Radhey Saran vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 9186 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved
 
A.F.R.
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 825 of 1991
 
Appellant :- Radhey Saran
 
Respondent :- State
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Gaur, Kuldeep Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A
 
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.)

This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 12.4.1991 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T. No.191 of 1987 (State vs. Radhey and Nanak Chand) under sections 460, 302/34, 323/34 IPC., P.S. Partapur, District Meerut whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant Nanak Chand under Sections 460 and 302 of IPC and has punished him for 10 years R.I. under section 460 IPC and for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has also found guilty, the appellant Nanak Chand for the offence punishable under section 323/34 IPC and has awarded him sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant Radhey Sharan has also been found guilty under Section 460, 323/34 and Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and has been awarded sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for his conviction under section 460 IPC and life imprisonment for the conviction under section 302/34 IPC, 3 months rigorous imprisonment has been awarded to him under section 323/34 IPC. All the sentences of both the appellants were to run concurrently.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds that their conviction is against the weight of evidence on record, the order of conviction is bad in law as well as on facts, and the sentence passed is two severe. Therefore, it has been prayed that the appeal be allowed, the impugned judgement be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

We have heard Shri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Pradeep Pandey, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State and have carefully perused the lower court's record.

A brief description of prosecution story is that a written report was lodged by one Ram Kishan, S/o Lakhi Ram at P.S. Partapur against accused Nanak Chand and two unknown persons to the effect that in the intervening night of 7/8-10.1986 at about 12:30 a.m. three persons including Nanak Chand entered into the house of Lakhi Ram and reached near the (Dubari) i.e. the place where informant's father Lakhi Ram and mother Smt. Ramrati were sleeping and attacked on them. Lakhi Ram raised alarm. On hue and cry, the witnesses Jagdish Prasad, Lakhan, Bhagwan, Rambir Choudhary and other villagers reached there and saw the assailants running away from the spot. By the time the villagers and neighbours had reached inside the room, the miscreants had made their escape good. The mother of the informant died due to the injuries sustained by her. Among the assailants Nanak Chand was recognised in the light of torch. Though the other two were unknown but they too can be identified by the witnesses if brought before them.

On the basis of this written report, the case was registered at Crime No.231 under section 460 of IPC against the appellant Nanak Chand and two unknown persons. The name of Radhey came to light during the investigation, when he was identified by the witness Lakhi Ram, Rambir and Jagdish in jail during identification parade. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the site plan, collected evidence and on conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellants Nanak Chand and Radhey Sharan. The case being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, was committed to the court of Sessions where it nproceeded with framing of charges against both the accused persons who, pleaded not guilty and claimed for their trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses of fact and five formal witnesses before the trial court. A brief description of the prosecution witnesses is as follows:-

P.W.-1 is Ram Kishan, the informant of the case. He is the son of injured Lakhi Ram and deceased Smt. Ramrati. P.W.-2 is injured Lakhi Ram himself, who is the husband of the deceased Ramrati ; P.W.-3 Rambir, whose name also finds place in the FIR, and are eye witnesses, who are said to have seen the accused persons while they were running away from the spot after the occurrence and P.W.-4 Jagdish.

Apart from the above mentioned four material witnesses, the following are the formal witnesses, produced by the prosecution.

I.P.W.-5 is S.I. Hukam Singh Tomar, who had arrested the accused Nanak Chand and Radhey.

II.P.W.-6 is Jamadar Singh who is the I.O. of the case and who has prepared the inquest report, letters for post mortem, photo nash, site plan and has submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons.

III.P.W.-7 is Dr. R.S. Chawla who has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Smt. Ram Rati.

IV.P.W.-8 is Dr. P.P. Singh who has medically examined the injured Lakhi Ram and has prepared his medical report.

V.P.W.-9 is Constable Ganesh Dutt Sharma who took the dead body of Smt. Ram Rati in sealed cover along with papers to the mortuary of Medical College, Meerut for post mortem.

VI.P.W.-10 is the Constable Balbir Singh,

VII.P.W.-11 is Mr. G.S. Hira who was an Executive Magistrate and had conducted the identification parade of the accused Radhey Sharan.

VIII.P.W.-12 is Constable Clerk Chandra Pal Singh who had prepared the check FIR and had made necessary entries in the general diary.

After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. In defence they produced the following six witnesses:-

1. D.W.-1 Dharampal

2. D.W.-2 Om Prakash

3. D.W.-3 F.C. Lal

4. D.W.-4 Ram Pal

5. D.W.-5 Siyanand

6. D.W.-6 Malkhan Singh

Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment of the trial court on the grounds that the learned trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants, the motive as alleged by the prosecution is very weak, the FIR is ante-timed, the identification of accused Radhey was conducted very late, there is no independent witnesses of the occurrence, the only witness of the occurrence is Lakhi Ram who is inimical to the appellants and due to this enmity, he has falsely implicated them.

Per contra, learned AGA has contended that prompt FIR has been lodged in this case without any consultation or deliberation. The witnesses are reliable and trust worthy and their presence at the spot is natural. Learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused persons and there is no need to interfere in the judgment impugned.

Upon hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears imperative that in order to arrive at a correct conclusion, the statements of witnesses be closely scrutinized.

P.W.1 Ram Kishan informant of this case is the son of deceased Ram Rati and injured Lakhi Ram (P.W.-2). He has stated that his father Lakhi Ram resides at village Bhud Varal whereas he lived at Modinagar where he was working in the Department of Railways. At the time of occurrence, he was on his duty at Modinagar, he was informed by the villagers that his mother had been killed. Then he came to village Bhud Varal and saw his mother lying dead inside his house, his father had also received injuries. His father informed him in the midnight of 7/8-10.1986 at about 12:30 a.m. that Nanak Chand and two unknown persons entered into the house and killed his mother. His father had recognised the accused Nanak Chand and had seen the two other miscreants in the light of electricity bulb and he could recognise both the unknown accused persons if produced before him. Rambir, Jagdish and Bhagwan along with several villagers had reached at the place of occurrence and they had also recognised the miscreants. P.W.-1 has stated that his father and accused Nanak Chand had previous enmity and accused Nanak Chand had threatened his family through a letter (this letter is Ex.-1 on the record). P.W.1 has further stated that his father had lent Rs.1000/- to Nanak Chand about 11-12 years prior to the occurrence, out of which Nanak Chand had returned Rs.150/- only. Nanak was demanding back the articles of gold and silver mortgaged by him and has threatened his father with the words:- "lala Lakhi ,tu meri yeh cheese hajam nahi kar sakta. Main tujhe chetavani deta hu ki ek mahine ke andar tujko zinda nahi choduga." It has also been alleged by P.W.-1 that in a criminal case fought between Lakhi Ram and Nanak Chand, accused Nanak Chand had to spend Rs.2000/-. Nanak Chand was demanding back these rupees from Lakhi Ram. Thus P.W.-1 has stated about the motive behind the occurrence. During his cross examination P.W.-1 had stated that village Bhud Varal is situated at a distance of about 10-12 kms. from Modinagar, he came to village by a tempo and had reached the police station in the early morning at about 5:00 a.m. P.W.-1 has admitted the fact that he and his family had previous enmity with Nanak Chand.

P.W.-2 Lakhi Ram has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was residing at village Bhud Varal with his wife. His two sons were living separately, one son lived at Modinagar and the other at Shahdara. Before his retirement he also used to work at Modinagar, 12 years have passed away since his retirement. When he was in service, he came into the contact of Nanak Chand who was working in the hospital at Modinagar. Nanak Chand had taken a loan of Rs.1000/- from him but had returned only Rs.150/- to him, when he demanded the remaining amount, Nanak Chand called him to his house to repay such amount. When he went to Nanak Chand's house, he took his signature on a blank paper by threatening him of dire consequences on the point of knife. P.W..-2 has further stated that he had lodged the FIR of that incident. In that criminal case, Nanak Chand and his two accomplices were convicted by the Magistrate. Against the conviction Nanak Chand filed an appeal. The appellate Court remanded the case to the lower court to decide afresh and the second time Nanak Chand was acquitted. After his acquittal Nanak Chand demanded Rs.2000/- from Lakhi Ram for the expenses he had to incur in that litigation. When Lakhi Ram did not give him those rupees, he threatened to kill him. P.W.-2 has further stated that in the night of occurrence, he and his wife both of them were sleeping on separate cots and electricity bulb was lighting in the room. In the midnight at about 12:30 a.m. he got up hearing the shrieks of his wife and saw three persons assaulting his wife. Nanak Chand was inflicting injuries on his wife with a knife, while the other one was holding his wife's legs, seeing this, Lakhi Ram raised alarm. Hearing the noise, the neighbours reached at the spot. One of the unknown miscreant inflicted injuries on Lakhi Ram with his torch. On hue and cry, all the accused persons jumped from the southern wall of the house and ran away. His neighbours Rambir, Jagdish Prasad and Bhagwan saw the accused persons running away in the light of torches. Meanwhile, his wife succumb to the injuries. P.W.-2 has further stated that he had gone to jail to identify the two other unknown persons and had identified the appellant Radhey as one of the miscreants. He has denied that there was any previous enmity between him and Radhey.

P.W.-2 has been cross examined at length by learned defence counsel and during his cross examination, he has stated that his wife was killed in his presence and when the miscreants were inflicting injuries on his wife, he was sleeping. Later on, he has improved his statement by saying that hearing the shrieks of his wife, he got awake. He has admitted that he had lent some rupees to Nanak Chand only twice, Rs.200/- at one time and Rs.500/- for the second time. Besides that, no money was ever lent by him to Nanak Chand. He has also stated that his two sons knew about these transactions. He has further stated that Nanak Chand was demanding Rs.2000/- for the litigation expenses to which he had replied that he had also to incur expenses in that case so he would not give any money to him and a scuffle had taken place between them on that issue. However, P.W.-2 has denied the suggestion that Nanak Chand had mortgaged his silver and gold ornaments with him for taking loan.

P.W.-3 Rambir is the neighbour of Lakhi Ram, he has stated that at about 12:30 a.m. in the night, he heard the shrieks from the house of Lakhi Ram. Hearing the shrieks, he took his torch and Danda and went to the door of Lakhi Ram, the door was found closed. He raised an alarm, on his alarm two other villagers Jagdish and Bhagwan also reached there. All of them had torches and Dandas with them, they saw three miscreants jumping from the wall of southern side and running away. In the light of torch, they identified the accused Nanak. Thereafter, they went inside the house of Lakhi Ram and saw Ram Rati lying dead on the cot. P.W.-3 has stated that he had identified the accused Radhey in the jail.

While perusing the statement of P.W.-3, recorded during his cross examination, a strange fact came to our notice that when he and other witness reached the house of Lakhi Ram and asked him to open the door, Lakhi Ram opened the door after 4-5 minutes. It appears unnatural and strange on the part of Lakhi Ram that when the neighbours were calling him from outside for opening the door, he did not open the door immediately but stated from inside that he was searching the key, the door being locked from inside. When the door was opened they found the dead body of the deceased Ram Rati lying on the cot. Lakhi Ram informed them that when the miscreants were inflicting knife injury on his wife's body he was watching them. His this conduct i.e. to silently watch the miscreants causing fatal injury to his wife and making no effort to rescue her, is also indicative of the fact that the prosecution story is not so simple as has been alleged in the F.I.R. and the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out. P.W.-3 has admitted the fact that informant Lakhi Ram and accused Nanak Chand had old enmity.

P.W.-4 Jagdish has also been produced as an eye witness of the occurrence, he saw the miscreants fleeing away from the spot after committing murder of Ram Rati. P.W. 4 Jagdish is one of the neighbours of P.W. 1 Lakhi Ram, residing at a place nearest to the house of Lakhi Ram. Although he has supported the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief but during his cross-examination such facts have been elicited which raise doubt regarding proper identification of accused persons. P.W. 4 has stated that he had seen the accused Nanak Chand about 14 - 15 years prior to the occurrence and in the meantime he had never seen the accused Nanak Chand. He has also admitted the fact that the distance between the 'Gher' i.e. the place where he was sleeping at the time of occurrence and the house of Lakhi Ram is about 30 yards. P.W. 4 has stated that he and other villagers had seen the miscreants from his "GHER". He has stated that out of all the three miscreants, one had a knife in his hand. The witnesses had torch and Dandas with them. He has admitted that it was a dark night but has further stated that the accused Nanak jumped from the wall first. The miscreant who jumped in the last is no more. He had seen them from a distance of 15 - 16 yards in the light of torch. He has stated that Nanak was running behind the other two miscreants and he had seen them from front side. How can it be possible for a human being to identify a person in the dark light with the help of a torch from a distance of 30 yards ?

The fact which was earlier stated by P.W. 3 Ramveer is also stated by P.W. 4 Jagdish, that when they reached at the door of Dubari of Lakhi Ram i.e. the place of occurrence they found the door closed from inside. When they asked Lakhi Ram to open the door, Lakhi Ram replied from inside that he was searching the key and after 4 - 5 minutes Lakhi Ram opened the door. P.W. 4 has further stated that an ear ring was found lying on the cot of Lakhi Ram in a broken condition but he did not ask Lakhi Ram about that broken ear ring. He has stated that Lakhi Ram did not tell him that the miscreants had asked for keys from his wife.

The defence witnesses have been produced in proof of the fact that on the date and time of occurrence, the appellants Nanak and Radhey wre not present at the spot. Nanak Chand was present at Government Dispensary, Modi Nagar where he was working as a sweeper and appellant Radhey was present at the office of Nagar Nigam, Modinagar i.e. his work place, in the morning of 8.10.1986.

D.W.-5 Siyanand had stated that in the night of 7.10.1986, both the appellants were present in his house because his wife had given birth to a daughter at about 9:30 p.m. who died after 15-20 minutes of her birth. The infant was buried in the early morning at about 5:00 a.m. and the appellants were with him during the entire preceding night till early morning. The remaining defence witness have given statement that the appellants were working at Modinagar and on 8.10.1986, they had reached the place of their duty at about 6:35 a.m. The defence has also produced their attendance registers (Ex.Kha-1) to show their presence at the place of their duty on 8.10.1986. However, the learned Trial Court disbelieved the defence witnesses and found the prosecution case reliable and trustworthy. Accordingly, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced both the appellants as aforesaid.

No other witness of fact has been produced by the parties. From the statement of all the witnesses discussed above it is evident that out of the 4 material witnesses produced by the prosecution, the testimony of P.W. 1 Ram Kishor who is the son of deceased Ram Rati is of little relevance because admittedly he was not present at his house on the date of occurrence and has reached there after about 2 - 3 hours at about 4 A.M. in the early morning. In so far as the statements of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, although the trial court has found their statements reliable but on a close scrutiny of their statements we are of the firm view that these witnesses cannot be relied on as their statements suffer from material contradiction and discrepancies with regard to so many facts and after an overall assessment of their statement, there appears so many holes in prosecution story.

The motive as alleged by the prosecution in this case is the loan of Rs. 1000/- given to accused Nanak by Lakhi Ram, out of which Nanak Ram had returned only Rs. 150/- and Lakhi Ram was asking for the remaining amount which Nanak was not paying because he was asking Rs. 2000/- from Lakhi Ram incurred by him in the criminal case initiated by Lakhi Ram against him. There was no other dispute between them as P.W. 2 Lakhi Ram has himself specifically denied the suggestion given to him by learned defence counsel that Nanak had never mortgaged any gold or silver articles with him while taking loan.

Even assuming this story to be true, it does not constitute a motive or a guiding force, so strong, so as to persuade the appellants to murder the wife of Lakhi Ram in such a barbaric and cruel manner as is reflected by the description of ante-mortem injuries in the post-mortem report despite the fact that the wife had actually no concern with their enmity. Thus, the prosecution story unreliable is that the prosecution, in this case, has miserably failed to prove the motive behind the gruesome murder of Ram Rati.

As regard the injuries upon the cadaver of the deceased Ram Rati the post-mortem report shows that she had received as many as 9 incised wounds on various parts of her body apart from other injuries enumerated in later part of this judgment. For ready reference they are enumerated below :

1.Incised wound 5 x 1 cm. X bone deep in the outer side of right elbow.

2.Contusion 4x2 cm back middle of forearm. There was fracture in this bone.

3.Abrasion 2.5x1 cm in the back side of forearm below 6 cm. Right elbow.

4.Incised wound 3x1 cm x cavity deep of stomach 8 cm. Above right side of umbilicus in 11''O Clock position.

5.Incised wound 5x1 cm x cavity deep 17 cm. Below posterior auxiliary line in the back of right chest.

6.Incised wound 3x1 cm. X bone deep in the middle of right scapula.

7.Incised wound 4x0.8 cm x muscle deep in the outer surface of right thigh 20 cm. above right knee.

8.Incised wound 4x0.5 cm. x muscle deep in the outer surface of right knee.

9.Incised wound 3x0.5 cm x muscle deep in the back surface of right let 11 cm below right knee.

10.Incised wound 1x0.5 cm x muscle deep 11 cm. Below right knee in the back of right leg.

11.Incised wound 1 x 0.4 cm. X muscle deep in the front of chest in the right side 8 cm. Below sternal notch.

From the above,, the nature of injuries inflicted on Ram Rati, it is reflected that the person inflicting knife injuries on her body must have some serious grudge against her and not against Lakhi Ram, otherwise what could have been the reason that instead of killing Lakhi Ram, they killed his wife Ram Rati ? It was not a case of mistaken identity as P.W. 2 Lakhi Ram has stated that there was light of electricity bulb in the room and Ram Rati had not covered her body with 'Lihaf'.

It is a well settled legal principle that if there is an eye witness account of the occurrence, the motive loses its significance, but this legal principle is applicable only in those cases where the eye witnesses are reliable and trustworthy otherwise the motive behind an offence is always an important link in the chain of circumstances. One incident of fact which raises a reasonable doubt is that despite the fact that the miscreants were armed with knife and dandas, they inflicted injury on Lakhi Ram only by a small torch of 2 cells. The other fact which raises an important question mark in our minds is that the witnesses P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have stated that on hearing the shrieks coming from inside the house of Lakhi Ram when they reached on the spot they found the door of "Duwari" of Lakhi Ram, closed from inside. P.Ws. 3 and 4 have also stated that Lakhi Ram opened the door after some time, he stated from inside that he is searching the key because the door is locked from inside. This fact admittedly raises a suspicion as to what was the reason with Lakhi Ram to have locked the door of his 'Duwari' from inside ? Not only that but to have kept its key at such a place that he was unable to open the door even at the time of emergency.

Prosecution story has become doubtful due to apparent contradictions in the statements of witnesses. For example P.W. 3 has stated that when they reached inside the room (Duwari), they saw a broken earring lying on the cot about which Lakhi Ram informed that the miscreants had broken that earring. He has stated that Lakhi Ram had not told him that the earring was of brass. Lakhi Ram had also not told him that miscreants had left the earring due to the reason that it was made of brass. To the contrary Lakhi Ram has stated that when his wife tried to save herself from the accused persons while they were inflicting knife injuries on her, the earring got broken from her own hand. He has denied this fact that some miscreants had taken out the earring from the ears of his wife and thereafter had asked for the keys. In total contradictions to the aforesaid statements P.W. 3 Ramveer has stated that when he saw the earring lying on the cot and asked about it from Lakhi Ram, he informed that the miscreants had thrown it on the cot after breaking it. P.W. 3 during his cross examination was specifically asked, in question - answer form, about the time when he had reached on the spot hearing the noise and he has answered that he reached the spot after half an hour of the occurrence. To the contrary P.W. 2 Lakhi Ram has stated that "BADMASH BHAAG JANE KE 5 MINUTE BAAD GAWAH MERE GHAR AA GAYE THEY."

Admittedly there is no allegation that the miscreants had taken away any ornament from the body of deceased Ram Rati. There is no such allegation that Ram Rati was wearing gold and silver ornaments when miscreants had entered into the house. P.W. 1 has admitted that the earring got broken by Ram Rati herself during the process of defending herself. One more discrepancy raising serious doubt in prosecution story is that P.W. 2 Lakhi Ram has stated that his wife died within two minutes after sustaining knife injuries whereas the doctor who has conducted post-mortem of deceased Ram Rati has stated that death is possible after one or half an hour due to the ante-mortem injuries sustained by Ram Rati. The doctor has also stated that injury no. 2 causing fracture in the right arm of Ram Rati is possible by some blunt object whereas the eye witness Lakhi Ram, before whose eyes the miscreants had killed his wife, has stated nothing about the accused persons inflicting any Danda injury on Ram Rati.

Clearly the injuries sustained by the deceased wife of P.W. 1 do not find support with ocular evidence. Besides it, the doctor conducting the post-mortem had also found the following internal injuries on the dead body of Ram Rati :

1.Tenth right rib was found fractured.

2.Pleura of right lungs was ruptured.

3.In the pleural cavity of right lung 300 cc blood was present.

4.Her stomach was also found ruptured. Her large intestine was found ruptured from two places and the faecal matter was coming out.

5.There was 8 cm. Long incised wound on her lever and on her right kidney.

6.Incised wound of 3 cm was also found inside the cavity of the stomach. 200 cc of blood and fecal matter was found present.

The aforesaid description of internal ante-mortem injuries also does not coincide with the manner of occurrence as described by Lakhi Ram, who is the only witness of occurrence.

The conduct of Lakhi Ram is extremely suspicious. The natural conduct of a husband is that he will certainly try to rescue his wife from the knife attack made by miscreants and during this will naturally sustain some incised wound on his body but Lakhi Ram has not sustained even a single incised wound on his body. He has sustained only some simple injuries inflicted on him by a torch. Moreover, his conduct of opening the door after half an hour on the pretext that he is searching the key is clear indicative of the fact that he was trying to suppress something from the villagers who were calling him to open his door on the fateful night after hearing the shrieks of Ram Rati.

The learned trial court has not discussed any of these facts in the impugned judgment and by only relying on the fact that accused Nanak Chand and Radhey Saran have been identified during the Identification Parade and that Radhey was kept "Baparda" after his arrest and accused Nanak was known to the witnesses since prior to the occurrence, the learned trial court has convicted the accused persons. The learned trial court has not paid any attention even to the clear statement of P.W. 3 that he had seen Nanak about 10 - 15 years ago. How can it be possible for a human being to remain of same physical appearance even after the expiry of 15 years ? The trial court has also not considered the fact that admittedly it was a dark night. The torch in the hands of witness was only of 2 cells and admittedly the witnesses had seen the accused persons from a distance of about 25 - 30 yards. Under such circumstances it is not possible for a person to properly identify any person one.

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case it is our considered opinion that the prosecution has not come with clean hands in this case. The witnesses are certainly not reliable. The best witness in this case, Lakhi Ram, has tried to suppress some material facts from the court. His statement suffers from several contradictions, omissions, improvements and embellishment making the prosecution story wholly unreliable and unworthy of credence. Therefore it was neither proper nor safe for the learned trial court to convict the accused persons on the basis of such unreliable evidence. Therefore, we find the impugned judgment perverse and liable to be set aside.

As a consequence, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated dated 12.4.1991 passed in S.T. No.191 of 1987 (State vs. Radhey and Nanak Chand), P.S. Partapur, District Meerut is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellant no. 2 Nanak Chand has died. His appeal has already been abated vide order dated 7.10.2014.

The appellant no. 1 Radhey Saran is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

Dated : 26.11.2014.

Ps./S.B.