Ummed And Another vs State Of U.P.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1621 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved
 

 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3186 of 2008
 

 
1.Ummed
 
2.Smt. Lata
 
		 ________appellants 
 

 
Versus 
 

 
State of U.P.
 
		 ________Opposite Party 
 

 
Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J. 

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Agarwal,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh, J)

Challenge in this appeal is the judgement and order dated 7.5.2008 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.17), Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 454 of 2001 (State Versus Smt. Lata, wife of Ummed), convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC for the life imprisonment with the fine of Rs.3000 to each of the appellants and in default of payment of fine further three months' additional rigorous imprisonment.

Back ground facts in a nut shell are as follows:

According to the prosecution version as is mentioned in the FIR (Ex Ka-1), Suman (the deceased), sister of Informant Pawan Kumar (P.W-1), was tied on her nuptial knot with Ravindra Singh S/o Jwala Singh, resident of Village Titauta four or five years prior to the incident according to the Hindu customs and rites. Suman (the deceased) had no issue and it was alleged that because of this reason she was being tortured and harassed by her husband. In order to eliminate Suman, from his way, her husband Ravindra Singh on 24.11.2000 sent her sister to Village Khedki, Police Station Kithore, District Meerut along with both the appellants, Ummed and his wife Smt. Lata to attend the marriage ceremony of cousin sister (Bua's daughter) of Ummed. On 26.11.2000 Danveer Singh, Omveer Singh and Devraj Singh at about 7 pm went to the Informant's house at village Shekhpura, police station Khanpur, District Bulandshahr and informed him about the death of his sister Suman.

On being informed the Informant Pawan Kumar along with Pramod Kumar, Chandra Bhan, Mukesh Kumar, Jai Singh reached to the house of Ravindra Singh at village Titauta where they saw the deceased, Suman was lying dead and blood was oozing from her head. The Informant Pawan Kumar lodged the FIR (Ex Ka-1) on 27.11.2000 at about 6.15 am at police station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr against the appellants which was registered as crime No. Nil of 2000 under Section 302 IPC with the allegation that Suman after being murdered, her cadaver was brought by the appellants to her husband's house at village Titauta.

Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Suman was performed on 27.11.2000 at about 4.20 pm by Dr. R.K. Lal (P.W-4), Senior Medical Officer, District Hospital Bulandshahr. In the estimation of the Doctor, the deceased was aged about 22 years and 1¼ day had lapsed since her death. She was average built and rigor mortis was passed on the upper and was passing on the lower limbs. Clotted blood was present in the mouth and following injuries were detected in the body of the deceased by P.W-4:

i.Gun shot wound of entry on left upper part of neck just behind left ear middle part, circular, diameter 1 cm, collar of greasing present, Blackening, tattooing present around the wound in area of 3cm, direction towards right and forward;

ii. A bullet was recovered from right cheek bone.

On internal examination doctor found the fracture of two mastoids bones and fracture of upper jaw mandible right side and found major vessels in neck lacerated. The doctor has further found that old tags of healed hymen rupture present allows two fingers loosely. Slide of vaginal smear was prepared for pathological examination (for presence of sperms). In the estimation of the doctor cause of death was shock due to haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

The police of P.S. Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr investigated the crime pursuant to the direction issued by the S.S.P., Bulandshahr dated 18.12.2000 and the investigation was entrusted to S.I. Pooran Singh Chauhan (P.W-5). During the course of investigation appellant Ummed was arrested on 26.12.2000 and charge sheet (Ex Ka-9) was submitted against him on 23.3.2001 under Sections 302/376 IPC. However, appellant no.2 Smt. Lata as well as co-accused Anil remained absconding, although the charge sheet (Ex Ka-10) was submitted against them on 23.6.2001 after being declared absconders.

After submission of charge sheet, the case of the appellants was committed to the court of sessions.

The trial of both the appellants as well as co-accused Anil was separated. It transpires that after sometime appellant no.2 Smt. Lata had appeared. The trial of appellant no.1 Ummed was numbered S.T. No.454 of 2001 and the trial of appellant no.2 Smt. Lata was numbered S.T. No.884 of 2002.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr had framed the charges against appellant No.1 Ummed on 5.1.2002 under Sections 376,302/34 IPC and against appellant no.2 Smt. Lata on 23.10.2002, under Sections 302/34 IPC.

Since the appellants abjured the charges, therefore, the trial proceeded against them.

Since the appellants were charged for the offences arising out of same incident therefore both the trials were clubbed together and proceeded against them by order dated 5.12.2003.

The prosecution, among others have filed the following documents:

Written Report (Ex Ka-1);

Postmortem examination report (Ex Ka-2);

Inquest report (Ex Ka-3);

Police form-33 (Ex Ka-4);

Police form-13 (Ex Ka- 5);

Photo nash (Ex Ka-6);

Site plan (Ex Ka-9);

Charge sheet against appellant no.1 Ummed (Ex Ka-10);

Charge sheet against appellant no.2 Smt. Lata (Ex Ka-11);

Chik FIR (Ex Ka-12).

In order to establish guilt of the appellants prosecution examined in all six witnesses during the course of trial. Out of whom, Pawan Kumar (P.W-1), the Informant, Ravindra Singh (P.W-2), husband of deceased, Satpal (P.W-3) were the witnesses of fact. Rests of the witnesses Dr. R.K. Lal (P.W-4), S.I. Pooran Singh Chauhan (P.W-5), the I.O., Circle Officer R.D. Pathak (P.W-6) were the formal witnesses. Apart from above prosecution witnesses one, Omveer was also examined as C.W-1. Accused appellants have also produced and got examined Ravindra son of Genda Singh as D.W-1 in their defence.

In his deposition P.W-1 (Informant) Pawan Kumar narrated almost the same story which was disclosed by him in the FIR (Ex Ka-1). He affirmed the relationship between him and Ravindra Singh son of Jwala Singh, who was married with the deceased Suman four to five years prior to the incident. He further deposed that on 24.11.2000 his sister Suman (deceased) accompanied with the appellants Ummed and his wife Lata for village Khedki, police station Kithore, district Meerut to participate in the marriage of Ummed's cousin sister (Bua's daughter) which was to be held on 26.11.2000. He further deposed that on 26.11.2000 Omveer, Danveer and Dewraj approached him at about 7 pm and informed that dead body of his sister Suman was brought by the appellants from village Khedki to village Titauta. On receiving this information he rushed to the village Titauta accompanied with Munesh, Chandra Bhan, Pramod and Ajai Singh where they saw that cadaver of Suman was lying in the house of his brother-in-law, Ravindra Singh and saw blood was oozing from her head due to injury. He suspected that both the appellants had brought the cadaver of his sister Suman to village Titauta after she was murdered. The witness had duly proved the written report signed by him which was marked as Ex Ka-1.

In his deposition P.W-2 Ravindra Singh, the husband of the deceased, who was confined to bed, admitted the cordial relationships with the deceased. He had also admitted his cordial relationship with the appellant no.1 Ummed. He deposed that marriage of cousin sister (Bua's sister) of Ummed appellant no.1 was to be solemnised on 26.11.2000 at village Khedki, District Meerut. Appellant Ummed had come to his house and informed him that he is also the invitee in the marriage of his cousin sister and he may send his wife Suman on 24.11.2000 along with him to participate in the marriage. Thereupon Suman was inquired by her husband, P.W-2 Ravindra Singh who became ready and thereafter she went to attend the marriage along with the appellants. Ravindra Singh, P.W-2 has further deposed that on 26.11.2000 both the appellants brought the cadaver of his wife in an Ambassador Car to his house and informed him that at the time of barat procession all of a sudden a gun shot hit her on account of which she had died. It was further deposed that on receiving this information a message was sent to his in-laws village Shekhpura through one, Danveer. On receiving the message his brother-in-laws, Pawan, Pramod, Munesh, Chandra Bhan and others reached to his house and on estimation they told him that it is not a accidental injury rather she had been done to death by the appellants and co-accused Anil.

Another prosecution witness Satpal was produced before the trial court and was examined as P.W-3, who is the eyewitness. He had deposed that he knew both the appellants from before and was having good relationship with them till the date of incident. He was also invited by the appellant Ummed in the marriage of his cousin sister at village Khedki due to which he arrived at village Khedki on 25.11.2000 to attend the marriage. He admitted the presence of Suman (deceased), wife of Ravindra Singh, who had come along with the appellants to attend the marriage. He further deposed that on the date of marriage he was present in the house of Rajveer Singh and he and other members of the family were busy in their work as the barat was to arrive at 11 am. He further deposed that at that time Ummed and his cousin brother (Bua's son) Anil were consuming liquor in a room and appellant no.2 Lata was serving them with water and salty victuals and at the same time the deceased Suman was wondering in the house. Appellant no.2 Lata had told the deceased that Ummed and his cousin brother Anil has called her in the room. Thereafter Suman accompanied appellant no.2 Lata inside the room. He further deposed that after sometime shriek of Suman was heard by him. He immediately rushed to the room, he saw attire of Suman in a untidy manner and she had sustained gun shot injury and was lying on the floor. He deposed that he saw co-accused Anil standiing there having countrymade pistol in his hand and appellants were also present there. When he inquired about the incident he was threatened by Anil and asked him to get lost from the room. Thereafter the appellants and Meghraj took the dead body of the deceased in an Ambassador Car belonging to some members of marriage party.

Thereafter autopsy doctor R.K. Lal (P.W-4) has testified the same facts which have already been mentioned hereinabove. He further deposed that the deceased can sustain the injuries detected on her body by firearm and the death may ensue at the time alleged by the prosecution. Doctor has testified those very facts which have already been recorded hereinbefore. During his cross-examination, nothing material has come out to damage the prosecution.

P.W-5, S.I. Pooran Singh Chauhan has deposed regarding registration of FIR, recording of statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., preparation of Chik FIR, G.D. entry and site plan and has denied the suggestion that he recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared the site plan at the police station with the consultation of informant, P.W-1. Investigating Officer has justified regarding various steps taken by him during investigation as has also been inked hereinbove.

Sri R.D. Pathak, Circle Officer to whom later on investigation was entrusted by the S.S.P. vide his letter dated 7.3.2001, he did not record the statements of the witnesses. He made his every endeavour to apprehend co-accused Anil and the appellant Smt. Lata. He deposed that on the basis of the sufficient material collected by his predecessor he submitted the charge sheet dated 23.6.2001 against both the absconders. He had duly proved the charge sheet as Ex Ka-10 and Ka-11.

Omveer Singh was examined as C.W-1 he only admitted that deceased was married with Bhutto of his village five to seven years prior to the incident. He denied to have seen the incident. He deposed that he did not know where, how and by whom Suman was murdered.

In their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. both the accused appellants pleaded the defence of false implication by stating that they were implicated in the incident due to enmity with Satpal, P.W-3. In fact they came to know that the deceased sustained gun shot injury all of a sudden at the time of firing resorted by the baratis with countrymade pistol and guns during the procession of barat.

In their defence, appellants had examined Ravindra as D.W-1, who admitted his presence at the scene of occurrence and has deposed that at about 2 to 2½ pm as soon as the barat reached at the bride's door some members of barat started celebratory firing and accidentally a bullet hit the deceased Suman who was standing at the door. He has denied to have seen any one firing and causing injury to the deceased. It was admitted by him that Satpal, P.W-3 was Sadhoo of deceased's husband Ravindra Singh, P.W-2. He admitted the suggestion that he and both the appellants are the relatives of Rajveer Singh of village Khedki and they have participated in the marriage ceremony of his daughter. He also accepted the suggestion that he wanted acquittal of the appellants from the charges.

On above facts we have heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in support of his appeal and Mr. K.N. Bajpai, learned A.G.A. appellee State.

Sri M.C. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that there is no eyewitness of the factum of incident. The deceased, Suman had accompanied the appellants in order to participate in a marriage ceremony of the daughter of Rajveer Singh at village Khedki, police station Kithore, District Meerut. Satpal (P.W-3) is alleged to be present on the date of incident. He heard only shrieks of Suman (the deceased). He no where says that he had heard the gun fire shot. He further argued that according to the deposition of Satpal (P.W-3), he returned to his village Titauta on the date of the incident i.e. 26.11.2000 at about 6.30 pm. but he did not disclose the factum of incident to the husband of the deceased on the same day. It is not disputed that Satpal (P.W-3) was the Sadhoo of Ravindra Singh, deceased's husband (P.W-2). Had he been present at the scene of incident there was no reason for him to remain silent for the whole of night. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after much delay. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to produce any witness of village Khedki where the incident is alleged to have taken place. These are additional circumstances which creates doubt regarding the factum of incident. There is no evidence on record that Ummed and Lata, both the appellants have taken the deceased along with them under some design so as to perceive a conspiracy for her murder. The deceased herself accompanied them on 24.11.2000 and murder had taken place on 26.11.2000. Had there been any intentions to get the deceased murdered she would have been murdered before 26.11.2000 but nobody will take chance of murdering at the time when the marriage procession was to arrive. It seems to be highly improbable and unnatural. No doubt both the appellants and Meghraj brought the cadaver of the deceased to her husband's house but that could be taken up a circumstance not against them because of the reasons that if they wanted to annihilate the deceased they could have disposed of the dead body in the way and would have framed false story. The explanation offered by both the appellants regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased of gun shot may be neither convincing nor supported by medical evidence but on such false explanation their involvement in the crime cannot be anointed. He vehemently argued that there is no iota of evidence or specific allegation as such made against the appellants to establish that any criminal overt or covert act was done by them in furtherance of common intention. There being total absence of evidence the conviction of the appellants with the aid of Section 34 IPC is not sustainable. It was further pointed out that there is even no evidence on any premeditation between appellants and co-accused Anil who remained absconding and did not appear before the court to face the trial, therefore, for this reason also the conviction and sentence of the appellants is not competent. The trial Judge has failed to analyse the evidence of the prosecution in a proper and effective manner and holding the appellants guilty of an offence under Section 302/34 IPC is palpably erroneous.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has argued that it is not disputed that deceased, Suman had gone to attend the marriage along with the appellants on their instance because there is a categorical statement of Ravindra Singh (P.W-2) that appellant, Ummed had come to his house and had informed him that he is also the invitee in the marriage of his cousin sister (Bua's daughter) and that for this reason he could send his wife Suman (deceased) along with him to participate in the marriage. It has come in the evidence of Satpal (P.W-3) that appellant, Ummed and his cousin brother Anil were consuming liquor in a room and at that time appellant, Lata was serving them with water and salty victuals. It is the appellant, Lata who had asked the deceased, Suman to go inside the room where appellant, Ummed and his cousin, Anil were sitting. There is evidence to this effect that Lata thereafter went inside the room and after sometime shriek of Suman (deceased) was heard by the witness, Satpal (P.W-3) who immediately entered into the room and saw that Suman (deceased) had sustained gun shot injury and was lying on the floor. Satpal (P.W-3) had witnessed that Anil was standing having pistol in his hand. Satpal (P.W-3) is the sole witness of the incident and his evidence cannot be disbelieved. He has vehemently argued that Suman (deceased) had accompanied both the appellants in order to attend the marriage ceremony on 24.11.2000 and later on both the appellants brought her dead body to the house of the husband, Ravindra Singh on 26.11.2000. Burden to proof lies on both the appellants to explain under what circumstances Suman died. No FIR was lodged by the appellants at the concerned police station Kithore, district Meerut. If the incident had happened in the manner alleged by the appellants then it was incumbent upon them to lodge the FIR at the police station Kithore itself. The explanation offered by the appellants regarding deceased's injury of gun shot is neither convincing nor seems to be real truth. He further argued that it was for the appellants to disclose how and in what manner incident occurred. Way laying defence pleaded by appellants is hollow, palpably false and hokum. Their prevaricated defence is a strong circumstance against them to be reckon with by alone. The prosecution has successfully anointed appellants' guilt and in nut result instant appeal being bereft of merits, deserves to be dismissed. It was next suggested that accused statement can be utilised to prove admitted facts and lend credence to prosecution version and, therefore, appellant cannot escape liability of conviction by fabricating a false defence. Closing submissions by learned AGA was to uphold the conviction and dismiss the appeal.

We have considered rival contentions and have gone through the entire record of the trial court and evidences of witnesses.

In the backdrop of preceding facts and evidence, we have analysed the prosecution case vis-a-vis defence evidence. Some facts of the case in the trial were admitted as either they were not disputed or the accused had admitted their happening. These facts are that the deceased Suman was the sister of informant Pawan Kumar PW 1. She was the wife of Ravindra Singh resident of Village Titauta. It is also not in dispute that Ravindra Singh has met an accident since one and half years and was confined to bed. It is also not in dispute that there was a marriage of cousin sister (Bua's daughter) of Ummed in which marriage, Ummed along with his wife Lata and father Meghraj had gone along with the deceased Suman, hence presence of Suman at the scene of incident is admitted. It is also admitted that Suman died because of sustaining of gunshot injury at the back of her ear and hence cause of her death was homicidal. It is also not in dispute that the body of Suman was transported from the place of incident to the house of her husband in village Titauta and thereafter message was given to the informant PW 1 Pawan Kumar who after seeing the cadaver of the deceased had lodged F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1. It is also not disputed seriously that Suman had gone to attend the marriage along with the appellants on their instance because there is a categorical statement of the husband of the deceased Ravindra Singh PW 2 that Ummed had come to his house and had informed him that he is also the invitee in the marriage of his cousin sister. It is further his deposition that Ummed had informed PW 2 that he can send his wife Suman along with him to participate in the marriage. Suman was inquired by her husband Ravindra Singh PW 2 who became ready and that is how Ummed and Lata had taken deceased Suman along with them to participate in the marriage. In such a situation what is to be analysed and judged is only as to whether disclosury statement of Ummed and Lata regarding the deceased sustaining injury is the correct version or the prosecution allegation of deceased being shot dead by the appellants is the correct narration of the fact. From the evidence on record, it is admitted that Ummed and his cousin brother Anil (another accused who later on absconded) were consuming liquor in a room. At that time, appellant Lata was serving them with water and salty victuals. Suman was wandering in the house where the marriage procession was yet to arrive. appellant Lata had asked the deceased that Ummed and his cousin brother Anil has called her in the room. Lata thereafter accompanied Suman inside the room. After some time, shriek of Suman was heard by the sole eyewitness Satpal PW-3. When he watched into the room, he found the attire of deceased in a untidy manner and Suman had sustained gunshot injury. What is most important to note is that PW-3 had witnessed countrymade pistol being wielded by Anil. Rest of the two persons present in the room who are the present appellants were not armed with any weapon. PW-3 is the sole witness of the incident. His examination-in-chief, if believed to be correct, does not indicate at all that any overt act was performed by the two appellants in murdering the deceased. Both the appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. For applicability of the aforesaid section, what is sine qua non is that the accused persons must have common intention in furtherance of commission of the crime. The said intention can develop at the spur of moment and there has to be evidence to that effect. In this respect some of Apex Court decisions which can be relied upon are as follows:

1.AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1256, Arun Vs. State

2.AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1510, State of Punjab Vs. Bakhshish Singh

3.AIR 2010 Supreme Court 249, Sripathi Vs. State of Karnataka

Vetting from above angle, the only evidence against the appellants is that of PW-3 Satpal, who according to the prosecution version, is the sole eyewitness of the incident. What he has stated is only that the deceased was called inside the room by Ummed Singh and his brother-in-law Anil. appellant Lata had accompanied Suman inside the room. After some time only shrieks of Suman was heard. It is further ostensible that she had sustained gunshot injury but PW-3 nowhere says that he had heard the gunfire shot. There is no evidence transpiring as to what happened inside the room between the persons present including Ummed and Lata. In such view, without any motive and weapon in their hand it is difficult to conclude that Ummed and Lata possessed requisite common intention to commit murder of the deceased. There is total absence of evidence on the record that they harbingered any enmity with deceased so as to be privy to her annihilation. Suman had accompanied them all of a sudden to participate in the marriage. There is no evidence on the record that Ummed and Lata, two appellants, had taken the deceased along with them under some design so as to perceive a conspiracy for her murder. Admittedly, deceased had accompanied them on 24.11.2000 and marriage had taken place on 26.11.2000. Common design of Ummed and Lata does not seem to be possible for the reason that nobody will take chance of murdering at the time when the marriage procession was to arrive at. It seems that inside the room whatever happened was between Anil and Suman and two appellants did not share common intention and were only spectators. It also seems probable that incident had occurred all of a sudden where Anil seem to have shot before reflexes of the two appellants and alarm was raised to intervene and save her life. The prosecution has not been able to lead any evidence in that respect. According to the evidence of P.W-3 the appellants did not indulge in any overt or covert act except be present at the scene of occurrence. Mere presence of Ummed and Lata inside the room is not sufficient to anoint guilt of murder against them with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. Common intention is absent in the present case and, therefore, the conviction of the two appellants with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. as recorded by the trial court is unsustainable.

Even otherwise also, it does not seem to be a case of common intention. PW-3 had not evidenced any fighting ensued between the deceased and two appellants. His entire deposition is restrained only to occurrence and circumstance visualized by him as soon as he entered the room. Anil was only armed with firearm and it was he who had threatened PW-3 to go outside the room. No doubt, Ummed, Lata and Meghraj brought the cadaver of the deceased to her husband's house but that could be taken to be a circumstance not against them because of the reason that if they had nefarious design to annihilate the deceased, they could have disposed of the dead body in the way and would have framed false story. No doubt, explanation offered by two appellants regarding the deceased sustaining injury of gun shot is neither convincing nor seems to be real truth but on such a false explanation, their involvement in the crime mere with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. cannot be anointed.

It is settled law that the guilt of the accused has to be established comprehensively clear of all reasonable doubts by leading cogent, reliable, creditworthy evidence, which inspire confidence in the prosecution version. Natural corollary of this jurisprudential principle is that if, in it's initial burden of poof, prosecution fails to prove it's case then inescapable conclusion is to acquit the accused as in that eventuality there is no need to look into the defence case. It is only when prosecution has discharged it's initial burden of proof that the defence plea has to be considered to judge the veracity of the prosecution case for it's final acceptability. If the accused succeeds in creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version on preponderance of probability or successfully demolishes it's authenticity, then the benefit has to bestowed on him.

In the present case prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of P.W-3, Satpal as a witness of fact to the murder to establish guilt of the appellants. Failing in that feat that now the prosecution cannot be allowed to shift the burden of proof on the shoulders of the accused with the aid of section 106 Evidence Act.

In the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence on record and especially considering the fact that they had not performed any overt or covert act according to the deposition of sole eyewitness PW-3 and applying of Section 34 I.P.C. in their respect is misdirection.

Learned trial judge while convicting the appellants had not considered aforesaid aspect of the matter. There is another aspect which does not conclusively establish the participation of the appellants in the crime and i.e. the deposition of PW-3 which indicate that everything in the marriage house was going on as usual people were coming to and fro and deceased was also wandering. It was all of a sudden that Ummed and his brother-in-law Anil had sent for deceased. Lata had also accompanied her. But except this, there is no other circumstance to indicate that the accused had common intention to murder Suman and in such a view to hold the appellants guilty of the murder with the aid of common intention is illegal. For the charge under Section 376 I.P.C., both appellants have already been acquitted and that further erodes the gravity of the prosecution allegation against the appellants to be a privy to the crime.

Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, it seems that what happened in the room was between Anil and Suman and Ummed and Lata had nothing to do and they did not share any common intention for the commission of the crime. There is no other allegation against these appellants nor any charge was framed in that respect.

Above discussion leads us to the conclusion that appellants cannot be held to be guilty under Section 302/34 I.P.C.

The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C. vide impugned judgement and order dated 7.5.2008 recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 7), Bulandshahr in S.T. No. 454 of 2001 connected with S.T. No.884 of 2002 is hereby set aside. Both the appellants are acquitted of the charge. Appellant no.1 Ummed is in jail. He is directed to be released from jail immediately unless he is incarcerated in some other offence. Appellant no.2 Lata is on bail. Her personal and surety bonds are hereby discharged. She need not surrender.

Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the trial court for information.

Order Date:11.05.2012

Mt/