Badasab and Others vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

The appellants were the accused before the court below and are seeking to challenge the judgment convicting and sentencing them to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default to undergo imprisonment for three years, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''IPC, for brevity) read with Section 34 of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The case of the prosecution against the appellants was as follows:

"The appellants are four in number and they were accused Nos. 1 to 4 before the court below. One Dastagirsab was said to be a close relative of the appellants and it transpires that there was a dispute between their two families, as regards a right of way over the land bearing Sy. No. 150:2B+3B. There was said to be constant friction between the parties. It transpires that on 03.03.2009, Dastagirsab is said to have assaulted the brother of accused Nos. 1 to 4, one Munaf Nulkar, with a stone. In this regard, Nulkar had filed a complaint against Dastagirsab and a case had been registered before the Ghataprabha Police Station in Cr. No. 54/2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 324 , 504 and 506 of the IPC. On the basis of the said complaint of Nulkar, Dastagirsab had been arrested on 04.03.2009. He was out on bail. On account of this incident, accused Nos. 1 to 4 were seeking to retaliate. Therefore, on 05.03.2009 at about 3 p.m., the accused are said to have accosted Dastagirsab when he was walking near one, Vittal Electrical Shop, close to Bhagirath Circle of Sanganakeri village and had picked up a quarrel with Dastagirsab and are said to have simultaneously attacked Dastagirsab with a knife, sickle, axe and a jambia. It is alleged that accused No. 2 had assaulted him with sickle on the right hand and right shoulder and near the palm of right hand four times and had caused injuries to him. Accused No. 1 is alleged to have assaulted him with an axe on the left hand near his palm and on his back and caused injuries. Accused No. 4 is said to have assaulted Dastagirsab with a knife on his back and by virtue of these injuries, he had fallen to the ground, on his back, by which time, accused No. 3 is said to have assaulted Dastagirsab with a jambia on his neck as well as his forehead, left hand and arm. Dastagirsab had thus suffered 16 injuries on various parts of his body."

It is claimed that P.W. -1, the complainant had tried to intervene, and the accused had also threatened him with the weapons and the complainant had withdrawn but is said to have immediately telephoned the Ghataprabha police station. Pursuant to receipt of the telephonic information, P.W. -30, the Police Sub-Inspector attached to the Ghatagrapha police station, is said to have immediately rushed to Bhagirath circle along with his staff and found that Dastagirsab was still alive, but unconscious. The Police Sub Inspector along with his staff had immediately moved Dastagirsab to the Government Hospital, Gokak and while leaving some his men, CWs-29, 35 and 36 at the spot, where the incident had occurred. Dastagirsab was said to have been taken to hospital at about 4.15 p.m. One Dr. R.L. Siddapur, CW-40 is said to have examined Dastagirsab and found that he was dead and accordingly had intimated the Police Sub Inspector. The complainant had got the complaint drafted through CW-3 and had handed over the same to the Police Sub Inspector. CW-42 had received the complaint in the hospital and had sent the same through CW-34 to the Court.

Thereafter, P.W. -30 had carried out further proceedings and had collected material evidence and put out a search for the accused, who were said to be absconding.

On 10.03.2009, P.W. -30 is said to have received credible information of the accused being found near Ghataprabha railway station. He and his staff members had rushed to Ghataprabha railway station and had indeed found accused 1 to 4. They were arrested and brought to the police station. Voluntary statements of the accused were said to have been recorded and at their instance, the weapons exhibited as M.Os. 1 to 4, were seized under a panchanama. After receipt of the Post Mortem report and other particulars, a chargesheet was filed against the accused alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., before the Principal JMFC, Gokak. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences and registered a case against the accused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, by an order dated 10.07.2009. The Sessions Court, in turn, had made over the same to the Fast Track Court, Belgaum. The Fast Track Court, after having heard the prosecution, as well as, the accused had framed charges and the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was further transferred to the Fast Track and Additional Sessions Judge, Hukkeri, sitting at Gokak, for trial. The prosecution had examined 31 witnesses and marked several documents and material objects. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., were recorded and they had denied the alleged incriminating evidence appearing against them. They had produced and marked Ex. D.1 and Ex. D.2.

On hearing the arguments, the Court below had framed the following points for determination -

"i) Whether the prosecution proves that on 05.03.2009 at about 03.00 p.m. by the side of Vitthal Electrical Shop, near bhagirath circle within the limits of Ghatagrapha Police Station accused No. 1 to 4 armed with deadly weapons like axe, knife, sickle with common intention to commit murder of Dastagirsab on account of previous ill-will and strained relationship in regard to way in the land for last one year and incident happened on 03.03.2009 at about 4.00 p.m. quarreled with deceased Dastagirsab and accused No. 2 has assaulted with sickle on his right arm and right hand, wrist and accused No. 1 has assaulted with axe on his left arm, left wrist, left elbow and other parts and by the time accused No. 4 had assaulted with knife on his forehead on the parietal region, left arm and all the accused intentionally inflicting all those injuries with deadly weapons and knowingly fully well that the said injuries are likely to cause death of deceased Dastagirsab and commuted the murder of deceased Dastagirsab and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC?

ii) Whether the prosecution proves that on 05.03.2009 at about 03.00 p.m. by the side of Vitthal Electrical Shop, near Bharirath circle when accused No. 1 to 4 were assaulting with deadly weapons to deceased Dastagirsab, the complainant has intervened to rescue the deceased Dastagirsab and at that time, the accused No. 1 to 4 criminally intimidated him for his life and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 read with 34 of IPC?

iii) What order?"

The Court below had answered the points in the affirmative and ultimately sentenced and convicted the accused to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default to pay the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

It is that, which is under challenge in the present appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants while taking this Court through the record and the judgment of the Court below, would point out that though the prosecution had examined 31 witnesses, the only witnesses, who had supported the case of the prosecution, apart from the official witnesses, who were formal witnesses in order to establish compliance with the procedural requirements, in the prosecution, it is only P.Ws. 1, 2, 8, 16 and 18 on which the prosecution case rested and on the basis of which the Court below has held that the charges framed against the accused were proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

In this regard, the learned counsel would submit, that there were grave infirmities, which went to the root of the matter, which have been glossed over by the trial Court which has ignored the same. He would point out that P.W. 1, who was the complainant, was a close relative of the deceased and he was also related to the accused and his very presence at the scene of the crime is doubtful. The other witness P.W. 2 is the brother of P.W. 1 and his presence there is also an unusual coincidence, which on the face of it, would demonstrate that these are got up witnesses, merely to frame the accused. This is also evident from the manner in which the proceedings have been initiated. According to the record, P.W. 1 was very much on the scene and even tried to intervene when the deceased was being assaulted by the deceased and that he had immediately informed the police of the incident at 3.00 p.m. itself. However, the first information report is said to have been registered, ambiguously, at 5.15 p.m. and also at 9.30 p.m. in that, the Scribe has affixed his signature, as if, it had been recorded at 5.15 p.m. On the other hand, P.W. 18, who is the Scribe of the complaint has stated that it was registered at 9.30 a.m. and the same has been carried to the Judicial Magistrate at 10.25 p.m. The person, who had carried it, namely, P.W. 25 was required to travel a distance of 16 kilometres and he had gone there on a two wheeler and the delayed delivery of the First Information Report is sought to be explained on the footing that his vehicle had a flat tyre and that he could not find other modes of transport to immediately carry the First Information Report to the Magistrate, and thereby was delayed by four hours, though the First Information Report was handed over to him at 6.15 p.m., he could deliver it to the Magistrate only at 10.25 p.m.

The learned counsel would also point out that the First Information Report, which was received as early as at 3.00 p.m., is not shown to have been recorded in the Station House Diary, but it is registered only at 9.30 p.m. as stated by the Scribe. Significantly, the Station House Diary has not been produced before the Court, though, the Investigation Officer was examined as a witness and he was, particularly, cross-examined as to the production of the Station House Diary and this was not produced before the Court. Therefore, the incident having allegedly taken place at 3.00 p.m., P.W. 1, the complainant having immediately informed the police, the First Information Report being recorded ambiguously at 5.15 p.m., as indicated in the First Information Report and as stated by P.W. 28, and also at 9.30 p.m. as stated by P.W. 18.

The learned counsel would submit that such an infirmity as regards the exact time at which the First Information Report was registered and filed would indicate that there was a delay in registering the First Information Report and communicating the same to the Magistrate. This would clearly point to possible deliberations as to how the accused could be framed. P.Ws. 1 and 2, especially have been identified as witnesses, who would stand by their statements. Though the incident had occurred in a public place in broad day light, with innumerable people going about their affairs, the only witnesses, who have stood by the case of the prosecution are P.Ws. 1 and 2 and all other witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 3 to 7 and P.Ws. 9 to 15 were all witnesses, who were examined as eye witnesses and none of them have supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it is evident that the prosecution along with the complainant have chosen to deliberate over the manner in which the case ought to be putforth and it is for this reason, that there has been inordinate delay in the registration of the First Information Report.

In this regard, the learned counsel draws attention to a reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Awadhesh and Anr Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, . In that case, the learned counsel would point out, that the First Information Report shows the occurrence of the incident as having taken place at 14.15 hours while the report was lodged at 15.10 hours, that is, within 55 minutes of the occurrence. The evidence on record and the attendant circumstances would indicate that the First Information Report was not lodged at 15.10 hours, instead it was lodged at about 17.00 hours. One of the witnesses, P.W. 14 had stated before the trial Court that from the place of occurrence he had accompanied the police to Parma Kotwali where he lodged the report and signed the same. In cross-examination, he had stated that he had gone to Kotwali for lodging the report, in a police van. He had further stated that the report had been written by the police clerk, to his dictation, and that the police arrived at the scene of occurrence after an hour of lodging the First Information Report. At an earlier stage, he was found to have stated that the police had arrived at the place of occurrence at about 3.30 p.m. and thereafter, he had accompanied the police to Kotwali for lodging the report. His testimony regarding lodging of the First Information Report was found to be contradictory. The Sub-Inspector of Police, the Investigating Officer, had stated that it was wrong to state that the First Information Report was made by Rajendra Singh at Kotwali. According to him, he was on duty at the Collectorate, and there he had received news at about 2.30 p.m. or 3.00 p.m. that there was an incident at a particular place and he had reached there within few minutes, along with a Constable. And on reaching the spot, he wrote the Marg intimation, drew up the panchanama of the dead body and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and thereafter he recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex. P-12. He had asserted that the First Information Report had been recorded at the place of occurrence. His statement clearly indicated that the First Information Report was written after 17.00 hours and it was not recorded at the time purportedly to have been lodged. These were found to be material contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and the Investigating Officer and the Court has held that the obvious reason appeared to be that the names of the assailants were not known, as most likely the two alleged eye witnesses had not seen the incident and they were not present at the time of the incident, and in all likelihood, they had arrived at the scene after the incident. Therefore, the names of the assailants were not known and the First Information Report was lodged belatedly after due deliberations. This was one of the infirmities on which the Apex Court had set aside the judgment of conviction of the High Court, though the trial Court had acquitted the accused in that case.

The learned counsel, would therefore, draw sustenance from the above reasoning to hold that when there is a strong suspicion about the First Information Report being lodged after deliberations, in order to, frame the accused in a particular fashion to suit the case of the prosecution, it is an infirmity which goes to the root of the matter.

Nextly, the learned counsel would seek to point out that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is the only evidence that could be relied upon by the prosecution as regards the actual commission of the offence by the accused, as none of the other witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution. Since, they are brothers, it would be expected of them to stand by the case of the prosecution, for the sake of framing the accused, as there was festering animosity between the members of their family and these witnesses.

Significantly P.Ws. 1 and 2 were brothers-in-law of the deceased and P.W. 1, had not, either in his complaint or in his evidence, spoken about the presence of P.W. 2, at the scene of the crime which is very significant factor, if, both the brothers were present at the scene of the incident. It was expected that each would bear out the others'' testimony, as regards each others'' presence. This is a significant circumstance which is a glaring feature to indicate that in furtherance of the deliberations and the delayed filing of the First Information Report, these witnesses had been tutored to frame the accused to the convenience of the prosecution, for otherwise, there was no evidence at all, of the assault having taken place or the accused being involved in the commission of the offence for the accused were not apprehended or arrested at the spot. But, it was only after several days, as the record reveals, that the accused had been taken into custody on the basis of the complaint.

The counsel would then point out that the only other witness, who is mentioned as being present by P.Ws. 1 and 2, is P.W. 4. P.W. 4, however, had been treated as a hostile witness and he did not support the case of the prosecution and did not corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution rested only on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who, as already stated, were interested witnesses and chance witnesses, who have been roped in only because they were ready and willing to support the case of the prosecution, by any and all means, that they were not even present at the scene of occurrence as is apparent from the manner in which the First Information Report has been registered.

It is further contended that even assuming that the prosecution had established its case against the accused of having assaulted the deceased, it is pertinent to note that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were 16 in number and they were as follows -

"1. Cut lacerated wound - 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" seen over left side occipital region 3" from left ear.

Cut lacerated wound 1" x 1/4 " x 1/4" vertically placed 2 "from right side eyebrow over forehead.

Chop wound - 8" x 1/2" x 1/2" over right shoulder region running across bleeding present.

Cut lacerated wound - 6'''' x 1/2'''' x 1/4'''' running horizontally across front side of neck in the middle.

Abrasions -

"(a) 2'''' x 3/4'''' and

(b)(b) 2 1/2" x 1/2", 1" apart seen over lower part of neck front side.

Cut lacerated wound - 3 " x 1/2" x 3/4" - seen obliquely over right side upper arm in the next outer aspect, bleeding present.

Right side hand hanging with skin attached at right side wrist joint parts irregularly cut open.

Chop wound - 2 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" - across right side palm in the middle imparing muscle and bones.

Chop wound - 4 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4"- over palmer aspect of right hand nearer to wrist joint.

Cut lacerated wound-

(a) 3/4" x 1/2" over right 4th finger in the middle front side.

(b) 1/2" x 1/2" - over right 5th finger in the middle front side.

Chop wound-4 1/2" x2" x 3/4" over left upper arm - 2" from shoulder region outer aspect -bleeding.

Cut lacerated wound - 1'''' x 1/2'''' x 1/2'''' over left upper arm 3'''' from elbow joint lateral aspect.

Chop wound - 5'''' x 2'''' x 1'''' across left elbow joint with parts exposed.

Chop wound - 4'''' x 3'''' x 1'''' across middle part of left fore arm - outer aspect - bleeding present.

Cut lacerated wound - 5" x 1/2" x 1/4" over left scapular region slightly horizontally placed.

Cut lacerated wound - 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" - over right side scapular region obliquely placed."

The learned counsel would submit that, of the above injuries, item No. 7 is the only grievous injury and that is not on a vital part of the body of the deceased, and therefore, it cannot be said that the death was as a result of these injuries. This would be significant in arriving at a conclusion as to whether there was any intention on the part of the accused to cause death. If, the injuries were simple in nature and if, the deceased had died as a result of excessive loss of blood, this cannot be attributed to the accused as they having intended to cause the death of the deceased. The death was, therefore, to be treated as an accident which the accused never intended, and hence, the punishment, even if, could be imposed, could not be as stringent as has been imposed by the trial Court and would have to be scaled down, substantially.

The learned counsel would also point out that the nature of the weapons alleged to have been used by the accused, are such that any injury caused by those weapons would have certainly left incised wounds. There is not even a single incised wound on the body of the deceased. Except lacerated wounds, none of which could have caused his death, individually. It is on these lines, that the learned counsel for appellants would seek to canvass his case.

He would further submit that in view of the arrest of these accused, their families are left with small children and women folk and there is none to provide for them and they are in abject state of penury and without any support from any quarter.

Insofar as the family of the deceased are concerned, there are young children, who have taken shelter with the family of the accused at present and are residing with them. Therefore, the entire families of both the deceased, as well as, the accused are now reconciled to each other and are struggling for support and if, the accused, who have spent substantial time in custody for six years and six months to the day, the punishment imposed on them, even assuming that they had committed the offence, with no intention to commit murder, this Court ought to view the case with compassion and reduce the punishment substantially and set them at liberty.

The learned counsel would submit that, though, this is a case which ought to be allowed on the basis of infirmities that have been emphasised and which go to the root of the matter. The alternative prayer is made with a sense of prudence and by way of abundant caution that even if this Court were to confirm the judgment of the court below, the punishment ought to be reduced and it is stated that even P.Ws. 1 and 2 have died and even their families are in a state of distress and it is only, if, the accused are set at liberty, that there is any solace to the family of the deceased as well as that of the accused and this is pleaded as a last resort, even, if, this Court were to confirm the sentence imposed by the Court below.

While the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would seek to assert that there are no infirmities as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the pitch sought to be made by the learned counsel for the appellants seeking to evoke the sympathy of this Court ought not to be taken seriously. What is to be taken seriously is the conduct of the accused, where they have committed murder in broad day light at a public place armed with deadly weapons and have struck the deceased not once or twice, but 16 times all over his body and the further claim that they were all simple injuries and that it would not have caused death is an incorrect conclusion. It is a cumulative effect of these injuries resulting in much loss of blood, which has ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased, and hence, the accused being treated with any sympathy or compassion, does not arise.

It is contended that the law has prescribed the appropriate punishment for causing death and the Court having imposed the same, ought not to be watered down.

It is urged that insofar as the alleged infirmity as to the First Information Report being ambiguously registered at different times, is also not the correct interpretation of the record.

It is pointed out that P.W. 18, who is the Scribe having stated that the F.I.R. was registered at 9.30 p.m., is not to be taken as the correct position. The First Information Report itself records the time at which it was registered, which is 5.15 p.m. The delay in P.W. 25 having conveyed the same to the Magistrate, though it was handed over to him by P.W. -18 at 6.15 p.m. and the fact that he had delivered the same to the Magistrate only at 10.25 p.m., is explained by the very witness on the footing that the vehicle on which he was travelling had suffered a break down, and therefore, he had to fix the same before delivering it and there was some delay. This by itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

The contention that there is strong suspicion of the First Information Report having been doctored to suit the case of the prosecution is also an unfair allegation. P.Ws. 1 and 2 having tendered evidence and having given an eye witness account of the manner in which the accident had taken place ought not to be brushed aside. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence tendered by them as they have withstood the cross-examination on behalf of the accused and the statements have been proved to be trustworthy and the Court having acted on it, ought not to belittled as being that of got up witnesses.

The P.Ws. 1 and 2 being brothers and related to the deceased, and therefore, being characterised as chance witnesses or interested witnesses, is besides the point. It cannot be ruled out that in a small town the P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are brothers who are also related to the deceased, were at the spot, at the time that the incident had occurred. There is nothing unusual about the witnesses having been present at the scene of the crime. The large number of witnesses, who were fielded by the prosecution as eye witnesses and who have resiled from their statement, is apparently on account of fear of retaliation by the accused, who were seen to have attacked the deceased with deadly weapons, and therefore, the normal conduct of such witnesses to retract from their statements ought not to be treated as a circumstance which waters down the case of the prosecution. P.Ws. 1 and 2 having firmly stood by their statements and having stood the test of scrutiny, their evidence ought to be given credence when there is none to dispute that there was a homicidal death of the deceased. The other aspects pale into insignificance and it is the chain of events which are required to be proved.

In the present case on hand, the motive was well established, in that, the accused themselves have produced a document to show that there was a complaint against the deceased and that he was arrested on account of the deceased having assaulted the brother of the accused and they, in retaliation, having committed the act of murder, was therefore a sequence, which was established not only by the record, but by the admitted circumstances and coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Therefore, he would contend that the sentence of conviction be confirmed.

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, and on a close examination of the record, it is not in dispute that the deceased and the accused were closely related. It is also not in dispute that there was a constant acrimony between the parties on account of a dispute over a right of way and it is also on record that the deceased had attacked the brother of the accused on the previous day with a stone and he had been enlarged on bail on a criminal case having been registered and it is in retaliation of this, that the accused in a fit of passion had armed themselves with weapons and had proceeded to waylay the deceased and attacked him with deadly weapons causing 16 injuries resulting in his death, which is the case of the prosecution, in support of which, though the prosecution had examined several witnesses, it is only a handful, who have supported the case of the prosecution including P.Ws. 1 and 2. The coincidence of the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the scene of crime though difficult to digest, cannot be ruled out. In that, it cannot be ruled out that they were indeed present as they have been cross-examined at length and there is nothing elicited in order to demonstrate that they were falsely tendering evidence in support of the case of prosecution.

Insofar as the further assertion by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay in lodging the First Information Report and the suspicious manner in which it appears to have been recorded and the absence of Station House Diary, are indeed circumstances which throw up some doubt as to why the delay was caused in registering the First Information Report. But, on an overall consideration, it could be said that the incident had indeed occurred and that the accused had attacked the deceased with weapons resulting in his death.

However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the injuries caused are listed above and as can be seen, it is only injury No. 7, which appears to be a grievous injury. This was not caused to any vital part of the body. Therefore, it was on account of loss of blood or other cause, which has resulted in the death of the deceased. According to the Medical Practitioner concerned, it was on account of loss of blood and not on account of any one of the injuries. It was possibly a cumulative effect of the injuries resulting in heavy bleeding, which has caused the death. Therefore, it was evident that there was no real intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. It could possibly be stated that it was an accident that inspite of simple injuries having been caused, except for one, the deceased had succumbed. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the punishment imposed for an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is stringent and has resulted in disproportionate punishment being imposed on the accused, and secondly, when punishment of life imprisonment is imposed for an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., it was incongruous on the part of the trial Court to also impose a lesser punishment for the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. The Court simply ought to have observed that though an offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. was proved, it was not found necessary to impose sentence and punishment for such an offence when the larger punishment of life imprisonment was being imposed under Section 302 I.P.C. This, however, is an incidental aspect of the matter.

In our view, the punishment of life imprisonment ought to be substantially reduced and if, it is reduced to one of rigorous imprisonment of seven years, it would serve the ends of justice. Since the charge framed for an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. was not apt, we hold that the offence committed by the accused was more properly one under Section 326 of I.P.C. and consequently we think it fit to reduce the punishment to that of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and set aside the punishment imposed for an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellants will be given set off for the period that they have spent in custody.

Since the punishment imposed under Section 506 of I.P.C. was to run concurrently with the punishment imposed, it appears that they would have served the sentence under Section 506 of I.P.C., and therefore, it is redundant.

Insofar as the substantial fine imposed by the trial Court, in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- each, the same is reduced by half and the amount so paid as fine, shall be deposited in the name of the children of P.W. 16, till they attain majority, for their benefit, through P.W. 16, under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.

The fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, on such deposit, shall be paid to P.W. 16 and her children in entirety. The amount should be deposited within a period of six months before the trial Court for the benefit of P.W. 16 and her children. P.W. 16 is permitted to withdraw the amount, on such deposit. In the event of default of payment of the fine, the accused are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appeal is allowed in terms as above.