JUDGMENT : RAMESH SINHA, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, in Sessions Trial No. 99/2000, by which the appellants herein have been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased Yogita Tiwari was married with Yogesh Tiwari (A-1) in the year 1996. After marriage, both spouses led a peaceful life, but after some time the deceased was being tortured for demand of dowry and due to this harassment and cruelty, she was feeling apprehension in her mind. Whenever she used to go to her parental house, she states about the cruel treatment given by the appellants. On 12.12.1998, father of the deceased had gone to meet his daughter where he was ill-treated by in-laws. Seeing the humiliated treatment by her in-laws, she starting weeping and embraced her father that her life was danger and most probably, it would be last meeting between them and thereafter her father returned back to his village. On 08.01.1999 dead body of the deceased found lying in a burnt condition in kitchen of her matrimonial house. Sanjay Dubey (PW-11) has lodged merg intimation vide Ex.P-13 and on the basis of merg intimation, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-16. Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-14. Dead body of deceased Yogita was sent for postmortem to Primary Health Centre, Sarangarh vide Ex.P-17, where postmortem was conducted by Dr. Jagannath Sharma (PW-9) vide Ex.P-8 and noticed following features at the time of conducting post mortem examination: External Appearance Body lying supine on PM table. All limbs are rigid and flexed at elbow & wrist and at knee also assuming the pugilistic attitude. Tongue caught between teeth. Whole of the body is burned. Many places bones are visible and at places muscles ruptured (Torned) visible. Eyes are close. The signed hair present at occipital region of head. Blackening of body at many places seen. Only skin present at occipital region has got depressed vesication line. Mouth has got red, inflamed like leaves. Tongue caught between teeth. Whole of the body is burned. Many places bones are visible and at places muscles ruptured (Torned) visible. Eyes are close. The signed hair present at occipital region of head. Blackening of body at many places seen. Only skin present at occipital region has got depressed vesication line. Mouth has got red, inflamed like leaves. Hip bones are visible and perineal & buttock area completely burnt. Redness over face and scalp present. Both the legs have visible tibia and attached muscles with redness around it and vessels seen crossing over it. Hands & feet has got visible bones. Cracked tissue seen at many places. Dr. Jagannath Sharma (PW-9) has opined that death is caused by burn. No definite opinion regarding mode of death, whether suicidal, homicidal or accidental can be given. Time since death is within twelve to forty eight (48) hours prior to commencement of post mortem. Appellant-Ramkumar Tiwari was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-21, appellant- Shivkumari Tiwari was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-22 and appellant-Yogesh Tiwari was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-23. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Raigarh, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh received the case on transfer for trial. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents Exs.P-1 to P-23. Statements of the accused/appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied guilt. However, the accused took a plea of alibi stating they were not present in the house at the time of incident and were present elsewhere. 4. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 18.2.2013, while acquitting the appellants for offence under Section 304-B of the IPC convicted them for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein. 5. Mr. Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. 5. Mr. Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mr.Aditya Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial Court has committed grave legal error in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 302 of the IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove that there was unnatural death of a woman and further soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. He would further submit that the prosecution has to prove that the appellants were present in the house at the time of incident, as deceased Yogita was found in a burnt condition in kitchen of her in-laws house and at that time, appellant No. 1-Yogesh Tiwari was in his shop, appellant No. 2- Ramkumar Tiwari was in his school and appellant No. 3-Shivkumari was in neighbour’s house. As such, the appellants have proved the plea of alibi. He would also submit that the prosecution has also failed to prove the death of the deceased to be homicidal in nature. Therefore, conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed. He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Mulak Raj and Others vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 7 SCC 308 , State of Rajasthan vs. Ramanand, AIR 2017 SC 2100 , State of Karnataka vs. Srinivasa, AIR 2018 SC 3975 and Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626 . 6. On the other hand, Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State would support the impugned judgment and submit that dead body of deceased Yogita found lying inside the kitchen in a burnt condition, therefore, provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act is applicable and the appellants were required to explain as to under what circumstances Yogita died in their house. She would further submit that appellants have failed to explain the death of deceased Yogita and therefore, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302 of the IPC is well merited and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. She would further submit that appellants have failed to explain the death of deceased Yogita and therefore, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302 of the IPC is well merited and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. She would also submit that appellant No. 1-Yogesh Tiwari has not proved his alibi by examining the witness or any document that he was in his shop at the time of incident nor any prosecution witness has stated that he was in his shop. Appellant No. 2-Ramkumar Tiwari has also not proved his alibi by examining any witness or documentary evidence that he was in school when the incident took place. Appellant No. 3-Shivkumari has also not proved that she was outside the house at the time of incident as Sanjay Dubey (PW-11) in para-3 of his evidence has stated that she was inside the house when he entered the house and she came out from the room just next to kitchen where the deceased burnt. She would rely upon the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the matter of Milan @ Makardhwaja Khadia vs. State of Odisha, JCRLA No. 64 of 2016, decided on 16.5.2022. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The question for consideration is whether the appellants are the authors of the crime, which the trial Court has answered in affirmative relying upon the circumstantial evidence available on record. The trial Court has convicted the appellants with the aid of Section 106 of the Evidence Act holding that it is house murder, which the appellants were required to offer explanation in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. which they have failed to offer and consequently, finding other circumstance established, proceeded to convict them for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 9. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as under: “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 10. The law regarding under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is well settled. The unnatural death of Yogita took place in the house, in which appellants-Yogesh Tiwari, Ramkumar Tiwari and Shivkumari were residing. 11. The law regarding under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is well settled. The unnatural death of Yogita took place in the house, in which appellants-Yogesh Tiwari, Ramkumar Tiwari and Shivkumari were residing. 11. As per the requirement of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused were required to give plausible and convincing explanation about the circumstances, in which, the deceased was found dead in their house. Where an offence like murder is committed inside the house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. 12. In view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot keep away by simply keeping quite and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. 13. In the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Supreme Court whilst applying provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, observed in Para 14 reads as under: “14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: (b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.” 14. On the interpretation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 in paragraph 9 it was observed by the Supreme Court thus: “9. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word “especially” stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not.” 15. In the matter of State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, (2000) 8 SCC 382 , the Supreme Court has observed in Paras 31 to 33 as under: “31. In the matter of State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, (2000) 8 SCC 382 , the Supreme Court has observed in Paras 31 to 33 as under: “31. The prestine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries, and the society would be the casualty. 32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in establishing the afore narrated circumstances, the Court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognized by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this. 33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.” 16. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval recently in the matter of Nagendra Sah vs. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: “22. in relation to the facts of the case.” 16. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval recently in the matter of Nagendra Sah vs. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: “22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference. 23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.” 17. Bharat Prasad Sharma (PW-1) is father of deceased Yogita. In his evidence, he has stated that on 8-1-1999 he got the information that his daughter Yogita had passed away after the arrival of people from village Afrid. After receiving information of death of his daughter Yogita, he, his wife and younger daughter Pratistha Sharma and son Jaiharsh Sharma and from village Kamrid his sister Rambha Mishra and Umashankar Sharma went to the village Godihari and reached there at 9 p.m. where they saw crowd in front of the house his son-in-law, the police stood there. On second day, he got an opportunity to see Yogita's dead body. Umashankar Sharma (PW-5) has stated that Yogita Tiwari died by burns. After getting information about the incident, he went to the spot along with Yogita's father, they reached the deceased's in-laws house at around 10-10.30 pm. He also stated that the police sealed the room where deceased Yogita Tiwari died. 18. Umashankar Sharma (PW-5) has stated that Yogita Tiwari died by burns. After getting information about the incident, he went to the spot along with Yogita's father, they reached the deceased's in-laws house at around 10-10.30 pm. He also stated that the police sealed the room where deceased Yogita Tiwari died. 18. Smt. Neelam Sharma (PW-6) (elder sister of deceased Yogita) has stated in her evidence that from village Afrid one man came to her and informed that Yogita has died due to burn injuries. Thereafter they went to the in-laws house of Yogita at village Godihari where her father informed her that Yogita is no more. Rajesh Kumar Sharma (PW-7) has stated in his evidence that when they reached to the in-laws house of deceased Yogita Tiwari, at that time, accused Ramkumar came out from the house and informed that Yogita is no more. Harshkumar Pandey (PW-8) has also stated about the death of deceased Yogita Tiwari. Sanjay Dubey (PW-11) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when he was in his field one man of his locality came to him and informed him that from the house of Ramkumar Tiwari smoke was coming out, thereafter he came to the house of Ramkumar Tiwari, the door of the house was rolled, he went inside it was smoky in the kitchen and gas was burning, where he saw Yogita Tiwari lying in the kitchen and fire was coming out from her knee. When he tried to find out, he did not see any movement in her body, due to which he realized that Yogita had died. 19. Dr. Jagannath Sharma (PW-9) has conducted postmortem vide Ex.P-8 and opined that death is caused by burn. No definite opinion regarding mode of death, whether suicidal, homicidal or accidental can be given. Time since death is within twelve to forty eight (48) hours prior to commencement of postmortem. 19. Dr. Jagannath Sharma (PW-9) has conducted postmortem vide Ex.P-8 and opined that death is caused by burn. No definite opinion regarding mode of death, whether suicidal, homicidal or accidental can be given. Time since death is within twelve to forty eight (48) hours prior to commencement of postmortem. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Sarangarh has made queries to the Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Center, Sarangarh regarding opinion on death of deceased Yogita Tiwari which states as under: dk;kZy; iqfyl vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] lkjaxढ Øekad@vfrŒ@6@99 fnukad 6-2-1999 Áfr] lgk;d lY; fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ihŒ,pŒlhŒ lkjaxढ fo"k;%& e`rdk ;ksfxrk frokjh ifr ;ksxs’k frokjh mez 28 o"kZ fuoklh xksfM+;kjh ds ihŒ,eŒ fjiksVZ ij [kqyklk er pkgus ckcr~A egksn;] fo"k;kafdr e`rdk dk 'ko ijh{k.k vkidh Vhe }kjk fnukad 9-1-1999 dks fd;k x;k gS ftlesa fuEu fcUnqvksa ij [kqyklk er Li"V djus dk d"V djs %& 1- 'ko iapukek le; e`rdk ds 'ko fujh{k.k ij e`rdk dh thHk eqag ls ckgj fudyh nkarksa ds uhps nch ik;h xbZ gS D;k tyus ls e`R;q gksus ij lkekU;r;% ,slk gksrk gS\ 2- e`rdk dks tyh gkyr ls iwoZ yxHkx 20] 25 feuV igys thfor gkyr esa ns[kk x;k gS ;fn ;g 20] 25 feuV dk vUrj tyus esa yxk le; eku fy;k tk, rks d`i;k 'ko ijh{k.k le; 'ko ftruk tyk Fkk D;k dksbZ 'ko brus gh le; esa ty ldrk gS\ 3- e`rdk ds 'ko ijh{k.k le; mlds Lokal uyh ¼Lolu ra=½ es D;k /kqvka ;k dkcZu ik;k x;k gS\ 20. Dr. Jagannath Sharma (PW-9) and one other doctor have given the answers to the queries made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) (Ex.P-9) as under: “The answers to the queries are as follows: 1. We have mentioned to our P.M. report that the tongue of the deceased was caught between the teeth. Under usual condition this finding is not seen in death due to burn. 2. The extent of burn that was found on the body of the deceased at the time of p.m. examination cannot occur within 20-25 minutes. 3. We have already mentioned in our p.m. report, Page No. 4, that the trachea contained sooty particles.” 21. It is to be remembered here that homicidal nature of death need not always be proved through direct evidence. It has to be inferred from the circumstances and the nature of injuries noticed on the dead body. 3. We have already mentioned in our p.m. report, Page No. 4, that the trachea contained sooty particles.” 21. It is to be remembered here that homicidal nature of death need not always be proved through direct evidence. It has to be inferred from the circumstances and the nature of injuries noticed on the dead body. The instant case is about the death of a wife committed by the husband and his parents within four walls of the house. When the assailant is the husband and his relatives and they tried best to screen the evidence by attempting to burn the dead body after committing the offence, it is difficult indeed to get direct evidence on the nature of injuries. It is thus concluded that the deceased died homicidal nature of death. Considering the answers given by Dr. Jagannath Sharma (PW-9) vide Ex.P-9 to the queries made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Sarangarh and further considering the nature of burn injuries, which the deceased was found, we are of the considered opinion that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. It is held accordingly. 22. In the matters of Srinivasa (supra) and Shivaji Chintappa (supra), which the learned Senior Advocate relied upon, the death was caused due to hanging, but in the present case, the deceased was found lying inside the kitchen of her in-laws house in a burnt condition and as per opinion of the doctors (Ex.P-9), the tongue of the deceased was caught between the teeth and under usual condition this finding is not seen in death due to burn and as per the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden to prove that the appellants were not present in the house at the time of incident and they were present elsewhere is on the appellants, which they admittedly failed to prove in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. As such, the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate are not helpful to the appellants and are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 23. PW-12 T.R. Koshima, Additional Superintendent of Police, Korba who at the time of incident was Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Sarangarh, has stated that after enquiry on the basis of merg intimation (Ex.P-13) dated 8.1.1999, FIR was registered and thereafter panchnama of the dead body was prepared. 23. PW-12 T.R. Koshima, Additional Superintendent of Police, Korba who at the time of incident was Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Sarangarh, has stated that after enquiry on the basis of merg intimation (Ex.P-13) dated 8.1.1999, FIR was registered and thereafter panchnama of the dead body was prepared. He also stated that before preparing the autopsy panchnama, he had given notice to the witnesses and he has seized the articles from the place of incident on 8.1.1999 vide Ex.P-6 in which he has signed. He also stated that he has prepared the spot map. In para-13 of his cross-examination, he has stated that the cause of death of the deceased has been shown to be death by fire. 24. The appellants have taken the plea of alibi. 25. Plea of alibi has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2016) 3 SCC 37 and it has been held as under: “The word alibi means “elsewhere.” The plea of alibi is not one of the General Exceptions contained in chapter IV of IPC. It is a rule of evidence recognized under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. However, plea of alibi taken by the defence is required to be proved only after prosecution has proved its case against the accused. In the present case said condition is fulfilled.” 26. In the matter of Binay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 322 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that strict proof is required for establishing plea of alibi and finding of fact disbelieving the plea of alibi based on weighty and sturdy reasons should not be interfered with. 27. In the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple, AIR 1984 SC 63 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that a plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the person concerned at the place of occurrence. 28. No evidence was brought on record to prove beyond doubt that on the fateful day of 8.1.1999, the accused/appellants were not present on the spot and they were present elsewhere. 28. No evidence was brought on record to prove beyond doubt that on the fateful day of 8.1.1999, the accused/appellants were not present on the spot and they were present elsewhere. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the offence against the appellants beyond doubt by not only adducing ocular evidence but also by circumstantial evidence, as such, the appellants have failed to establish their plea of alibi and their plea of alibi is vacillating, which has rightly been not accepted by the trial Court and is based on sturdy reasons which are not inclined to interfere. 29. In the matter of Sahabuddin and Another vs. State of Assam, (2012) 13 SCC 213 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that once the court disbelieves the plea of alibi and the accused does not given any explanation in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the Court is entitled to draw adverse inference against the accused taking the plea of alibi. 30. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plea of alibi taken by the appellants is vacillating and is also not acceptable. 31. Considering the answers given by the doctors (Ex.P-9) to the queries made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Sarangarh and also considering that dead body of the deceased found lying inside the kitchen in a burnt condition, taking into consideration that the burden of proving a plea specially set up by the appellants which may absolve them from criminal liability, certainly lie upon them and they have not offered any plausible explanation, further taking into consideration that the appellants have also not proved the plea of alibi by adducing cogent and reliable evidence, they were required to explain as to how the deceased suffered such burn injuries, as the dead body of the deceased was found inside the house of the appellants, which they have admittedly not explained in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. we are of the considered opinion that the above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to one conclusion that it was the accused/appellants who caused death of the deceased and they committed the murder of the deceased. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellants are the authors of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record. We hereby affirm that finding. 32. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellants are the authors of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record. We hereby affirm that finding. 32. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellants is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 33. It is stated at the Bar that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. They are directed to surrender forthwith, failing which they shall be taken into custody to serve out remaining period of sentence in terms of the impugned judgment dated 18.02.2013 passed by the trial Court. 34. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of judgment of this Court along with the record to the Sessions Judge, Raigarh for necessary information and compliance. It is further directed that the record of the case transmitted by this Court shall be kept in safe custody by the trial Court.