THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10.02.2011
+ CRL.A. 471/1997
CHATPAL @ SATPAL ... Appellant
versus
STATE ... Respondent
AND + CRL.A. 332/1997 CHET RAM ... Appellant versus STATE ... Respondent AND + CRL.A 236/1998 NARAIN ... Appellant versus STATE ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants : Mr Ajay Verma with Mr Gaurav Bhattacharya For the Respondent/State : Ms Richa Kapur CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. These three appeals are being disposed of together by a common judgment inasmuch as they arise out of the same FIR and are directed against the common judgment dated 10.07.1997 passed by the CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.1 of 20 learned Additional Sessions Judge in Session Case No. 86/1996. The three appellants, namely, Chet Ram, Chat Pal @ Sat Pal and Narain along with Chakori Lal were charged under Sections 120B, 302 read with 120B, 392 read with 120B IPC. However, the Trial Court acquitted Chakori Lal of all charges. We may also point out that when the charge-sheet was filed, one Lakhan Pal was also named as an accused but he passed away before the framing of charges. The appellant Chet Ram, Narain and Chat Pal were also charged in the alternative under Sections 302 read with 34, 392 read with 34 and 394 IPC.
2. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellants Chet Ram, Narain and Chat Pal @ Satpal have been convicted for having committed the offences under Sections 302 read with 34, 392 read with 34 and 394 IPC. All the three accused were awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of ` 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 392 read with 34 IPC and in default of payment of the fine, the appellants were also required to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In respect of the offence under Section 394/34 IPC, each of the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years as well as were liable to pay a fine of ` 2,000/- and in default whereof, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. With regard to the offence under Section CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.2 of 20 302 read with 34 IPC, each of the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- each and in default of payment thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C was to be given to the appellants and their sentences were to run concurrently.
3. The appellants have been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In the alleged incident, which is said to have taken place on 23.07.1990, Smt. Kamla Kakkar was found dead in her house by her daughter PW1 Renuka Sethi at about 1:45 pm. It is on the basis of her statement Exhibit PW1/A that the ruqqa and subsequently the FIR was registered. The case of the prosecution was that the appellants along with Chakori Lal (since acquitted) and Lakhan Pal (since deceased) were doing some construction work at the residence of the said Smt. Kamla Kakkar and that with the intention of committing robbery, they committed the murder of Smt. Kamla Kakkar, who was alone in the house when the incident took place. The prosecution has sought to bring home the conviction on the basis of the testimonies of PW5 Darshan Lal Kakkar, PW10 Rakesh Kakkar, PW1 Renuka Sethi and PW4 Surjeet Kaur (Chawla). Apart from the testimonies of these witnesses, the prosecution has also sought to prove its case by virtue of the alleged recoveries made from the appellants. It is alleged that one CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.3 of 20 HMT watch of Supria make was recovered from Chat Pal; one gold ring, which had Darshan Lal engraved in it, was allegedly recovered from Chet Ram and one HMT gold-plated stainless steel watch was said to have been recovered from the appellant Narain. On the basis of the testimonies of PW5 and PW10, which were regarded as the last seen evidence and on the basis of the supporting and corroborative testimonies of PW1 Renuka Sethi and PW4 Smt. Surjit Kaur as well as on the basis of the alleged recoveries made from the said appellants, the prosecution has attempted to bring home the guilt of the said appellants in the said offence. Another circumstance, which has been sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, is the refusal of Test Identification Parade by the appellants.
4. First of all, let us examine the question of recoveries. Exhibit PW21/E is the seizure memo in respect of the appellant Chat Pal. On 19.08.1990, the appellant Chat Pal was found wearing one HMT Supria wrist watch on his wrist. However, we find that Exhibit PW21/B, which is the personal search memo of the very same appellant Chat Pal, does not mention any watch being recovered on the personal search being conducted. Only a sum of ` 20/- is said to have recovered at the time of the conduct of the personal search. The witnesses of the seizure memo Exhibit PW21/E and the personal search memo Exhibit PW21/B are the same, namely, SI Ram Kanwar and HC Surender Singh. CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.4 of 20 Therefore, we are in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the recovery of the said watch becomes very doubtful. While the seizure memo says that he was wearing the watch, the personal search memo does not disclose any watch.
5. The same is the case with the appellant Narain. Exhibit PW21/G, which is a seizure memo, indicates that Narain was wearing the HMT watch on his left wrist, but Exhibit PW21/A, which is the personal search memo, does not mention any watch and only a sum of ` 20/- is said to have been found on the person of the appellant Narain. Here again, the witnesses of the seizure memo and the personal search memo are the same, namely, SI Ram Kanwar and HC Surender Singh. Similarly, in the case of the appellant Chet Ram, we find that the seizure memo Exhibit PW22/E mentions a gold ring with the words Darshan Lal engraved on it as well as a rexine purse containing ` 550/-. It is also mentioned in the seizure memo that the gold ring was worn by Chet Ram on the ring finger of his left hand. However, Exhibit PW22/A, which is the personal search memo of the same date, that is, 30.07.1990, has only a reference to a sum of ` 17/- in cash plus one bus ticket worth ` 20/- and one dagger. It is, therefore, clear that the personal search memo is at complete variance with the seizure memo in the case of Chet Ram also as in the case of Chat Pal and Narain. The CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.5 of 20 witnesses to the seizure memo in the case of Chet Ram as also the personal search memo were also the same, namely, SI Manohar Lal and SI Ram Kanwar.
6. Considering the aforesaid contradictions between the seizure memo and the personal search memo, as also the fact that the said articles were not recovered pursuant to any disclosure but were alleged to have been found on the persons of the appellants, we feel that no reliance can be placed on the said recoveries as they appear to be extremely doubtful. Consequently, the question of identification of these articles at the instance of PW5 Darshan Lal Kakkar is also of no relevance.
7. This leaves us with the testimonies of PW5, Darshan Lal Kakkar and PW10 Rakesh Kakkar, who have been produced in the witness box as the last seen witnesses. PW5 Darshan Lal Kkkar in his testimony has clearly stated that work had been going on at his flat and one Chakori Lal had been fetched by his son Rakesh Kakkar and work had been done for about eight days. Chakori Lal had brought the other accused for the purposes of the said construction work and it was Chakori Lal who had supervised the work. However, since rains had started, the work had been discontinued. He further testified that about four days prior to 23.07.1990, at the instance of Chat Pal, work was resumed under the said flat. He stated that on that day at about 10:30 CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.6 of 20 am, Chat Pal @ Satpal had come to his flat and had told him that he could get the work completed otherwise they would be going to their village. The witness further stated that considering the fact that these persons were already known to him, he thought it better to get the work completed from them and as such, he told Chat Pal @ Sat Pal to bring his labour and to complete the job. At about 11 am, Chat Pal brought with him Narain, Lakhan Pal and Chet Ram and they started doing their work in his flat. He further stated that soon thereafter, Chakori Lal also came to his flat and after talking to Chat Pal, Narain, Chet Ram and Lakhan Pal went away. He stated that thereafter, he also left his flat leaving Chat Pal, Narain, Chet Ram and Lakhan Pal at his premises besides his wife Kamla Kakkar and his son Rakesh Kakkar, who was also present at the flat. He had left his flat to attend his work at Patiala House. The witness also stated that on the same day, that is, on 23.07.1990 in the afternoon, he received information that his wife Kamla had been murdered.
8. PW10 Rakesh Kakkar had corroborated whatever had been stated by his father PW5 Darhsan Lal Kakkar. He further stated that he remained in his house up to 11:45 am on 23.07.1990 and that his father remained in the house up to 11:30 am and then went to Patiala House Courts. After 11:45 am, he left the house and went to attend his job. He returned at 3 pm and at that point of time he saw a crowd had CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.7 of 20 collected outside the house as well as inside and his sister Renuka Sethi met him there. He stated categorically in his examination-in-chief that when he left his house at 11:45 am, then, only his mother was in the house and the accused persons were working there. He stated that when he returned to the house at 3 pm his sister told him that their mother had expired and the police had taken her to hospital in a vehicle. In cross-examination, this witness, however, stated that he had not stated to the police that when he left his house at 11:45 am on the day of occurrence, then only his mother was in the house and the accused persons were working there. The learned counsel for the appellants sought to infer from this statement made in cross- examination that PW10 Rakesh Kakkar had made improvements in his statement before Court. However, we do not feel that such an inference can be drawn. The testimonies of PW5 and PW10 have to be read in conjunction and once that is done, it is apparent that the prosecution has been able to establish that on 23.07.1990 the appellants along with Lakhan Pal had started work at the flat of the deceased and that till 11:30 am on that date, both PW5 and PW10 along with Smt. Kamla Kakkar and the accused persons were present in the flat. At 11:30 am, PW5 Darshan Lal Kakkar left the flat to attend his work at Patiala House Courts and that at 11:45 am, PW10 Rakesh Kakkar also left the flat leaving his mother alone with the accused persons who were doing construction work in the said flat. Thus, it is clearly established that CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.8 of 20 PW10 is the witness who last saw his mother alive and at that point of time, she was alone in the flat in the company of the accused persons who were doing construction work. The next important witness is PW1 Renuka Sethi, who stated that as usual she used to have lunch with her mother at the said flat. She reached there at 1:45 pm and found her mother to be dead. At that point of time, she became hysterical and raised an alarm whereupon, PW4 Smt. Surjeet Kaur also known as Smt. Chawla, who was residing in the ground floor, had apparently told her that Sat Pal and two others had come to the said flat. Although this part of the testimony is hearsay and no reliance can be placed thereon, it is clear that when PW1 Renuka Sethi arrived at the flat at 1:45 pm, her mother was dead. The time gap between Smt. Kamla Kakkar having been seen alive and when she was found dead was 11:45 am to 1:45 pm, which is only a period of two hours. When she was alive, Smt. Kamla Kakkar was in the flat along with the appellants, who were working there. The said appellants were supposed to work for the whole day but, when an opportunity was given to them under Section 313, Cr. P. C, they have not given any explanation as to why they were absent when PW1 Renuka Sethi arrived at the flat at 1:45 pm. In fact, each of the appellants has given a blank denial to all the circumstances which were put to them in the course of their making their Section 313 statements.
CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.9 of 20
9. Coupled with this very important circumstance of the last seen evidence, is the fact that each of the appellants was absconding after the said incident. Chet Ram was arrested on 30.07.1990, whereas Chat Pal @ Sat Pal and Narain were arrested on 09.08.1990. All of them, as mentioned above, refused the Test Identification Parade.
10. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any fault with the decision of the trial court in returning a finding of guilt insofar as the appellants Chet Ram, Narain and Chat Pal @ Sat Pal are concerned. They have been rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
11. The matter, however, does not end here. We find that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal had made a plea that he was a juvenile before the trial court. Unfortunately, that plea got lost in the records of the trial and no finding was returned by the trial court, although the ossification report clearly suggested that he was only 14-15 years old. The Additional Sessions Judge, by an order dated 05.01.1991, had directed the Superintendent of the jail to send the appellant Chat Pal in police custody to get X-rayed from LNJP Hospital to confirm his age and to put his X-ray plate as well as X-ray report along with the accused on the date fixed, that is, 21.01.1991. The order-sheet reveals that on 21.01.1991, as no report had been received, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the Superintendent, Tihar to appear before the CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.10 of 20 Court on the next date, that is, on 22.01.1991. However, there is no record as to what happened on 22.01.1991. On 04.03.1991, the complainant had filed an application stating that the X-ray report should not be accepted and a prayer was made that the appellant Chat Pal be referred to the Board of some government hospital. The order dated 11.11.1991 records the factum of an application of treating Chat Pal as a juvenile.
12. Then, we have an application of the Jail Superintendent dated 22.03.1996 stating that Chat Pal has been behaving abnormally and has become mentally upset and even had attempted committing suicide. A prayer was made that in case he committed or attempted to commit suicide, then the jail administration shall be placed in an embarrassing position. In the meanwhile, we find from the lower court record, that on 22.02.1991, Dr B. K. Dey, Medical Officer, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi had submitted a report with reference to the letter dated 05.01.1991 regarding age estimation of the appellant Chat Pal. It was returned that his age was between 14-15 years on 23.01.1992 according to the Department of Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi conducted by Dr S. K. Khanna No. 32/91 dated 23.01.1991 at 12:30 pm. The age estimation report from Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, Department of Forensic Medicine, dated 23.01.1991 is also on record and the opinion clearly CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.11 of 20 shows that based on physical, dental and radiological findings, when taken together, the age of the person examined (Chat Pal) was between 14 and 15 years. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that as on 23.01.1991 Chat Pal was 14-15 years old, which would make him 13-14 years old on 23.07.1990, which is the date of the occurrence. Clearly, Chat Pal was a juvenile within the definition of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the „said Act‟).
13. When the said Act come into force, the impugned judgment and order on sentence had already been delivered / passed. The appeal had also been filed in 1997. Consequently, Section 20 of the said Act would be relevant for our purposes. Section 20, as amended up to date, reads as under:-
"20. Special provision in respect of pending cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence.
Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile.
CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.12 of 20 Explanation. - In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any Court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of clause (l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed".
14. It is clear that in cases which are pending, which includes pending appeals, as would be apparent from a reading of the Explanation, the same would be continued in the Court before which they are pending as if the said Act has not been passed. It is further provided that if the Court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board, which shall pass orders in respect of the juvenile in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, as if it had been satisfied, on inquiry, under the said Act that the juvenile had committed the offence. In the present case, the appeal of Chat Pal @ Sat Pal was pending before this Court when the said Act came in operation. Thus, the appeal had to be continued as if the said Act had not been passed. We have done that and come to the conclusion that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal had committed the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
15. As per the provision of Section 20, the Court is not required to pass any sentence in respect of Chat Pal @ Sat Pal but he is required CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.13 of 20 to be forwarded to the Board, which shall pass orders in respect of Chat Pal @ Sat Pal in accordance with the provisions of the said Act as if it had been satisfied, on inquiry, that he had committed the offence. However, we find that as per Section 6 (2) of the said Act, the powers conferred on the Board by / or under the said Act, may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Session, when the proceeding comes before them in appeal, revision or otherwise. Thus, reading the provisions of Section 20 along with Section 6(2), it is apparent that after a finding is recorded against Chat Pal @ Sat Pal, he can be dealt with by this Court in the same manner as he would be dealt with by the Board for the purposes of the order that is to be passed deeming the same to be a satisfaction on inquiry under the said Act that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal had committed the offence.
16. Section 14 of the said Act stipulates that wherever a juvenile is charged with an offence and is produced before a Board, the Board shall hold the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and may make such order in relation to the juvenile as it deems fit. We have already noted that by virtue of Section 20, after we have recorded a finding in respect of Chat Pal @ Sat Pal, it would be deemed to be a finding recorded at the conclusion of an inquiry by the Board. Consequently, the provisions of Section 15 would come into play. Section 15 of the said Act provides for the orders that may be passed CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.14 of 20 by the Board regarding a juvenile. Section 15 (1) clearly stipulates that where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence, then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Board may, if it so thinks fit, pass any order of the nature specified in Clauses (a) to (g). We may point out that Section 15 (1) (g) contemplates an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years.
17. Section 16 of the said Act sets out the orders that may not be passed against a juvenile. Section 16 (1) provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile in conflict with law, shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment for any term which may extend to imprisonment for life or be committed to prison in default of payment of fine or any default in furnishing a security. The proviso to Section 16(1), however, permits the Board to direct that a juvenile in conflict with law, be kept in a place of safety or in a special home as it may deem fit in certain cases. The proviso to Section 16(2) clearly stipulates that the period of detention, that may be ordered under Section 16(1), shall not exceed, in any case, the maximum period provided under Section 15 of the said Act. We have already seen that the maximum period stipulated in Section 15 is three years. From the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that even after a finding is recorded against Chat Pal @ Sat Pal that he CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.15 of 20 had committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, he being a juvenile, could, in the maximum, have been kept in detention, as provided under the said Act, for a maximum period of three years.
18. We may also refer to the Explanation to Section 64 of the said Act, which reads as under:-
"Explanation-. In all cases where a juvenile in conflict with law is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment at any stage on the date of commencement of this Act, his case including the issue of juvenility shall be deemed to be decided in terms of clause (l) of Section 2 and other provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, irrespective of the fact that he ceases to be a juvenile on or before such dater and accordingly he shall be sent to the special home or a fit institution, as the case may be, for the remainder of the period of the sentence but such sentence shall not in any case exceed the maximum period provided in Section 15 of this Act."
19. From this provision also, it is apparent that the juvenile, who is undergoing a sentence when this Act came into force, would be required to be sent to a special home or a fit institution for the remainder of the period of the sentence, but such sentence was not to exceed, in any case, the maximum period provided in Section 15 of the said Act. In other words, even where a juvenile in conflict with law had been sentenced and was undergoing the sentence when the Act came into force, he cannot be detained in prison and he is required to be sent to a special home or a fit institution for the remainder period of the sentence with the condition that the sentence shall not, in any case, CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.16 of 20 exceed the maximum period provided in Section 15 of the said Act, which we have already indicated to be three years.
20. It is, therefore, clear that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal, being a juvenile in conflict with law, could have, in the maximum, suffered a detention for a period of three years only. But, from the nominal roll on record of the appellant Chat Pal, it appears that as on 02.03.2002, he had already been in custody for a period of 11 years, six months and 23 days and had also earned remission of 1 year, 4 months and 26 days. From the order sheets of this Court, it is apparent that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal‟s sentence had been suspended and he was directed to be released on bail by this Court by virtue of an order dated 05.08.2002. But, as he could not arrange for the surety, an application, being Crl. M.A. 517/2009, for reduction of the surety amount and the number of sureties was moved. By an order dated 21.02.2003, the surety amount was reduced to ` 10,000/- and the requirement of the number of sureties was also reduced to one. Despite this, as the appellant Chat Pal @ Sat Pal was extremely poor, he could not arrange for the surety and moved another application, being Crl. M. A. 3178/2003, for modification of the said order dated 21.02.2003 for further reduction in the surety amount. This application was allowed by an order dated 19.12.2003 and the surety amount was reduced to ` 5,000/-. As the appellant Chat Pal @ Sat Pal was not being able to arrange even a surety of ` 5,000/-, CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.17 of 20 an application, being Crl. M. A. 5875/2004 had been moved for reducing the surety amount to ` 1000/-. However, prior to this application coming up for hearing before this Court, the appellant Chat Pal @ Sat Pal was able to make the arrangement of the surety and he was released on bail on 14.07.2004. Unfortunately, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court on 19.07.2004 when the Crl. M.A. 5875/2004 came up for hearing. On that day, the Court, however, rejected the application for any further reduction in the surety. But, that order was inconsequential inasmuch as Chat Pal @ Sat Pal had already been released on bail on 14.07.2004.
21. From the above, it is clear that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal had already served his sentence to the extent of 13 years, 10 months and 27 days when he was released on bail on 14.07.2004. This is when Chat Pal @ Sat Pal could not have been kept in detention for a period of more than three years by virtue of the provisions of the said Act. Consequently, while we uphold the finding that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal had committed the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is set aside. Since he could not have been kept in detention for a period of more than three years and because he has already been in custody for 13 years, 10 months and 27 days, Chat Pal @ Sat Pal cannot be kept in detention any further. He is to be set at liberty. CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.18 of 20 However, since he is already on bail, we direct that his bail bond stands cancelled and the surety stands discharged.
22. In view of the unfortunate circumstances of the case, Chat Pal @ Sat Pal, though he was a juvenile and there was ample evidence on record of the same, had not been treated as such and suffered incarceration far in excess of the maximum period that is permitted under the said Act, we feel that the trial Courts should be vigilant whenever a claim of juvenility is made before them. They should, with the utmost of expedition, decide the claim in terms of the said Act and the said Rules. In this case, an application had been moved claiming that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal was a juvenile and, in fact, the medical report was also available on record, but the trial court, unfortunately, did not pursue the matter any further. This sort of an attitude would result in a great travesty of justice. Consequently, we are of the view that all courts, in which a claim of juvenility is made or where the courts feel that an accused may be a juvenile, should immediately embark upon the determination of the factum of juvenility in accordance with the said Act and the Rules. This would ensure that no juvenile is denied the benefit of the said Act. It is also the duty of counsel appearing on both sides to apprise the court, whenever a juvenile is involved.
23. In so far as the other two appellants are concerned, their conviction under Section 302/ 34 IPC as well as sentences awarded to CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.19 of 20 them in respect thereof are confirmed and maintained. Their conviction under Section 392/34 and Section 394 IPC as also the sentences awarded in respect thereof are set aside. This Court had, by its order dated 21.04.2010, directed the concerned Additional Sessions Judge to initiate proceedings against all the three appellants as also proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against the sureties. In so far as the appellant Chat Pal @ Sat Pal is concerned, those proceedings are to be dropped. However, the same would continue in respect of the other two appellants so that they are apprehended and they are made to serve out the rest of their sentences. The appeals are decided accordingly.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MANMOHAN SINGH, J FEBRUARY 10, 2011 SR/P CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.20 of 20