Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Badrilal Ratanlal Mali And Ors. on 18 April, 2006
JUDGMENT S.S. Dwivedi, J.
1. The State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 20-1-1997 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Session Trial No. 305/1994, whereby the respondents together with three other co-accused have been acquitted for the charges under Sections 148, 323, 149, 302 in the alternative 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29-1-1994 deceased Dhulji s/o. Nandram and his son Madanlal and nephew Rameshwar were sleeping in a room in the field situated at Badnawar-Badnagar road, at about 12.15 a.m. in the night respondents/accused Rameshwar Pahalwan, Ramchandra Patel, Badrilal and Shankarlal came there on the motorcycle and started beating to Rameshwar (PW 1). On hearing the noise, deceased Dhulji and his son Madanlal came out from the room, then all these four respondents started beating to Dhulji and Madanlal also by means of knife and lathies. Respondent/accused Rameshwar caused injury to deceased Dhulji on his chest by means of knife and Dhulji also sustained grievous injuries on his head by the lathi. Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanal (PW 6) also sustained injuries on their bodies. The remaining three co-accused Prakash, Kailash and Bherulal (who were acquitted and leave to appeal against them has also been rejected by this Court) were asking to kill all these persons. It is also said that this incident took place because Mangilal (PW 2), who is the son of deceased Dhulji, had lodged one report at police station with regard to some theft against one accused Kailash. Annoyed with this report, the respondents came on the field and caused the aforesaid injuries to the complainant party. After the incident, injured Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) came to their house at Badnagar and informed about the incident to their brother Mangilal (PW 2). Then all of them, again went to the field and brought the injured Dhulji, who found to be dead, at police station Badnagar, where Madanlal s/o. Dhulji (PW 6) lodged the first information report Ex. P/ 21 at about 3.00 a.m. in the night, on which basis concerned police has registered the offences under Sections 302, 323, 147, 148 and 149, I. P. C. Injured Madanlal (PW 6) and Rameshwar (PW 1) were sent for medical examination and the dead body of deceased Dhulji was kept in the mortuary room of Civil Hospital, Badnagar. Investigating Officer, after issuing notice Ex. P/l, prepared the inquest panchnama Ex. P/2, prepared the spot map Ex. P/22, seized blood stained and control earth from the spot vide Ex. P/3, recorded the statement of the injured eye witnesses and other witnesses, thereafter arrested the respondents as well as three other co-accused, seized one lathi on the information given by the accused Badrilal vide Ex. P/16 and also seized one knife on the information given by accused Rameshwar. Sent the seized articles for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. After due investigation, filed the charge sheet before the trial Court. All the accused persons abjured their guilt and their main defence was of false implication in the case. After due appreciation of the entire evidence on record, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 20-1-1997, acquitted all the seven accused persons from the charges levelled against them. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment, the State of Madhya Pradesh came up before this Court, after obtaining leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This Court vide order dated 16-1-1998 granted leave to appeal against the four respondents only and rejected the prayer for remaining three acquitted accused.
3. We have heard the learned Government Advocate for the State as well the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
4. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate for the State that learned trial Court, while acquitting all the respondents, has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence properly. Learned trial Court has given much stress upon the minor contradictions and omissions, which were brought into the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, which prima facie did not affect the truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses and on the basis of these minor omissions and contradictions, learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and also prayed for imposition of just and proper sentence on the respondents.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of the so called eye witness Rameshwar (PW 1), Madanlal (PW 6) and as well as the statement of the concerning medical witness Dr. M. K. Pancholi (PW 7). All these witnesses were stated differently about the involvement of the respondents/accused persons In the incident. The Identification of the respondents is also doubtful at the time of the incident. Learned trial Court, after going through the entire prosecution evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly, failed to prove the charges levelled, against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, rightly acquitted the respondents in this case. It is also submitted that on the whole, if the two views are possible on the basis of the prosecution evidence, then certainly the view supporting the defence version should be accepted. In this view of the case also, no substantial or material grounds are available to interfere with the Impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the appeal in its entirety.
6. to bring home the charge against the respondents, firstly we have to consider whether the deceased Dhulji died in this incident and his death is homicidal in nature.
7. With regard to the death of Dhulji is concerned, this fact has been proved by the prosecution on the basis of the statement of Rameshwar (PW 1), Mangilal (PW 2), Madanlal (PW 6). All these witnesses have categorically stated before the trial Court that due to the grievous injuries sustained to the deceased Dhulji, he died immediately on the spot itself. This fact has also been corroborated by the statement of the investigating officer, Chandrapal Singh (PW 9), who prepared the inquest panchnama Ex. P/2 with regard to the dead body of the deceased Dhulji and also made a request for post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Dhulji. The aforesaid statement of the prosecution witnesses has not at all been controverted by the defence. Thus, firstly it is proved that on the date of the incident one Dhulji s/o. Nandram aged about 60 years died in this incident.
8. With regard to the cause of death of the deceased Dhulji is concerned, Dr. M. K. Pancholi (PW 7) has performed the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Dhulji s/o. Nandram at the request of police station Baanagar and found the following injuries on his body:
(1) Lacerated wound 3" x 2" on the right fronto-parietal bone, anteroposteriorly with depressed fracture of frontal and parietal bones. On exposure area of fracture 4" x 2" with huge amount of haematoma, membranes are torn, brain congested, huge amount of blood In cranial cavity, Ecchymosls of both eyes.
(2) Incised wound 1" x 1/3" cavity deep on the lower portion of xiphoid process cutting bone, diaphragm going downward but not injuring the other viscera of abdomen. Direction horizontally.
(3) Incised wound 1 1/4" x 1/4 x 1 1/4" on the right side of back vertically medial to the right scapula at the level of 5th intercostals space but no injury to the lung or pleura is seen.
(4) Bruise 2" x 1/2 on the dorsal aspect of palm with defused haematoma.
9. Dr. M. K. Pancholi (PW 7) further opined that all these aforesaid injuries are ante mortem caused within 24 hours from the time of the post mortem examination. Injury to head is enough to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further opined that deceased Dhulji s/o. Nandram aged about 60 years resident of village Kala Deval Path Badnagar died due to coma as a result of head injuries. Medical witness Dr. M. K. Pancholi (PW 7) proved his P. M. report Ex. P/26. The aforesaid statement of the medical witness has also not been very seriously controverted by the defence in cross examination also. He specifically stated that deceased Dhulji died due to head injuries and which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On the basis of the aforesaid data and the information of the doctor concerned, the prosecution has proved the fact that in this incident Dhulji s/o. Nandaram died and his death is of homicidal in nature.
10. Now the next and important crucial question arises for consideration before us as to whether these four respondents are responsible for the death of deceased Dhulji s/o Nandram and all of them in furtherance with the common intention caused the murder of deceased Dhulji on the date of the incident.
11. To bring home the aforesaid charge against the respondents, injured witness Rameshwar s/o. Mangilal (PW i), who lodged the first information report, stated that respondent Rameshwar Pahalwan s/o Hiralal armed with knife, Badrilal, Rameshchandra and Shankarlal armed with lathies came in the field and immediately started beating to him, whereby he sustained injury on his left hand on the wrist and also on both the knees. When he started crying, his maternal grandfather deceased Dhulji and his maternal uncle Madanlal (PW 6) came out from the room, which is situated in the field. All these respondents Rameshwar, Badrilal, Ramesh and Shankarlal started beating to Dhulji and Madanlal also. Respondent/accused Rameshwar caused injury by knife to Dhulji on his chest and on his back. Respondents/accused Ramesh, Badrilal and Shankarlal also caused injury by means of lathi to Dhulji and all of them also caused injury to his maternal uncle Madanlal (PW 6) and thereafter all these respondents/accused ran away from the spot, after causing injuries to them. He further testified that at the time of the incident, there was light from the moon and on this light; he identified all these respondents in the moonlight. He also narrated the cause of this incident was that before two days 400 feet polythene pipe were stolen from their field and for which Mangilal (PW 2) had lodged report at police station Badnagar and on the basis of this report, police has arrested accused/Kailash s/o Bherulal. Annoyed with this action, the respondents came on the spot and caused the aforesaid injuries to them.
12. The statement of Rameshwar (PW 1) has got further support by the statement of another injured witness Madanlal (PW 6), who also sustained injury in the same incident, who also categorically stated that it was the respondents/accused Rameshwar Pahelwan, Ramesh, Badrilal and Shankarlal came on the spot armed with knife and lathies and caused Injuries to Dhulji. Respondent Rameshwar caused injury by means of knife to Dhulji on his chest and other respondents caused injuries to Dhulji by means of lathi and also caused injuries to him (i.e. Madanlal). After causing the injuries, all the four respondents ran away from the spot and he immediately lodged first information report Ex. P/21 on the same day in the night at about 3.00 a.m., which bears his signature also.
13. Learned trial Court, while assessing the statement of the aforesaid injured eye witnesses Rameshwar (PW 1), Madanlal (PW 6), has taken a penetrating attitude with regard to the certain omissions and contradictions, which were brought in their cross-examination. For example, Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) stated that Madanlal sustained one injury by a knife on his head, which has not been supported by the medical witness Dr. M, K. Pancholi (PW 7), who did not found incised wound on the head of the Injured Madanlal (PW 6) whereas Dr. M. K. Pancholi (PW 7) supported that the injured Madanlal (PW 6) has sustained one lacerated wound on his head. It appears to be just and reasonable that this incident took place in the night and both Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) are the injured witnesses. They have also sustained various injuries which has got support by the statement of Dr. M. K. Pancholi (PW 7) who found 4 injuries on the person of Madanlal (PW 6) as per report Ex. P/23 and found 5 injuries on the person of Rameshwar (PW 1) as per report Ex. P/24 and it cannot be expected that they should specifically mention as to which injury was caused to which of the accused and by which object.
14. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the approach of the learned trial Court with regard to the aforesaid minor discrepancies with regard to the weapons, by which the respondents/accused caused injuries to Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) is erroneous and these discrepancies are not so important, on which basis the whole prosecution story, in this case, can be discarded in its entirety.
15. Similarly, learned trial Court, while appreciating the prosecution evidence also stressed upon the fact that Mangilal (PW 2) stated that he lodged report against Kailash for the theft of PVC pipe from his field whereas witness Rameshwar (PW 1) stated that report against Kailash has been lodged for the theft of iron cutter (Lohe ke Danta), which is used to plough a field. As per the opinion of the learned trial Court, this it has found to be a material contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. It is apparent that this incident took place because Mangilal (PW 2) has lodged one theft report against co-accused Kailash, on which basis police arrested accused Kailash. In these circumstances, it becomes immaterial with regard to the details of the so-called theft report. Thus, in our considered opinion, learned trial Court has also taken much technical approach on the contradictions and on the basis of these minor discrepancies, has wrongly disbelieved the statement of the injured prosecution witnesses Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6).
16. Learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate the statement of the prosecution witnesses and also much stress has been given with regard to the injury sustained to deceased Dhulji on his head. Learned trial Court in paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment discussed that in first information report, it is stated that accused/ respondent Rameshwar has caused injury by means of knife on the head of the deceased Dhulji whereas Dr. M. K. Pancholi (PW 7) has found lacerated wound on the head of the deceased Dhulji, which may be caused by means of lathi and the witnesses have improved their statement before the Court and stated that Dhulji sustained injuries by means of lathi on his head. As per the opinion of the learned trial Court this appears to be a substantial and material contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. As stated hereinabove, the incident took place in the night at about 12.30 a.m., four accused persons started beating to complainant party of the three persons namely deceased Dhulji, Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) had sustained various injuries in the incident. Thus, it cannot be expected by the injured witnesses that they should specifically and categorically state as to which of the accused has caused the injury to which of the person and by what means. Both of these witnesses have specifically stated the involvement of the respondents in this incident. Their presence on the spot has been proved by the statement. Therefore, in view of the fact that all the four accused persons/respondents immediately started beating them when the complainant party were sleeping in the night at about 12.30 a.m., then it cannot be expected the specification with regard to the injuries caused by the accused persons. Thus, in our considered opinion, the aforesaid contradictions are not having so importance on which basis the whole of the prosecution case can be thrown out.
17. Learned trial Court, while discussing the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that it appears to be doubtful with regard to the involvement of the respondents in this incident. In the case where the eye witnesses Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW-6) were also sustained injuries in the same incident, their presence on the spot could not be disputed and one Dhulji died due to grievous injuries sustained to him by the respondents/accused persons. In such a situation, the approach of the learned trial Court appears to be erroneous and there cannot be two opinions that it is the respondents/accused who caused grievous injuries in furtherance with the common intention to the deceased, which resulted in his death also caused simple injuries to witnesses Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6).
18. Learned Counsel for the respondents has also stressed upon the fact that the involvement of the other co-accused Prakash, Kailash and Bherulal in the incident proved to be false. They have not taken active part in this incident. Thus, if witnesses Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) stated falsely against these three accused persons, it will not at all be safe that they have stated truth against the present respondents also. This approach also appears to be technical and baseless. In our country the principle "falsus in uno falsus in omnl bus" (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable and it is the bounden duty of the Court to separate the truth from the falsehood like a grain out of chaff. For this proposition, Hon'ble the apex Court in Rizan and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh held as under:
12. Stress was laid by the accused appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called a mandatory rule of evidence. (See Nisar Ali v. The State of Uttar Pradesh) . Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurucharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab ). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect., it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead shop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, 11 does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab s/o Bell Navata and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ugar Ahir and Ors. v. The State of Bihar . An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution complete from the context and the background against, which they are made the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto, (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Balaka Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab ). As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Suit. Kalki and Anr. , normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however,, honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted recently in Krishari Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar etc. and Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa 2002 (7) Supreme 276 : 2003 Cri LJ 41. Accusations have been clearly established against accused appellants in the case at hand. The Courts below have categorically indicated the distinguishable features in evidence so far as acquitted and convicted accused are concerned.
19. The similar principle has again laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab .
20. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that it will not be correct that because the prosecution witnesses Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) have falsely involved co-accused Prakash, Kailash and Bherulal in this incident, therefore, their whole statement should be found to be false and the respondents are entitled to get an acquittal.
21. Learned Counsel for the respondents also stressed upon the fact that if at all the statement of the prosecution witnesses Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) is believed, then also only a doubt has been created with regard to the involvement of the present respondents in this incident and if such suspicion, however, grave may be cannot take the place of proof, For this, learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narendra Singh and Anr. v. Slate of M.P. 2004 SCC (Cri) 1893 : 2004 Cri LJ 2842 wherein it is held that suspicion, however, grave may be cannot take place of proof and there is a long distance between "may be" and "must be". The prosecution cannot deny its liability to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
22. On perusal of the statement of the prosecution witnesses Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6), we are of the considered opinion that both these witnesses are the injured witnesses, who also sustained injuries in the same incident, who saw that the respondents were causing grievous injuries to the deceased Dhulji, which resulted his (Dhulji) spontaneous death on the spot. The identification of the respondents/accused is also proved by the cogent evidence.
23. Therefore, in our considered, opinion, the prosecution has proved the case and the involvement of the respondents in this incident beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the aforesaid case law is not applicable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
24. Learned trial Court has also stressed upon the fact that the prosecution has not complied with the provisions of Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to the sending of the first information report immediately after the registration to the concerning Magistrate and this also creates doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. This approach of the trial Court also appears to be erroneous. When there is sufficient ocular evidence on record, which prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge against the respondents. In such a case, non-compliance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not at all fatal to the prosecution. For this proposition, we rely upon the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Gurpreet Singh v, State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 615 : 2006 Cri LJ 126 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that the non-compliance of Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code or delay in sending report to Magistrate that alone cannot affect the prosecution case, if the same is otherwise found to be trustworthy.
25. The other prosecution witness is Chandrapal Singh (PW 9), investigating officer, who investigated the crime, arrested the respondents, seized blood stained and control earth from the spot and also seized lathies and knife from the possession of the accused Learned trial Court also stressed upon the fact that the seizure of the weapons from the possession of the accused persons is also not proved properly by the prosecution and blood on these weapons are not found to be the human blood. Therefore, this evidence is also not supporting the prosecution story. This approach of the learned trial Court also appears to be technical when there are specific statements of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the incident, then it will not affect the prosecution case, if the seizure of the weapons has not been proved properly or no human blood was found on the weapons seized from the possession of the accused persons.
26. The other prosecution witness Kamlesh (PW 3) is the witness for seizure of the weapons. Jeevan Jaiswal (PW 4) is the witness for seizure as per Ex. P/19. Gopal Sharma (PW 5), who was village patwari, pre-pared the spot map Ex. P/20. Kailashchandra (PW 8) is the panch witness for inquest panchnama Ex. P/2. They appear to be formal witnesses and no detailed discussion is necessary on the statement of these witnesses. They appear to be formal in nature.
27. On overall re-appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the four respondents in furtherance with the common intention caused the intentional murder of one Dhulji s/o Nandram by causing grievous injuries to him by means of knife and lathies and all these four respondents are also liable for causing simple injuries to Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) in furtherance with the common intention of each of them.
28. Thus, learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondents for the aforesaid charges under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we set aside the impugned Judgment of acquittal and we hold; all the four respondents guilty under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
29. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents on the quantum of sentence.
30. This incident took place in the year 1994 and the respondents are villagers having no previous criminal record. In view of the fact, we are of the opinion that under Section 302/34,1. P. C. the sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs, 2.000/-(two thousand) on each of the respondents appears to be just and proper.
31. Consequently, this appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh is allowed. The impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Session Trial No. 305/1994 dated 20-1-1997 is set aside and we hold the respondents Badrilal s/o Ratanlal Mali aged about 32 years resident of village Baloda Lakkha at present Badnagar, Rameshwar s/o Hiralal Mali aged 28 years resident of Kachhi Seri, Badnagar, Rameshchandra s/o Pannalal Mali aged 35 years resident of Juna Shahar Badnagar and Shankarlal s/o Jagannath Mali aged 28 years resident of near Harijan Basti, Mali Mohalla Badnagar guilty under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and sentence each of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000 (two thousand). In default of payment of fine, each of the respondents will suffer further imprisonment for 1 (one) year. All the respondents are also found guilty under Section 323/34, I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the substantive jail sentences shall run concurrently.
32. The respondents are on bail. It is directed that all the respondents will remain present before the trial Court on 17-5-2006 and the trial Court will send them for serving out the aforesaid sentences awarded by this Court. In failure to remain present before the trial Court on the date fixed for this purpose by this Court, the trial Court is free to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest for the presence of the respondents/accused and for the forfeiture of the bail bonds and recovery of the personal bond and surety bond amount from the persons concerned. Office is directed to send the lower Courts record with a copy of this judgment immediately to the trial Court.