Lala Ram & Others vs State Of U.P.
2014 Latest Caselaw 9325 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

											A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 10									Reserved
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1108 of 1993
 

 
Appellant :- Lala Ram & Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- R.C.Kandpal,Harish Chandra Tiwari,Rajesh Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan, J.)

Present appeal has been filed by accused-appellants Lala Ram, Ram Dular, Madan Lal and Ramman Lal against judgement and order dated 25.6.1993 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No. 260 of 1991 (State Vs. Lala Ram and three others) under section 302 I.P.C. P.S. Bhamora, District Bareilly, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted accused-appellant Lala Ram for offence under section 302 I.P.C., and accused appellants Ram Dular, Madan Lal and Ramman Lal for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them thereunder to life imprisonment.

Accused appellant Ram Dular is reported dead. Appeal abated in respect of him.

Sri Harish Chandra Tiwari appeared for surviving accused appellants Lala Ram, Madan Lal and Ramman Lal. Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appeared for State of U.P. Sri Hari Krishna Misra appeared for complainant.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused records.

In brief according to F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 prosecution story is that in the night intervening between 25.6.1990 and 26.6.1990 complainant Kala Wati and her husband Suraj Pal were sleeping in their 'Ghera' under Neem tree. In the morning accused appellants Lala Ram, Ram Dular, Madan Lal and Ramman Lal who had previous enmity with them came at 5.00 A.M. and caught hold of her husband. In the meantime, on alarm raised by complainant her son Ram Sahai and maternal nephew Babu Ram as well as witnesses Mohd. Zahoor and Amar Pal came on spot and tried to save husband of complainant. At the same time accused Lala Ram committed murder of her husband having fired at him with Tamancha. Thereafter all the four accused ran away towards west.

After aforesaid occurrence complainant Kala Wati got written First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 by Dharmapal Singh and presented the same in police station Bhamora on the same day at 7.30 A.M.. On the basis of which Crime No. 148 of 1990 under section 302 I.P.C. was registered in P.S. Bhamora against accused Lala Ram, Ram Dular, Madan Lal and Ramman Lal. Thereafter investigation by police was started. Inquest report of deceased Suraj Pal was prepared and dead body was sent for post mortem in sealed cover after having completed necessary formalities. Later on, police completed investigation in accordance with law and submitted charge sheet against all four accused for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. whereupon learned Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of session for trial of all accused.

Thereafter Session trial no. 260 of 1991 (State Vs. Lala Ram and three others) was registered in Session Court of District Bareilly. Later on, said session trial was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bareilly. Thereafter charge was framed against accused appellant Lala Ram for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and against accused appellants Ram Dular, Madan Lal and Ramman Lal for offence punishable under section 302/34 I.P.C.. All the accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Prosecution examined P.W.-1 complainant Kala Wati, P.W.-2 Ram Sahai, P.W.-3 Constable 752 Atiraj Singh, P.W.-4 Constable 220 Karan Singh, P.W.-5 S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma, P.W.-6 S.I. Suresh Veer Singh, P.W.-7 Dr. F.A. Khan and P.W.-8 Constable 1322 Jagdish Singh.

After prosecution evidence statements of all accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.. All of them stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. No evidence was adduced on behalf of accused in defence.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge heard arguments of the parties and passed impugned judgement and order dated 25.6.1993 whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused appellants as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that the conviction and sentence recorded against accused appellants is against law as well as against evidence.

Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that accused appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated.

Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that F.I.R. is anti time.

Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that out of 8 witnesses examined by prosecution only P.W.-1 complainant Kala Wati and her son P.W.-2 Ram Sahai are the witnesses of facts and occurrence. Learned counsel for accused appellants further contended that these two witnesses are interested witnesses and they have old enmity with accused appellants.

Learned counsel for accused appellants further contended that in F.I.R. other witnesses have also been named but prosecution has not examined them, therefore, it is not safe to place reliance on these two interested witnesses of occurrence namely P.W.-1 complainant Kala Wati and P.W.-2 Ram Sahai.

Learned counsel for accused appellants prayed that appeal should be allowed and accused appellants should be acquitted.

Learned A.G.A. contended that the conviction and sentence recorded by trial court is in accordance with law and evidence and there is no sufficient ground for interference in impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court.

Learned A.G.A. prayed that appeal should be dismissed.

We have considered the submissions made by the parties.

Out of eight witnesses examined by prosecution, P.W.-1 complainant Kala Wati and P.W.-2 Ram Sahai are the witnesses of facts and occurrence. Both of them have supported on oath the story of occurrence narrated in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 with a little variation regarding exhortation.

P.W.-1 complainant Kala Wati has stated in her statement on oath that she get written First Information Report from Dharmpal, who is her Bhanja and has come to her house. She has stated that Dharmpal wrote First Information Report on her dictation and thereafter she put her thumb impression on it after having heard it. Thus, she has proved First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 and has stated that she has presented this report to police station Bhamora.

P.W.-3 Constable 752 Atiraj Singh has stated on oath that on 26.6.1990 he was posted in P.S. Bhamora and on that day dead body of deceased Suraj Pal was handed over to him and Constable Karan Singh in sealed cover at about 1.30 P.M.. Thereafter, they carried the dead body to post mortem house. He has stated that post mortem was done on next day. He has further stated that till dead body was in their custody no interference was done with it.

P.W.-3 Constable Atiraj Singh has proved in his statement inquest report Ext.Ka-2 also.

P.W.-4 Constable 220 Karan Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 26.6.1990 he was posted in P.S. Bhamora. He has also stated that dead body of deceased Suraj Pal was entrusted to him and Constable Atiraz Singh in sealed cover. Thereafter they carried the dead body to mortuary. He has also stated in his statement that no interference was done with dead body till it was in their custody.

P.W.-4 Constable Karan Singh also has proved inquest report Ext.Ka-2 in his statement.

P.W.-5 S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma has stated in his statement on oath that on 26.6.1990 he was posted as S.I. in P.S. Bhamora. On that day at about 10.30 A.M. after having received information of murder he went to the place of occurrence. He has stated in his statement that Chik F.I.R. of this crime was written in his presence at 7.30 A.M. by Constable Jagdish Singh. He also made his signature on Chik F.I.R.. He has proved chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-3.

P.W.-5 S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma further proved copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-4.

P.W.-5 S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma has stated in his statement that he has recorded statement of complainant Kala Wati at police station before proceeding for spot.

P.W.-5 S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma has stated in his statement that he has prepared inquest report Ext.Ka-2 of deceased Suraj Pal.

P.W.-5 S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma has further proved in his statement Challan Nash Ext.Ka-5, Photo Nash Ext.Ka-6, Specimen seal Ext.Ka-7, letter to R.I. Ext.Ka-8 and letter to C.M.O. Ext.Ka-9. He has stated in his statement that he kept the dead body in sealed cover and handed over it to Constable Karan Singh and Atiraj Singh for carrying it to mortuary.

P.W.-5 S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma has further stated in his statement that on the same day he took blood stained Bandh of cot of deceased and prepared memo Ext.Ka-10. He has further stated that he took blood stained earth and plain earth also from the place of occurrence and prepared memo Ext.Ka-11.

P.W.-5 S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma has stated in his stated that he inspected place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ext.Ka-12 in his hand writing with his signature.

P.W.-5 S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma has further stated in his statement that on the same day he recorded statements of Constable Jagdish Singh, witness Ram Sahai and witnesses of inquest report.

P.W.-6 S.I. Suresh Veer Singh has stated on oath in his statement that in June 1990 he was posted as Station Officer of P.S. Bhamora. Present crime relating to this case was registered on 26.6.1990 in P.S. in his absence, therefore, investigation was done by S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma. Later on, on 28.6.1990 he took investigation into his hands and completed investigation.

P.W.-6 S.I. Suresh Veer Singh has stated in his statement that on 22.6.1990 Suraj Pal, now deceased had sent a registered letter to Senior Police Superintended of Bareilly and had forwarded copy of said letter to C.O. Aanwla. Said letter of deceased Suraj Pal was received to him on 29.6.1990 through S.S.P. and C.O.. He has proved the order and signature of S.S.P. as well as that of C.O. on said letters as Ext.Ka-13 and Ext.Ka-14.

P.W.-6 S.I. Suresh Veer Singh has stated in his statement that after having completed investigation he submitted charge sheet Ext.Ka-15 against accused appellants.

P.W.-6 S.I. Suresh Veer Singh has proved in his statement postal receipt Ext.Ka-16 also which had been given to him by son of deceased.

P.W.-7 Dr. F.A. Khan has stated in his statement on oath that on 27.6.1990 he was posted as Medical Officer, T.B. Clinic District Hospital, Bareilly. He has stated in his statement that on that day he has conducted post mortem of deceased Suraj Pal. He has stated that dead body was brought by Constable Atiraj Singh and Karan Singh in sealed cover and was identified by them.

P.W.-7 Dr. F.A. Khan has proved post mortem report of deceased Suraj Pal Ext.Ka-17 and has stated that anti mortem injury found on the dead body of deceased may be caused by fire of Tamancha. He has further stated in his statement that the death of deceased Suraj Pal might have occurred on 26.6.1990 at about 5.00 A.M..

P.W.-8 Constable 1322 Jagdish Singh is scribe of Chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-3. He has proved Chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-3 as well as copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-4.

Now we shall examine the evidence on record in the light of contentions of the parties.

According to prosecution, occurrence has taken place on 26.6.1990 at 5.00 A.M.. Report Ext.Ka.-1 has been lodged in P.S. Bhamora, District Bareilly on 26.6.1990 at 7.30 A.M. by complainant Smt. Kala Wati as is apparent from Chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-3 and G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-4 as well as statement of P.W.-5 S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma. The distance of police station from place of occurrence is five mile.

Inquest report of deceased Suraj Pal Ext.Ka-2 has been prepared by P.W.-5 S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma on 26.6.1990 at 10.30 A.M.. In inquest report crime no. 148 of 1990 under section 302 I.P.C. Versus Lala Ram and others, P.S. Bhamora, District Bareilly has been mentioned. Thus, it is apparent that F.I.R. has been lodged by complainant Smt. Kala Wati promptly without any delay and there is no sufficient ground to infer that F.I.R. is anti time.

In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 complainant P.W.-1 Kala Wati has specifically mentioned that she has enmity with accused Lala Ram, Ram Dular, Madan Lal and Ramman Lal, who are resident of her own village.

P.W.-1 complainant Smt. Kala Wati has stated in her statement on oath that there was a dispute of land between her husband (now deceased) and accused Ram Dular. She has further stated in her statement on oath that four days before present occurrence her husband has lodged a report against accused Ram Dular and Lala Ram regarding marpeet. Thereafter accused Ram Dular also lodged a report against her as well as her husband and son.

P.W.-1 complainant Smt. Kala Wati has further stated in her statement on oath that all the four accused are resident of her village and they had committed murder of her husband due to enmity regarding land.

P.W.-2 Sri Ram Sahai is son of deceased. He has also stated in his statement on oath that there was a dispute between his father and accused Ram Dular regarding partition of house. He has further stated in his statement on oath that four days before murder of his father there happened a quarrel between his father and accused Ram Dular and Lala Ram regarding partition of house.

P.W.-2 Ram Sahai has further stated in his statement on oath that on 22.6.1990 his father has moved an application to S.P. against accused persons. He has further stated that accused Ram Dular is his uncle. He is residing separately in the same house in which he resides and the sadar darwaja of both was same. P.W.-2 Ram Sahai has stated in his statement that accused Lala Ram used to come to the house of accused Ram Dular and he had illicit relation with the wife of Ram Dular.

P.W.-6 S.S.I. Suresh Veer Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 22.6.1990 deceased Suraj Pal had sent an application to Senior Superintendent of Police through registered post, copy of which had been sent to C.O.. That application of deceased was received from S.S.P. as well as C.O., to police station on 29.6.1990.

P.W.-6 S.S.I. Suresh Veer Singh has proved the order of S.S.P., as well as C.O. passed on said application as Ext.Ka-13 and Ext.Ka-14. In said application dated 22.6.1990 deceased Suraj Pal has made complaint against Lala Ram, Ram Dular, Jogendra, Banwari, Madan Lal, Ramman Lal and Dori Lal regarding incident dated 21.6.1990 and has mentioned that Lala Ram has illicit relation with wife of accused Ram Dular.

In statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. all accused appellants have admitted enmity with complainant. Accused appellants Lala Ram, Madan Lal and Ramman Lal have further stated in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were supporting accused appellant Ram Dular against Suraj Pal, now deceased because Suraj Pal and his family members were on wrong side.

In view of discussion made above, after having gone through whole evidence on record, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved motive of occurrence alleged by prosecution in F.I.R..

In the case of Dharmaveer and others.Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2010 S.C. 1378 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that enmity with accused cannot be sole ground to reject testimony.

Hon'ble Apex Court has constantly held that testimony of witnesses may not be discarded merely on the ground of relationship. In this context following pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court may be cited:-

1- Vithal Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 1 SCC Crl. 91.

2- State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Masta Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660.

3- Kapildeo Mandal & others Vs. State of Bihar; AIR 2008 SC 533.

In view of above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court testimonies of complainant P.W.-1 Smt. Kala Wati and his son P.W.-2 Ram Sahai may not be discarded merely on the ground of relationship with deceased or enmity with accused.

P.W.-1 complainant Kala Wati is wife of deceased Suraj Pal. She has stated in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 that she as well as her husband Suraj Pal was sleeping in her Ghera. She has further stated in her statement on oath that she was sleeping on cot under Neem tree. Her husband was sleeping on an other cot under tree. This neem tree is in ghera situated out of her house. Statement of complainant P.W.-1 Kala Wati is corroborated by site plan Ext.Ka-12. Considering above statement of P.W.-1 complainant Kalawati and site plan Ext.Ka-12, P.W.-1 complainant Kalawati appears a natural witness of occurrence. Her presence at the time of occurrence may not be denied.

P.W.-2 Ram Sahai is son of deceased Suraj Pal. He has stated on oath that on the day of occurrence he was sleeping in his house. It was 5.00 a.m.. He was going to ease himself. He has stated that when he turned on the turn of Kharanja, he heard the cry of his father. He also heard noise of his mother. Thereafter he reached on spot alongwith other witnesses. P.W.-2 Ram Sahai has stated in cross-examination at page 6 (Page 29 of paper book) that ghera where his father and mother were sleeping is at a distance of 125 steps from his house. In site plan Ext. Ka-12 kharanja has been shown near place of occurrence. Thus, presence of P.W.-2 Ram Sahai at the time of occurrence is also highly reliable.

According to post mortem report Ext.Ka-17 post mortem of deceased Suraj Pal has been conducted on 27.6.1990 at 3.30 p.m.. Time of death has been mentioned about one and half day. P.W.-7 Dr. F.A. Khan has specifically stated in his statement that death of deceased might have occurred on 26.6.1990 at 5.00 a.m..

Post mortem report Ext. Ka-17 as well as statement of P.W.-7 Dr. F.A. Khan reveals that stomach of deceased was empty. In small intestine as well as in large intestine fecal matter and gases were found. Conditions of stomach and small intestine as well as large intestine corroborate the fact that death has been caused early in the morning.

After having gone through whole evidence on record, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve time of occurrence alleged by prosecution.

In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 time of occurrence has been mentioned " lqcg 0.500 cts ". It shows definitely occurrence has taken place in the morning and time of occurrence is 5.00 a.m.. This time of occurrence is fully supported by statements of P.W.-1 complainant Kalawati and P.W.-2 Ram Sahai as well as by post mortem report Ext.Ka-17 and statement of P.W.-7 Dr. F.A. Khan, therefore, no adverse inference may be drawn against prosecution on the basis of manner of writing of time in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1.

In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 complainant Smt. Kalawati has mentioned that all the four accused namely Lala Ram Nai, Ram Dular, Madan Lal and Ramman Lal came into ghera of complainant and caught hold of husband of complainant. Thereafter on alarm raised by complainant her son Ram Sahai and maternal nephew Baboo Ram as well as witnesses Mohd. Zahoor and Amarpal came on spot and tried to save husband of complainant. At the same time accused Lala Ram committed murder of husband of complainant having fired at him with Tamancha.

But in statement on oath complainant P.W.-1 Kalawati has stated that all the aforesaid four accused caught hold of husband of complainant and accused Ramman exhorted to accused Lala Ram to kill husband of complainant, whereupon accused Lala Ram fired at husband of complainant.

P.W-2 Ram Sahai has stated in his statement that accused Ram Dular, Madan Lal and Ramman Lal caught hold of his father and exhorted accused Lala Ram to kill, whereupon accused Lala Ram fired at his father.

After having gone through F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 and statements of P.W.-1 complainant Kalawati and P.W.-2 Ram Sahai it is apparent that witnesses have introduced a new case that accused Lala Ram fired at Suraj Pal ( now deceased) on the exhortation given by accused Ram Dular, Madan Lal and Ramman Lal or only by accused Ramman Lal. F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 is prompt and has been lodged immediately after occurrence. Therefore in view of allegation made in F.I.R., statements of P.W.-1 complainant Kalawati and P.W.-2 Ram Sahai regarding exhortation may not be relied. But it is apparent from F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as statements of P.W.-1 complainant Kalawati and P.W.-2 Ram Sahai that all four accused came and caught hold of Suraj Pal (now deceased). In the meantime on alarm raised by complainant Kalawati when P.W.-2 Ram Sahai and other witnesses came and tried to save Suraj Pal accused Lala Ram fired at him.

In the case of Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011 S.C. 255, Hon'ble Apex Court has relied on its previous judgement rendered in the case of Prem Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 14 SCC 494: (AIR 2009 SC 2573), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"The Court has to separate the falsehood from the truth and it is only in exceptional circumstances when it is not possible to separate the grain from the chaff because they are inextricably mixed up, that the whole evidence of such a witness can be discarded."

Statement of P.W.-7 Dr. F.A. Khan as well as post mortem report Ext.Ka-17 shows that blackening and tattooing were found on the injury of deceased Suraj Pal. Thus, statement of P.W.-7 Dr. F.A. Khan as well as post mortem report Ext.Ka-17 corroborates the fact that deceased has been caused fire arm injury with proximity.

It is apparent from F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as from statements of P.W.-1 complainant Smt. Kalawati and P.W.-2 Ram Sahai that only accused Lala Ram fired at Suraj Pal due to which Suraj Pal sustained injuries and died on spot. Post mortem report Ext. Kal-17 as well as statement of P.W.-7 Dr. F.A. Khan corroborates this fact also as only one gun shot injury was found on dead body of deceased.

In the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, 2012 (IV) S.C.C. 124, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that," minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statement of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false, sense of observation differs from person to person."

In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master & others; 2010 Cri. L.J. 3889 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that," The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insifnificant aspects thereof."

In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master & others (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court further has held that," the basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole."

We have gone through entire statements of P.W.-1 complainant Kalawati and P.W.-2 Ram Sahai. In view of principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in above pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no material contradiction in their statements to disbelieve their entire testimonies.

In view of discussions made and conclusions drawn above, it is apparent that F.I.R. is prompt and P.W.-1 complainant Kalawati and P.W.-2 Ram Sahai are natural and reliable witnesses of occurrence. Their statements are fully corroborated by post mortem report Ext.Ka-17 and statement of P.W.-7 Dr. F.A. Khan as well as by site plan Ext.Ka-12 and statement of P.W.-5 I.O. S.I. Ishwar Singh Sharma.

In the case of Harpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1977 Cr.L.J. 642 S.C., Hon'ble Apex Court has held that," if the witnesses examined are believed the question of inference for non-examination does not arise."

In view of this pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that no adverse inference should be drawn against prosecution for non-examination of other witnesses.

After having gone through whole facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, we are of the view that P.W.-1 complainant Kalawati and P.W.-2 Ram Sahai are trust worthy witnesses and evidence adduced by prosecution is sufficient to hold that accused appellant Lala Ram has committed murder of deceased Suraj Pal in furtherance of common intention of all accused appellants, therefore, evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused appellant Lala Ram guilty of offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and accused appellants Madan Lal and Ramman Lal guilty of offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C..

Perusal of impugned judgement and order shows that trial court has gone through whole evidence on record and has considered all aspects and points relevant for determination of case. The conclusions drawn and findings recorded by trial court are based on Judicious analysis of facts and evidence in the light of judicial pronouncements. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that learned trial court has rightly relied upon evidence adduced by prosecution to convict accused appellant Lala Ram for offence under section 302 I.P.C. and accused appellants Madan Lal and Ramman Lal for offence under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C..

In the case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others Vs State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657, Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on its previous judgement rendered in the case of State Vs. Saravanan; A.I.R. 2009 SC 152, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons."

In view of this pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground to disturb the findings as well as conviction recorded by trial court.

Sentence awarded by learned trial court is not excessive and State has not filed appeal for enhancement of sentence.

In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court. Appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Surviving accused appellants Lala Ram, Madan Lal and Ramman Lal are on bail. They shall surrender before the trial court for serving sentence within 30 days from the date of judgement of this Court, failing which trial court shall ensure their arrest and shall send them to jail for serving sentence in accordance with law.

Office is directed to send copy of this judgement to trial court for securing compliance.

Send back records of trial court immediately.

Order Date :-28.11.2014

LJ/-

		(Hon. Akhtar Hussain Khan,J.)         (Hon. Arun Tandon, J.)