JUDGMENT : RAKESH KUMAR, J. 1. Three appellants, who were convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 360 of 2009, have filed the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) against judgment of their conviction and sentence. The appellant no. 2 – Ajit Mandal is the full brother of appellant no.1 – Ranju Devi whereas appellant no. 3 (Suresh Mandal) is cousin brother of appellant no. 1 – Ranju Devi. All the aforesaid three appellants by judgment dated-30.05.2013 were held guilty and convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “I.P.C.”). By order dated – 31.05.2013 all of them under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each. In default in payment of fine they were directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The judgment of conviction and sentence was passed by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge IV, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as the “trial judge”) in S.T. No. 360 of 2009 (arising out of Baheri P.S. Case No. 80 of 2009). 2. Short fact of the case is that on 21.04.2009 at 21.30 Hours (9.30 P.M.) Sub Inspector of Police -cum-S.H.O., Baheri P.S. Sri Kedar Nath Singh (P.W. 11) recorded fardbyan of Sudha Devi (P.W.10), W/o Rama Nand Mandal (P.W. 7). The said fardbyan was recorded in the premises of appellants in village-Baheri, Tola – Kumbhia in the district of Darbhanga. In the fardbyan the informant (P.W. 10) disclosed that on the same day i.e. on 21.04.2009 in the morning at about 10.00 A.M. there was some altercation in between Ranju Devi-appellant no. 1 with her husband Gopi Mandal (deceased). Thereafter, Gopi Mandal, bhaisur of informant (elder brother of husband of informant) went out of house for doing work. It was alleged that Ranju Devi (appellant no. 1) sitting in the house for the whole day started abusing all the family members. When at 3.00 P.M. on the same day her bhaisur returned back to the house, in drunken condition, her elder gotni (wife of brother of her husband) namely: Ram Dulari Devi (P.W. 6) made complaint to Gopi Mandal. Thereafter Gopi Mandal (deceased) slapped Ranju Devi whereby her head dashed with the wall giving swollen injury on her head. When at 3.00 P.M. on the same day her bhaisur returned back to the house, in drunken condition, her elder gotni (wife of brother of her husband) namely: Ram Dulari Devi (P.W. 6) made complaint to Gopi Mandal. Thereafter Gopi Mandal (deceased) slapped Ranju Devi whereby her head dashed with the wall giving swollen injury on her head. She started crying and exited from the house. Subsequently, nandosi of informant (sister’s husband of the informant) namely-Thumro Mandal (not examined) who was coming to the house persuaded Ranju Devi to return back and he along with Ranju Devi came to the house. Again Ranju Devi sitting in the courtyard started crying and asked her younger son namely-Vivek (not examined), aged about six years, to go and call Mama (maternal uncle). Then Vivek went to his maternal uncle’s house which was a neighbouring tola. Subsequently, brother of appellant no. 1 namely: Ajit Mandal (appellant no. 2) with cousin brother-Suresh Mandal (appellant no. 3) within a short time arrived there and both of them pushed Gopi Mandal on the floor and started beating him with feast and leg which gave internal injury whereby her bhaisur (deceased) had vomited. The accused persons lifted the injured and carried him by assaulting to their house who was followed by her gotni-Ranju Devi (appellant no. 1) who put lock in her house and taking goat and her children she also went along with the accused persons. The informant disclosed that in the house at that very time there were no other male members as all of them had gone for doing work of labour and mother-in-law (Anaro Devi) had gone in Shiv Charcha and at about 7.00 in the night the informant got information that Gopi Mandal was killed by his father -in-law/Siya Mandal (father of appellant no. 1), brother -in-law/Ajit Mandal (appellant no. 2); mother -in-law (Anaro Devi), cousin brother-in-law (Suresh Mandal – appellant no. 3) and wife of deceased – Ranju Devi and leaving the dead body in the house all the accused had fled away. Thereafter the informant and others went to the in-law’s house of Gopi Mandal (deceased) which was situated in village-Bahedi, tola -Kumbhia and saw that dead body of her bhaisur was lying there and all the accused persons had fled away. The informant claimed that her bhaisur – Gopi Mandal was killed by :-(1)-Siya Mandal, (2)-Ajit Mandal (appellant no. Thereafter the informant and others went to the in-law’s house of Gopi Mandal (deceased) which was situated in village-Bahedi, tola -Kumbhia and saw that dead body of her bhaisur was lying there and all the accused persons had fled away. The informant claimed that her bhaisur – Gopi Mandal was killed by :-(1)-Siya Mandal, (2)-Ajit Mandal (appellant no. 2), 3-Suresh Mandal (appellant no. 3), (4)-mother-in-law of the deceased (Anaro Devi), (5)-wife of the deceased – Ranju Devi (the appellants) after assaulting Gopi Mandal and leaving the dead body all accused persons had fled away. The said fardbyan was read over to the informant and after finding it correct she put her R.T.I. on the fardbyan. As a witness to the fardbyan Prem Kumar Mandal (P.W. 2) and Suresh Mandal (P.W. 8) also put their signature. On the basis of the said fardbyan on 22.04.2009 a formal F.I.R. vide Baheri P.S. Case No. 80 of 2009 was registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against all the aforesaid three appellants and Siya Mandal (father of appellant no. 1) and Anaro Devi (mother of appellant no. 1). During investigation itself all the appellants on 03.07.2009 surrendered and taken into custody. Thereafter, on 31.08.2009 charge sheet was submitted against all the five F.I.R. named accused persons. On 08.09.2009 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga took cognizance of the offence and the case was committed to the court of Sessions on 20.10.2009 and it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 360 of 2009. After commitment, on 18.11.2009 joint charge was framed against all the five charge-sheeted accused persons under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. which they denied and claimed to be tried. 3. During the trial to establish its case on behalf of the prosecution altogether eleven witnesses were examined. Out of eleven witnesses, P.W. 2 -Prem Kumar Mandal (brother of the deceased), P.W. 3 – Vishnu Dev Mandal (another brother of the deceased), P.W. 4 -Pawan Mandal (co-villager of appellants), P.W. 7 (Rama Nand Mandal), P.W. 8 – Suresh Mandal (co-villager of appellants) and P.W. 9 -Marni Devi (mother of deceased) were examined as hearsay witnesses. Besides examining as hearsay witness, P.W. 8 – Suresh Mandal has also proved his signature on inquest report, which was marked as Ext. 2. Besides examining as hearsay witness, P.W. 8 – Suresh Mandal has also proved his signature on inquest report, which was marked as Ext. 2. P.W. 5 – Nitish Kumar (son of the deceased) was examined as a witness to the second part of the occurrence while the deceased after being assaulted in his house was carried to his in law’s house and thereafter there also he was assaulted. P.W. 5 has been examined as ocular witness to the extent of assault given on the deceased in the premises of deceased in law’s house. P.W. 6 – Ram Dulari Devi (gotni of the informant/wife of brother of the deceased) and P.W. 10 – Sudha Devi (informant/wife of P.W. 7) are ocular witness to the first occurrence which had taken place in the premises of the deceased. P.W. 1 – Dr. Mukti Nath Singh has conducted post -mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and Sri Kedar Nath Singh (P.W. 11) on 21.04.2009 was posted as Officer-in-charge of Baheri Police Station and he is the Investigating Officer of the case. 4. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 10th February 2012. Subsequently, after one document was brought on record i.e. F.S.L report, again the accused persons were questioned regarding the said incriminating evidence and on second occasion their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 15.03.2012 to which the appellants claimed to be innocent however neither any oral nor documentary evidence was brought on record from the defence side. 5. Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants after placing entire evidence has argued that prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts, and as such, the judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. He submits that prosecution is completely inconsistent on the point of place of recording fardbyan as well as time of recording fardbyan. He submits that informant in her evidence has stated that her fardbyan was recorded at 5.00 P.M. at Police Station whereas the Investigating Officer who was examined as P.W. 11 in categorical term has stated that he recorded fardbyan of the informant in the premises of the appellant no. He submits that informant in her evidence has stated that her fardbyan was recorded at 5.00 P.M. at Police Station whereas the Investigating Officer who was examined as P.W. 11 in categorical term has stated that he recorded fardbyan of the informant in the premises of the appellant no. 1 at 9.30 P.M. Accordingly, a plea has been taken that it appears that none had seen the occurrence and subsequently a story was developed as if deceased was assaulted till his death by the appellants. He further submits that in view of apparent inconsistency in the evidence the learned trial judge was not required to pass judgment of conviction and sentence. Alternatively, it has been argued that it is case of prosecution itself that deceased died due to consumption of Celphos. The evidence of P.W. 1 – Dr. Mukti Nath Singh as well as post -mortem examination report (Ext. 1) in categorical term depicts that injuries which were found on the person of the deceased were not sufficient for causing death and as such hardly it can be a case for offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. but the learned trial judge has incorrectly held them guilty under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. He further submits that in view of Ext. 6 i.e. F.S.L. report which was brought on record without any oral corroboration it is evident that deceased died due to consumption of Celphos. Taking clue from the F.S.L. report Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants has tried to persuade the court that it appears that since deceased was habitual drunkard and there was no cordial relation with his wife i.e. appellant no. 1 there is possibility that he might had consumed Celphos somewhere else and died and subsequently his dead body was brought to the residence of the appellants and they were fabricated as if appellants were involved in the case. On aforesaid grounds it has been argued that either the judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside or alternatively conviction can be altered from Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. to offence under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. 6. Sri Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He submits that in the case twice occurrence had taken place. Sri Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He submits that in the case twice occurrence had taken place. First occurrence had taken place in the house of the informant and the deceased. The informant and P.W. 6 have categorically deposed that in their presence the appellant no. 1 had summoned her brothers and thereafter appellant no. 2 and 3 arrived there. In presence P.W. 6 and P.W. 10 both appellant no. 2 and 3 mercilessly assaulted him and he became unconscious. Thereafter, accused persons lifted him in unconscious condition and carried the deceased to their house i.e. parental house of appellant no. 1. So first occurrence was thoroughly corroborated by evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 10. The second occurrence which had taken place in the house of appellant no. 1 was witnessed by non else but own son of the appellant no. 1 who has been examined as P.W. 5 i.e. Nitish Kumar. At the time of occurrence he was aged about eleven years and in his evidence he has stated that in his presence appellant no. 2 and 3 had assaulted the deceased. Besides ocular evidence Sri Mishra, learned A.P.P. taking aid of provision contained in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has argued that there is no escape for the appellants since dead body in injured condition was found in the premises of the appellants, and as such, onus was on the appellants to disapprove the prosecution case once it was established that dead body was found in the premises of the appellants. However, Sri Mishra, learned A.P.P. has not disputed the fact that doctor in his evidence has stated that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were not sufficient to cause death. He further submits that it appears that prosecution has committed an error by way of bringing on record F.S.L. report, which demolishes the case of prosecution regarding murder. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely examined entire evidence on record. The informant – Sudha Devi has been examined as P.W. 10. In her evidence she reiterated the fact which was incorporated in the fardbyan. On going through her evidence there is no dispute that deceased, with common intention of all the three appellants, was assaulted by feasts and legs by appellant no. The informant – Sudha Devi has been examined as P.W. 10. In her evidence she reiterated the fact which was incorporated in the fardbyan. On going through her evidence there is no dispute that deceased, with common intention of all the three appellants, was assaulted by feasts and legs by appellant no. 2 and 3. Of-course the said occurrence had taken place on trivial issue. In her evidence there are some inconsistencies regarding the place where fardbyan was recorded as well as the time of recording fardbyan however such variance are not sufficient for coming to conclusion that the evidence of P.W. 10 is not reliable rather her evidence to the extent of giving assault to the deceased is proved that has also been corroborated by P.W. 6 – Ram Dulari Devi, who is gotni of informant and she too has stated in similar manner. So first occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 6 and P.W.10. In their evidence it has come that injured was forcibly carried by appellant no. 2 and 3 who were followed by appellant no. 1. Second place of occurrence is the premises of parental house of appellant no. 1 and house of appellant no. 2. Second occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 5 who is non else but the son of appellant no. 1 and deceased. This witness at the time of occurrence was minor aged about eleven years. At the time of his examination the learned trial judge had tested his capability of understanding evidence and after being satisfied he recorded his evidence. In his evidence P.W. 5 in categorical term has stated as to how the deceased was assaulted by appellant no. 2 and 3 by feasts and legs. In his evidence this fact has come that deceased was assaulted by feasts and legs but it has not been whispered in evidence of either of the witnesses as to whether any weapon was used or not nor it is the case of prosecution that any weapon was used. 8. P.W. 2 – Prem Kumar Mandal and P.W. 3 – Vishnu Dev Mandal (both brothers of the deceased) are hearsay witnesses and they are hearsay witness only to the extent of first part of occurrence. 8. P.W. 2 – Prem Kumar Mandal and P.W. 3 – Vishnu Dev Mandal (both brothers of the deceased) are hearsay witnesses and they are hearsay witness only to the extent of first part of occurrence. So far P.W. 4 – Pawan Kumar Mandal who has also claimed to be hearsay witness is concerned, his evidence can be ignored since in his evidence he has not disclosed as to from whom he got information regarding the occurrence. 9. P.W. 7 – Rama Nand Mandal who is also husband of the informant -P.W. 10 is a hearsay witness who was informed by his wife regarding the occurrence. 10. P.W. 8 – Suresh Mandal though has claimed to be hearsay witness, but he has not disclosed as to from whom he has got information. He is also a witness to the inquest report. In his evidence he has identified his signature on the inquest report which was marked as Ext. 2. 11. Similarly P.W. 9 -Marni Devi (mother of the deceased) is a hearsay witness. In the fardbyan it was indicated that at the time of occurrence she had gone to attend Shiv Charcha and after return she got information regarding the occurrence but her evidence is also only to the extent of first occurrence. 12. P.W. 1 – Dr. Mukti Nath Singh on 22.04.2009 was posted as Professor – cum-H.O.D., Department of Forensic Medicine, Darbhanga Medical College And Hospital and on the same day at 11.00 A.M. he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and noticed the following facts:- “3. On external examination rigor mortis was present all over the body. There was no decomposition. Syanosis lips finger tips and nail beds conjunctiva was congested. The body was smeared at places with dust. The following antimortem injury were seen over the person of deceased : (1) Bruise 3”x 2 ½ ” over the lateral aspect of right thigh with swelling. On dissection blood clot were found present deep fascia. (2) Abrasion 1/8” over the front of left arm about 2” above left elbow. (3) Abrasion 1/4” over dorsal aspect of left forearm about 2” above right wrist. (4) Abrasion 1/8” over the dorso medial aspect over right fore arm about 1½” above the right wrist. 5. Abrasion 1/8” over dorsal aspect of right fore arm 1½” below all medial to right elbow. (3) Abrasion 1/4” over dorsal aspect of left forearm about 2” above right wrist. (4) Abrasion 1/8” over the dorso medial aspect over right fore arm about 1½” above the right wrist. 5. Abrasion 1/8” over dorsal aspect of right fore arm 1½” below all medial to right elbow. (6) Abrasion 1/2” long linear over the left side of chin placed longitudinally. (7) Abrasion 1” long, linear over the chin just lateral to injury no. 6. (8) Bruise 1½” x 1” over the left to temporo parietal region of the scalp. On dissection there was small amount of haematoma underneath the scalp. On dissection of the body the cerebral membrane were injuncted and brain was congested. All other viscera were congested. Stomach was found filled with foul smelling due grace fluid. The mucosa was found congested and corroded at places. (9) The above mentioned injuries were simple in nature and were caused by hard and blunt impact and/or friction except injury nos. 6 and 7 which were caused by sharp or pointed pressure of friction. There was no any external or internal ante mortem injuries over the persons of deceased and the injuries present were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 10. Findings recorded in this report were suggestive of poisoning hence the following viscera has been preserved in saturated solution of common salt. Put in a glass jar which was dully sealed and labelled and handed over to the accompanying constable for further transportation to regional F.S.L., Muzaffarpur for chemical analysis and report. A portion each of liver, lungs and spleen. ½ of each kidney, stomach along with its contents also sent to F.S.L. for chemical analysis and report. 11. Time since death:-12 to 18 hrs approximately. Opinion regarding cause of death is reserved pending receipt of chemical analysis report from Regional F.S.L. Muzaffarpur” He has proved the post -mortem examination report which was marked as Ext. 1. In cross -examination in paragraph no. 13 he stated that without receipt of F.S.L. report he was not in a position to give opinion regarding the cause of death. On examination of the evidence of P.W. 1 as well as on examination of post-mortem examination report i.e. Ext. 1. In cross -examination in paragraph no. 13 he stated that without receipt of F.S.L. report he was not in a position to give opinion regarding the cause of death. On examination of the evidence of P.W. 1 as well as on examination of post-mortem examination report i.e. Ext. 1 it is clear that injuries which were allegedly inflicted by the appellants were not sufficient to cause death rather those injuries appear to be simple in nature which has been opined by the doctor himself. 13. The Investigating Officer -Sri Kedar Nath Singh (P.W. 11) on 21.4.2009 was posted as Officer-in-charge of Baheri Police Station and he investigated the case. During his evidence he proved his signature on fardbyan which was marked as Ext. 3. Endorsement on the fardbyan marked as Ext. 3/1, inquest report (Ext. 4), formal F.I.R. (Ext. 5) and signature thereon which was marked as Ext. 5/1. In his evidence he stated that on 21.04.2009 while he was posted as Officer in-charge, Baheri Police Station in the night at 9.00 he got an information that Gopi Mandal was murdered in his in-law’s house in the village -Kumbhia and his dead body was lying there. Thereafter, he recorded Sanha entry no. 402 of 2009 dated 21.04.2009 and he proceeded to the place of occurrence for verifying. At 9.15 P.M. he reached the place of occurrence and saw dead body of Gopi Mandal in the Sahan land of his in law’s house in the village -Kumbhia. At the same place relatives of the deceased were sitting and crying however family member of in-law’s of the deceased had absconded. At the same place he recorded fardbyan of Sudha Devi – P.W. 10 and prepared inquest report. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and he re-recorded statement of informant and statement of witnesses. In paragraph no. 3 of his cross examination he has described regarding the place of occurrence. This witness after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet. This witness was examined and discharged on 08.12.2011 and thereafter prosecution evidence was closed. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and he re-recorded statement of informant and statement of witnesses. In paragraph no. 3 of his cross examination he has described regarding the place of occurrence. This witness after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet. This witness was examined and discharged on 08.12.2011 and thereafter prosecution evidence was closed. In between 10th -12th February, 2012 statement of appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was got recorded in which they claimed to be innocent and after recording statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 14.03.2012 F.S.L. report was brought on record and under Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. considering the same as public document it was got exhibited and marked as Ext. 6. After the F.S.L. report (Ext. 6) was brought on record the appellants were again questioned regarding the facts disclosed in the F.S.L. report without any oral evidence and their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was again recorded on 15.03.2012. It goes without saying that no oral evidence was brought on record corroborating the facts disclosed in the F.S.L. report even then the accused were re-examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The F.S.L. report (Ext. 6) is dated 30.12.2011. Before closure of the prosecution evidence which was closed on 21.01.2012 the F.S.L. report was already prepared on 30.12.2011 and thereafter F.S.L. report was brought on record and got exhibited under Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. The F.S.L. report depicts that viscera was received in the office of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna on 11.08.2009 whereas post -mortem examination on the dead body was held on 22.04.2009 and the said viscera was handed over to the Police on the same day by P.W. 1 – Dr. Mukti Nath Singh however nothing has been explained as to why the said viscera was received in the laboratory after more than three months nineteen days from the date of Post Mortem. The prosecution has not made it clear as to whether the said viscera was kept in safe custody or not ?, nor any reason has been assigned for belated receipt of viscera in the laboratory. Again though viscera was received in the laboratory on 11.8.2009 no explanation has been given as to why preparation of report consumed such a long time i.e. report was finally prepared on 30.12.2011. Again though viscera was received in the laboratory on 11.8.2009 no explanation has been given as to why preparation of report consumed such a long time i.e. report was finally prepared on 30.12.2011. The viscera report indicates result of the report as follows:- “Aluminium Phosphide was detected in the dark brown fluid contained in the glass jar as described above. Aluminium Phosphide commercially known as ‘CELPHOS’ is a severe gastro intestinal irritant. It is used as a grain preservative and is highly poisonous.” The report is clear that deceased died due to consumption of Celphos. Meaning thereby that death of deceased had not occurred due to injuries alleged to be inflicted by the appellants. Moreover, learned trial judge by the said judgment while convicted the three appellants has acquitted two accused persons namely-Siya Mandal and Anaro Devi. It is also not case of prosecution that deceased was administered poison by the appellants, rather in the evidence of informant fact has come that the deceased at 3.00 P.M. on the date of occurrence, while he returned, he was in drunken condition and during the occurrence he had also vomited. The inquest report which was shown to be prepared in the premises of the appellants goes to show that nothing was noticed as to whether the deceased had consumed any poison or not. There was no such sign on the dead body. 14. On examination of aforesaid entire evidence this fact is clear that deceased died due to consumption of Celphos and not died due to injuries allegedly caused by the appellants. It is also not the case of prosecution that deceased was inflicted injury by any weapon. Only accusation was that the deceased was assaulted by feasts and legs. Accordingly, the Court is in agreement with the submission of Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants that hardly it can be a case under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. and in any event the learned trial judge was not correct in holding appellants guilty for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. of-course in the evidence there were some glaring inconsistencies. 15. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of opinion that in the case there is no application of provision under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against either of the appellants, and as such, judgment of conviction can be altered from Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. to Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, judgment of conviction is modified to the extent of altering conviction of the appellants from Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. to Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. In view of altering of the conviction it is desirable to alter the sentence. Accordingly, sentence to undergo imprisonment for life imposed on the appellants is reduced to the period of custody already undergone by the appellants. Accordingly fine is also waived. The appellant no. 2 and 3 namely: Ajit Mandal and Suresh Mandal are in custody since their date of conviction i.e. 30.05.2013. Besides this, earlier also before conviction they had remained in custody for some time. So far appellant no. 1 namely Ranju Devi is concerned, she has remained in custody for almost five months and eight days. Considering the fact that she is a lady and even there was no direct evidence against her of giving assault to the deceased and occurrence had taken place long back in the year 2009, purpose would be served if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, sentence in respect of appellants is reduced to the extent of period of custody already undergone. The judgment of conviction and sentence is modified and the Appeal stands dismissed. Since sentence has already been reduced to the period of custody already undergone, it is directed to release appellant no. 2 and 3 who are in custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Since appellant no. 1 has already been granted bail vide order dated-13.09.2013, she is discharged from liability of her bail bond.