Chattisgarh High Court
Lakhan Lal (Died And Deleted) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 February, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:7728
The date when The date when The date when the
the judgment is the judgment is judgment is uploaded on
reserved pronounced the website
Operative Full
12.12.2025 12.02.2026 -- 12.02.2026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 790 of 2012
1 - Lakhan Lal (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order
Dated 04-09-2025.
2 - Shankar Chandra S/o Johan Chandra Aged About 40 Years
R/o Salonikala Chowki Bhatgaon, Ps - Bilaigarh, Distt. Baloda
Bazar C.G.
3 - Vishram S/o Tirath Ram Satnami Aged About 70 Years R/o
Salonikala Chowki Bhatgaon, Ps - Bilaigarh, Distt. Baloda Bazar
C.G.
4 - Hetram S/o Budhram Satnami Aged About 46 Years R/o
Salonikala Chowki Bhatgaon, Ps - Bilaigarh, Distt. Baloda Bazar
C.G.
5 - Dular S/o Vishram Satnami Aged About 32 Years R/o
Salonikala Chowki Bhatgaon, Ps - Bilaigarh, Distt. Baloda Bazar
C.G.
6 - Dhaneshwar Chandra S/o Laxman Chandra Aged About 27
Years R/o Salonikala Chowki Bhatgaon, Ps - Bilaigarh, Distt.
Baloda Bazar C.G.
2
7 - Chaitram S/o Puniram Satnami Aged About 37 Years R/o
Salonikala Chowki Bhatgaon, Ps - Bilaigarh, Distt. Baloda Bazar
C.G.
8 - Ramkumar Chandra S/o Aghori Chandra Aged About 53 Years
R/o Salonikala Chowki Bhatgaon, Ps - Bilaigarh, Distt. Baloda
Bazar C.G.
9 - Bharat Chandra S/o Aghori Chandra Aged About 50 Years R/o
Salonikala Chowki Bhatgaon, Ps - Bilaigarh, Distt. Baloda Bazar
C.G.
... Appellants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur,
Distt. Raipur C.G.
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (CAV Judgment)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.09.2012 passed by the 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.), in S.T. No.01/2012 convicting and sentencing the appellants as under :-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 148 IPC R.I. for 02-02 years and fine
of Rs.200/- - 200/- each.
Under Section 341 of IPC S.I. for 15-15 days with fine
of Rs.50/- - 50/- each.
Under Section 323/149 of R.I. for 03-03 months with IPC ( On two counts) fine of Rs.100/- - 100/- each. 3 Under Section 427 of IPC R.I. for 03-03 months with fine of Rs.100/- - 100/- each.
Under Section 307/149 of R.I. for 05-05 years with fine IPC of Rs.500/- - 500/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for 06-06 months to each appellants.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the night of 01.05.2009, the complainant, along with villagers namely Ramnivas, Gangaprasad, Radheshyam, Jhaduram, Rekhachand, Budheshwar, Chhotelal, Manohar and others from his village, had gone to village Taalgaon to attend a social meeting. In the said meeting, villagers namely Dulaar, Hetram, Lakhan Yadav, Shankar Chandra, Vishram Satnami, Ramkumar Chandra and Bharat Chandra refused to abide by the decision of the community and left the meeting midway. Thereafter, when the complainant and his companions were returning to Saloni Kala in a Bolero vehicle, upon reaching near village Girwani, it was found that Lakhan Satnami, Dulaar Satnami, Vishram Satnami, Ramkumar Chandra, Bharat Chandra, Hetram and Chaitram Satnami were already present there, having parked a tractor belonging to village Sarpanch Ramkumar by the roadside, and were armed with lathis, sticks and tangia (axe). As soon as the complainant party reached nearby, the accused persons stopped the Bolero vehicle and hurled filthy and 4 obscene abuses in the name of mother and sister, threatening to kill them, and thereafter assaulted the complainant party with lathis, sticks and tangia. As a result thereof, the complainant sustained injuries on his hands, legs, chest, back and waist. After completion of the necessary investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324, 506-B, 147, 148, 149, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the accused/appellants before the jurisdictional Magistrate. After filing of charge-sheet, the trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellants under Sections 148, 341, 294, 307/149, 324/149 (on two counts), 506-B and 427 of IPC, wherein they prayed for trial.
3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses. Statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.
4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, while acquitting the appellants of the charge under Sections 194, 506(B) IPC, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, 5 this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court committed a serious error in convicting the appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas a perusal of the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) clearly demonstrates that the injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature. It is further evident that Section 307 IPC was not mentioned in the First Information Report, which itself indicates absence of intention or knowledge to commit murder. Consequently, the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not made out against the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that P.W.-12 Dr. Praveen Kumar Jangde, in his deposition before the Court, categorically stated that all the injuries sustained by injured Ramdeen were simple, except one injury, i.e. fracture of the left hand. The said witness further admitted that such fracture could have been caused by a vehicular hit. Even if the testimony of the doctor as well as the injured is accepted in its entirety, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. At best, the offence under Section 325 IPC may be attracted. The learned Trial Court thus erred in convicting the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. He also submits that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that there existed prior enmity between the 6 parties, and on account of such animosity, the complainant falsely implicated the appellants in the present case. This material aspect has not been properly considered by the learned Court below. It has been also submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are contrary to the evidence available on record and are based on presumptions and conjectures, which is impermissible in criminal law. The impugned findings, therefore, cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further submits that none of the prosecution witnesses have specifically stated as to who caused the injuries to Ramdin, nor has the individual role of each appellant been proved. In absence of proof of overt acts or common object, the learned Trial Court wrongly invoked Section 149 IPC and convicted all the appellants, which is legally untenable. Learned counsel also submits that the seizure witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Further, P.W.-8 Manohar Lal and P.W.-9 Chhotelal, who were cited as eye-witnesses, also did not support the prosecution version. In such circumstances, conviction solely on the basis of injured witnesses, without independent corroboration, is unsafe and unsustainable.The learned Trial Court failed to consider that a free fight had taken place between the parties. The witnesses did not clearly state as to who inflicted the injuries, and the 7 prosecution version is not supported by the medical evidence. Hence, the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is bad in the eyes of law. The prosecution failed to prove any intention or motive on the part of the appellants to commit murder. The injuries sustained by the injured being simple in nature, the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC are clearly not attracted. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are liable to be set aside and the accused/appellants deserves to acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
In support of her submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment dated 31.07.2024 of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.1151/2010 in the matter of Raju and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand.
6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that conviction of the appellants is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 148, 341, 294, 307/149, 324/149 (on two counts), 506-B and 427 of 8 IPC, and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants of the charge under Sections 194, 506(B) IPC, convicted them under Sections 148, 341, 323/149 (on two counts), 427, 307/149 and sentenced as described in para 1 of this judgment.
9. Ramdeen (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 01.05.2009, he along with other villagers had gone to Talgaon to attend the social meeting, and while returning in Marshal vehicle, on the way, their vehicle was intercepted by the accused/appellants and thereafter they assaulted this witness (PW-1), Lakhan (PW-2) and Dhaneshwar (PW-6) and rest persons ran away. He has also stated that in the incident, his hand was broken, his body turned black and he fell unconscious on the ground due to bleeding. Lakhan (PW-2) and Dhaneshwar (PW-6) also fell down on the ground. He has also stated that all the accused persons present in the Court had assaulted him on his head by axe (Tangiya). This witness has also stated that he lodged an FIR (Ex.P-3) against accused persons and admits his signature on 'A to A' part in FIR. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he recognized all the accused persons including the name of their fathers. In para 12, this witness has stated that the door of vehicle Marshal in which 9 they were returning from Talgaon was closed. He was sitting on the middle seat of the vehicle. They could see the accused persons from 100 feet and their vehicle had stopped. The driver was driven away with the vehicle. He, Lakhan and Dhaneshwar could not escape. He fell down on the ground and on receiving the information, the police picked him up and took him away. He was conscious at that time.
10. Lakhan (PW-2) has stated that about one year prior to the incident, the witness attended a community meeting at Talgon along with Ramdin, Jhadu, Radhesham, Manohar, Ramniwas and Ganga, where a dispute also arose during the meeting, and there was pushing and scuffling among the community members but was later pacified by elderly persons. After that, they had tea and were returning in a Marshal vehicle. The accused persons attempted to stop them by blocking the road with a tractor. The driver of the Marshal tried to take the vehicle out by turning it but due to stone-pelting, the vehicle stopped, and the accused persons came carrying lathis and sticks. Meanwhile, the persons sitting at the rear of the Marshal fled away. In the front seat, Ramadheen and Dhaneshwar were seated with him. When they got down from the Marshal, the accused persons started assaulting them. Accused persons assaulted him on 10 his hands and legs and hit him at two places. He became weak and fell down on one side. Thereafter, the persons who had run away from the Marshal returned and informed the police station over the phone. The Station House Officer arrived at the spot. Then, they were lifted and taken back in the Marshal vehicle and the injured were taken for medical treatment--first at Bhatgaon and thereafter referred to Apollo Hospital. The witness could not state the cause of the quarrel. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the police had not recorded his statement.
11. Ramnivas (PW-3) has stated that about one year ago, he had gone to Talgon to attend a community meeting along with Ramdeen, Lakhan, Manohar, Radheshyam, Rekhachand, Ganga, Jhadu, Chhote, and the driver. A fight broke out between the accused Shankar and some persons from Talgon, after which the meeting ended and they were returning home. On the way, the accused persons blocked the road with a tractor and stopped their Marshal vehicle, and thereafter jointly assaulted Dhaneshwar, Ramdeen, and Lakhan. He was at the rear and, out of fear, went and sat about one furlong away but continued to witness the incident. After the quarrel subsided, it was found that Ramdeen, Dhaneshwar, and Lakhan had sustained injuries, and all the accused had assaulted them together. When the 11 accused fled after the assault, the witness and others went to the police station, and Ramdeen was in a near-dead condition and was brought by the police assuming him to be dead. Thereafter, the injured were treated at Apollo Hospital. The tractor, whose wheel was found detached, was seized by the police and later handed over to the Kotwar, as per seizure memo Ex. P/04. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the police had not recorded/taken his statement.
12. Ganga Prasad (PW-4) has stated that about one year ago they had gone to Talgon to attend a meeting. He went in his vehicle along with Ramdeen, Chhotelal, Rekhachand, Ramniwas, Daras, Johon, and many others. The witness stated that he attended the meeting but went away to urinate, and therefore he does not know what happened thereafter. He further stated that at about 12:00 midnight they were returning to Salonikala. They were travelling in a Marshal vehicle, in which Jhadu and Radhe were seated, while the witness and others were on motorcycles, which were moving ahead of the Marshal. The witness stated that when people started shouting "run," he got down from the Marshal and ran away, and thereafter he does not know what happened. He further stated that he heard that three persons had sustained injuries, but he does not know how 12 those injuries were caused. The prosecution declared this witness hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution.
13. Radheshyam (PW-5) has stated that on 01.05.2009 they had gone to attend a meeting at Talgon. He went on a motorcycle. During the meeting at Talgon, a dispute arose between the accused persons and the son of Rikhiram, followed by noise and commotion, whereupon the people intervened, pacified the matter, and the meeting was concluded. Thereafter, the witness, his son, Jhadu and Jhadu's son were travelling on motorcycles, while Ramdeen, Dhaneshwar, Rekhachand, Ganga, Chhotelal, Budhesar, Ramdeen, and Johon were travelling in a Marshal vehicle. After leaving the village, some villagers requested them to have tea, and after taking tea they proceeded, with the motorcycles ahead and the Marshal following behind. When they reached near Girwani, they saw the accused persons standing near a drain with a tractor and carrying lathis. On seeing them, the witness and others turned back towards Talgon. Ram and Shankar were on a motorcycle behind them, and thereafter they left the motorcycle there and hid there. Later, when they reached the place of occurrence, Ramdeen, Lakhan, and Dhaneshwar informed them that the accused persons had 13 assaulted them. Ramdeen had sustained a head injury and had become unconscious, Dhaneshwar's leg was fractured, and Lakhan's hand was fractured.
14. Dhaneshwar Kumar Chandra (PW-6) has stated that all the accused persons assaulted him as a result of which his knee was broken and the same was operated in Lal Chandani Hospital.
15. Manohar Lal (PW-8) has stated that about one year ago they had gone to Talgon to attend a community meeting. Witness has stated that he, along with Ramdheen, Rekhachand, Chhotelal, Budheshwar, Ramniwas, Ramkumar, Bharat, and others, attended the meeting. According to the witness, nothing happened during the meeting, and as the meeting was adjourned, they were returning thereafter. Jhadu Ram and Radheshyam were travelling ahead on a motorcycle, while the witness and other persons were travelling in a Marshal. When they reached near the Girwani turn, Radheshyam shouted that people were coming to assault them. The witness stated that they tried to turn the vehicle, but as it could not be turned, he jumped out and ran away, and thereafter reached his village Salonikala. Later on, he heard that Ramdin, Lakhan and Dhaneshwar had been assaulted. Except for this, the witness stated that he does not know anything else. 14
16. Chhotelal (PW-9), Laxman (PW-11) and Budheshwar (PW-
19) have made almost similar statement as has been made by Manohar Lal (PW-8).
17. Dr. Pravin Kumar Jangde (PW-12) examined the injured Ramdeen (PW-1) on 02.05.2009 and gave his report under Ex.P-9 noticing as many as four injuries : (i) suspected breaking left elbow; (ii) different size of hematoma were present on back side; (iii) lacerated wound in the size of 6 cm x ½ cm x ½ deep on left side of head and (iv) lacerated wound in the size of 3 cm x ½ cm x ½ deep on super occipital region. The doctor has opined that the said injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object and referred the injured to Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur for ascertaining nature of injuries, however, the person namely Vishwanath expressed his inability to take him to Raipur. On the same day, the doctor had also examined injured Dhaneshwar (PW-6) and gave his report under Ex.P-10 noticing as many as 02 injuries : (i) suspected injury to right knee; (ii) hematoma in the size of 5 cm x 2 cm on middle of left thigh. The doctor has opined that he said injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object and referred the injured to Medical College, Raipur for ascertaining nature of injuries, however, younger brother of injured expressed his inability to take him to Raipur. The doctor has also examined 15 injured Lakhan Lal (PW-02) on 02.05.2009 and gave his report under Ex.P-11 noticing as many as three injured : (i) suspected injury to left elbow bone; (ii) hematoma in the size of 4 cm in circle on upper side of left leg and (iii) superficial abrasion in the size of 5 cm x 1 cm on middle of right hand. The doctor has opined that the said injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object and referred the injured to Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, however, the relative of injured requested for treatment in CIMS, Bilaspur (C.G.). The Doctor, in para 7 of his cross- examination, has admitted this suggestion of defence that the injuries sustained by injured Ramadhin were not in vital part. The doctor has further admitted in para 10 of his cross- examination that in report under Ex.P-10 and P-11, he did not find any injuries to any of the injured in the sensitive/vital areas. He has specifically admitted that the type of injuries he described in Ex.P-9, 10 and 11 were not likely to cause death.
18. Dr. Gouri Shankar Asati (PW-17) the Doctor of Apollo Hospital who had treated injured Ramdeen (PW-1) has stated he had operated elbow of right hand. The bone of right elbow was broken. He has stated that injured Ramdeen had told him that some unknown persons had assaulted him with club. The doctor had prepared discharge 16 summary vide Ex.P-18. He has also stated that he has given particular of injuries sustained by injured Ramdeen (PW-1) vide Ex.P-19, wherein he had mentioned that the injury sustained by Ramdeen was grievous in nature.
19. Dr. B. Lal Chandani (PW-22) has stated that injured Lakhan Lal (PW-2) remained hospitalized in his hospital from 02.05.2009 to 10.05.2009 and he had operated his left hand elbow and on the date of discharge he had given discharge ticket (Ex.P-29) also. He has also stated that injured Dhaneshwar (PW-6) was also admitted in his hospital. He had operated his left leg patella and gave medicine for 10- 15 days. He had prepared discharge ticket of Dhaneshwar vide Ex.P-28.
20. Appellant Dhaneshwar Chandra(A-6) and Bharat Chandra (A-9) have objected that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Their objection rests on the discrepancy of their father's name mentioned in the FIR and rojnamcha sanha.
21. To sum up this, this Court has gone through the record and find that according to the charge sheet, name of father of appellants Dhaneshwar Chandra and Bharat Chandra has been mentioned as Laxman Chandra and Aghori Chandra respectively, and as per Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-33-C), name of father of accused Dhaneshwar is written as Baldau and name of father of accused Laxman Chandra is written 17 as Dhaniram Chandra, but as per the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the father's name of accused Dhaneshwar is written as Laxman and father's name of accused Bharat Chandra is written as Aghori Ram.
22. Soumitra Bhoi (PW-23), Investigating Officer, has admitted in para 5 of his cross-examination that names of accused persons namely Lakhan, Shankar, Vishram, Ram Kumar, Bharat Chandra, Hetram, Dular, Dhaneshwar and Chaitram have been written in FIR (Ex.P-3) as per the instruction of Ramdeen Chandra. He has also admitted that he entered the Rojnamcha Sanha after registering the FIR as per his (Ramdeen Chandra) instruction, and the names of the accused and their fathers that he has written in the rojnamcha sanha (Ex.P-33-C) are as per the FIR (Ex.P-3). He has also admitted in para 6 that in the FIR (Ex.P-3), Ramdeen Chandra has not mentioned the father's name of the accused persons. The entry recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex. P-33(C)), at Serial No. 497 dated 21.05.2009, wherein Bharat son of Dhaniram, Hetram son of Vishram, and Dhaneshwar son of Baldau are mentioned, was recorded by the Station House Officer. In Ex.P-35(C), in the column relating to Crime No. 142, the names Bharat Chandra son of Dhaniram, Hetram son of Vishram, Dular son of Vishram, and Dhaneshwar son of Baldau are 18 recorded. He has also admitted that that in column 84 of Exhibit P-35(C), Bharat Chandra son of Dhaniram, Hetram son of Vishram, Dular son of Vishram, and Dhaneshwar son of Baldau are recorded.
23. Upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution case suffers from serious inconsistencies and material infirmities. The testimonies of the injured witnesses, namely Ramdeen (PW-1), Lakhan (PW-2) and Dhaneshwar (PW-6), are not wholly reliable, as they have materially exaggerated the nature and gravity of the injuries allegedly sustained by them. This exaggeration is clearly contradict by the medical evidence.
24. Dr. Pravin Kumar Jangde (PW-12), has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that none of the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses were on vital or sensitive parts of the body and that the injuries described in Ex.P-9, P-10 and P-11 were not sufficient to cause death. His admission that such injuries could have been caused due to a fall from a vehicle or by being hit against vehicle lend suspicion to the prosecution case. This medical evidence does not support the prosecution version of a brutal assault with deadly weapons, as alleged by the injured witnesses.
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Raju (supra) held in para 8, 9 and 15 as under :-
19
"8. Keeping these principles in mind, the intention of the Appellant in this context may perhaps be ascertained through the material on record, consisting the testimonies of the witnesses; medical opinion and the very first version of events contained in the FIR itself.
9. Having analysed the evidence on record, we find that there are several gaps in the prosecution story. We say so for the reasons that, first, the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, Mathu and Imran, are inherently contradictory to the narrative of the prosecution, insofar as the sequence of events and the roles attributed to the accused persons are concerned. Mathu for instance, admitted during his cross examination that he could not identify as to who among the accused persons inflicted stab wounds and who used lathis.
10. xxxx
11. xxxx
12. xxxx
13. xxxx
14. xxxx
15. To further fan the flames, there is no motive attributed to the Appellant or his co-accused Bhola, in order to justify their conviction under Section 307 of the IPC. Both the injured witnesses, Imran and Mathu, during their cross- examination, clearly explicated that there was no enmity or ill will between them and the accused 20 persons. It is not even the prosecution's case that this was a chance occurrence. It seems that the accused and the alleged victims were familiar with each other and had some kind of association. There is thus more to this than meets the eye, and we are not entirely convinced of the narrative presented and perceived by the prosecution."
26. In the light of aforesaid verdict, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part of the appellants. All material witnesses have admitted that there was no prior enmity or ill-will between the injured persons and the accused. Even the alleged dispute during the village meeting was admittedly pacified, and no quarrel took place thereafter. The absence of motive assumes significance, particularly when the charge is of a serious nature. Further, no weapon has been seized by the prosecution. As per the seizure memo (Ex.P-12), only a tractor was seized, which by itself does not corroborate the alleged manner of assault. The independent witnesses, including PW-4, PW-8, PW-9, PW-11 and PW-19, have not supported the prosecution case and have clearly stated that they did not witness the alleged assault. Their testimony weakens the prosecution version and casts a serious doubt on the credibility of the interested witnesses. 21
27. Moreover, material contradictions exist regarding the identity of the accused, especially with respect to the names of their fathers, as reflected in the FIR (Ex.P-3), Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-33-C), charge-sheet, and statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. These discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution case and further erode its credibility.
28. In light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju (supra), where inconsistencies, lack of motive, exaggeration of injuries, and absence of reliable corroboration were held to be fatal to the prosecution case, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate all these facts in its true perspective and thus wrongly convicted the accused/appellants. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable.
29. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.09.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 01/2012 is hereby set aside and the accused/appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them by extending benefit of doubt.
30. The appellants are already on bail. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), 22 the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
31. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge Digitally signed by pekde VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.02.12 11:47:23 +0530