JUDGMENT : (Sandeep Mehta, J.) 1. This judgment shall decide the appeal No.18/1992 preferred by the State of Rajasthan and Appeal No.206/1991 preferred by the accused for assailing the judgment dated 26.09.1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No.21/89 whereby, the accused persons were acquitted from the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and while toning down the offence to one under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of the IPC, both were sentenced to five years’ RI and fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months’ additional imprisonment. The trial court also acquitted the accused persons from the charges punishable under Sections 323 IPC in the alternative 323/34 IPC, 341 in the alternative 341/34 IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. While the State of Rajasthan has approached this Court through appeal No.18/1992 for assailing acquittal of the accused from the charges referred to supra, the accused have filed appeal No.206/1991 for assailing their conviction and order of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted hereinbelow:- Ghewar Ram (PW.3) lodged a written report (Ex.P/5) to the SHO Police Station Anandpur Kalu, District Pali on 05.12.1988 at 11:45 AM alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 11 O’ Clock, the informant and his father Shri Mangilal confined the cattle owned by the accused persons while the animals were damaging the crops of the complainant. Both were proceeding to deposit the cattle in the cattle pond at which point of time, Puna Ram and Kalu Ram, residents of Lambiya armed with lathis and axes came around and started assaulting the complainant and his father. The complainant alleged that his father was inflicted numerous injuries on the head and right leg by lathis and axes as a result whereof, his father’s condition was precarious. He also alleged that he himself was caused injuries on hands and legs by the accused persons. It was further alleged in the FIR that Murali Sad and Heeralal Prajapat and few other persons intervened or else, the accused persons would have caused graver harm. The complainant got his father admitted to the hospital and thereafter proceeded to the police station for lodging the report. It was further alleged in the FIR that Murali Sad and Heeralal Prajapat and few other persons intervened or else, the accused persons would have caused graver harm. The complainant got his father admitted to the hospital and thereafter proceeded to the police station for lodging the report. On the basis of this written report, formal FIR No.69/1988 (Ex.P/26) for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323/34 IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act came to be registered at the Police Station Anandpur Kalu, District Pali and investigation was commenced. 3. The medical jurist examined Mangilal as well as the first informant Ghewar Ram for the injuries suffered by them. Shri Mangilal expired while undergoing treatment upon which, the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was applied to the case. The IO recorded the statements of the witnesses. The dead body of Shri Mangilal was subjected to autopsy at the Government Hospital, Beawar at the hands of Dr.S.C. Jain who issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/19) taking note of four injuries on the body of the deceased. The head injury as well as the injury on the leg was opined to be grievous in nature. Ghewar Ram received three simple bruises and his medical report (Ex.P/6) was also prepared by Dr. S.C. Jain. The accused persons were arrested. They too were got medically examined and medical reports were prepared. Maduli, mother of the accused appellants was also medically examined and three injuries were noticed on her body as well. Upon conclusion of investigation, the IO proceeded to file charge-sheet against the accused appellants Kalu Ram and Puna Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Pali where charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 in the alternative 302/34 IPC, 341 in the alternative 341/34 IPC, 323 in the alternative 323/34 IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 24 witnesses were examined and 30 documents were exhibited by the prosecution case to prove its case. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 24 witnesses were examined and 30 documents were exhibited by the prosecution case to prove its case. The accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, denied the same, claimed to be innocent and took a specific plea that Mangilal and Ghewar Ram were beating their mother Maduli who was watering the cows. Upon this, both of them rushed to save their mother. They too were beaten by the complainant and his father. Three witnesses were examined in defence and four documents were exhibited. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court found that the prosecution case was full of suspicious circumstances. The prosecution could not explain numerous injuries suffered by the accused and their mother in the very same incident. The accused did not bear the intention to kill the deceased. The complainant and his father were taking the cattle of the accused unauthorizedly, and thus the accused had the right to defend their person and property (cattle) but the said right extended to causing simple hurt only. However, the accused inflicted repeated blows to the deceased and thus, they exceeded the right of private defence and accordingly, the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was toned down to one under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused were convicted and sentenced as above for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC by the judgment dated 26.06.1991, which is assailed in these two appeals as mentioned above. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently contended that the accused persons launched an unprovoked attack on the deceased Mangilal who was a 70 years old man. Repeated blows were landed on the vital body parts of the deceased. His skull bones were fractured as a result of the assault. Grievous injuries were also caused on his leg. Injuries were also inflicted to the first informant Ghewar Ram. Thus, learned Public Prosecutor urged that there was no justification for the learned trial court to have toned down the charge under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. Grievous injuries were also caused on his leg. Injuries were also inflicted to the first informant Ghewar Ram. Thus, learned Public Prosecutor urged that there was no justification for the learned trial court to have toned down the charge under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. As per learned Public Prosecutor, it is a case of cold blooded murder and hence, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan to challenge the acquittal of the respondents from the charge punishable under Section 302 IPC deserves to be accepted. 5. Per contra, Shri Tejmal Ranka, learned counsel representing the accused vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. He urged that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the complainant and his father had wrongfully confined the cattle owned by the accused and were trying to deposit them in the cattle pond without any justification. Madu Devi, mother of the accused persons requested the complainant and his father to release the cattle on which, she was beaten and numerous injuries were caused to her. The accused persons, on noticing that their cattle had been illegally confined and their mother was being beaten, rushed to save her on which, they too were inflicted injuries. Thus, as per Shri Ranka, it is clearly a case wherein, the accused persons caused injuries to the complainant and his father in a bonafide exercise of right of private defence. He further submitted that there are grave contradictions in the story put-forth by the star prosecution witness Shri Ghewar Ram in his evidence inasmuch as, the Investigating Officer did not find any damage to the crops as claimed by the complainant in his evidence. Murali Sad and Heera Lal who were named in the written report as the eyewitnesses of the incident, were not examined and were withheld and on the contrary, the prosecution tried to create ocular testimony by posing PW.4 Geeta, PW.5 Pratap Ram, PW.6 Puna Ram and PW.7 Keli to be the witnesses of the incident. He thus, implored the Court to accept the appeal against conviction, reject the appeal filed by the State and acquit the accused appellants of the charges while accepting their appeal. His alternative submission was that the incident took place way back in the year 1988. He thus, implored the Court to accept the appeal against conviction, reject the appeal filed by the State and acquit the accused appellants of the charges while accepting their appeal. His alternative submission was that the incident took place way back in the year 1988. The accused persons have already remained in custody for a period nearly two years and nine months and thus, it is a fit case to reduce the sentence suffered by the accused to the period already undergone and there is no justification to send the accused persons back to custody at this highly belated stage. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully and meticulously examined the record and have re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 7. Now we proceed to examine the sworn testimony of the star prosecution witness Ghewar Ram (PW.3) who himself received injuries in the same incident. While deposing on oath, Shri Ghewar Ram stated that he used to reside in Bherunda Ki Dhani, Village Lambiya. On 05.12.1988, he and his father had gone to their field where crops were collected laid out after harvesting. 8-10 cows owned by the accused entered their field and were damaging the harvested crop of ground-nut. He and his father turned the cattle out of their field and were proceeding to hand them back to the accused. He and his father went to the field of the accused, who refused to accept or control their cows and stated that if anything further was done, they would use their axes and kill. Upon this, the complainant and his father rounded the cattle and were proceeding to deposit them in the Lambiya Cattle pond. The complainant’s sister Geeta also came there. They had reached the Dhuni of Narayan Das when the accused persons, forcibly got the cattle released and exhorted that their cows would graze freely. Saying so, Punia gave repeated blows on his father’s head who fell down unconscious. Thereafter, Kaliya inflicted lathi blows on the head and other body parts of his father. He rushed for saving his father on which, Kaliya inflicted lathi blows to him as well. Punia also caused injuries to him. At that time, he was unarmed. Pratap Ji Jat, Puna Ram, Geeta, Muralidhar Sad and Heeralal Panwar intervened to save them and the accused ran away from the spot. He rushed for saving his father on which, Kaliya inflicted lathi blows to him as well. Punia also caused injuries to him. At that time, he was unarmed. Pratap Ji Jat, Puna Ram, Geeta, Muralidhar Sad and Heeralal Panwar intervened to save them and the accused ran away from the spot. He took his father to the Government Dispensary, Anandpur Kalu from where he was referred to Beawar. His father was admitted at the Beawar Hospital where he expired. He went back to the Police Station and lodged the report. The witness pertinently stated that while he was trying to save himself, some injuries were received by the accused as well. In cross-examination, the witness denied the defence suggestion that he and his father caused injuries to the accused. He alleged that Punia gave a lathi blow on the head of his father and thereafter random injuries were inflicted by both the accused. His father did not hit anyone with the stick he was carrying in his hands. Pratap, Geeta, and Puna came to the spot after he (the informant) had reached near his father. The witness could not state as to the extent of damage caused by the cattle of the accused. He admitted that the accused were carrying bamboo sticks and were not having axes in their hands. He was confronted with the written report (Ex.P/5) wherein, there was an allegation that the accused beat his father by lathis and axes. The witness admitted that this fact was mentioned in the FIR. He also admitted that it was not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P/5), as to which/who of the accused caused the particular injury to his father. He also admitted that in the written report, the names of Pratap, Geeta and Puna, as the persons who intervened to save them were not mentioned. Thus, the witness has made significant improvements from the allegations set out in the report (Ex.P/5) lodged by him with the police. 8. It may be noted that the first informant Shri Ghewar Ram is a Government Teacher and thus, it can be reasonably expected that he would incorporate all available evidence/material/facts before lodging the report of the incident with the police. On a perusal of the written report (Ex.P/5), it becomes clear that there is a clear indication in this report that only the informant saw the incident. On a perusal of the written report (Ex.P/5), it becomes clear that there is a clear indication in this report that only the informant saw the incident. Murali Sad and Heeral Lal came to intervene at later point of time. Thus, name of the so-called other eyewitnesses does not figure in the written report. Furthermore, in this report, there is no specific allegation qua the role played by the two accused persons in the alleged assault. Rather, the FIR is silent regarding the weapons allegedly held by the two accused persons. Be that as it may. 9. On a threadbare perusal of the statement of the witness, we are duly satisfied that so far as the witnesses Geeta (PW.4), Pratapram (PW.5) and Puna (PW.6) are concerned, they must have reached the place of incident after the assault had taken place and could not have seen the blows being exchanged. Thus, their portrayal as eyewitnesses of the incident is totally unacceptable and the trial court was perfectly justified in discarding the evidence of these three witnesses. 10. The next important witness whose evidence needs a brief reference is the IO Shri Jugat Singh (PW.18). The IO admitted in his cross-examination that during the course of investigation, it came to light that the complainant party was taking the cows of the accused to the cattle pond at which point of time, the incident flared up. The IO admitted that he did not conduct spot investigation/inspection of the field where the crops of the complainant party were allegedly damaged. Thus, there is no material on the record of the case to satisfy the Court that the cattle owned by the accused persons trespassed into the field of the complainant or that they caused damage to the harvested groundnut crop. To this extent, the evidence of Shri Ghewar Ram (PW.3) does not get corroboration from any other evidence. 11. Now we proceed to discuss the medical testimony. Dr. S.C. Jain, PW.16 initially examined Shri Mangilal while he was still alive and issued the injury report (Ex.P/6). The doctor took note of the following injuries.:- 1. Bruise admeasuring 4 x 3 inches on the right leg. 2. Lacerated wound admeasuring 1/4 x 1/5 x 1/6 inches on the right leg. 3. Bruise admeasuring 5 x 2 inches on the right leg 4. Bruise admeasuring 2 x 1 inches on the right forearm 5. The doctor took note of the following injuries.:- 1. Bruise admeasuring 4 x 3 inches on the right leg. 2. Lacerated wound admeasuring 1/4 x 1/5 x 1/6 inches on the right leg. 3. Bruise admeasuring 5 x 2 inches on the right leg 4. Bruise admeasuring 2 x 1 inches on the right forearm 5. Bruise admeasuring 4 x 3-1/2 inches on the left shoulder 6. Bruise admeasuring 5 x 5 inches on middle of the forehead. 7. Bruise admeasuring 3 x 2 inches on the forehead with both eyes blackened. 12. X-ray opinion was required for injuries Nos.1 & 6. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. After x-ray, the injuries nos. 1 & 6 were found to be grievous in nature. Shri Mangilal succumbed to his injuries and postmortem was carried out on his body by Dr. S.C. Jain who issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/19) The bones underneath the injury No.6 were found fractured and the brain was compressed which led to coma and sudden death of Shri Mangilal. 13. The medical jurist also examined the injuries of Ghewar Ram and issued the injury report (Ex.P/6) as per which three bruises were noticed on the left leg, right hand and left hand respectively of the injured. All the injuries were found to be simple in nature. The defence witness Mohanlal (DW.1) stated that the incident took place at about 10 O’ clock. Maduli, mother of Kalu and Puna Ram was going to water the cows and at which point of time, Mangilal inflicted stick blows to her. Puna Ram went to save his mother on which he too was beaten by Ghewar Ram and Mangilal. The witness also stated that the operations of the cattle pond in their village were suspended at the time of the incident. 14. The defence witness Bhanwaru (DW.2) also gave evidence that at the time of the incident, the cattle pond of their village was not functional. 15. Dr. Jatan Singh (DW.3) conducted medical examination of Maduli, mother of the appellants and the appellants themselves. As per the medical report (Ex.D/5), Maduli was having a bruise admeasuring 2 x 2 CM on the right side of chest and a bruise admeasuring 3 x 2 CM on the right side of head. 15. Dr. Jatan Singh (DW.3) conducted medical examination of Maduli, mother of the appellants and the appellants themselves. As per the medical report (Ex.D/5), Maduli was having a bruise admeasuring 2 x 2 CM on the right side of chest and a bruise admeasuring 3 x 2 CM on the right side of head. As per the medical report (Ex.D/6), Kalu Ram was having a lacerated wound admeasuring 1x 1/2 x 0.3 CM above the right ear and abrasion on the index finger. As per medico legal report (Ex/D/7), Puna Ram was having a lacerated wound above the right ear; swelling on the right elbow and another lacerated wound admeasuring 5 x 1/2 x 1/2 CM in the middle of the scalp. The evidence of the remaining witnesses is purely formal and would not impact the outcome of the case. 16. Upon a threadbare appreciation of the evidence available on record, we are of the firm opinion that the trial court was perfectly justified in holding that the witnesses Geeta (PW.4), Pratap Ram (PW.5) and Puna (PW.6) were not the eyewitnesses of the incident. Thus, the entire prosecution case hinges on the evidence of the injured witness, the first informant Ghewar Ram (PW.3). It may be reiterated that the IO did not conduct any spot inspection of the field of the complainant party and thus, the allegation set out in the evidence of Ghewar Ram (PW.3) that the cattle of the accused were causing damage to the crops of the complainant remains unsubstantiated. Ghewar Ram stated that he and his father had confined the cattle of the accused and were proceeding to deposit them in the cattle pond. It is precisely at this moment that the accused persons allegedly launched the attack. Prior thereto, when the complainant and his father took the cattle of the accused to their field, the accused threatened them with axes. However, Ghewar Ram stated on oath that the accused were armed with lathis whey they indulged in the assault. Apparently thus, there is a discrepancy regarding the nature of weapons used by the accused in the incident. This discrepancy is starkly indicated when we consider the written report (Ex.P/5) wherein, the informant did not mention as to the exact description of weapon individually held by the accused. It was vaguely stated in the report that the accused were armed with axes and lathis. This discrepancy is starkly indicated when we consider the written report (Ex.P/5) wherein, the informant did not mention as to the exact description of weapon individually held by the accused. It was vaguely stated in the report that the accused were armed with axes and lathis. Thus, this discrepancy created a grave doubt on the reliability of the Ghewar Ram’s testimony. 17. The evidence of defence witnesses, referred to supra, clearly establishes that the cattle pond where, the complainant and his father were proposing/proceeding to deposit the cattle of the accused was not functional. Furthermore, it does not stand to reason that when initially the complainant and his father took the cattle of the accused to their field, they would refuse to accept the same. It thus, clearly appears that the complainant Ghewar Ram has hidden true genesis of occurrence. Shri Ghewar Ram further claimed that he was unarmed whereas his father, the deceased Mangilal, who was a 70 years old man, was carrying a thin babool stick with himself. In this circumstance, the possibility of Mangilal singly having inflicted multiple injuries to the two accused persons who were young men is well-nigh non existent and unbelievable. Thus, it is evident that Ghewar Ram himself must be carrying some weapon in his hands and that is why he tried to take a stance in his examination-in-chief that while he was trying to save himself, the accused also received injuries. If Ghewar Ram was unarmed then, it is quite a surprise as to how he could manage to inflict injuries to the accused. Thus, it is well and truly established that not only did Ghewar Ram suppress the true genesis of occurrence but he also failed to explain the injuries caused to the accused. The defence has come out with a clear theory that Maduli Devi, mother of the accused persons was watering the cows at which point of time, the complainant and his father assaulted her. The fact that Smt. Maduli Devi received injuries coinciding with the time of the incident at hand, is well established from the evidence of Dr. Jatan Singh (DW.3) who issued the medical report (Ex.D/5) after examining Smt. Maduli on 07.12.1988. Both the accused also received injuries in the same incident which fact was admitted by Ghewar Ram. Their injury reports Ex.D/6 and Ex.D/7 were also proved by Dr. Jatan Singh (DW.3). Jatan Singh (DW.3) who issued the medical report (Ex.D/5) after examining Smt. Maduli on 07.12.1988. Both the accused also received injuries in the same incident which fact was admitted by Ghewar Ram. Their injury reports Ex.D/6 and Ex.D/7 were also proved by Dr. Jatan Singh (DW.3). Puna Ram was caused two injuries on the skull region. Thus, it is not a case wherein, the injuries received by the accused persons can be brushed aside as being trivial or superficial. 18. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that the learned trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused persons from the charges under Sections 302 in the alternative Section 302/34, 341 in the alternative 341/34 and 323 in the alternative 323/34 IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act by extending them the benefit of right of private defence. The findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment to this extent are unimpeachable and hence, the appeal preferred by the State has to fail. 19. Now we come to the appeal filed by the accused appellants. Law is well settled that where the right of private defence is extended to the accused, the penal provisions of Sections 34 and 149 IPC providing for vicarious liability cannot be invoked. In this regard, reference may be had to the following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs Nathu Pandey and Ors. : AIR 1970 SC 27 :- “In order to attract the provisions of Section 149 the prosecution must establish that there was an unlawful assembly and that the crime was committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. Under the fourth clause of Section 141 an assembly of five or more persons is an unlawful assembly if the common object of its members is to enforce any right or supposed right by means of criminal force or show of criminal force to any Person. Section 141 must be read with ss. 96 to 106 dealing with the right of private defence. Under Section 96 nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Section 141 must be read with ss. 96 to 106 dealing with the right of private defence. Under Section 96 nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. The assertion of a right of private defence within the limits prescribed by law cannot fall within the expression "to enforce any right or supposed right" in the fourth clause of Section 141. In Kapildeo Singh v. the King (1949) F.C.R. 834 the High Court had affirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 147 and Section 304 read with Section 149, without considering the question as to who was actually in possession of the plot at the time of the occurrence. The High Court observed that the question of possession was immaterial and that the appellants party were members of an unlawful assembly, "as both sides were determined to vindicate their rights by show of force or use of force." The Federal Court set aside the conviction and sentence. It held that the High Court judge stated the law too loosely "if by the use of the word 'vindicate' he meant to include even cases in which a party is forced to maintain or defend his rights". The assembly could not be designated as an unlawful assembly if its object was to defend property by the use of force within the limits prescribed by law.” 20. Reference may also be had to to the following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vajrapu Sambayya Naidu & Ors. vs State of AP and Ors : (2004) 10 SCC 152 :- “Even assuming that the right of private defence of persons did not accrue to the appellants and that, in fact, they exceeded their right of private defence of property, it has to be seen as to which of the accused exceeded that right. It is well settled that in a case where the court comes to the conclusion that the members of the defence party exceeded the right of private defence, the court must identify and punish only those who have exceeded the right. Section 34/149 IPC will not be applicable in the case of persons exercising their right of private defence. [See : State of Bihar v. Mathu Pandey, 1970 (1) SCR 358 and Subramani v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002(7) SCC 210 .). Section 34/149 IPC will not be applicable in the case of persons exercising their right of private defence. [See : State of Bihar v. Mathu Pandey, 1970 (1) SCR 358 and Subramani v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002(7) SCC 210 .). For the same reason, the appellants cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC, because nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.” 21. Thus, while holding that the accused exceeded the right of private defence, the learned trial court was not justified in convicting the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II with the aid of Section 34 IPC. It may be reiterated that in the FIR (Ex.P/5), specific role assigned to the accused was not elaborated. However, even if the exaggerated allegations as set out in the testimony of PW.3 Ghewar Ram are to be considered as reliable evidence, since the provisions of constructive/vicarious liability cannot be applied. The finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment that the accused persons exceeded the right of private defence is thus unimpeachable. However, in view of the precedents cited above, the accused cannot be held liable with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC and the prosecution would have to pinpoint the specific role played by the accused in the incident and each accused would be liable for the particular injury inflicted by him. Nonetheless, from the evidence of the sole eyewitness PW.3 Ghewar Ram, this exercise does not seem to be possible. Hence, both the accused can at best be convicted for causing simple hurt to the complainant and the deceased which is punishable under Section 323 IPC. 22. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, while dismissing the State appeal, the appeal preferred by the accused persons is accepted in part. The conviction of the accused persons recorded by the learned trial court for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II/34 IPC is set aside. They are instead, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Both the accused persons have already suffered incarceration well in excess of the maximum punishment provided for this offence. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. 23. The appeal (No.206/1991) preferred by the accused appellants is allowed in part. 24. They are instead, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Both the accused persons have already suffered incarceration well in excess of the maximum punishment provided for this offence. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. 23. The appeal (No.206/1991) preferred by the accused appellants is allowed in part. 24. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the accused appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-each 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. 25. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.