Prem And Others vs State Of U.P.
2016 Latest Caselaw 6392 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

                                                                                   Reserved
 
                                                                                               AFR
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5983 of 2006
 

 
Appellant :- Prem And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- G.P. Dikshit,M P Rai,Vaibhavv Kaushik
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Amit Danga,Anurag Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayan, J.

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.)

Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Saghir Ahmad, Sri Hasan Abidi and J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGAs for the State and perused the record of this appeal.

By way of instant criminal appeal, appellants Prem, Ravindra @ Babloo, Om Pal @ Ghola and Jitendra @ Pappu have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.09.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No.306 of 2003 arising out of Case Crime No.6 of 2002, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 and 452 IPC, Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar, whereby the appellants have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 147 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 148 IPC, ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 IPC coupled with fine Rs.5000/-, life imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302/149 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC coupled with fine Rs.2000/- each, in case of default in payment of fine imposed for sentence 307, 302, 452 IPC, the concerned accused shall have to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for six months, six months and three months, respectively. Sentences shall run concurrently.

Relevant to mention that by the same judgment, Case Crime No.31 of 2002, under Section 25/27 Arms Act was also tried as Sessions Trial No.307 of 2003 wherefrom the appellant Jitendra @ Pappu has been acquitted.

Relevant facts of this appeal, as gathered from record, appear to be that first informant Sri Yogesh son of Mahendra R/o Bhokerheri, Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar lodged written report at Police Station Bhopa on 10.01.2002 at 17.35 hours stating therein that he had gone to take fodder by his bullock-cart and his mother Mahendri, father Mahender, brother Lokesh @ Kanaha, uncle Vishnu and bhabhi Mithlesh were present in the house. When he came back home around 4.30 p.m., then he found quietness in and around his house, he went to the rear side of his house, he saw his brother Lokesh @ Kanha, mother Mahendri and father Mahender lying in injured condition. He shrieked after watching such pathetic scene, whereupon a number of villagers arrived on the spot and they told that the incident was caused by the appellants at a time when Lokesh @ Kanha was counselling Prem son of Shyam Singh, Ompal @ Ghola son of Shyam Singh, Jitendra @ Pappu, Ravindra @ Babloo and Satyendra @ Mintoo. In the meanwhile, Prem exhorted others to teach him a lesson as Lokesh @ Kanha has become leader. Thereafter Prem son of Shyam Singh possessing tabal, Ompal @ Ghola possessing Sariya, Jitendra @ Pappu possessing country-made pistol, Ravindra @ Babloo possessing shovel, Satyendra @ Mintoo possessing sword arrived on the spot. Seeing them [email protected] Kanha rushed inside his house. They pursued him into the house then Lokesh @ Kanha took to his heels reached upto rear side of his house when Jitendra @ Pappu fired on Lokesh @ Kanha, due to which Lokesh @ Kanha fell down then all the assailants assaulted Lokesh @ Kanha with their respective weapons. On shriek being raised by Lokesh @ Kanha, his mother Mahendri and father Mahender came to his rescue and covered him with their person and asked the assailants not to beat their son. The assailants were relentless and they also assaulted informant's mother, father and brother. In the meanwhile, informant's uncle Vishnu, bhabhi Mithlesh and nephew Sachin also arrived on the spot and they saw the incident. The assailants also threatened that in case any evidence is given against them by anyone, then he will not be spared. The assailants made their escape good by waving their respective weapons. Due to fear, not a single person went to see them on the spot. It was only after half an hour, On shrieks of first informant, people arrived on the spot after half an hour. They found that the injured mother- Mahendri, father-Mahender and brother Lokesh @ Kanha were breathing. They have been taken to District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar by bus by informant's uncle Vishnu and villagers. The first informant has come to lodge this report. Report be lodged and appropriate action be taken. Report is Exhibit Ka-1.

The contents of this written report (Ext. Ka-1) were taken down in Check FIR on 10.01.2002 at Crime No.6 of 2002, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 307 IPC at Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar. Check FIR is Exhibit Ka-6.

Consequent upon Check FIR, a case was registered against the appellants at aforesaid crime number, under aforesdaid Sections of Indian Penal Code at aforesaid police station on aforesaid date and time.

Thereafter, the investigation of this case followed and was taken over by Raeesh Pal Singh PW-7-Investigating Officer-who recorded statements of various persons and prepared site plan of the place of occurrence, which is Exhibit Ka-10. Investigating Officer also prepared memo of two empty cartridges- one-12 bore and another-315 bore and also recovered blood stained shovel from the house of the accused and prepared memo of the same. Both memos of cartridges and shovel have been exhibited as Exhibit Ka-12 and Ka-13, respectively. The Investigating Officer also came to know about the death of Lokesh @ Kanha and Mahender at District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. Therefore, the case was converted under Section 302 IPC.

After ensuring several steps, Investigating Officer- Raeesh Pal Singh PW-7 handed over the investigation to another Investigating Officer S.I. Resham Singh, PW-8 who conducted investigation for one day only i.e. 29.01.2002. He took remand of the accused Jitendra, Ompal and Satyendra and inquired from them about the incident. They took the police party in the vicinity of village- Bhokerheri, where country-made pistol of 12 bore was recovered from field of sugarcane at the pointing out of Jitendra. Likewise, iron-rod was recovered at the pointing out of Ompal from sugarcane field and blood stained shovel was recovered from the same field at the pointing out of Satyendra. All the weapons were kept in separate cloths and recovery memo whereof was prepared, which is Exhibit Ka-15. This witness also prepared site plan of place of recovery, which is Exhibit Ka-16. This witness also proved country-made pistol, which is material Exhibit Ka-6 and cloth bundle which is Exhibit Ka-7. Iron rod is material Exhibit Ka-8 and cloth is material Exhibit Ka-9. Shovel material Exhibit Ka-10.

During course of investigation, an information by ward-boy/sweeper of District Hospital had come to the knowledge of Danvir Giri, Sub-Inspector PW-9 whereby it was informed that dead bodies of Mahender and Lokesh @ Kanha are lying in mortuary Muzaffarnagar. As soon as information was received, Danvir Giri PW-9 proceeded to the District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar where he held inquest of Mahender, which is Exhibit Ka-17. Thereafter, inquest of Lokesh @ Kanha was held, which is Exhibit Ka-23.

In the opinion of inquest witnesses, it was thought proper to send dead bodies of the deceased Mahender and Lokesh @ Kanha for postmortem examination so that real cause of death could be ascertained. In the process, relevant papers were prepared for sending their dead bodies for postmortem examination, which are Exhibit Ka-24 to Ka-27. Thereafter postmortem examination on the cadavers of the deceased Mahender and Lokesh @ Kanha was conducted by Dr. Yogendra Tirkha PW-5, on 11.01.2002 at 3:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., respectively wherein following ante-mortem injuries were noted:

Ante-mortem injuries of deceased Mahender

(1) Stitch wound 8 cm long (4 stitching present) on top of head longitudinally placed starting 6 cm above left pinna.

(2) Stitch wound 7 cm long (3 stitch present) on back of head- 9 cm left and back and to left ear translucently placed.

(3) Stitch wound 8 cm long (4 stitch wound) just to left ear - longitudinally placed.

(4) Stitch wound 11 cm (8 stitch present) long on upper part of left side of neck just below left ear.

Ante-mortem injuries of deceased Lokesh @ Kanha

(1) Incised wound 13 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on right side of back of head 3 cm above right ear (longitudinally placed).

(2) Incised wound in an area of 10 cm x 4 cm on back of head x bone deep (maximum 8 cm x 1 cm minimum 5 cm x 1 cm) starting from left and back of right ear and above back hairline.

(3) Incised wound 9 cm x 2 cm x bone deep just left to nose inside starting from left eye upto chin.

(4) Incised wound 8 cm x 2.5 cm on left side of neck upper part just below left angle of mandible.

   (5)    Incised wound in an area of 5 cm x 3 cm x muscle 	deep on left side of front of shoulder. 
 
(6) Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on outer aspect of middle part and upper arm.
 
(7) Multiple abraded contusion in area on front of right shoulder.
 
(8) Incised wound 25 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep of middle part of right.
 
(9) Linear abrasion 24 cm long on abdomen above umbilicus.
 
(10) Stab wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm on the abdomen and intestines were coming out.
 
(11) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on front of penis.
 
	In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was stated to be shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. These postmortem reports have been proved as Exhibit Ka-4 and Ka-5, respectively.
 

Record reflects that Raeesh Pal Singh PW-7 again took over investigation on 04.02.2002. He took various steps for completing investigation and filed charge-sheet, Exhibit Ka-14. Thereafter, case was committed to the court of Sessions from where it was made over to the concerned trial court for trial and disposal. Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, who in his turn, heard the accused persons on charge and found prima-facie ground existing for framing charges under aforesaid sections of IPC. Charges were accordingly framed and the same were read over and explained to the accused persons, who denied charges and opted for trial.

The prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused examined as many as ten prosecution witnesses. Brief reference of the same is sketched herein under:-

Mahendri PW-1 is the injured eye-witness of the incident and she claims to have been assaulted by the appellants on the date of occurrence. Yogesh PW-2 is the first informant and he has lodged the written report though he has not witnessed the occurrence. Smt. Mithlesh is PW-3. She claims herself to be an eye-witness of the incident. Dr. A.K. Yadav PW-4 has medically examined Mahender on 10.01.2002 at 6.45 P.M. at District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. He has proved injury report of Mahender, as Exhibit Ka-2. Besides, he has also proved injury report of Smt. Mahendri wife of Mahender as Exhibit Ka-3. Dr. Yogendra Tirkha PW-5 has conducted postmortem examination on the cadavers of deceased Mahender and Lokesh @ Kanha. He has proved his post mortem examination reports Exhibit Ka-4 and Exhibit Ka-5, respectively. Head Constable Om Prakash PW-6 has testified about contents of Check FIR and entries made in the concerned GD on 10.01.2002, whereby case was registered at Crime No.6 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 307 IPC at Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar and has proved Check FIR Exhibit Ka-6 and relevant GD entry Exhibit Ka-7. Raeesh Pal Singh S.S.I PW-7 is the Investigating Officer. He has described the various steps, which he took towards completing investigation and he has also prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, besides, preparing various memos- say- simple and blood stained soil (Exhibit Ka-11). Investigating Officer also prepared recovery memo of two empty cartridges- one- 12 bore and other- 315 bore and also recovered blood stained shovel from house of the accused and prepared memo of the same. Both recovery memo of empty cartridges and shovel are exhibited as Exhibit Ka-12 and Ka-13, respectively. He has also stated about addition of Section 302 IPC in this case on information being received that Lokesh @ Kanha and Mahender have died. He handed over investigation to another Investigating Officer Resham Singh PW-8 on 28.01.2002. However, he again took over investigation on 04.02.2002. He has testified to have completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet, Exhibit Ka-14. Resham Singh PW-8 effected recovery of weapons allegedly used in the commission of offence from the three accused- say- Jitendra, Ompal and Satyedra and has prepared memo recovery as Exhibit Ka-15. Besides, he also prepared site plan of place of recovery Exhibit Ka-16. He has also exhibited certain material objects pertaining to the case. Danvir Giri PW-9 has held inquest of deceased Mahender and Lokesh @ Kanha on 11.01.2002 and has proved the same as Exhibit Ka-17 and Ka-23, respectively. He has also proved preparation of various ancillary papers for sending the dead bodies for postmortem examination. Reference of Sunil Kumar Sharma, Sub Inspector PW-10 need not be made because he was the Investigating Officer of case pertaining to Case Crime No. 31 of 2002 under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, State Vs. Jitendra, in which case Jitendra has been acquitted of aforesaid charge by the trial court and no appeal has been preferred by the State against such acquittal. Therefore, his testimony falls outside consideration.

Thereafter evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein accused persons termed their implication false on account of enmity.

The defence did not lead any testimony on its side.

It has been vociferously urged on behalf of the appellants that in this case, no one has seen the occurrence. All the prosecution witnesses of fact are highly interested witnesses. They being close relatives of the deceased are partisan as well as chance witnesses. Their testimony on the face reflects that they did not see the incident. No injury, whatsoever, was reportedly caused by iron rod in medical examination. Similarly, no injury was caused by use of country-made pistol, as alleged. It appears that someone in the darkness of night had beaten the informant side. The informant side due to animosity and ill-will towards the accused-appellants, lodged the first information report without any justification. The Investigating Officer has not collected worthy and relevant material, which may justify conviction of the appellants. It is case of no evidence against the appellants.

Per contra, learned AGA has urged on behalf of the State that the entire testimony on record is coherent on point of establishment of charges against the appellants. The medical report on record in whatever form is supported by ocular testimony and it cannot be said that the weapons used by the assailants cannot cause such injuries. Here in this case, the liability is joint and vicarious.

Learned AGA has further submitted that mere participation in the incident will attract penalty as provided under law. The injured eye-witness Smt. Mahendri has described the incident in most natural manner and has named all the appellants and stated categorically about them to have committed the crime and has also described the specific manner in which the incident was committed. The Investigating Officer has also prepared site plan of the map and has proved the same which fixes place of occurrence unambiguously.

The testimony of first informant Yogesh PW-2 is innocuous and consistent. He arrived on the spot within few minutes of the occurrence and on his shrieks, the villagers arrived on the spot. There is no motive for false implication while sparing real culprits. Moreover, in the presence of ocular testimony of the occurrence forthcoming from Mahendri-PW-1-the injured witness-itself is sufficient to establish commission of the offence by the accused persons and needs no further corroboration. Injuries on the person of Mahendri PW-1 have been examined by the Dr. A.K. Yadav PW-4 and he has proved the same as Exhibit Ka-3. The doctor witness has specifically stated that injuries on the person of the Smt. Mithlesh and Mahender could have been caused by using sword, shovel and 'tabal'. Therefore, case of the prosecution is consistently proved against the appellants and they deserves no sympathy.

We have also considered the above submissions pros and cons made by both the sides.

In the light of rival submissions and the claim of the appellants and the prosecution, the moot point that arises for adjudication of this appeal relates to fact whether the testimony of the prosecution witnesses of fact is innocuous and the charges framed against the appellants have been proved beyond reasonable doubt or it is case of no evidence as claimed by the appellants?

At the very outset, we may observe that the contents of first information report make out allegation of assault being caused by the appellants against three persons Lokesh @ Kanha, Mahender and Mahendri. It has been described in the FIR that it was on 10.01.2002, first informant Yogesh PW-2 had gone to collect fodder for animal by bullock-cart and he came back home around 4.30 P.M. then he found his house engulfed in quietness. When he went to the rear side of his house, he saw his brother Lokesh @ Kanha, mother Mahendri and father Mahender lying injured. He shrieked after watching such pathetic scene, whereupon a number of villagers arrived on the spot and they told that the incident was caused by the appellants at a time when Lokesh @ Kanha was counselling Prem, Ompal @ Ghola, Jitendra, Ravindra @ Babloo and Satyendra @ Mintu. In the meanwhile, Prem exhorted others to teach him a lesson as Lokesh @ Kanha has become dada.

Thereafter Prem possessing tabal, Ompal possessing iron rod, Jitendra possessing country-made pistol, Ravindra possessing shovel and Satyendra possessing sword swooped upon him (Lokesh @ Kanha), when he raised alarm, his mother Mahendri and father Mahender came down rushing on him and covered their son. They asked assailants not to assault their son but the assailants remained mute to such appeal and kept on assaulting informant's parents and Lokesh @ Kanha. It has been further alleged in the first information report that the incident was witnessed by uncle Vishnu, bhabhi Mithlesh and nephew Sachin. In the concluding effects in the first information report, it was stated that no one came near the injured due to fear of the appellants. When the villagers arrived on the spot, they all noticed that the injured were breathing, therefore, villagers and informant's uncle Vishnu took them to District Hospital, Muzaffarnager by bus. In the meanwhile, the informant (Yogesh) has come to lodge the report.

As per allegations made in the first information report, it is apparent that Smt. Mahendri wife of deceased Mahender had also sustained injuries in the same incident. Her injury report is Exhibit Ka-3, wherein on medical examination by Dr. A.K. Yadav, four incised wounds have been found on her person. These injuries were fresh. There is no suggestion to the doctor that these injuries could not have been so caused on 10.01.2002 around 4.30 P.M., therefore, the presence of PW-1 on the spot is established and her testimony is quite relevant for assessment of correct facts and circumstances of the case.

Smt. Mahendri PW-1 has deposed in her testimony that on fateful day, it was around 4.30 P.M. she along with other family members was at her home. Her son Lokesh @ Kanha was in sahan of the house and was counselling Prem, whereupon Prem got infuriated and exhorted his colleagues to beat him. Thereafter Prem son of Shyam Singh, Ompal @ Ghola son of Shyam Singh, Jitendra @ Pappu, Ravindra @ Babloo and Satyendra @ Mintu came to her house possessing tabal, country-made pistol, iron rod, shovel and sword. As soon as Lokesh @ Kanha sighted them, he rushed into his house and was pursued by the assailants, out of panic when he fell down, Jitendra @ Pappu opened fired on him and asked to kill him. This witness in the meanwhile, covered physique of her son. It has been testified that Prem assaulted by tabal, Ompal @ Ghola assaulted by iron rod, Jitendra @ Pappu assaulted by country-made pistol, Ravindra @ Babloo assaulted by shovel and these persons caused injuries to herself (Mahendri), her husband Mahender and Lokesh @ Kanha.

After committing assault, the assailants fled away from the scene of occurrence by waving their respective weapons. Later on, her son Yogesh came to home and raised alarm, then villagers arrived on the spot and her son took them to the District Hospital where her husband and son expired and she became unconscious. She has been cross-examined by the defence, but nothing adverse of any sort has surfaced which may throw even slightest doubt on veracity of her testimony or may impeach her credibility as eyewitness.

Fact of enmity with the accused persons is also established from her cross-examination and she has also stated that accused Prem and others cherished animosity against her for the last twenty years. It has come in her testimony that shot was fired on Lokesh @ Kanha but it did not hit him although he fell down. She has further stated that accused, who was possessing iron rod gave her one or two blows and other culprits also gave two blows each to Mahender and Lokesh @ Kanha. She has also stated that by using sword, her hand was chopped off. But there is no such injury examined by the doctor like chopping off of her hand.

One thing is apparent on perusal of injury report of PW-1, Exhibit Ka-3 that all the four injuries have been discovered to be incised wounds of various dimensions. Now, it is obvious that only sharp edged weapons were used in the incident because no other abrasion or contusion etc. has been found on the person of Mahendri PW-1. Therefore, it can be easily concluded that use of these weapons like iron-rod, shovel and countrymade pistol was not made in the incident. It appears that in order to rope in some other persons also in the incident, the situation was improved to the extent that the present appellants caused aforesaid injuries by using their respective, weapons, Ompal @ Ghola and Ravindra @ Babloo were stated to have been possessing iron rod and shovel at the time of incident while Jitendra @ Pappu was possessing country-made pistol. Therefore, PW-1 who though happens to be star witness for the prosecution to be improving on use of weapon and number of persons involved in the incident. Had any assault been caused by iron rod, shovel or country-made pistol, then injured must have shown traits with all injuries being caused by use of above weapons. Thus, injuries are not commensurate with use of weapons (iron rod, shovel, country-made pistol), as stated by prosecution witnesses of fact.

Here we may also take into account fact that the doctor witness also found two incised wounds on the person of Mahender and has opined that all injuries could have been caused by sharp edged weapon. Therefore, injury being caused by other weapons, as above, the weapon like sharp edged weapons stands ruled out. Even Dr. Yogendra Tirkha PW-5, who conducted postmortem examination on both the dead bodies of Mahender and Lokesh @ Kanha has not been suggested in his examination-in-chief that any injury on the bodies of aforesaid two deceased was result of assault being caused by either shovel or iron rod or by country-made pistol.

We move on to next relevant aspect of this case regarding presence of other eye-witnesses on the spot. Admittedly, informant arrived at the place of occurrence five minutes after the incident as he found three injured persons in the rear side of his house. As per his testimony, he found quietness prevailing in his house then he went to the rear side of his house where he found his parents Mahender and Mahendri and brother Lokesh @ Kanha lying in injured condition. When he raised alarm then only the villagers arrived on the spot and the incident was narrated to him by these villagers. They noticed that injured were lying and were still breathing. Therefore, they rushed them to the District Hospital, Muzafarnagar by bus. This circumstantial aspect of the case unravels, truth as is evident on fact that except the three injured persons, there was no any other family member of the injured present inside the house or around the house and it were the villagers alone who arrived on the spot after alarm was raised by the first informant.

In this view of the matter, testimony on record when scrutinized and analyzed in all cumulative effect, reflects that the incident at the most was outcome of participation of two accused persons only- say- Prem, who was possessing tabal and Satyendra @ Mintu, who was possessing sword. Here it can be observed that accused Satyendra @ Mintu died during course of trial, therefore, no observation need be made in his case as appeal against him stood abated.

The place of occurrence is also supported by the testimony of the Investigating Officer, who also prepared the site plan, Exhibit Ka-10. In view of above conspicuous testimony, no doubt can be expressed on the incident. However, participation of Ompal @ Ghola, Jitendra @ Pappu and Ravindra @ Babloo in the incident is found to be doubtful, for the reason that they were possessing iron rod, country-made pistol and shovel, respectively. But injuries on the person of the injured (PW-1) and bodies of the two deceased cannot be said to have been caused by use of these weapons (iron-rod, pistol and shovel) and does not conform to use of these weapons allegedly possessed by aforesaid three persons. Therefore, their participation in the incident is rendered doubtful.

The learned trial court while appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case misread testimony on record as well as specific circumstances of this case and role played by the accused persons. The fact, whether their participation in the incident was satisfactorily proved, rested solely on use of their respective weapons- iron rod, country-made pistol and shovel-which they were allegedly possessing was not established in reasonable manner and without adverting to such question, the trial court was not justified in recording finding of conviction against aforesaid three persons, which finding in the absence of supporting material becomes perverse and illegal.

It is settled principles of criminal jurisprudence that in case any doubt creeps in in the prosecution story then benefit invariably goes to the accused persons. Therefore, theory of benefit of doubt always works in favour of accused against whom reasonable doubt is created as to whether they in fact participated in the crime or not and, if circumstances conjointly with fact appearing in testimony of the prosecution witnesses overwhelmingly allude to inference that their participation in the crime is rendered doubtful, then the natural and relevant conclusion would go in favour of accused by giving them benefit of doubt.

Therefore, participation of Ompal @ Ghola, Jitendra @ Pappu and Ravindra @ Babloo is rendered doubtful and as such their conviction on the face becomes perverse and erroneous on the charges in question, whereas, conviction of Prem one of the present appellants deserves to be sustained because, among the surviving appellants he alone is said to have been possessing tabal- a sharp edged weapon and his participation in the incident cannot be ruled out looking to the nature of injuries caused on the informant side. Therefore, his (accused Prem) conviction recorded by the trial court is approved and sustained by us.

We may sum up that the appeal on behalf of Ompal @ Ghola, Jitendra @ Pappu and Ravindra @ Babloo is allowed and they are acquitted of all charges framed against them and the appeal qua appellant Prem is dismissed.

The impugned the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.09.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No.306 of 2003 arising out of Case Crime No.6 of 2002, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 and 452 IPC, Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar, stands modified in terms aforesaid.

In this case, the accused-appellant Ravindra @ Babloo is in jail. He be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case after ensuring compliance under Section 437A Cr.P.C. Appellants Om Pal @ Ghola and Jitendra @ Pappu are already on bail in this case. Their personal bonds along with surety bonds stand cancelled. They need not surrender in this case. However, they shall furnish surety bonds in compliance with Section 437A Cr.P.C.

Accused-appellant Prem is in jail in this case. He shall serve out the remaining sentence imposed on him by the trial court.

Let a copy of this judgment/order be certified to the court concerned for necessary informant and follow up action.

Dt. 04.10.2016

Iss/RK