AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Validity of the judgment dated 17.6.2008 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3,
Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.52/2007 (74/2006) (114/05)
has been assailed, by which the accused-appellants have been
convicted under Section 302 / 34 of IPC with life imprisonment with
fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further
undergo 3 months'' rigorous imprisonment.
The contents of F.I.R. No.568 (Ex.P/3) of Police
Station Hanumangarh Junction reads as under :-
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
Post investigation charge sheet was filed and the
case was committed to learned trial Court, which after framing of
charges, conducted trial, prosecution produced ten witnesses and
also got documentary evidence exhibited, and after examination
of the accused persons under Section 313 of CrPC, trial Court
concluded the trial with aforesaid verdict by convicting all the
accused persons under Section 302 / 34 of IPC.
While submitting oral arguments, it has been
contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that almost all
the witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile. Even
complainant has also not supported story of the FIR and he too
has turned hostile, recovery of the alleged weapon is also not
substantiated because one of the recovery witness has not been
produced and nothing concrete has been uttered by another
witness. Spot map (Ex.P/6) of the place of occurrence is
suggestive that the alleged incident took place inside the
tenement of a walled premises, which was not visible at all from
outside and Buta Singh PW-5 has asserted that he witnessed the
incident from roof top of the house of Jeeta Singh, but perusal of
the spot map indicates that nothing could be observed from the
terrace of Jeeta Singh''s house into the adjacent house of Hakam
Singh, so story of observing something factual becomes futile.
PW-4 Kaddu Singh is not an independent witness,
who too has asserted in his cross-examination that a criminal case
was tried against him pertaining to Hakam Singh''s family
member''s kidnapping, so he was obviously nurturing animosity
against appellant-accused Hakam Singh, so he has willfully uttered
incorrect recovery against the appellant-accused.
There is no witness other than Buta Singh,
evidence of whom also becomes useless, if appreciated in proper
perspective because he himself has said that he too was out of the
house of Hakam Singh, had he been there and would have seen
something untoward, perpetrated upon his own father by his own
brothers and their sons, then Buta Singh would have certainly
interfered and spared his father from the alleged assault of other
family members but he did not enter in the premises, where the
alleged assault taken place.
So far as, injuries are concerned, those are also
bit dubious, since doctor has opined certain internal organs having
been effected sustaining grievous injuries but no penetrative and
perforating nature wounds were found on the body of the
deceased, which might have caused rapturing of spleen.
Testimony of Buta Singh, PW-5 is also not
trustworthy because it has willfully been uttered to detriment
interest of his brother in order to grab his share of property,
despite being all the important witnesses of the prosecution
hostile, the trial court has committed grave mistake in convicting
the accused persons and the judgment impugned is not
sustainable in the eye of law, so it be set aside and after allowing
the appeal, appellants-accused be acquitted. Reliance has been
placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Raju alias
Rajaram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan [2005(8) RDD 3156
(Raj.)(DB)].
The learned Public Prosecutor, per contra,
rebutting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellants, has contended that there is no impact of hostile
evidence on the merit of the story of the prosecution because
conviction can be sustained even on the testimony of solo witness
and Buta Singh, who is none else but brother of appellants-
accused Hakam Singh and Goga Singh, has narrated everything
ocular and has corroborated the incident by actual delineation of
injury caused by all the appellants-accused to the deceased
Harnek Singh. Recovery witness Kaddu Singh has also confirmed
recovery of the assault weapons, which is duly corroborated by
medical evidence, so there is no flaw in the impugned judgment
and learned trial court has correctly passed the said judgment by
convicting the appellants-accused, who assassinated Harnek Singh
deliberately by causing grievous injuries. Hence, the appeal lacks
merit and is liable to be rejected, so it be rejected. Reliance has
been placed on the judgments delivered in the cases of Kartik
Malhar Vs. State of Bihar [(1996) 1 SCC 614], Koli
Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai Vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 2000 SC
210] and Vijay Pal Singh Vs. State, NCT of Delhi [(2001) 10
SCC 45].
Perused the record and examined the evidence,
analysis of the evidence and material available on the record,
discloses that prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Buta
Singh (PW-5). Rest of the eye witnesses have not supported,
version of the prosecution, even Jeeta Singh (PW-3), author of
the FIR has turned hostile and has not supported prosecution.
Ex.P/3, FIR has been lodged by Jeeta Singh S/o
Harnek Singh on 27.02.2005 as FIR No.568 under Sections 302
and 34 IPC and complainant-author of the FIR Jeeta Singh S/o
Harnek Singh has named his two brothers Hakam Singh and Goga
Singh and sons of Harnek Singh and Pappa Singh coupled with
Gurpreet Singh sons of Hakam Singh, both Hakam Singh and
Goga Singh are real brothers of complainant Jeeta Singh, whereas
Pappa Singh and Gurpreet Singh are his nephews, being sons of
Hakam Singh.
If we weigh and analyse testimony, then we find
that PW-3 Jeeta Singh @ Jeet has turned hostile and he
manifestly did not support version of the FIR and he has
contradicted almost all the say of police statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., altogether, he has refuted important recitals of
Ex.P/3 FIR, as well and has narrated that on the instance and say
of neighbours and people present, he got lodged the FIR of their
version and has even said that he is ignorant regarding getting
access of his father from the window situated between the houses.
He has further said that he is illiterate, so unable to know as to
what papers were prepared by the police and has refuted any
compromise with the accused persons and has further denied
certain seizures therefrom, in cross-examination, he has also said
that 7-8 people were there at Thana for lodging Ex.P/3, he does
not know as to what was being lodged and he was asked to put
his thumb impression, so he put it. It is also said that his vision is
impaired and he so ails of night blindness and has also said that
he could know facts mentioned in the FIR Ex.P/3 for the first time
in the court and he never registered any say akin to that.
PW-1 Rinku @ Satraj Singh has also turned
hostile and has expressed his ignorance about the alleged incident
and has said that he was not there at his residence, on the day of
alleged occurrence, while cross-examination, he has said that he
did not convey alike to police and has refuted Ex.P/1, version of
police statements.
PW-2 Gurdev Singh too has turned hostile and
has said that he did not convey anything akin to Ex.P/2 to police
authorities.
PW-4 Dalip Singh has also not supported the
prosecution and has turned hostile and has refuted Ex.P/5, police
statements and has explicitly denied death of Harnek Singh by
alleged beating by accused persons.
PW-6 Dr. Jaspal who conducted postmortem has
said that on 27.09.2015, he was posted at Government Hospital
as a Medical Jurist and had conducted autopsy on the body of
Harnek Singh, aged about 72 years, and following injuries were
there on the corpse:-
(i) Lacerated wound 4" X ?" into bone deep on the left front parietal region (ii) Bleeding from the left ear (iii) Swelling 2"X 2" on the left cheek and fracture in mandible bone. (iv) Lacerated wound 1"X ?"into bone deep on left parietal region. (v) Lacerated wound 1"x ?"cut through left pinna lower part (vi) Incised wound 5"x ?" into muscle deep on the lower part of occipitial region of skull. (vii) Swelling and lacerated would 2" X 2" and ?" X ?" on the lower ? part of right arm anteriorly. (viii) Bruise 2" X ?" size on the left arm upper ? part anteriorly. (ix) Multiple bruise and multiple abrasions 13" X 7" size at the lower ? part of chest, left side postirolaterally and upper part of abdomen. (x) Bruise 6" X 4" on left gluteal region. (xi) Abrasion 3" X 1" on left iliac crest region pasterolaterally. (xii) Bruise 6" X 3" size on the left thigh laterally. (xiii) Bruise 2" X ?" size on left shoulder joint Superingly eyes were closed, pupil dilated and fixed.
He has further said that ribs were found broken in
chest, peritonitious membrane of stomach was ruptured and blood
was there in the stomach and lacerations were there on the spleen
and has said that an abrasion of 1" X ?" X ?" anterio lateraal part
of the spleen was also found.
Expressing his opinion on cause of death, he has
said that the cause of death was due to injury on vital parts in left
lung and spleen and drain of blood from these organs coupled
with shock and these injuries were antemortem. He has also said
that Ex.P.12 is the postmortem report, which was prepared by
him, which contains his signatures, in his cross-examination he
has said that, "it is correct that according to him, the cause of
death was injury No.9. On a query that whether that could be
caused owing to laceration on spleen, he has replied that in event
of hoemorrhage due to laceration, death could occur and has also
said that he had seen spleen and found blood on opening the
body.
PW-5 Buta Singh is the sole eye-witness, who
has supported ocular version, he too is son of Harnek Singh
deceased and real brother of appellants-accused Hakam Singh and
Goga Singh and according to version of FIR, it is disclosed that he
as well as Jeeta were abused by Hakam Singh, Goga Singh and
sons of Hakam Singh Gurpreet and Pappa. So, his son Rinku @
Satpal went and brought his father Harnek Singh to check and
pursuade them not to hurl abuses, then Harnek Singh came at
about 9.00 p.m. and asked them to maintain peace and said that
he was going to make them understand, then his father went
inside the house of Hakam Singh from open window and just after
entry of Harnek Singh, it was latched from inside and Hakam
Singh, Goga Singh, sons of Hakam Singh, Gurpreet and Pappa,
were there and all started beating Harnek Singh with the say that
let he be taught lesson, they daunted that in case, if anybody
came in their house he too will be killed, then he and Jeeta Singh
went up side on the roof of the house to witness the event and
found that Harnek Singh was being beaten by Hakam Singh, Goga
Singh, Gurpreet and Pappa with lathis and gandaliyas, but, in his
testimony, nothing akin to entry of Harnek Singh from window is
stated and that they went to call Gurdev Singh and Dalip Singh,
then again came to their terrace and found his father dead and
Hakam Singh had given a sabbal stroke to his father, when Dalip
Singh and Gurdev Singh challenged them, then they fled away
from the window after opening it, then all descended down into
the house of Hakam Singh, where they found his father lying there
as dead, then they all returned back to their houses silently, and
at about 4-4.30 a.m., Jeeta came to him and asked to go to Thana
for lodging FIR and they lodged the report, in his cross-
examination, he has said that there was no animosity of anybody
with his deceased father, besides issue of partition of land, house
of his father is about 1 murabba away from the house of Hakam
Singh, he has further said that he did not apprise anybody of
village or Sarpanch with respect to the incident.
According to the prosecution version, incident
occurred at around 8-8.30 p.m. or 9.00 p.m., whereas FIR has
been lodged on next day morning at 5.15 p.m., despite the police
station being 8 kms. away from the place of incident. Even after
such a killing tragedy, Buta Singh has said that all silently went
away to their home and they went to thana next morning, makes
the story bit unnatural and the delay too appears to be
astonishing, in a situation, when all other witnesses have turned
hostile and have not supported the prosecution version.
Ex.P/6, spot map, is also an important document
to ascertain truth, which shows that house of Buta Singh is
adjacent to the house of Hakam Singh in western side and house
of Jeeta Singh @ Jeet is situated adjacent to the house of Hakam
Singh in northern side and main door of the house of Hakam
Singh is situated towards galli, which is in the eastern side and
there is a public lane on the side of south from house of Hakam
Singh and in the house of Hakam Singh, at place "X", body of
deceased Harnek Singh has been shown to have been lying. Entry
of the house of Jeeta Singh is from eastern side galli, whereas
entry of house of Buta Singh is from public lane situated in south
direction, so to rush to the house of Jeeta or to rush to the house
of Buta Singh, after getting entry from their gates, is bit away and
no "connecting window", has been shown between the houses
of Hakam Singh and Jeeta or Hakam Singh and Buta Singh, in his
cross-examination, Buta Singh has said that he apprised the police
that he was standing near the window, but no such window has
been shown in the spot map as delineated in Ex.P/6. Perusal of
the spot map also shows that peeping into the house of Harnek
Singh is not feasible from the house of Buta Singh because
adjacent to the house of Buta Singh, there are constructed rooms
of Hakam Singh so observing anything from the roof of Buta Singh
appears to be untrustworthy unless one get access upon the roof
terrace of Hakam Singh, where the alleged offence is said to have
been committed, it was not possible to look inside or observe
anything from there, whereas in his cross-examination, he has
said that there was an access "mori" between the house of
Hakam Singh and Jeet Singh, which was being used by both the
brothers for entry and exit and an individual could get access
bowingly through that "mori access" but no such "mori" is
shown, between the two houses of Hakam Singh and Jeeta Singh
in Ex.P/6.
Kaddu Singh (PW-9) is a witness of recovery
but this witness does not appear to be "indifferent" since Buta
Singh has himself said that Kaddu Singh and wife of this witness
lodged an FIR in Thana that Buta Singh was kidnapped and has
also said that police had inquired him.
Occurrence of the offence has been shown to be
of around 9.00 p.m. and police station being 8 kms. away from
there, but surprisingly, the incident has been reported to the
police station on the next day morning at 5.15 a.m. and both the
brothers, whose "father" was allegedly killed in the premises of
Hakam Singh, which is stated to be a dense living mohalla,
nobody came there for help nor anybody went to the police station
to inform tragic and they sat idly with complete silence overnight,
without "crying" or informing to the police authorities, does also
go to suggest that the story of the prosecution is not trustworthy
with respect to the place of occurrence and manner in which the
offence is alleged to have been committed. True version has
deliberately been withheld for the reasons better known to the
prosecution, which obviously makes the story of the prosecution
rather unbelievable.
Buta Singh (PW-9) asserts that there was a
window, which was being used for entry to and fro between the
houses of Hakam Singh and Jeeta Singh from where one could
have got access in a bowing position but the spot map Ex.P/6
does also not show existence of such window, which too makes
the things obscured.
Cross-examination version of Buta Singh
reveals that he did not try to spare his father allegedly
because the accused persons had daunted and challenged
him and also no neighbour couraged to go inside but no
such neighbour witness has been produced by the
prosecution, whereas testimony of such neighbour and
independent witness could have been of vital help to arrive
at a logical conclusion and since Buta Singh has himself
accepted that neighbours were there who also could not
muster courage to spare the fight.
Buta Singh has said that after the demise of his
father, rest of the 24 bighas of land was with his mother but
surprisingly this mother witness too, has not been produced by
the prosecution, which also makes the prosecution version bit
dubious.
Buta Singh has asserted that Dalip Singh and
Gurdev Singh also came there and witnessed everything
but Dalip Singh (PW-4) and Gurdev Singh (PW-2) have also
come in the witness-box but they have not supported the
prosecution story and have become hostile, which too
impinges upon the veracity and makes it unreliable.
PW-9 Kaddu Singh is a witness of recovery and
he has just narrated the recoveries in a way of narration but the
documentary evidence, which ought to have been proved in
consonance with the provisions of Evidence Act has not been
proved and no documentary evidence pertaining to recovery has
been exhibited through this witness, the day when his testimony
has been recorded on 22.05.2007. Sheer say that a chronology
and sequence of recovery took place before him, save, referring
the documents and getting them exhibited, makes the testimony
fragile and the exhibits become unacceptable to be relied, in his
cross-examination, he has said that near the house of accused
persons, there are several houses of others, as well, he has
asserted that he too was interrogated in respect of disappearance
of Buta Singh, which is enough to say that this witness is not
indifferent and is an interested witness, his testimony becomes
less reliable altogether, when he says that there had been a
clamour and acrimony in the night but in what respect the chaos
occurred, is not known to him, which too makes the testimony bit
doubtful. He has also said that he knows all the accused persons
very well and was not in vogue to visit their houses for last 30
years and has said that police had come at 4-4.30 a.m., when
Sarpanch and many people were there, he too was there but if we
scan Ex.P/3, then it emerges that it was lodged in the morning at
5.15 a.m. a place which was situated 8 kms. away from the place
of incident, how the police party and people along with this
testimony gathered there at 4 or 4.30 a.m. does also go to say
that something material has been concealed and truth has
illogically been kept latent. Moreover, this say is also surprising
that at the time when police came, the said house is stated to be
lying locked and their locks were opened by the police after
obtaining keys from accused persons, because it becomes
improbable that the houses would be locked and keys retained
after leaving "dead-body" inside and remaining present there with
keys to be rendered to police for the trace of dead body. It is
vitally important that testimony of this witness, is of trite worth
because the documentary evidence has not been proved per
exhibiting them and sheer a say has got narrated like a story.
PW-7 Sunil is a police cop depositing the sample
in FSL, who has proved Ex.P/13, 14 and 15 and has also said that
the samples were returned to by the FSL with objections being
Ex.P/15, so the same could not be deposited. He has further
proved Ex.P/16, 17, 18, 18A, 19 and 19A. He has further ratified
Ex.P/20 and 21 and its copies but in his cross-examination, he has
said that at the time of getting forwarding letter issued, whether
samples were rendered in the S.P. Office is not clear to him,
earlier he has said that the samples were not given in the S.P.
Office and taking a contrary view he has again said that the same
were given in the S.P. Office. What kind of objection was raised by
the FSL has also not been made explicit by this witness.
PW-8 Mangat Ram is a malkhana incharge who
has said that he got the samples relating to case No.568/2005 and
deposited them at S.No.285 vide Ex.P/22. Again on 30.09.2005
and 1.10.2005 samples were given for depositing, which were got
deposited vide Ex.P/22 and Ex.P/23, which were given to F.C.
Constable Sunil on 17.10.2005 for depositing in fSL and Sunil has
deposited its receipt. He has also said that the samples sent on
17.10.2005 were returned with the objections but Ex.P/23 does
not mention entry of re-issue but has said that the said entry was
made in Ex.P/22.
PW-10 Virendra Jhakhar is the Investigating
Officer of the Incident and he has said that on 27.09.2005, he was
SHO, P.S. Hanumangarh and on that day Jeeta S/o Harnek Singh
came to Thana and gave oral version of the incident on the basis
on which, FIR was lodged, but if we weigh statements of Jeeta
Singh (PW-3), then he does not support this aspect but has said
that he is an illiterate and did not submit the said FIR. Perusal of
statements of Jeeta Singh (PW-3) also shows that there are
thumb impressions of Jeeta on the FIR which goes to indicate that
he is not literate. He has further said that on arriving at the place,
he prepared spot map, which is Ex.P/6. Appreciation of this
document also goes to suggest that it is not delineating the factual
aspect as narrated by the witnesses, since the "window" stated to
be existing between the houses of Jeeta Singh and Hakam Singh
has also not been shown, as such, the say of this witness mars
existence of vital facts.
Statements of this witness has been recorded on
16.02.2008 and documents relating to information of Section 27
(Ex.P/19) and recovery thereafter as per Ex.P/20 and spot map
(Ex.P/21) have been proved on 16.02.2008 by this witness, who is
a police witness and these documents, which are of great
importance, has not been proved by the recovery witnesses and
has not been got exhibited as discussed earlier. This witness has
narrated sequence of investigation conducted by him but
Lalchand, who has been said to be another witness of recovery,
has not been produced by the prosecution and testimony of other
recovery witness Kaddu Singh (PW-9) has been found to be not of
an independent witness, who too has not proved the documents
by referring and exhibiting them as per the provisions of the
Evidence Act .
Cross-examination of this witness enlightens
enough, as he too has said that from Jhandawali to Hanumangarh
Junction, modes of conveyance are available throughout the night
and three-wheeler ply till night, he too has said that Jhandawali is
8 kms. away from Hanumangarh and there is a concrete road, he
has also said that at the place of occurrence, he could not heed
the source of light, so it was not mentioned in Ex.P/6. He has also
said that he tried to take evidence of Bhagiram, Rajkumar, Kishore
Chandra, Sultan Ram, neighbours of the event place, but they did
not choose to testify, which goes to show that evidence of
independent witnesses lacks.
This witness has also admitted that he found that
there was animosity between accused and Buta Singh because of
land dispute. Several witnesses, to whom this investigating officer
has relied that they were consulted and their signatures were
taken on certain documents also falsifies, when they go against
the story of the prosecution by being hostile.
Under the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
accused persons have advanced a defence that Buta Singh was
nurturing hostility against them, owing to land dispute and had
forged a will to grab land and they withhold the testimony of
mother in order to shun disclosure of truth, though no evidence is
there on the record with respect to alleged "testament", but it is
true that mother of accused Hakam Singh and Goga Singh, who is
wife of deceased Harnek Singh and mother of witness Buta Singh
has not come forward for evidence, which makes the version bit
away from verity being unnatural as well.
Upon appraisal of whole of the testimony of the
prosecution as scanned above, it emerges that several important
witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile, even the author
of the FIR has not supported it, who is none else but real son of
deceased Harnek Singh. Witnesses shown to have gathered on
happening of unfortunate, namely, Gurdev Singh and Dalip Singh,
have also turned hostile. One of recovery witness Lalchand has
not been produced by the prosecution, another one Kaddu Singh
(PW-9) appears to be not indifferent because of having history of
involvement in certain criminal case pertaining to abduction of an
individual of the victim/complainant family. Memos of recovery
pertaining to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, its spot map and
recovery thereto have also not been proved by marking them
exhibits according to the provisions of the Evidence Act and they
have sheerly been narrated in a ''story say, way" on the day when
the testimony of this witness has been recorded and have
subsequently been exhibited by the Investigating Officer, who is
not an independent testimony to prove documents relating to
recovery.
Significant factual aspects have also been
concealed. Existence of "window" which stated to be there
between the houses of Buta Singh and Hakam Singh through
which, usual access is stated to be in vogue has also not been
shown in the spot map.
Timings of the alleged offence also mismatches
because it has been told that incident occurred around 9.00 p.m.
but lodging of the FIR is one day ahead of the incident, which is
belated and no reason of delay is explained but unnatural have
been narrated as after the unfortunate, Buta Singh and Jeeta went
to their houses silently and in the morning Jeeta Singh and Buta
Singh decided to proceed to the police station. The place of
occurrence being occupied by so many neighbours but they too
did not raise any alarm, whereas their presence has been quoted
at the time of the incident, since they have allegedly been told to
be given ultimatum by the accused persons that if they tried to
spare, unpleasant will also be done with them, but none
approached to the concerned police station, which was well
connected with concrete road and availability of conveyance
throughout the night and it was merely 8 kms. away from the
place of occurrence to inform police authorities and to lodge FIR,
which too makes the story of the prosecution highly doubtful,
under the circumstances, when family relatives and son of the
deceased, even complainant making the story of the prosecution
capsized by denying it and being hostile.
As such, it is clear that prosecution has
failed to establish its case beyond the realms of reasonable
doubt.
True it is that conviction could sustain upon
testimony of a solitary witness and relevants of hostile witnesses
could also be appreciated but in case under hand, significant
witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile, even author and
son of the deceased has not supported prosecution version, there
is a delay of about one day in registering the FIR and conduct of
the witnesses Buta Singh and Jeeta Singh, rather reflects
unnatural their being slept silently overnight without informing to
the police and lodging the FIR. Author of the FIR refuting his
version and other independent witnesses too choosing speaking
against the prosecution story, are such unnatural and unreliable
reasons, which weakens the story of the prosecution, hence, the
authorities relied by the prosecution do not support.
In Baijnath & Ors. vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2017) 1 SCC 101, Hon''ble the Apex Court has held
that in the cases of deficiencies of proof, benefit would be
available to the person charged and in Narendra Singh &
Another v. State of M.P . (2004) 10 SCC 699, Hon''ble the Apex
Court has also held that in event of there being two possible
views, one supporting the accused should be upheld and Hon''ble
the Supreme Court has recognized presumption of innocence as a
human right.
For the reasons discussed above, we are of the
view that the learned trial court faulted in arriving at the finding of
guilt and we feel that prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond the realms of reasonable doubtfulness, therefore, benefit
of doubt goes in favour of the appellants-accused.
In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside
the judgment of the trial court and acquit all the
appellants-accused persons from the charges of Sections
302 and 34 IPC.
Apart from appellant-accused Hakam Singh, rest
of the appellants-accused are on bail, so they are not required to
surrender, their bail bonds are cancelled and appellant-accused
Hakam Singh be released forthwith, if his custody is not required
in any other case.
Keeping in view, however, the provisions of
Section 437A Cr.P.C., the appellants-accused are directed to
forthwith furnish a person bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and a
surety bond in the like amount, respectively, before the learned
trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to
the effect that in the event of filing Special Leave Petition against
the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of
notice thereof, shall appear before Hon''ble the Supreme Court.