JUDGMENT Mehta, J. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 18.11.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.40/2012 :- Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default Sentences 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- 5 Months' S.I. 386 IPC 3 Years' R.I. Rs.2,000/- 2 Months' S.I. 201 IPC 3 Years' R.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 Month's S.I. 120-B IPC 2 Years' R.I. Rs.2,000/- 2 Months' S.I. (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently) 2. They have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC for assailing the impugned Judgment of conviction and the sentences awarded to them by the trial court. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. 4. Shri Vasudev Sharma (P.W.1), submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO Police Station Gadhi, District Banswara on 02.02.2012 alleging inter alia that the accused appellants were residing in the village Bori for the last about one year on rental basis. The accused Sangeeta had created a hype in the village that she was possessed by the Goddess Dasha Mata and thus, people of the area used to throng her house. The complainant’s wife Smt. Tulsi, also started believing in the accused Sangeeta and used to visit her house as a devotee. The accused won over her confidence to such an extent that she started giving them money in the name of performing Hawans and Pujas etc. Slowly, the accused persons totally hypnotized and controlled complainant’s wife and she was duped into giving a lot of money and ornaments under the veil of preventing harm to the family members. Despite that, the accused continued to torment Smt. Tulsi predicting evil consequences for the family members and resultantly, she became severely perturbed. The family members talked to Smt. Tulsi who divulged that the accused had usurped all her money and ornaments and were also insinuating that all the family members would perish. On 30.01.2012, Smt. Tulsi left home saying that she was going to Lohariya, but on the next day, her phone was responding as switched off. Enquiry was made from relatives at Lohariya who replied that the lady never reached there and she was untraceable. On 30.01.2012, Smt. Tulsi left home saying that she was going to Lohariya, but on the next day, her phone was responding as switched off. Enquiry was made from relatives at Lohariya who replied that the lady never reached there and she was untraceable. The complainant apprehended that the accused persons had intimidated Smt. Tulsi with prediction of dire consequences for the family members and also gave her allurement of showing hidden wealth and in this manner, all the family valuables and money was extorted. He apprehended that the accused might have abducted and hidden Smt. Tulsi Devi. 5. On the basis of the above report, a formal FIR No.40/2012 (Ex.P/2), came to be registered at the Police Station Gadhi, District Banswara for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 386 IPC and investigation was commenced. The dead body of Smt. Tulsi Devi tied up in a gunny bag was recovered on 07.02.2012 and Panchayatnama Lash (Ex.P/26) was prepared by Shri Bhojraj Singh, SHO (P.W.19). It is claimed that the mouth of the gunny bag/ plastic bag, wherein the body was tied up, was secured with a 4 to 8 centimetres wide strip of dari (Matting). The gunny bag/ plastic bag, strip of dari (Matting), the cloth used to tie the mouth of the victim and the cloth piece used to strangulate her, were all seized vide memorandum (Ex.P/23). 6. Photographs of the dead body were snapped and thereafter, it was forwarded to the M.G. Hospital, Banswara for autopsy where a Medical Board was constituted, of which Dr. Ravi Upadhyay (P.W.21), was a member. The Board conducted autopsy upon the dead body and issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/60) opining that the cause of death of Smt. Tulsi Devi was strangulation/ throttling. The time of death was noted as 7 to 10 days before postmortem. The accused appellants Ranjeet Singh, Sangeeta and Savita (mother of Sangeeta), were arrested on 02.03.2012 vide arrest memos (Ex.P/10), (Ex.P/11) and (Ex.P/12) respectively. By that time, investigation had been handed over to Shri Gopal Lal, SHO Police Station Kushalgarh, who claims to have recorded the informations given by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, leading to discovery of material facts and recoveries of incriminating articles, the sequence whereof is noted hereinbelow in a tabular form for the sake of ready reference :- Sr. No. Name of the Appellant Information Memo Details of Information Memo Recovery Memo Details of Recovery Memo 1. Ranjeet Singh Ex. P33 pertaining to jewelery taken from deceased's body Ex. P37 pertaining to the rug used in killing Smt. Tulsi Devi Ex. P19 Mentions about a piece of rug seized on 02-03- 2012 Ex. P39 pertaining to the room where the murder was committed Ex. P40 pertaining to the place where the body of the deceased had been disposed off Ex. P41 pertaining to the lake where the sim-card and phone were broken and disposed off Ex. P42 Pertaining to the tempo used in transporting the body of the deceased Ex. P13 AutoRickshaw No. RJ03/PA 2-155 2. Sangeeta Ex. P34 Pertaining to the place where the jewelery was kept Ex. P4 GoldSilver Jewelery Ex. P35 pertaining to the handing over the jewelery to other Accused Savita Ex. P38 Pertaining to the place- the room where she along with her husband and co-accused Ranjeet Singh committed the murder 3. Savita Ex. P35 & P36 pertaining to the place where the jewelery was hidden Ex. P5 GoldSilver Jewelery 7. Upon concluding investigation, the Investigating Officer claims to have collected the following pieces of circumstantial evidence in an endeavour to prove the case against the accused :- (i) The accused Sangeeta made a propaganda claiming that she was possessed by Goddess Dasha Mata by creating this hype, she captivated the victim Smt. Tulsi. (ii) pointing out of the place of incident by the accused persons. (iii) The accused Sangeeta made false predictions that the family members of Smt. Tulsi would suffer ill fate which she could prevent using her supernatural powers and under this threat, she extorted the ornaments and valuables of the deceased which were thereafter, recovered from the house of the accused Savita in furtherance of the informations provided by Sangeeta and Savita to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. (iv) The piece of dari/ matting used to secure the gunny bag, wherein the dead body of Tulsi Devi was concealed, matched with the dari/ matting recovered from the house of Shri Ranjeet Singh in furtherance of the information provided by him to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 8. (iv) The piece of dari/ matting used to secure the gunny bag, wherein the dead body of Tulsi Devi was concealed, matched with the dari/ matting recovered from the house of Shri Ranjeet Singh in furtherance of the information provided by him to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 8. After concluding the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused appellants and the co-accused Savita for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was sessions triable, the case was committed to the court of Session Judge, Banswara where charges were framed against the accused Ranjeet Singh and Sangeeta for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and against the accused Savita for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 201 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses and exhibited 60 documents in an endeavor to prove its case. The accused were confronted with the prosecution allegations in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which they denied, and claimed to have been falsely implicated. However, no oral evidence was led in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused appellants as above vide impugned judgment dated 18.11.2016 which is assailed in this appeal. 9. Shri Kaluram Bhati, learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The links of circumstantial evidence proved by the prosecution to bring home the charges against the accused appellants are fabricated, flimsy and unworthy of credence. As per the admitted case set up in the evidence of the first informant Shri Vasudev Sharma (P.W.1), husband of the deceased Smt. Tulsi, his wife left home on 30.01.2012 saying that she was going to her sister’s house at Lohariya. She was continuously in telephonic contact with the family members and even conveyed that she had reached Lohariya. Never did she disclose that she was with the accused. On the third day, her mobile phone responded as switched off. She was continuously in telephonic contact with the family members and even conveyed that she had reached Lohariya. Never did she disclose that she was with the accused. On the third day, her mobile phone responded as switched off. Shri Bhati submitted that if at all, the lady had been confined by the accused appellants, as claimed by the prosecution, then there was no reason as to why she would not share this vital information with her own family members. He urged that the accused persons and the complainant’s family used to reside at a short distance in the same locality. However, the Investigating Officer made no attempt whatsoever to find out the location details of the mobile phone of Smt. Tulsi and thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the truthfulness of the disclosure made by Smt. Tulsi to her own family members that she had gone to the village Lohariya to meet her sister. He urged that the accused persons were residing in the rented premises of Shri Gyanesh Bhatt, just 4 to 5 houses away from the house of the complainant party. The area is heavily populated but no witness was examined during the course of the investigation or trial who could say that the victim was seen entering into the house of the accused persons any time after she left her own house on 30.01.2012. He urged that the theory that the accused persons took away the ornaments of the victim through extortion, which were later recovered at the instance of the accused, is totally unbelievable. He contended that the informant Shri Vasudev Sharma stated that the accused Sangeeta was indulged in some kind of witchcraft. His younger son Rohit Sharma was not getting employment and after Smt. Tulsi came into contact with the accused Sangeeta, the boy could proceed to Kuwait and also secured a job. Thus, Smt. Tulsi started having faith in the prowess of the accused Sangeeta. As per Shri Bhati, in all probability, the ornaments were given by the deceased Tulsi to the accused Sangeeta voluntarily as a reward or offering and the charge of extortion has no foundation because there is absolute lack of evidence to prove this allegation. Shri Bhati further submitted that the FIR (Ex.P/2) came to be lodged after three days of the disappearance of Smt. Tulsi. Shri Bhati further submitted that the FIR (Ex.P/2) came to be lodged after three days of the disappearance of Smt. Tulsi. However, in this report, there is no description of the ornaments if any, worn by Smt. Tulsi while leaving her house. Posteriorly, in order to create evidence that the accused looted the ornaments which were worn by the deceased at the time of her murder, the witnesses Vasudev Sharma (P.W.1), Smt. Varsha (P.W.2) and Smt. Monika (P.W.3), created a story that Smt. Tulsi was wearing a gold chain, gold earrings and silver Payjeb when she left the house. Shri Bhati urged that the informant Vasudev Sharma was not even present in the house when Smt. Tulsi proceeded saying that she was going to Lohariya and thus, he could not have known details of apparel and ornaments his wife was wearing. 10. He criticised evidence of Smt. Varsha Sharma (P.W.2) and Smt. Monika (P.W.3), who claimed that when their mother-inlaw left the house, she was wearing the ornaments referred to above and that while going away, she also took the mobile phone of Smt. Monika (P.W.3). He submitted that both Varsha (P.W.2) and Monika (P.W.3), admitted that they did not know as to the means of transportation, their mother-in-law used for proceeding to Lohariya. Thus, the very presence of these two ladies when Smt. Tulsi proceeded from the house, is doubtful. Shri Bhati also criticized the FSL report (Ex.P/43) as per which, the strip of dari which was used to secure the mouth of the gunny bag in which the dead body of Smt. Tulsi was packed after the murder and the dari recovered from the house of the accused Ranjeet, were found to be similar. He submitted that this report is inconsequential because, the link evidence for proving the sanctity of the recovered articles has been breached beyond retrieval. On these grounds and submissions, Shri Bhati implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellants of the charges. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the accused Sangeeta professed of being possessed by the Goddess Dasha Mata and used to practise witchcraft. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the accused Sangeeta professed of being possessed by the Goddess Dasha Mata and used to practise witchcraft. Thereby, she had gained absolute control over Smt. Tulsi, who was tormented with predictions of dire consequences befalling her family and with an assurance to take remedial measures, she was made to part with her own and her daughters-in-laws’ ornaments. These very ornaments were recovered by the Investigating Officer in furtherance of informations provided by the accused appellant Sangeeta under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, who failed to offer any explanation as to how she came into possession of the ornaments of the victim and her daughters-in-law. All recovered ornaments were correctly identified by Shri Vasudev Sharma (P.W.1), Smt. Varsha (P.W.2) and Smt. Monika (P.W.3) during the test identification proceedings and so also during their sworn testimony. The strip of dari used to secure the gunny bag wherein, the dead body of Smt. Tulsi was packed, matched with the torn dari recovered from the house of Ranjeet Singh in furtherance of information provided by him to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Making these submissions, learned Public Prosecutor urged that the prosecution has proved the complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing unquestionably to the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence or involvement of any other person in the crime and hence, he implored the Court to affirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record. 13. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the charges and the prosecution case is based purely on circumstantial evidence in form of motive and recoveries. Before proceeding to discuss and analyse the prosecution evidence, it would be fruitful to reproduce the language of charge framed by the trial court against the accused appellants :- 14. A perusal of the charge framed by the trial court against the accused clearly indicates that there is no allegation therein that the accused persons removed the ornaments of the deceased after she was murdered. A perusal of the charge framed by the trial court against the accused clearly indicates that there is no allegation therein that the accused persons removed the ornaments of the deceased after she was murdered. The charge as framed regarding the ornaments is limited to the extent of extortion i.e. making the deceased part with her ornaments by putting her into fear. Whether or not, the said charge is substantiated, would be discussed later on. 15. For the present, we are concerned with the charge of murder in relation where to, the prosecution proposed the following pieces of circumstantial evidence ; (i) motive i.e. to say the greed of the accused to extract the victim’s wealth; (ii) recovery of ornaments alleged to be of the deceased from the house of the acquitted accused Savita made in furtherance of the information (Ex.P/34) provided by the accused Sangeeta to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act; (iii) recovery of the strip of dari (matting) which was used to secure mouth of the gunny sack in which, the body of the deceased was packed matching with the torn dari (matting) recovered from the house of the accused Ranjeet Singh in furtherance of the information allegedly provided by him to the Investigating Officer. 16. As the prosecution was desirous of establishing the charge of murder based on recovery of ornaments and by placing reliance on the reverse burden of proof under Section 106 read with the presumption Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, it would be required to lead pertinent evidence to the effect that some of the ornaments which the Investigating Officer claims to have recovered at the instance of the accused Smt. Sangeeta concealed in the house of her mother Smt. Savita, were actually worn by the deceased while she was leaving her home and these ornaments should have been distinctly identified from the bulk of ornaments which were recovered vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P/4). However, there is no such pertinent charge to this effect and hence, the prosecution cannot bank upon the presumption as provided under Section 114 read with Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act so as to operate the reverse burden of proof requiring the accused to furnish explanation for being in possession of the ornaments. However, there is no such pertinent charge to this effect and hence, the prosecution cannot bank upon the presumption as provided under Section 114 read with Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act so as to operate the reverse burden of proof requiring the accused to furnish explanation for being in possession of the ornaments. We have threadbare analyzed evidence of the two daughters-in-law of the deceased namely Smt. Varsha (P.W.2) and Smt. Monika (P.W.3) and find that when these witnesses identified the ornaments of the deceased before the Tehsildar, Banswara on 13.04.2012 and during their testimony in the Court, they did not utter a single word to distinguish and identify the ornaments, which they had seen the deceased wearing when leaving the home. Though, Shri Vasudev Sharma (P.W.1) was not present when Smt. Tulsi left the house but even in his evidence, he did not distinctly state as to which, amongst the ornaments presented before him for identification, were worn by his wife when she left the house. 17. Looking to the gruesome nature of the offence, this Court could have considered amending the charge even at this stage, but if we carefully analyse the deposition of the three material witnesses namely Shri Vasudev Sharma (P.W.1), Smt. Varsha (P.W.2) and Smt. Monika (P.W.3), we find that none of these three witnesses whose evidence is relevant for the purpose of this allegation distinctly identified those ornaments which the deceased was allegedly wearing at the time of leaving the house when the entire bulk of ornaments were presented during test identification proceedings and in the Court. This, grave omission coupled with the fact that even in the FIR Ex.P/2, which was lodged after three days of Smt. Tulsi having left the house, there is no allegation that she was wearing any ornaments while she was moving out makes it amply clear that the entire theory that the murder was fuelled with the objective of robbing ornaments worn by the victim is without foundation. 18. Consequently, we are of the firm view that the factum of recovery of ornaments does not provide any corroboration to the charge of murder because neither was any language used in the charge, that the accused removed the ornaments of the deceased after killing her, nor did the witnesses referred to supra make any such allegation in their evidence. 18. Consequently, we are of the firm view that the factum of recovery of ornaments does not provide any corroboration to the charge of murder because neither was any language used in the charge, that the accused removed the ornaments of the deceased after killing her, nor did the witnesses referred to supra make any such allegation in their evidence. Hence, recovery of the ornaments does not provide succour to the prosecution in bringing home the charge of murder as against the accused. 19. So far as the charge of extortion is concerned, the prosecution has tried to claim that the accused Sangeeta claimed to be possessed by Goddess Dasha Mata and was indulged in witchcraft and she had hypnotised/ captivated Smt. Tulsi to such an extent that she handed over all her family jewellery and the money to the accused. However, this allegation of the prosecution is sheerly conjectural. 20. It may be stated here that none of the witnesses being the close family members of the deceased including the first informant Shri Vasudev Sharma (P.W.1) husband, Smt. Varsha (P.W.2) and Smt. Monika (P.W.3), daughters-in-law of the deceased, Rakesh Sharma (P.W.4) and Roshan Sharma (P.W.5), sons of the deceased, stated that their mother i.e. the deceased Smt. Tulsi, ever told them that the accused had captivated her or induced her into parting with family jewellery. Thus, the allegation that the accused Sangeeta induced the deceased to come to her home for participating in the so called Tantrik activities and that under the garb of saving the family members from harm, she extorted the ornaments is sheerly conjectural. The complainant Shri Vasudev stated that his son Rohit Sharma, who subsequently proceeded to Kuwait, used to go to the house of the accused for seeking help for his unemployment related issues. Likewise, Varsha (P.W.2) admitted that she also went to the house of Sangeeta on a couple of occasions. Thus, unquestionably, the deceased Smt. Tulsi and her family members were voluntarily visitors of the house of the accused and also participated in the religious cult activities going on at that place and their trips were neither induced, nor forced by the accused. Thus, unquestionably, the deceased Smt. Tulsi and her family members were voluntarily visitors of the house of the accused and also participated in the religious cult activities going on at that place and their trips were neither induced, nor forced by the accused. As none of the witnesses referred to supra stated that the victim had ever made any complaint to them regarding the accused coercing or fraudulently inducing her to part with the ornaments, there cannot be any reason to hold that the accused procured the ornaments from the deceased by criminal means or by extortion. Resultantly, the charge for the offence punishable under Section 386 IPC is not sustainable as the prosecution could not lead any evidence to substantiate the same. 21. One of the most important pieces of evidence which the prosecution banked upon in order to bring home the charge of murder was the recovery of the strip of dari tied to the gunny bag as described supra, matching with the dari recovered at the instance of the accused Ranjeet Singh in furtherance of the information provided by him to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this regard, firstly it would be apt to state that the FSL report (Ex.P/43) only indicates that the strip of dari and the torn dari were similar in respect of colour, design, weaving pattern and material. The prosecution probably intended to prove that the piece of dari which was used to tie the gunny bag was cut off from the dari which was recovered at the instance of the accused Ranjeet Singh vide recovery memo Ex.P/19 in furtherance of the information Ex.P/37. However, the FSL report does not express any such opinion that the strip of dari had been cut off from the whole dari. Such a test was definitely required to be carried out if the conclusive inference had to be drawn against the accused by this circumstance. In addition thereto, there is a significant loophole/fabrication in the prosecution case regarding the steps taken to forward the dari piece and the whole dari to the FSL for comparison. Such a test was definitely required to be carried out if the conclusive inference had to be drawn against the accused by this circumstance. In addition thereto, there is a significant loophole/fabrication in the prosecution case regarding the steps taken to forward the dari piece and the whole dari to the FSL for comparison. In this regard, we would like to refer to the statements of Gopal Lal, SHO (P.W.18) who deposed that Ranjeet Singh gave him an information (Ex.P./37) on 02.03.2012 regarding concealment of the dari from which, a strip was torn off for tying the gunny bag in which, the dead body was packed and that the dari was lying concealed in his rented premises. Acting in furtherance of this information, the accused Ranjeet Singh led Shri Gopal Lal, SHO to his house and got a dari recovered which was seized vide memorandum (Ex.P/23). It is stated in the memorandum that corner of the dari is torn. However, the memorandum does not indicate that an entire strip had been cut off from the dari. The SHO did not state that he deposited the dari in the Malkhana of the Police Station. 22. A perusal of the statement of Malkhana Incharge Chhatra Singh (P.W.11) completely blows up the prosecution theory regarding the sanctity of the procedure adopted for comparison of the strip of dari and the dari recovered at the instance of Ranjeet Singh. Chhatra Singh stated in his evidence that S.H.O. Bhojraj Singh handed over the Malkhana articles of this case to him on 07.02.2012, 29.02.2012, 02.03.2012 and 04.03.2012. The witness did not state that Gopal Lal (P.W.18) gave him any Malkhana articles of this case. The witness stated that the Dari piece was reopened in the police station on 18.04.2012 and was re-packed in another covering. 23. Dr. Ashutosh Sharma (P.W.10) claims to have attested these proceedings, which were undertaken by Dharmilal (P.W.23) on 18.04.2012. 24. Dharmilal (P.W.23) stated in his evidence that the strip of Dari and the whole Dari were forwarded to the FSL, but the same were returned back with a remark that the piece of Dari should be separately sealed. Accordingly, he undertook the proceedings dated 18.04.2012, wherein the sealed article packet, which was prepared by Bhojraj Singh, SHO, on 07.02.2012 was re-opened, the strip of dari was taken out and was repacked in a separate covering. Accordingly, he undertook the proceedings dated 18.04.2012, wherein the sealed article packet, which was prepared by Bhojraj Singh, SHO, on 07.02.2012 was re-opened, the strip of dari was taken out and was repacked in a separate covering. However, the objections, which were marked at the FSL, were never brought forward before the court. A perusal of the Malkhana register (Ex.P/20-A) makes it clear that no reference is made therein regarding the transit of dari pieces to the FSL and the return thereof with objections. The only entry regarding the dari strip and the whole dari is of, deposit in the FSL on 24.04.2012. Thus, it is apparent that the strip of dari as well as the dari allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused Ranjeet Singh were never deposited in the Malkhana and the strip, which was allegedly used to tie the mouth gunny bag, was reopened at the Police Station on 18.04.2012. There is no evidence as to the condition of the strip of dari and the whole dari for the intervening period. Thus, the link evidence, essentially and mandatorily required to prove the sanctity of the Muddamaal articles, i.e. the dari strip and the whole dari, is totally demolished and as such, the FSL report, which gives a vague opinion of both being similar loses significance. 25. Once these recoveries are discarded, there remains nothing on the record of the case so as to connect the accused appellants with the crime. The trial court, while appreciating the evidence and recording the questioned findings in the impugned judgment committed grave errors on the face of the record. The impugned judgment is based purely on conjectures and surmises and cannot be sustained. 26. As an upshot, the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.40/2012, convicting and sentencing the appellants as above is therefore, quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. They shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 27. The appeal is allowed, accordingly. 28. As an upshot, the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.40/2012, convicting and sentencing the appellants as above is therefore, quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. They shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 27. The appeal is allowed, accordingly. 28. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, each of the appellants shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment, on receipt of notice thereof, the appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court