Judgment : Rajani Dubey, J. 1. Since the aforesaid appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.07.2015 passed by the 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.20/2015, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.11.2014, an information was given in Police Station - Kharsia by informant Malti Bai (PW-1) to the effect that the dead body of an unknown person was lying under the Adhapathra Sokhanala canal bridge. On the basis of this information, police registered merg intimation (Ex.P-1). After due inquiry, the deceased was identified as Chetan Dansena. During merg inquiry, inquest on the body of deceased was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem examination to Community Health Center, Kharsiya, where Dr. Naveen Agrawal (PW-5) conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and gave his report under Ex.P-9 opining the cause of death of deceased to be asphyxia as a result of strangulation and death was homicidal in nature. After receiving the postmortem report and having confirmed that the deceased died homicidal death, on 28.11.2014, an FIR (Ex.P-12) for the offence under Section 302, 201 of IPC was registered against the unknown person and the police authority swung into action. Nazri naksha was prepared by the police. Statements of the witnesses were recorded according to their description. Accused/appellant Shankarlal in CRA No.840/2015 and Rukmani Bai in CRA No.846/2015 were taken into custody on 29.11.2014, and thereafter their memorandum statements were recorded. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused/appellant Shankar Lal in CRA No. 840/2015, upon his production/disclosure, a plastic rope, I.B. liquor bottle and disposable glasses were seized from the spot. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused/appellant Rukmani Bai @ Gidhhin in CRA No.846/2015, a blue colour two wheeler Maestro vehicle and shell of quilt (godri) were seized upon her production. Thereafter, upon finding the evidence of involvement of the accused/appellants in the commission of crime, accused/appellants Shankar Lal and Rukmani Bai were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-14 and P-15 respectively. 4. Thereafter, upon finding the evidence of involvement of the accused/appellants in the commission of crime, accused/appellants Shankar Lal and Rukmani Bai were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-14 and P-15 respectively. 4. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellants under Sections 302, 201 of IPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned trial Court, on the basis of material contained in the charge sheet, framed charges against the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC. The appellants having abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 5. So as to hold the accused-appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the accused-appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No defence witness was examined by the appellants in their defence. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, has convicted and sentenced the accused- appellants as mentioned in para 2 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel appearing for accused/appellant Shankar Lal in CRA No. 840/2015 submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is against the principle of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. There are many contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses but the learned trial Court did not consider the evidence of prosecution witnesses properly and the important witnesses have been declared hostile. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the prosecution is based on evidence of last seen together. The important witnesses of last seen i.e. father of deceased Mohan Lal Rathia (PW-8), mother of deceased Gayan Bai (P.W.-06) and Ganeshi Bai (P.W.-03), wife of deceased have not supported the factum of last seen with co-accused Rukmani alias Gidhahin Bai as well as appellant. The case is based on circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances has not been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. The case is based on circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances has not been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. The articles which alleged to have been seized on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant, have already been recovered by the prosecution and this fact has been admitted by the Prakash Narayan Pandey (PW-7), Head Constable in his evidence, therefore, the seizure looses its efficacy. Even the memorandum and seizure witnesses Sanjay Rathia (PW-2) and Gopal Singh (PW-4) have not supported the case of prosecution. The learned trial court failed to consider the evidence on record and has committed grave error while convicting the appellant. Learned counsel also submits that once the witnesses have been declared hostile and not supported the version of the prosecution then the prosecution has failed to connect each link of chain of circumstance and as such there is no evidence and material available on record to connect the appellant in alleged crime. Therefore the conviction of appellant is liable to be set-aside. In the entire case, nothing incriminating has come against appellant Shankar Lal Rathiya to connect him in the alleged crime. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated against the appellant. The learned trial court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of unsupported and uncorroborated memorandum statement. The law is clear that the memorandum part made to the police is not admissible in evidence. The purpose of memorandum is only for recovery. In this case, the recovery is also doubtful as per the statement of P.W.-07 Prakash Narayan Pandey. The learned trial court has committed grave error while convicting the appellant. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Anjan Kumar Sharma & Ors Vs. State of Assam reported in 2017(14) SCC 359 Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in the matter of 2014 (4) SC 715 , Madho Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 (15) SCC 588 , judgment dated 06.09.2023 passed in CRA No. 859/2011 [ R. Sreenivasa Vs. State of Karnataka ] and the judgment dated 02.09.2025 passed by this Court in CRA No.1843/2019 [ Onkar Singh @ Konda Vs. State of C.G. ]. 8. Mrs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 (15) SCC 588 , judgment dated 06.09.2023 passed in CRA No. 859/2011 [ R. Sreenivasa Vs. State of Karnataka ] and the judgment dated 02.09.2025 passed by this Court in CRA No.1843/2019 [ Onkar Singh @ Konda Vs. State of C.G. ]. 8. Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for Rukmani Bai in CRA No. 846/2015 submits that the impugned judgment dated 02.07.2015 is perverse, erroneous, contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, liable to be set aside. The learned Trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant only on the basis of assumption and presumption. The conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence of last seen together but the evidence of last seen (PW-3 Ganeshi Bai, wife of deceased) is not trustworthy and the same cannot be made basis for convicting the appellant. She has categorically stated in para 5 of her evidence that her deceased husband went alone and the appellant did not come to call the deceased and that her father-in-law and her son had told her. Further, Mohan Lal (PW-8) has also stated that the appellant is his daughter-in-law and she frequently used to visit the house and there was no enmity between the parties. Learned counsel also submits that the Investigating Officer (PW-9) has stated in para 6 that the deceased died due to falling from the bridge and also stated in para 11 that all the articles were seized on 23.11.2014 but he did not lodge report against anyone and waited for the postmortem report which was received on 24.11.2014 and then the FIR was lodged against the unknown person on 28.11.2014, which clearly shows that they wanted to falsely implicate the present appellant. Thus, the present appellant is entitled for acquittal. In support of her submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of R. Sreenivas Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751, Sharad Birdi Chand Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1984 SCC (4) 116 and the judgment dated 11.11.2022 passed by this Court in CRA No. 1305/2014 [ Sampuran Singh Gond @ Munna Vs. State of Chhattisgarh ]. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the argument of both the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence has right convicted the appellants. State of Chhattisgarh ]. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the argument of both the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence has right convicted the appellants. The theory of last seen together has been duly proved by the prosecution which amount to conviction of the appellants. The conviction of the appellants is well founded and no interference is called for by this Court & both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. It is clear that from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial court framed charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 of IPC against both the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with section 34 and Section 201 of IPC. 12. The first question we have to consider is that whether the death of deceased Chetan Prasad Dansena was homicidal in nature or not. 13. Malti Bai (PW-1) has stated on her information, the police recorded the merg intimation is Ex.P-1 and she admits her signature on ‘A to A’ part therein. She has also stated that she recognized Ram Kumar who was Sarpanch of the village and she also recognized Sanjay Kumar. There was an uproar in the village that a body of unknown person was lying under the canal bridge, then she along with Sarpanch and Sanjay Kumar went there and saw that an unknown person aged around 30-35 years wearing black pant and black sweater was lying dead near the canal bridge and information of which was given to police station Kharsiya by her. In cross-examination, she has stated that she had no information about the dead body of the person whose body she had seen, gave information to the police, whose body it was, how it was there and what incident had happened with him. 14. In cross-examination, she has stated that she had no information about the dead body of the person whose body she had seen, gave information to the police, whose body it was, how it was there and what incident had happened with him. 14. K.K. Adil (PW-9) is the Inspector who after receiving the postmortem report in crime No. 106/2014 which mentioned/confirmed the cause of death of deceased to be asphyxia due to strangulation and thrown the body near canal in order to conceal the evidence of crime, lodged the FIR (Ex.P-12) on the basis of merg intimation (Ex.P-1) and has admitted his signature on ‘A to A’ part. 15. Prakash Narayan Pandey (PW-7) is the Head Constable. He has stated that he issued notice (Ex.P-2) under Section 175 of Cr.P.C. to the witnesses for inquest proceeding of deceased Chetan Dansena and prepared inquest memo under Ex.P-3 and sent the body of deceased for postmortem examination to Govt. Hospital, Kharsiya, vide Ex.P-9. He admits his signature in all the documents Ex.P-3, P-3 and P-9. 16. Dr. Naveen Agrawal (PW-5) conducted postmortem examination of the deceased on 24.11.2014 and gave his report under Ex.P-9 noticing following injuries/symptoms :- (i) A circular ligature mark above cricoid bone in the size of 35 cm in length and 0.75 cm width. (ii) No other external injury was seen on the body of deceased. The autopsy surgeon opined the cause of death of deceased to be asphyxia due to strangulation and the death was homicidal in nature. 17. In cross-examination, the autopsy surgeon admitted the suggestion of defence that he has not given any opinion in his postmortem report regarding the injuries of deceased to the effect that said injury could have been caused due to strangulation of neck by any rope. The autopsy surgeon admitted this suggestion that if any person hangs himself, there will be a mark on his neck due to pressure, and he clarified that if a person hangs himself, the mark found on his neck will be vertical, and if a person is strangulated to death by another person, the mark found on the neck would be circular. Except this nothing incriminating has come in the evidence of autopsy surgeon which would render his testimony unreliable. Thus, in view of the above, the prosecution has been successful in proving this fact that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 18. Except this nothing incriminating has come in the evidence of autopsy surgeon which would render his testimony unreliable. Thus, in view of the above, the prosecution has been successful in proving this fact that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 18. The next question which arises for consideration by this Court whether it is the appellants and the appellants only who caused murder deceased Chetan Prasad Dansena. 19. Ganeshi Bai (PW-3) is the wife of deceased. She has stated that on the date of incident, her husband stayed whole day at home and on 4.00 PM, he went to her father-in-law to bring paddy. Her deceased husband came back with paddy, washed his face and again went outside and was watching T.V. serial Gopi Bahu in her old father-in-law’s house. She has also stated that her deceased husband came to home at around 9.00 PM, at that time she was watching television. Her husband called her to take out food, and she gave him food. After having dinner, accused/appellant Rukmani Bai @ Gidhhin in CRA No.846/2015 came to call her deceased husband and then her husband went with accused/appellant Rukmani Bai and thereafter her husband did not return home. She has also stated that she keep calling her husband whole night but her husband’s mobile was reported to be out of coverage area and later it got switch off. The next morning, she went to the house of accused/appellant Rukmani Bai and asked about her husband. There was pouch and peel lying in her house and table & mixture were kept in the house of accused/appellant Rukmani Bai. This witness asked the accused/appellant Rukmani Bai that who had eaten these then she told that accused/appellant Shankar Lal Rathia in CRA No.840/2015 had come to her house at around 2.00 AM, thereafter, this witness came to her house. Accused/appellant Rukmani Bai had also told her that the mobile of deceased was reported to be switch off. This witness has also stated that her husband had kept his own, children photograph, driving license and Rs.50,000/- with him. The prosecution has declared this witness hostile and cross-examined her then she denied this suggestion that she saw mark of rope on the neck of her husband but she admitted this suggestion that her husband had withdrawn Rs.50,000/- from bank which the accused/appellants had demanded the same on loan. The prosecution has declared this witness hostile and cross-examined her then she denied this suggestion that she saw mark of rope on the neck of her husband but she admitted this suggestion that her husband had withdrawn Rs.50,000/- from bank which the accused/appellants had demanded the same on loan. She has also admitted this suggestion of defence that on the date of incident at night her husband had left the house alone but then this witness self stated that accused/appellant Rukmani Bai had come to call her husband and accused/appellant Shankar Lal was not with her. This witness has also admitted that when she went to the house of Rukmani Bai, at that time, accused/appellant Shankar Lal was not there. This witness, in para 7, has stated that she has no relation with accused/appellant Rukmani Bai. She is only a family member. She is her sister-in-law (Jethani) in relation. She has admitted that she frequently visited Rukamni’s house and Rukmani also used to come her house sometimes. She has also admitted that accused/appellant Rukmani had not come to call her husband in her presence, and she herself stated that the factum of calling of her husband by accused/appellant Rukmani was told by her father-in-law and son. She has also stated that she did not lodge any report in police station after leaving the house of her deceased husband and recovery of his dead body. The body of her husband was recovered after one day of his leaving the house. This witness had admitted that her deceased husband and she had no dispute or quarrel with accused/appellant Rukmani. 20. Gyan Bai (PW-6) is mother of the deceased. She has stated that accused/appellant Rukmani Bai had called her deceased son Chetan and took him away. Her son did not come at night and did not return till morning. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that when accused/appellant Rukmani Bai had come to call her son, at that time, she was not at home. She admits that other people told her that accused/appellant Rukmani Bai had come to call her son. 21. Mohan Lal (PW-8) is the father of deceased Chetan. He has stated that on the date of incident at around 9-10 PM, when his son was sleeping in house, at the relevant time, accused/appellant Rukmani Bai @ Gidhhin came to his house and called him by gesturing. 21. Mohan Lal (PW-8) is the father of deceased Chetan. He has stated that on the date of incident at around 9-10 PM, when his son was sleeping in house, at the relevant time, accused/appellant Rukmani Bai @ Gidhhin came to his house and called him by gesturing. He has stated that he had seen the accused/appellant calling his son and after that his son did not return home. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that accused/appellant Rukmani Bai @ Gidhhin is daughter-in-law (Bahu) and she used to visit his house. He has also admitted that there was cordial relation between the accused/appellant Rukmani Bai @ Gidhhin and his deceased son. There was no dispute or quarrel between them. 22. From the aforesaid testimony of Ganeshi Bai (PW-3), Gyan Bai (PW-6) and Mohanlal (PW-8), wife, mother and father of the deceased, respectively, it is clear that PW-3 and PW-4 are not the witnesses of last seen and they are hear say witnesses & PW-8 though has seen the accused/appellant Rukmani Bai calling the deceased by gesturing but the accused/appellant used to frequently visit his house being his relative and there was no dispute between the accused/appellant and the deceased. The evidence of last seen is not corroborated from each other, thus the theory of last seen weaken at this stage. 23. The another basis for conviction of the accused/appellants is their memorandum statements and seizure of articles made pursuant to their memorandum statements. 24. In order to prove the sanctity of the memorandum statements of the accused/appellants, this Court has gone through the evidence of K.K. Adil (PW-9) who is the Inspector. He has stated that he had recorded the memorandum of accused/appellant Shankar Lal vide Ex.P- 8. In the memorandum statement, accused/appellant Shankar Lal made disclosure of mode and manner in which he done to death the deceased. For ready reference, the relevant portion of memorandum statement is reproduced herein as under :- This witness has also recorded the memorandum of accused/appellant Rukmani Bai vide Ex.P-5, wherein she made disclosure that she, accused/appellant Shankar and deceased Chetan went to liquor shop on her scooty. The scooty was being driven by deceased Chetan. Deceased Chetan purchased two bottles of I.B. liquor, disposal and mixture & they went to near canal. Deceased Chetan prepared two peg. The scooty was being driven by deceased Chetan. Deceased Chetan purchased two bottles of I.B. liquor, disposal and mixture & they went to near canal. Deceased Chetan prepared two peg. Appellant Shankar went towards canal saying that he will come back and after sometime he came back. Deceased Chetan drank liquor and appellant Shankar took the liquor in his mouth and threw it away. When deceased Chetan became too intoxicated, he started to struggle then they pressed the neck of the deceased with rope and threw his body in the canal and came to house. She had kept the vehicle and shell of quilt in her house, lets go and get it recovered. The relevant portion of the memorandum statement is as under :- 25. As per the memorandum (Ex.P-5) of accused/appellant Rukmani Bai, seizure (Ex.P-6) was prepared and one blue colour Mastro two wheeler vehicle and one shell of quilt (Godri) were seized and as per memorandum statement of accused/appellant Shankar Lal (Ex.P-8), one plastic rope, one empty bottle of liquor I.B. of 200 ml and two disposal glasses were seized vide Ex.P-7. 26. Although, on the basis of memorandum statements of both the accused/appellants, the aforesaid articles were seized but the prosecution has not been able to prove that how these articles are co-related with the crime in question. No FSL report was filed by the prosecution in the case. This Court delve into deeper in the evidence of Investigating Officer K.K. Adil (PW-9), wherein he has admitted in para 9 of his cross-examination that on 29.11.2014 at 11.00 am, he came to know that at some distance from the bridge, a rope with which the neck of the deceased was strangulated, a broken bottle of liquor I.B. and disposable glasses were lying. He has also admitted that he prepared spot map vide Ex.P-13 at 11.00 am and recorded memorandum statement of accused/appellant Rukmani Bai vide Ex.P-5 and accused/appellant Shankar Lal vide Ex.P-8 on 29.11.2014 at 01.00 PM and 12.00 PM respectively, but in spot map (Ex.P-13), which the investigating officer prepared at 11.00 AM, in para 10 of the spot mat, he reduced in writing all details/sequence of incident that how both the accused persons killed the deceased. The details of spot map (para 10 of it) prepared by Investigating Officer is reproduced herein as under :- 27. The details of spot map (para 10 of it) prepared by Investigating Officer is reproduced herein as under :- 27. From the bare analysis of memorandum statements of the accused/appellants to that of the spot map (Ex.P-13), it is aptly clear that before recording the memorandum statements of the accused/appellants, the Investigating Officer has prepared spot map mentioning the mode and manner in which the deceased was done to death, which is very surprising in the case that how the Investigating Officer came to know about the incident prior to recording the memorandum statements of the accused persons, and the the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellants on the basis of evidence of last seen, their memorandum statements and seizure made thereunder. 28. As we have already discussed the evidence of Ganeshi Bai (PW-3), Gyan Bai (PW-6) and Mohan Lal (PW-8), wife, mother and father of the deceased respectively, and held that PW-3 and PW-6 are not the evidence of last seen together and are hearsay witnesses. Although, father of deceased PW-8 has stated that he himself had seen that accused/appellant Rukmani Bai @ Gidhhin called his deceased son by gesture but Ganeshi Bai (PW-3) and Gyan Bai (PW-6), wife and mother of the deceased respectively, have not supported the factum of calling the deceased by accused/appellant Rukmani Bai @ Gidhhin, as such, the theory of last seen together do not come into play. 29. While dealing with the matter where conviction of the accused rests upon circumstance of last seen, this Court in the matter of Sampuran (supra) , held in para 11 and 12 as under :- “11. In the matter of Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police , the Supreme Court has held that though the evidence of last seen together could point to the guilt of the accused, but this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration, and observed in paragraph 22 as under :- “22. PW 11 was able to identify all the three accused in the court itself by recapitulating his memory as those persons who came at the time when he was washing his car along with John Bosco and further that he had last seen all of them sitting in the Omni van on that day and his testimony to that effect remains intact even during the cross- examination in the light of the fact that the said witness has no enmity whatsoever against the appellants herein and he is an independent witness. Once the testimony of PW 11 is established and inspires full confidence, it is well established that it is the accused who were last seen with the deceased specially in the circumstances when there is nothing on record to show that they parted from the accused and since then no activity of the deceased can be traced and their dead bodies were recovered later on. It is a settled legal position that the law presumes that it is the person, who was last seen with the deceased, would have killed the deceased and the burden to rebut the same lies on the accused to prove that they had departed. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. However, this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration.” 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court in well celebrated judgment in the matter of Kanhaiya Lal (supra) held in para 12 as under :- “12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant.” 31. If the facts of the present case are looked into in view of the afore-quoted decisions, there is no connectivity of the last seen together in the instant case and theory of last seen became weak. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant.” 31. If the facts of the present case are looked into in view of the afore-quoted decisions, there is no connectivity of the last seen together in the instant case and theory of last seen became weak. Further, the memorandum of the accused/appellants and seizure made pursuant to their memorandum by the Investigating Officer are doubtful in view of the fact that spot map (Ex.P-13) was prepared by Investigating Officer at 11.00 am before recording the memorandum statement of the accused/appellants and affecting seizure thereof, which gives strong proof to the fact that the Investigating Officer had prior knowledge of all these articles and after preparing spot map he prepared memorandum under Ex.P-5 and P-8. In such a circumstances, it is very difficult for this Court to make the, memorandum statement of the accused persons and consequent seizure thereunder, basis for their conviction, as such, the same are not admissible against the appellants, Further, as per the guideline of Hon’ble Apex Court merely on the basis of last seen together the accused cannot be convicted and there must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non- explanation on the part of the appellant by itself cannot lead to the proof of guilt against the accused/appellants. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court are not sustainable. 32. In the light of afore-quoted judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court and the discussion of evidence as above, we find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against both the appellants and the benefit of doubt, of course, has to go to the appellants. 33. In the result, the aforesaid appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them by extending them benefit of doubt. 34. The appellants are on bail. 33. In the result, the aforesaid appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them by extending them benefit of doubt. 34. The appellants are on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), both 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/- each with one surety 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. 35. The Lower Court records along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.