JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. These two appeals are connected with each other having arisen out of judgment dated 6.2.1982, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun in Sessions Trial No, 5 of 1980. We propose to them by this common order. Jagdish Saran has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, 201 and 364 I.P.C. with sentence of life imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 7 years respectively. The co-accused appellant Bhoorey has been convicted under Section 302, 201 and 364 I.P.C. with sentence of imprisonment for life, 7 years' R.I. and 7 years' R.I. respectively.
2. The profile of the prosecution case was like this: Smt. Kusum was the sister of the informant Ramesh Kumar PW 3. The incident occurred about 20 days earlier to 15.5.1979 on which date a written F.I.R. was lodged by the said Ramesh Kumar at P.S. Kotwali, District Budaun at 10.30 P.M. As per the F.I.R., Kusum (sister of the informant Ramesh Kumar PW 3) was married to the accused appellant Jagdish Saran of Mohalla Brahmpur, Budaun city about eight years back. The informant was the resident of Tilhar, P.S. Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur.
3. On that day (15.5.1979) at about 11 A.M., he received an anonymous note (attached with the F.I.R.) informing him that his sister was missing from her husband's house for the last about 20 days or she had been murdered by her husband Jagdish Saran. On receipt of the said anonymous writing, he reached Budaun immediately. On enquiry from the neighbours of his sister's Sasural, it came to be revealed that she was not at her house. Her two daughters and a five months' aged son were there with her mother-in-law. She was said to be disseminating that she (Kusum) had gone in training. The informant requested the police for investigation to be made with the arrest of the husband of his sister.
4. On 20.4.1979 an information was received at P.S. Binawar, District Budaun that a dead body was lying on the railway track. S.I. Tej Bahadur Singh PW 13 went to the spot and found the dead body near stone No. 357 by the side of the railway line at a distance of about 3-4 furlongs from metalled road. He prepared site plan Ex.Ka-7, held inquest on the dead body and took photographs of the dead body (Ex.Ka-3 and Ka-4). After being sealed, it was sent for post mortem examination.
5. Dr. B. Narayan, Superintendent, District Hospital, Budaun, PW 15 conducted post mortem over the unknown dead body of a female on 21.4.1979 at 1.30 P.M. The age of the deceased was assessed to be about 25 years and about l 1/2 day had passed since she died. Six ante-mortem injuries consisting of a lacerated wound 38 cm all around the neck had been found on her person. Right hand was severed from the shoulder with tissues crushed. Left hand was also severed from the shoulder 6 cm. below. Both the legs were severed below the knees. On the right thigh there was a lacerated wound 20 cm. x 10 cm. The neck was also severed from the trunk. The bones of the neck and lower jaw were crushed as also the left leg and the forearm.
6. That apart, there were 7 post mortem injuries also, 6 being punctured wounds on the abdomen, chest, back and front side of right thigh. On the back, there were many small abrasions. According to the Doctor, the ante mortem injuries could have been caused by wheels of the train, and not by knife. The death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.
7. Consequent upon the lodging of the F.I.R. by Ramesh Kumar PW 3, as stated earlier, the dead body came to be linked as that of Kusum wife of the accused Jagdish Saran and sister of the informant Ramesh Kumar. It was S.I. Murari Lal Sharma PW 17 who took up the investigation. On the day of the lodging of the F.I.R. itself, he contacted the accused Jagdish Saran and on interrogation, he allegedly told that his wife had gone out. He was given four days' time for producing his wife but on 22.5.1979 the Investigating officer found the house of the accused to be locked. Then he went to village Ujhiana where he met the brother, mother, sister, the first wife and three children of the accused. But the accused Jagdish Saran and Kusum were not there. He allegedly recorded the statement of Km. Seema, minor daughter of Kusum (examined at the trial as PW 12). Jagdish Saran could be found at the western gate of the Collectorate Courts on 19.6.1979 by the Investigating Officer and he was taken into custody. His statement was allegedly recorded in the presence of Vikar Ahmad PW 11 and Shabbar Hussain PW 16. He (accused Jagdish Saran) took the Investigating Officer and witnesses on Budaun-Bareilly road, about 6 Kms away to the east of the road at a distance of about one furlong from the tubewell of one Dr. V.P. Singh. There he dug out the petticoat and blouse (Exs3 and 4 respectively) of the deceased from a pit. The Investigating Officer prepared the recovery memo in respect of these two clothes in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses. He also allegedly took bloodstained and simple earth from the place where the murder of Kusum was allegedly committed.
8. The accused refused to sign his statement (Ex.Ka-18) and the signatures of the witnesses were obtained thereon. The site plan was prepared. The recovered clothes along with arrested accused were lodged in Kotwali. The clothes (dhoti and bra) and the pair of silver Bichhua removed from the dead body at the time of post mortem were dentified by the parents of the deceased (Sita Ram PW 4 and Smt. Ram Lali PW 5) before the Investigating Officer. The investigation revealed that Kusum's husband Jagdish Saran and his servant Bhoorey had kidnapped her (Kusum) and committed her murder. They had then concealed her clothes (petticoat and blouse) so as to cause to disappear the evidence of said crime for screening themselves from legal punishment. On completion of investigation, they were booked for trial.
9. The accused Jagdish Saran pleaded not guilty and contended that he had been falsely implicated. The gist of his defence was that the dead body in question was not that of his wife. His daughter Seema was under the influence of his brother-in-law (Ramesh Kumar) who had tutored her to give false evidence. His brother-in-law wanted to extract money from him. He did not oblige him and on being disappointed, he made a false report to the police setting her infant daughter against him who was living with him for the last three years. According to him, there was collusion between the Investigating Officer and Ramesh Kumar. It was also the part of his defence that the Investigating Officer had shown false recovery and cooked up a case against them. According to him, his wife was a teacher and was alive. She was used to free style of life and had gone somewhere of her own.
10. The other accused Bhoorey pleaded ignorance about the recovery of the dead body and alleged that he was not the servant of the other accused Jagdish Saran. No witness was examined in defence.
11. The prosecution in all examined 17 witnesses. The star witness relating to the factum of murder was Km. Seema PW 12 -daughter of the deceased and the accused Jagdish Saran. The remaining evidence was of circumstantial nature. The trial Judge believed the evidence of so-called eyewitness Km. Seema PW 12 and other circumstantial evidence adduced and relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. He, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the two accused appellants as narrated in the opening part of this order.
12. In criminal appeal No. 360 of 1982 we have heard Shri P.N. Misra, learned Sr. Advocate from the side of the appellant and Shri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. from the side of the State. The other criminal appeal on behalf of the accused-appellant Bhoorey has been argued by Shri Apul Misra and by Shri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. from the side of the State.
13. The common arguments of the counsel for the appellants are that the testimony of Km. Seema PW 12 was not at all reliable and that the other circumstantial evidence banked upon by the prosecution was wholly meagre to complete the chain and to find them to be guilty. It has been urged that the trial judge passed the impugned judgment simply on conjectures and surmises. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has supported the conviction, urging that the testimony of Km. Seema PW 12 as eyewitness of murder was free from any blemish and she has rightly been believed by the trial judge. He further argued that the other circumstantial evidence of the prosecution formed complete chain to nail the accused appellants as the culprits of this crime without any shadow of doubt.
14. We first propose to deal with the testimony of Km. Seerna PW 12 who has been claimed to be an eyewitness of the murder of her mother. We should point out that she was examined in the court on 19.11.1081. The incident of murder allegedly took place nearly 2 1/2 years back in April 1979. In her testimony before the court, she gave her age as 5 years, meaning thereby that she was aged about 2 1/2 years when she allegedly saw the incident of the murder of her mother. Indeed, there is no fixed age under law to determine the competency of a child witness. The court puts a few preliminary questions to judge the competency of the child witness to give evidence. So far as the value which can be attached to the testimony of a child witness is concerned, no fixed rule can be prescribed. Evidence of children is notoriously dangerous unless immediately available and unless received before any possibility of coaching is eliminated. Children have good memory and no conscience. They are easily taught stories and live in a world of make-believe, so that they are often convinced that they have seen the imaginary incident which they have been taught to relate. The children, at times, mistake dreams for reality, repeat glibly as of their own knowledge what they have heard from others, arid are greatly influenced by fear of punishment, by hope of reward and by desire of notoriety. But the above are not the only remarks which can be made upon the subject of credit of a child witness. Sometimes, a child may be the only eyewitness to a most serious crime and he may relate the true story without any hitch. Aged witness can fabricate story at the moment and can answer the question after giving a thought as to the effect of the answer on the case of his party but there is no such danger in the case of a child witness. To be short, the credit to be given to the testimony of a child witness can be judged from a careful scrutiny of the testimony delivered and the attending relevant circumstances. No precise rule can be there.
15. The gist of her testimony is that on the eventful day, her father (Jagdish Saran accused) took her mother, herself, her younger brother and sister on a motorcycle in the night to the place of occurrence, dragged her mother with the help of Bhoorey to some distance and committed her murder by knifing her. She also stated that Rajesh and Mannoo were other two persons who had joined in the commission of the murder of her mother. She attributed the murderous assault on her mother to her father, Bhoorey, Rajesh and Manoo.
16. In the case at hand, there are several strong factors which negate the testimony of this child witness and in our opinion, reliance could not be placed on her. Her evidence of her mother having been assaulted with knife is not in conformity with the medical evidence, because Dr. B. Narayan PW 15 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased stated in his cross-examination that the ante mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased could be sustained by crushing under running train, and not by knife. Further, there is another incongruity that as per the Doctor, there were 7 post mortem injuries also, 6 being punctured wounds on the abdomen, chest, back and front side of right thigh. On the back there were many small abrasions also. Existence of such post mortem injuries on the person of the deceased is lost in the womb of obscurity. To come to the point, the alleged knifing of the deceased by the accused, as stated by this child witness, is not in conformity with the medical evidence.
17. Secondly, as pointed out above, she would have been barely 2 1/2 years of age at the time of the incident. Her age was too tender and it is not free from doubt that she could memorize the happening as she narrated.
18. Thirdly, her such testimony was not immediately available. We note from the statement of Rameshwar Dayal PW 6 (Mama of this child witness Seema) that he had met her at Tilhar at the house of Ramesh Kumar PW 3. He enquired from her about her mother but she told him that she did not know about it. At that time, she did not say anything about the alleged murder. It is a fact that this witness was given in the custody of her maternal uncle Ramesh Kumar PW 3 by the police on 24.5.1979 and was living with him at Tilhar. Obviously, she would have ordinarily spoken about all the facts (when she was living with her maternal uncle) including to her Mama Rameshwar Dayal PW particularly when he had enquired from her about her mother. At that time, she disclosed nothing. Needless to say, she was not under any fear at that time. To say in other words, she being with her maternal uncle Ramesh Kumar, there was no question of her being scared of her father at that time. So, the alleged disclosure by this witness was not immediately available, as it would have been in natural circumstances.
19. Fourthly, the possibility of her being tutored by her maternal uncle could not be ruled out. He had lodged the F.I.R. against her father on 15.5.1979 and the child witness (Km. Seema PW 1.2) was given in his custody on 24.5.1979. So, the possibility of her statement being based on coaching was very much there.
20. Yet another factor giving jerk to her testimony is that there was hardly any necessity for Jagdish Saran, as is alleged, to have carried his three children with his wife if, in fact, he intended to murder her. The prosecution has projected it to be a planned murder. This child witness was herself aged about 2 1/2 years at that time. She had one younger sister and one brother also. Her younger brother was quite infant of about 5 months as recited in the F.I.R. In case Jagdish Saran wanted to murder his wife at some lonely place, he could easily take his unsuspecting wife on motorcycle without burdening himself of carrying three small children also who could be a source of problem in accomplishing the job. The statement of the child witness was that after commission of the crime, her father brought back her, her sister and five months' old brother on the same motorcycle. It sounds to be highly improbable that he, while driving the motorcycle in night hours, could have carried back three infant children on the motorcycle without some elderly male or female catching hold of them, particularly when one of the children was an infant aged about five months only. She also spoke about two other accomplices of the crime, i.e., Rajesh and Mannoo (non-charghesheeted). She insisted that they were of Budaun and she, of her own, knew their names as also the fact that they belonged to Budaun. Her own statement was that bringing back from the scene of occurrence, her father left her and other children at the house, but, strangely, she did not speak about the incident to anybody. For the first time, she spoke about it to her maternal grandmother. There is nothing in her statement that her father had commanded her to keep quiet or she was frightened because of having been threatened by him. Further, the statement of the Investigating Officer is that she (Km. Seema PW 12) had not disclosed the names of Rajesh and Mannoo to him at all. Had she been a witness of this crime, she would have wept aloud reaching home and would have immediately told about the incident to all around. No amount of fear or calculated farsightedness could have prevented this innocent child from such disclosure instantly. But she herself says that for the first time she disclosed it to her maternal grandmother after she was taken in custody by her maternal uncle.
21. On overall assessment of the all the above factors in true perspective, reliance could not be placed on the testimony of this child witness. Conversely, she could not be accepted to be an eyewitness of this incident of the so called alleged murder of her mother. Her testimony is altogether to be excluded. The trial judge was not at all justified in accepting her testimony replete of incongruities and infirmities. The same ran counter to the inherent probabilities of the situation too.
22. The situation boils down to this that it turns out to be a case of circumstantial evidence. The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sharad v. State of Maharashtra :
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be established.
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
23. Circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution has to be judged on the above yardstick. It should be taken note of that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive also assumes importance. In the present case, motive sought to be projected by the prosecution against Jagdish Saran accused appellant was as if he had strained relations with his wife(deceased) or that he was of loose morals with romantic disposition. Ramesh Kumar PW 3 (brother of the deceased and informant), Sita Ram PW 4 (father of the deceased) and Smt. Ram Lali PW 5 (mother of the deceased) were the witnesses examined on this aspect of the matter. But the alleged motive could not at all be established. Ramesh Kumar PW 3 stated that Jagdish Saran had his first wife whom he had deserted. Thereafter he had married his sister. His relations with his first wife turned sour and she sued him for maintenance. He also stated that for some time his both wives, i.e., the first wife and the sister of this witness lived in one and the same house, one on the upper storey and the other on the ground floor. It was also stated by him that there used to be occasional disagreement between Jagdish Saran and his (this witness's) sister. It is there in the testimony of Ramesh Kumar PW 3 that his sister never told him that her husband doubted her fidelity. Sita Ram PW 4, however, stated that apparently his daughter and her husband had cordial relations. Smt Ram Lali PW 5 stated that her daughter (deceased) never complained to her that her husband doubted Her fidelity. She also stated that their relations remained mixture of good and bad. Obviously, nothing turns out of the testimony of these witnesses to conclude that the deceased and Jagdish Saran had strained relations. At the best, it could be inferred that there were occasional discords and trifling clatters as is the usual journey of married life. Nor could it be taken that he was a licentious or dissolute character.
24. Pyare Lal PW 8 was the father of the first wife of the accused appellant Jagdish Saran. But his statement only indicated that a case had been fought between his daughter and Jagdish Saran for maintenance. Later on he had brought his daughter to live with his second wife-sister of Ramesh Kumar PW 3 and they lived together for about two months. Again, he turned out his daughter and since then she was residing with him (this witness). So, his statement could also not help the prosecution to prove any motive on the part of the accused Jagdish Saran to commit the murder of his wife Kusum with the aid of his alleged servant Bhoorey (another accused appellant) and/or others. The absence of motive on the part of the accused in this case of circumstantial nature goes against the prosecution.
25. There was no evidence to this effect either that the deceased had been last seen with her husband Jagdish Saran and accused appellant Bhoorey. Asharfi Lal PW 1, Ram Gopal PW 2 and Onkar PW 7 were residents of the locality of the accused Jagdish Saran. They were examined but in vain. Asharfi Lal PW 1 and Ram Gopal PW 2 turned hostile. They said nothing against the accused appellant Jagdish Saran to advance the prosecution case any farther, Onkar PW 7 was also the resident of the locality of the accused Jagdish Saran. He categorically stated that he did not see him going with his wife and children on motorcycle. Nor did he notice him returning without her. He too was declared hostile by the prosecution. According to him, on the basis of rumours, he had sent the anonymous slips Ex.Ka-1 and Ka-5 to Rameshwar Dayal PW 6 (his cousin brother) who happened to be the Sarhu of the accused appellant Jagdish Saran. It would be recalled that the slip Ex.Ka-1 was ultimately received by Ramesh Kumar PW 3 on the basis of which he lodged the F.I.R., annexing the same therewith. So, to come to the point, there was no evidence of the deceased having been last seen in the company of the two accused appellants.
26. There was another witness Dharmendra Singh PW 9 who also turned hostile. Ram Niwas PW 10 landlord of Onkar PW 7 was also examined but his statement was equally worthless. He stated while deposing on 28.9.1981 that he had heard about two years back that a murder had taken place but it was not a fact. He also stated that at about 10 A.M., he had seen Jagdish Saran's wife going with him. His this statement could not lead anywhere because the case projected by the prosecution was that the deceased had taken his wife and three children m the night on a motorcycle and had then murdered her. So, it crystallises that there was no evidence to indicate that the deceased had been last seen with any of the two accused appellants.
27. The alleged identification of the dead body as being that of Kusum (wife of the accused appellant Jagdish Saran) was also not free from doubt, It is noted from the statement of Investigating Officer S.I. Murari Lal Sharma PW 17 that Ramesh Kumar (informant and brother of deceased Kusum) could not identify the photographs, clothes and silver Bichhua found on the dead body of the deceased. Of course, in the court, Ramesh Kumar PW 3 claimed that photos Ex.Ka-3 and Ka-4 were of his sister Kusum and he also claimed to identify dhoti, blouse and petticoat (Ex. 1, 2 and 3 respectively)as belonging to her. Sita Ram PW 4 father of the deceased Kusum stated in the court that dhoti (Ex.1) blouse (Ex.2) and petticoat (Ex.3) were of his daughter but he could not be sure about the pair of silver Bichhua (Ex.4). In court, he also stated that photos Ex.Ka-3 and Ka4 were of his daughter. Smt. Ram Lali PW 5-mother of the deceased identified in court dhoti, blouse, petticoat and the pair of Bichhua as also photos Ex.Ka-3 and Ka-4 to be of her daughter. Keeping in view the state of the dead body, it is doubtful that through photos it could be linked to be that of Kusum. It would be recalled that the neck was severed from the trunk, bones of the neck and lower jaw were crushed, both the hands were severed from shoulders and both the legs below knees were also severed. The alleged identification by the brother and parents of the deceased for the first time in court through photographs, the face being in such a mutilated state, could not be possible, regard being had to the statement of the Investigating Officer that Ramesh Kumar PW 3 could not identify the photos during investigation.
28. Dhoti (Ex.1) and pair of bichhua found on the person of the deceased were commonplace things and the recognition of the dead body on the basis of the same was not possible. There was no evidence to this effect either that the deceased Kusum was last wearing dhoti (Ex. 1). On overall consideration, the dead body in question could not be connected with certainty as that of the deceased Kusum on the basis of photos, dhoti and pair of Bichhua in question.
29. The recovery of the petticoat and blouse of the deceased allegedly at the instance of accused Jagdish Saran seemed to be ingenuity of the Investigating Officer who did patch work. We note that the alleged two eyewitnesses of recovery, namely, Vikar Ahmad PW 11 and Shabbar Hussain PW 16 turned hostile and disowned the alleged recovery in their presence. The alleged recovery did not at all fit in the scheme of things. It was incomprehensible that while committing murder, the accused would take off the blouse and petticoat of the deceased but would allow her to put on dhoti. If it is taken for the sake of argument that he put off blouse and petticoat after committing the murder, then there is nothing to indicate that the said clothes were found to be bloodstained. The Fard in question (Ex.Ka-16) does not mention anything of the kind. Further, it is against inherent probabilities that the accused would have concealed these two clothes of the deceased in a pit. There was hardly any point in concealing them because articles like clothes could easily be destroyed by being burnt. If the accused really meant to destroy the evidence of the crime by causing to disappear the clothes of the deceased, he would have burnt them instead of concealing in a pit incurring the risk of their recovery or discovery. The burning of blouse and petticoat was possible in minutes after the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the alleged blouse and petticoat were not subjected to any identification by anyone of the parental side of the deceased, or for that matter, by anyone else during investigation. No test identification was held with regard thereto. Their alleged identification by Ramesh Kumar PW 3, Sita Ram PW 4 and Smt. Ram Lali PW 5 for the first time in court was of no value. It turns out, therefore, that the alleged recovery of the blouse and petticoat could not be taken to be a circumstance in the direction of proof of guilt of the accused. The alleged recovery itself was quite dubious and appeared to be the handiwork of the Investigating Officer.
30. The learned A.G.A. argued that despite the accused Jagdish Saran being himself the husband of the deceased did not lodge any F.I.R. about her missing/disappearance and took no steps to trace her out. He vehemently argued that it was a strong circumstance to prove his guilt. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused appellant urged that the alleged circumstance was not even put to him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and it could not be used against him. We have considered the matter. In our opinion, the alleged factor, even if taken as such without probing, could at best raise a strong suspicion against the accused appellant Jagdish Saran but it could not be a substitute of the proof to hold him guilty. In fact, the alleged circumstance was incapable of being interpreted against him. The said isolated circumstance was worthless when there was no complete chain of circumstances to prove the accused to be guilty of the given crime. It has also to be kept in mind that the defence of the accused as per his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that his wife was alive; she was a teacher and was used to a free way of life. According to him, she had gone somewhere of her own. We have pointed out above that the dead body in question could not be linked with certainty to be that of Kusum. It was there in the statement of Ramesh Kumar PW 3 that earlier to her marriage also, Kusum was a teacher in a school of Municipal Board and after her marriage she became a teacher in Budaun. This witness went to the house of the accused appellant Jagdish Saran on receipt of an anonymous letter but he did not at all enquire from him as to where Kusum was. His simple answer in this regard was that as the residents of the locality told him that she had been murdered 20 days back, he did not make any inquiry from his brother-in-law Jagdish Saran accused appellant. It was also stated by him that she had become a teacher out of Budaun city. He did not even know the name of that place though he insisted that she used to return to Budaun daily.
31. Young wife of Jagdish Saran was missing. May be that he did not lodge the F.I.R. for the fear that the police would start harassing him. The reason of his not lodging the F.I.R. could also be to avoid defamation through salacious and wagging tongues of idlers in the society. To be short, the circumstance of not lodging the F.I.R. could not be taken to be against him (Jagdish Saran).
32. In view of the above discussion on all the relevant aspects of the case, we reach the conclusion that the testimony of so-called eyewitness Km. Seema PW 12 was not at all believable. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused appellants were not at all established. The chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were themselves fraught with serious infirmities and incongruities.
33. It is well settled principle of criminal law that an accused can be convicted only when on the evidence adduced, the court is in a position to come to a definite conclusion beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence with which he stood charged. No conviction can be based on mere possibility. Nor would the court enter into guess work as to what had really happened. The pristine rule is that burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution utterly and miserably failed to discharge this burden. The judgment rendered by the trial judge is conjectural and as such it is not sustainable.
34. In the result, we allow both these appeals. The conviction and sentences passed against the accused appellants Jagdish Saran and Bhoorey are set aside. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are already on bail.
35. Certify the judgment to the court below for incorporating necessary entries in the relevant register and for reporting compliance to this Court within two months.