004 at 12.30 P.M., wherein witness of inquest opined death owing to above anti mortem injuries, for which he was under treatment. Accordingly, documents, connected with inquest proceeding i.e. letter to C.M.O., letter to Range Inspector, Police Form No. 13, Photo Dead Body, Specimen Seal, by which this dead body was sealed after wrapping in a cloth, were got prepared. This dead body along with those documents were sent for its autopsy examination, which was got conducted at mortuary of District Hospital, Gorakhpur on 26.09.2004 by Dr. R.P. Prasad, wherein autopsy examination report (Ext. Ka-4) was got prepared. This dead body along with those documents were sent for its autopsy examination, which was got conducted at mortuary of District Hospital, Gorakhpur on 26.09.2004 by Dr. R.P. Prasad, wherein autopsy examination report (Ext. Ka-4) was got prepared. The anti mortem injuries, found on the person of deceased, were as follows:- 1. Contused traumatic swelling 10cm x 5cm deformity on right upper arm on cutting underlying bone fractured. 2. Contused traumatic swelling 12cm x 6cm deformity on left forearm on cutting underneath both bone fractured. 3. Lacerated wound 1cm x 1cm x muscle deep on the back of left upper arm on lower end. 4. Stitched wound 6cm long having two stitches on the left lower leg outer aspect on cutting wound is muscle deep. 5. Lacerated wound 3cm x 1cm x muscle deep on outer aspect of left leg. 6. Stitched wound 4 cm long having 1 stitched on upper part of medial aspect leg on cutting wound is bone deep underlying bone fractured. 7. Stitched wound 6cm long having stitches on the right lower leg, wound is deep, on cutting underlying bone fractured. 8. Contusion 15 x 2cm on this left lower back. 4. Investigating Officer visited spot, prepared site map, took statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., thereafter, filed charge sheet against Niyamullah, Mahendra, Sahendar, Wakeel, Naushad and Kalimullah, who were apprehended and Enmul Huda @ Dugru, as absconder, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 304, 504, 506 I.P.C., whereupon Magistrate took cognizance. Subsequently, charge sheet for other absconding accused persons were filed, over which cognizance was taken. Firstly, Sessions Trial No. 163 of 2004, was committed to court of Sessions Judge by Court of C.J.M., Maharajganj, for accused Niyamullah, Mahendra, Sahendar, Wakeel, Kalimullah and Naushad. Subsequently file of Anaruddin was committed and this was Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2005. Thereafter, file of Enmul Huda @ Dugru was committed to court of Sessions, which was Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2005. As all these three sessions trial were arising out of one and common Case Crime No. 151 of 2004 of Police Station Kolhuee for one and same offences, punishable under Sections 147, 304/149, 504, 506 I.P.C., hence, Additional Sessions Judge consolidated all these three sessions trial by making leading Session Trial No. 163 of 2004 (State Vs. Niyamullah and 5 others), wherein evidence were recorded. Niyamullah and 5 others), wherein evidence were recorded. After hearing learned counsel for both sides, charges were framed in all those three sessions trial against those accused persons for offences, as above, and it was read over and explained, whereupon accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Prosecution examined PW-1 Mahboob Alam, PW-2 Izhar Ali, PW-3 Nandlal, PW-4 Jumrat Ali, PW-5 Constable Ramanand Bharti, PW-6 Dr. R.P. Prasad, PW-7 S.I. Nirahuram, PW-8 S.I. Dilip Kumar Bind, PW-9 Constable Ramdas Bharti, PW-10 Arun Kumar Srivastava, Pharmacist, PW-11 Dr. Harilal. Thereafter, for having explanation, if any, of accused over incriminating evidence furnished by prosecution and getting version of defence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., were got recorded, wherein each of the accused persons said that the entire evidence of prosecution was false, nobody was eyewitness of the occurrence, name of Naushad and Enmul Huda @ Dugru was not there in first information report and it was subsequently added, prosecution witness Nos. 3 and 4 were not eyewitness account of occurrence, rather they were inimical witness, against whom there had been so many cases, both in civil and criminal side and it was admitted by these witnesses in their statements. The injuries found on the person of deceased were not with intention to cause death or cause such bodily injuries, as was likely to cause death. Rather, it was fracture of both upper and lower limbs by some other reason by some other person in above time of occurrence of night, wherein false implication was made. The factual investigation was also erroneous. Charge sheet was filed on dishonest investigation. In defence, documentary evidence for showing previous litigation in between were filed. After hearing learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for defence impugned judgment of conviction, whereby all eight accused persons were convicted for offences levelled against them and after hearing over quantum of sentence, sentence as above, were imposed by impugned judgment. Against this judgment, this appeal was filed wherein Enmul Huda @ Dugru and Naushad were enlarged on bail under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. But bail to rest of convicts-appellants were rejected. Though, they were on bail during trial and it was never misused by any of them. They have been taken in custody on date of judgment dated 19.12.2013 and since then for these six years they are languishing in jail. 5. The convict-appellant Mahendra died during appeal. Though, they were on bail during trial and it was never misused by any of them. They have been taken in custody on date of judgment dated 19.12.2013 and since then for these six years they are languishing in jail. 5. The convict-appellant Mahendra died during appeal. Hence his appeal stood abated. Now, the appeal of seven convicts-appellants is pending. 6. Learned counsel for convicts-appellants argued that none of the injuries, found over the person of deceased, were on vital part. Rather, they all were on upper and lower limbs as well as back and they all were caused by lathi that is not a dangerous weapon. The assault of stone was said by PW-1. No injury over abdomen caused by stone was held by Medical Officer in its medical examination. PW-10 Arun Kumar Srivastava is pharmacist, who in his statement has proved Ext. Ka-15 regarding injuries sustained by Mahboob Alam and entry of same in EOPD register (from 19.09.2004 to 09.10.2004) on 25.09.2004 at serial no. 32/11682, wherein he was entered to be attended by Medical Officer at 7.30 PM and this information of his death was entered to be transmitted at 8.15 PM of the date. This entry of register has bee proved as Ext. Ka-15 and statement of PW-11 Dr. Harilal is of this fact that all injuries i.e. seven in number, found by him, were by hard blunt object and were simple in nature, other than six injuries no. 1 to 4 and 6, for which X-ray was advised and matter was referred for Ortho specialist. Medico legal report (Ext.Ka-16) was got prepared by this witness under his handwriting and signature and all these injuries were not on vital party of deceased. Hence, there was no intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death or with knowledge that by such injury death is likely to occur. Rather injuries were of lathidanda. They were seven in medico legal report and eight in autopsy examination report. All were over upper and lower limbs, resulting fracture of them and no injury was over the head, brain, chest and ribs. Hence, this was in maximum a case punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. or under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. The witness of fact PW-1 Mahboob Alam and PW-2 Izhar Ali were with material contradiction regarding place of occurrence, sequence of occurrence and mode of occurrence. Hence, this was in maximum a case punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. or under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. The witness of fact PW-1 Mahboob Alam and PW-2 Izhar Ali were with material contradiction regarding place of occurrence, sequence of occurrence and mode of occurrence. Initially, report was got lodged against six persons, but during recording of statements, it was added that two accused persons were making exhortation for assaulting for fracture of upper and lower limbs of deceased and rest were assaulting, whereas no such contention was there in first information report. PW-3 Nandlal and PW-4 Jumrat Ali were highly inimical and interested witnesses. There were vast contradiction in their testimony with regard to testimony of PW-1 Mahboob Alam and PW-2 Izhar Ali. Hence, for Naushad and Enmul Huda @ Dugru, no case was made out. Vicarious liability under Section 149 I.P.C may also be not fastened against them because the only testimony is that they were given exhortation, but no such recital was there in F.I.R.. Rather, this was embellishment and exaggeration. For other appellants, maximum accusation said to be proved by prosecution was for offences punishable under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. But trial court has convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. wherein maximum sentence of ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/-had been awarded to each of them. Whereas they are languishing in jail since last six years, after the date of judgment, and were also in jail before their bail. Hence, this was sufficient and cogent sentence. Hence, they be maximum sentenced with above period undergone and those two convicts-appellants, for whom there is embellishment and exaggeration, be acquitted of the charges. 7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant Sri K.K. Rao has vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for appellants that this poor victim in young age was badly beaten by convicts-appellants, resulting eight injuries of such dimension causing fracture over both upper and lower limbs and owing to it, he succumbed during treatment on that very day. Hence, it was a brutal homicide requiring no leniency. Learned Sessions Judge had appreciated facts and law placed on record and had passed impugned judgment of conviction and thereafter, impugned sentencing was made commensurate to nature and degree of offence. Hence, this appeal be dismissed. 8. Hence, it was a brutal homicide requiring no leniency. Learned Sessions Judge had appreciated facts and law placed on record and had passed impugned judgment of conviction and thereafter, impugned sentencing was made commensurate to nature and degree of offence. Hence, this appeal be dismissed. 8. Chik F.I.R. (Ext.Ka-3) was got registered upon the written report (Ext.Ka-1), having signature of informant Mahboob Alam, wherein accusation of assault was assigned against Anaruddin, Kalimullah, Niyamullah, Wakeel, Mahendra and Sahendar and it was said to be witnessed by Yogender and informant Mahboob Alam i.e. no recital of any exhortation made by Naushad or Enmul Huda @ Dugru was there. This report was got lodged after injured was admitted at District Hospital, Gorakhpur. This condition was settled that it was not registered under anxiety or any hurry or by other person other than informant, who had rushed on spot instantly and who is real brother of deceased. While being examined as PW-1 in examination-in-chief, the same contention has been made by this witness Mahboob Alam ^^tc dBok ds iqy ds vkxs iwjc igaqps rks ns[ks dh esjs gh xkao ds vUuk:n~nhu dyheqYykg o fu;keqYyk o egsUæ lgsUæ odhy ekj FksA esjs HkkbZ e'kgwj vkye dks ykBh MaMk ls ekj jgs FksA esjs HkkbZ fxj x;s Fks] csgks'k gks x, Fks vkSj fpYyk Hkh jgs FksA** Subsequently, in other lines, this has been said that Enmul Huda and Naushad were making exhortation for fracture of both upper and lower limbs of his brother, which were made by accused persons and they all ran towards field. But this story of giving exhortation was not said in first information report, which was got registered by this PW-1. When asked as to why this was not written in first information report, in cross-examination, this witness has said ^^tc eSaus et:c vius HkkbZ dks ns[kk ml le; og cksyus ds gkyr esa Fks] fpYyk jgs Fks fd esjh muls ckr gqbZ Fkh og dgs fd veqd&veqd vkneh gedks ekjdj Hkkx x, gSA eSaus muds dgus ij mu vknfe;ksa dks nkSM+kus dk dksbZ Á;kl ugha fd;kA esjs ckn ogka ij igqapus okys ;ksxsUæ uUnyky o esjs pkpk dk yM+dk clwyYykg FksA** Meaning thereby, this witness could gather information from his injured brother, who was under conscious at that time and subsequently he became unconscious and died during treatment. He could not disclose or converse subsequently, but he told who had beaten him, but the names of those two exhorters were not there. The cross-examination at page 11 reveals that when this informant rushed on spot, he found that his brother was lying at the northern side of road having injuries i.e. beginning of the quarrel or assault was not witnessed by any of the witnesses of fact. Rather after hearing rescue call, they all rushed there and found above occurrence, wherein names of Naushad and Enmul Huda were not said either to I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in first information report and it was subsequently developed. PW-2 Izhar Ali is the next alleged eyewitness account, who was accompanying informant and was son of deceased. He too has narrated in examination-in-chief that while he heard hue and cry, he along with his uncle rushed on spot and found that two persons were making exhortation. They were Enmul Huda @ Dugru and Naushad. They were saying for fracture of upper and lower limbs of his father and this was witnessed by this witness whereas Anaruddin, Niyamullah, Kalimullah, Wakeel, Mahendra and Sahendar were giving assault by lathi-danda over his father, who had fallen thereat. Meaning thereby no assault was being made by Enmul Huda @ Dugru and Naushad, but name of those two were not in first information report or in the statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In further development, in cross-examination, this witness has said that when his father gained sense he narrated ^^esjs firk dks gks'k gqvk rks crk;s fd gesa vu:n~nhu fu;keqYyk dyheqYykg lgsUæ egsUæ odhy ;g yksx ekj jgs FksA rqe yksx vc rd dgk FksA nks vkneh yydkj jgs Fks bukeqygqnk mQZ Mqx: vkSj ukS'kkn ;g Hkh firkth us crk;k FksA firkth us ;g Hkh crk;k fd Fkkus ij tkdj mijksDr uke crkdj jiV ntZ dj nksA** Meaning thereby, this witness was not eyewitness account of alleged assault. Rather, he gained information from his father, who directed for getting case lodged at police station. Rather, he gained information from his father, who directed for getting case lodged at police station. Even then, names of these Enmul Huda @ Dugru and Naushad were not written in Ext.Ka-1 or said in statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Though, this witness has categorically said ^^tc eSa ?kVuk okys txg ij igqapk ml le; esjs firk csgks'k FksA ogka dqN yksx bdV~Bk gks x;s FksA** Meaning thereby, while this witness reached on spot injured was unconscious and few others were gathered on spot, then this story that informant along with his nephew rushed on spot and found such occurrence goes away. This witness has further said ^^tc rd ge yksx ?kVuk okyh txg ij vius firk ds lkFk jgs rc rd esjs firk cksyus ds gkyr esa ugha FksA ,dlM+ok ls igys cksys Fks vkSj mUgksaus eqfYt+eku dk uke gels crk;k FkkA ml le; esjs pkpk esjs lkFk ugha FksA eqfYt+eku fd uke ds ckjs esa esjs firk dsoy gesa crk fn, Fks vkSj dgk Fkk fd Fkkus tkdj bu eqfYteku dk uke ntZ djuk fdlh gkyr esa u NksM+ukA** Meaning thereby, even after direction by injured to his son, who was all alone at that time, and direction to informant by his son, names of these accused were not entered in Ext.Ka-1. According to this version, this PW-2 was not present on spot at the time of occurrence. Rather, he could know about occurrence and names of assailants through his father. PW-3 Nandlal and PW-4 Jumrat Ali, admittedly are the witnesses against whom there had been criminal and civil litigation from accused appellants side and even their father and other family members were with conviction in those litigation. Hence, they are proved to be inimical witness and for appreciation of their testimony a great caution and precaution is to be taken. PW-3 has categorically said in examination-in-chief that when he saw and found that those named persons assaulting injured by lathi-danda, Naushad and Enmul Huda were making exhortation for breaking the upper and lower limbs of deceased. But, this was not mentioned in first information report (Ext.Ka-1). Rather, it was subsequently developed. The same is the situation with PW-4 that when he reached on spot there were 15-20 person on spot i.e. he too was not the first hand perceiver of the facts. But, this was not mentioned in first information report (Ext.Ka-1). Rather, it was subsequently developed. The same is the situation with PW-4 that when he reached on spot there were 15-20 person on spot i.e. he too was not the first hand perceiver of the facts. The testimony of these two witnesses regarding their presence on spot is inconsistent with statement of PW-1 and PW-2. Hence, certainly accusation against Enmul Huda @ Dugru and Naushad becomes doubtful. They were not named in the first information report nor instantly said by injured nor were given in statement, but in subsequent development their names were added, but they were not making any assault. Rather, they were said to giving exhortation. Hence, their conviction was with failure of appreciation of facts and law on record. They deserve to be given benefit of doubt and their conviction seems to be set aside. Accordingly, their appeal merits to be allowed. 9. Regarding, Mahendra appeal has been abated, but regarding Niyamullah, Sahendar, Wakeel, Kalimullah and Anaruddin, the argument is for quantum of sentence, whereas on the basis of facts and evidence placed on record, prosecution was successful to prove its case against them. Their names was there in the instantly reported F.I.R. It has been proved by witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 coupled with formal witnesses with no evidence in defence. 10. Regarding quantum of sentence Section 304 Part-I provides for imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for ten yeas and fine and Section 304 Part-II provides for imprisonment for ten years, or fine or both. Section 304 i.e. punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder provides that whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In present case the injury on the person of deceased were not on vital part. Rather over upper and lower limbs with back and trial has concluded that it was not with intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In present case the injury on the person of deceased were not on vital part. Rather over upper and lower limbs with back and trial has concluded that it was not with intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Though, those injuries were grievous, resulting fracture as well as death of injured on the same day of occurrence. Hence, conviction under Section 304 Part-1 was justified, but regarding sentence it was apparently of ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine, which seems to be not in proportion to degree of offence, because each of the convicts-appellants are of no criminal antecedent. They remained in prison since last more than six years in this case crime number. On the facts and circumstances and balancing the societal need of punishment with their chance of reformation for bringing them in main stream of society, sentence of eight years rigorous imprisonment with fine, as above, seems to suffice the cause of justice. 11. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed for convicts-appellants Naushad and Enmul Huda @ Dugru. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 20.12.2013, passed by the Trial Court, is hereby set aside and the appellants Naushad and Enmul Huda @ Dugru are acquitted of all the charges. They are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their sureties are discharged. 12. Keeping in view the provisions of section 437-A Cr.P.C. appellants Naushad and Enmul Huda @ Dugru are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court before it, which shall be effective for a period of six months, along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. The conviction of convicts-appellants Niyamullah, Sahendar, Wakeel, Kalimullah and Anaruddin are confirmed. Their appeal is being partly allowed on the point of quantum and their imprisonment of ten years and fine under Section 304 Part-I/149 I.P.C. is being substituted by eight years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-. For rest of sentences, they shall remain, as such, and intact. 14. The conviction of convicts-appellants Niyamullah, Sahendar, Wakeel, Kalimullah and Anaruddin are confirmed. Their appeal is being partly allowed on the point of quantum and their imprisonment of ten years and fine under Section 304 Part-I/149 I.P.C. is being substituted by eight years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-. For rest of sentences, they shall remain, as such, and intact. 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court's record be sent back to the court concerned for immediate change of warrant of sentence, as above, and follow up.