State Of U.P. vs K.P. Singh & Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 8057 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

										   AFR
 
Reserved
 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3448 of 2002
 
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
 
Respondent :- K.P. Singh & Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Shailendra Kumar,Abhai Raj Singh,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Arun Kumar Srivastava,Harsh Vardhan Shastri
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ali Murtaza, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.-appellant and Sri Harsh Vardhan Shastri, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 7 as well as Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 6 & 8.

2. The instant government appeal is directed against impugned judgement and order dated 8.5.2002 passed by Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act) in Special Criminal Case No.31 of 1994 (State Versus K.P. Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 157-A of 1994, Police Station Kunwar Gaon, District Budaun whereby he acquitted accused-respondent no.1, Krishna Pal Singh, the then Station House Officer, Police Station Kunwar Gaon,District Budaun under Section 7/13 (1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act and also acquitting, respondent no.1, K.P.Singh and Constable Chamakar Singh, Constable Bhimsen, Constable Mazeed Ahmad, Constable Karan Singh, Constable Suresh Chandra, Constable Rajendra Singh and Constable Ram Saran under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B, 343, 220 I.P.C.

3. The prosecution version as narrated in the F.I.R. lodged by PW 5, Krishnapal Singh at Police Station Kunwar Gaon, District Budaun on 12.9.1994 at 3 p.m. in brief is that about eight days' back at about 4 p.m. the police of Police Station Kunwar Gaon, District Budaun had taken away his brother,Deshraj Singh and detained him at the police station. At that time, the informant and others were working in fields. Station House Officer Incharge, Krishnapal Singh (hereinafter referred to as ''SO') along with other police personnel had taken his brother and did not disclose as to under what charge he was taken by them. Deshraj Singh was not challaned in any criminal case till 11.9.1994 and he was continuously beaten during these days. On 12.9.1994 in the morning SO and others badly thrashed Deshraj Singh and then set him on fire after pouring petrol on him on account of which Deshraj Singh got badly burnt. The policemen did not give any information and he was taken to the hospital. When first informant along with others were going to Budaun on 12.9.1994 in connection with some work and they saw that in the same bus, his brother in badly burnt condition was in the bus along with SO and others. On being inquired, Deshraj Singh has told him that SO and others have set him ablaze after pouring petrol. The deceased, Deshraj Singh succumbed to the burnt injuries in the hospital. On the application of first informant, PW 5, Superintendent of Police,Budaun directed for registration of F.I.R. Consequently, the F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No.157-A of 1994 under Sections 302/342 I.P.C. against the SO, K.P. Singh and others. On the orders of S.P. Budaun, the investigation was entrusted to CBCID. On 14.9.1994, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot i.e. premises of police station and prepared site-plan as Ext. Ka-5 by the prosecution. In the site-plan place ''A' is shown as the room of Inspector and the Investigating Officer noted that blackening was present on the ceiling, walls and other places. Half burnt dress of a homeguard found hanging on the wall in the same room was taken in possession and the same was also sealed. Its recovery memo was also prepared. From place of incident, burnt skin, ashes of burnt clothes were also taken in possession, recovery memos whereof were prepared on 14.9.1994. During trial the genuineness of these recovery memos was admitted and its formal proof was dispensed with by the defence. On 14.9.1994 itself kerosene container lying outside the police office in the verandah was taken in possession in which two litres of kerosene was found which according to the police was used by the deceased, Deshraj Singh in committing suicide after pouring kerosene on himself. Its recovery memo was also prepared on 14.9.1994. The defence also admitted genuineness of it and its formal proof was dispensed with. We may record that the defence has admitted the genuineness of documents and did not challenge the recovery of aforesaid incriminating articles. We may further record that post mortem report on the dead body of deceased, Deshraj was conducted on 12.9.1994 at 5.40 p.m. at District Hospital Budaun, in which ante mortem superficial to deep burnt over whole of body except both soles and some others parts was present. Doctor noted that deceased sustained 99% burns and cause of death was opined to be shock as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. The genuineness of post mortem was also admitted by the defence counsel by making note on the said report formal proof was dispensed with on 22.4.2002. The post mortem report is Ext. Ka-2.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that PW 8, Brij Pal Singh was medically examined on 17.9.1994 at 11.50 p.m. on his own. The injuries found on his person are as under:-

1. Traumatic swelling 10 x 6cm on face, right side back of chest outer region.

2. Traumatic swelling 5 x 3 cm in outer dorsum of right hand, kept under observation and X-ray of right hand posterior and lateral sides was advised.

3. Traumatic swelling 5 cm x 4 cm on the lateral aspect of right ankle joint.

4. Complain of pain on the chest back, both buttocks, legs, both hands, back of neck.

Injury nos. 1,3 and 4 were simple. Injury no.2 was kept under observation and X-ray of posterior and lateral side of right hand was advised. Caused by hard and blunt object. No definite opinion can be given regarding duration.

5. It is noteworthy that said medical examination was done on the application given by PW 8, that the police had taken him to the police station on 5.9.1994 and was beaten up there and he had received injuries on account of it. The formal proof of his injury report was also dispensed with by the defence counsel and the same has been exhibited as Ext. Ka-7.

6. According to the prosecution one Dharamvir alias Pappu S/o of Satpal Resident of Yusufnagar, Police Station Kunwar Gaon, District Budaun was also detained at the police station he was beaten and given 3rd degree treatment. He was medically examined on 12.9.1994 i.e. the date of incident at 5.45 p.m. at District Hospital,Buduan and following injuries were found on his person:-

1. Healed scar cut with dry scab and healing base 5 cm x 1 cm on back of left forearm, 4 cm above left wrist joint.

2. Healed wound cut with scab left its place 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on back of right forearm, 9 cm above right wrist.

3. Scabbed scratches on right and left ear lobule.

4. Swelling on both soles. Tenderness limitedly. Difficulty in walking.

5. Complaint of pain on both hips. Tenderness elicited.

6. Reddish contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on midlines at L3 and L4 vertebrae. Opinion, no.1 to 5 duration between 5 to 7 days. Injury no.6 duration within half day. Nature- simple, caused by blunt object.

Formal proof of this report was also dispensed with by the defence counsel on 6.5.2002 and the same is exhibited as Ext. Ka-8. The deceased, Deshraj Singh while alive was examined on 12.9.1994 at 11 a.m. in the same hospital and superficial to deep burn injuries on whole body was noted. Its duration was fresh. Its formal proof of this report was also dispensed with by defence counsel and marked as Ext. Ka-9.

7. Now, the Investigating Officer after obtaining requisite sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the SO,KP Singh, submitted chargesheet against him under Section 3 (1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Actand other accused respondents were charge-sheeted under Sections 218, 220, 302, 323, 342, 324 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. Charges were framed against the accused-respondents by the trial court and they were put to trial.

8. In order to prove its case prosecution produced 12 witnesses, namely, PW1, Dr Mohd. Miya, PW 2 Ram Niwas,PW 3, Atar Singh, PW 4 Qamaruddin, PW 5 Krishnapal Singh (first informant), PW 6 Surendrapal Singh, PW 7 Bhanu Pratap Singh, PW 8 Brijpal Singh,PW 9 Mahendra Singh, PW 10 Ashok Kumar Singh, PW 11 Shyamvir Singh and PW 12 N.P. Deshwal, Inspector, CBCID.

9. All the accused respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution was put to them to which they denied about their involvement in the present incident.

10. Accused-respondent no.1,the SO has stated that a case of theft was registered and for the purpose of investigation Deshraj Singh was called at the police station where he attempted to suicide. An F.I.R. was lodged by him vide Case Crime No.157 of 1994 under Section 309 I.P.C. on 12.9.1994 and thereafter he immediately sent for treatment along with Constables to District Hospital, Budaun and also forwarded this information immediately to senior police officers on RT set. In defence, respondent accused, Krishnapal Singh examined himself as DW 1.

11. The trial court disbelieved prosecution version while recording that there are several material contradictions in the version of witnesses produced by the prosecution by the aforesaid impugned judgement and order which is challenged in this government appeal.

12. Learned A.G.A. in support of his argument submitted that the trial court has committed manifest illegality and error of law by misreading of evidence on record and has challenged the same on the following grounds inter alia;

I) It is admitted case of the respondent no.1 that deceased Deshraj Singh was taken to the police station and he received burn injuries as he attempted to commit suicide of self-immolation. However, the accused have failed to discharge onus as contemplated under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act as to how and under what circumstances,the deceased could immolate himself while in the custody of police.

II) As per the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the deceased Deshraj Singh did not immolate himself in the police lockup or verandah, but in Sub Inspector's room and as shown in the site plan.

III) The prosecution has adduced the evidence of four independent witnesses, namely, PW1, Dr Mohd. Miya, PW 2 Ram Niwas,PW 3, Atar Singh, PW 4 Qamaruddin whose shops are situated in front of police station and they have supported the prosecution case. They were not cross-examined in defence and there was no reason to discard the deposition of these witnesses. There are also eye-witnesses of taking away the deceased by SO and other constables and PW 8 and PW 9, namely,Brijpal and Mahendra Singh were arrested and were in the custody of the police and have deposed that Deshraj and Pappu were in police lock up. Their testimony has wrongly been discarded by the trial court. The trial court has committed grave error of law by ignoring the testimony of reliable prosecution witnesses merely because of some minor contradictions and that the witnesses were related to the deceased.

IV) Lastly, it is submitted that there is no embargo upon the appellate court against the judgement and order of acquittal to review and reappreciate the evidence on record on which trial court has returned the finding of acquittal.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents,Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava has made following submissions inter alia:

1) The so-called independent witnesses PW 1 to PW 4 have not nominated any accused.

2) There is no specific role or any overact assigned to accused-respondents no. 2 to 8 either in the F.I.R. or in the statements of the witnesses except PW 9 Mahendra Singh and PW 11 Shyamvir, no other witnesses have claimed themselves to be eye-witness of the incident.

3) There is no evidence against respondent nos. 2 to 8. There is no reliable evidence against accused-respondents prove the charges under Sections 302, 343, 120-B I.P.C. and also under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against respondent no.1. The trial court has rightly acquitted accused respondents as prosecution has failed its case beyond shadow of respondent.

4) He submitted that the apex court has held in catena of decisions that judgement of acquittal should not be reversed unless it appears that impugned judgement is perverse and if two views are possible on the evidence on record, one to the guilt of the accused and other to his/their innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted and thus the Government Appeal has no merit and it may be dismissed.

14. Before dealing with submission made by learned counsel for the parties, we would like to discuss the evidence adduced by the prosecution in brief.

15. PW 1, Dr. Mohd. Miya in his deposition has stated that he is practising medicine and his shop is situated in front of Police Station Kunwargaon, 6-7 days prior to 12.9.1994, he had seen deceased, Deshraj Singh in the police station and there were two other accused along with him. On 12.9.1994 at 9-10 a.m., he heard some shrieks and saw that the policemen were running helter-skelter to get water and then he learnt that Deshraj is burnt. Thereafter policemen took him to Budaun by bus and before that SO, K.P.Singh had also called doctor for his treatment. Then he learnt that Deshraj later on died. It appears that defence had only put one question to which he had admitted that it is trued that he had not seen the accused- K.P. Singh and others beating the deceased, Deshraj Singh. Apart from it, no suggestion of any kind was made by defence that as stated by him, he had seen Deshraj Singh about 6-7 days' back is false. Deposition of this witness is uncontroverted as far as the deceased Deshraj Singh was seen at the police station about 6-7 days prior to the incident.

16. PW 2, Ram Niwas in his deposition stated that his tailoring shop is located in front of police station which is existing for past 7-8 years. He has stated that he had seen deceased, Deshraj Singh being brought at the police station and he was also interrogated after beating him. On the date of the incident at 8-9 a.m. he came to know that Deshraj Singh had got burnt and the police then took him to the hospital. On being cross-examined by the defence he had given one line answer that he had not seen any of the accused, beating Deshraj Singh which is true. As no suggestion was made by the defence that he was making a false statement about 3rd degree treatment by the police on Deshraj Singh. The fact of interrogation of Deshraj after torturing him was not denied by the defence or any suggestion to the contrary was given to this witness in cross-examination.

17. Similarly PW 3 and PW 4, namely, Atar Singh and Qamaruddin are also independent witnesses whose shops are also located in front of police station. The trial court has disbelieved their testimony. We may record that no suggestion of any kind was also given by the defence to the said witnesses also.

18. PW 5, Krishnapal Singh is the first informant of the case and cousin of deceased, Deshraj. He has stated that police had taken Deshraj from his field and was detained in police lockup for 6-7 days and was not challaned in any criminal case. He has further deposed that on 12.9.1994 he was going to Budaun by bus. The bus was stopped by the police at Police Station Kunwar Gaon. He saw that they were carrying Deshraj in a blanket. He went to the seat of Deshraj who told him that he has been burnt by K.P. Singh, SO and others by pouring kerosene on him at the police station and set him ablaze. He has further disclosed that K.P.Singh had taken his signature on a blank paper. His brother Deshraj then succumbed to the burn injuries in hospital. Thereafter, he got the application typed and submitted to Superintendent of Police, Budaun on which F.I.R. was registered. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he is not an eye-witness of the incident in the police station. He has only seen his brother in burnt state in the bus. He has further admitted that he did not know the names of police constables who were accompanying SO, K.P.Singh when his brother was taken to the police station. He has further admitted that prior to lodging of the report, he did not move any application about wrongful confinement of Deshraj at the police station and for his release to the higher police authorities as father of Deshraj, Sri Balister Singh used to go to the police station to give food to his son and police used to assure him for his release very soon. However, he was also not permitted to meet him and police gave him assurance that he will be released. In his cross-examination he has stated that when Deshraj was arrested by the police, he did not ask the reason for his arrest from police. He had scribed the F.I.R. himself and then got typed it. He had denied that the F.I.R. was written by any Munshi. The trial court has observed that he has made contradictions in his statement with regard to the scribe of the F.I.R. by a clerk or by himself and, therefore, said witness is a liar. His testimony has been discarded on the ground that it was very surprising that he, being so close to the deceased, did not even ask the police as to why they were taking him to the police station. His conduct reveals that he was not present on the spot when the policemen took Deshraj to the police station. The trial judge has also laid emphasis to reject his testimony that as the witness has admitted that for 7-8 days he did not go to the police station and he is not a witness of torture by police and even setting him on fire which also proves that facts mentioned in the F.I.R. are totally false. Further, said witness did not make any effort to complain to the higher police authorities though he had studied upto Class-VIII and if at all his version was true, he would have lodged complaint against police for not challaning Deshraj in any criminal case. The trial court while disbelieving the testimony of this witness has referred to some minor contradictions between his statement in court and recorded during investigation by Inspector, CBCID. Another reason recorded by the trial court is that real brother of the deceased actually did not lodge any report against police reflects that version set up by this witness is not true. Apart from it,the trial court has recorded that as the said witness has admitted that against father of Deshraj, certain criminal cases of assault are pending, it proves that his father, Ballister Singh was a history-sheeter. At this juncture, we may record that there is no evidence adduced by the defence that father of Deshraj was a history-sheeter and they nursed grievance against local police. We could also not find anything material elicited by the defence to discard the testimony of PW 5 and the said witness has proved the fact of arrest by respondent-accused, SO, K.P.Singh 7-8 days prior to his murder. However, we may record that the said witness has named only named SO K.P.Singh and Sub Inspector, S.P.Singh and said witness has identified SO, K.P.Singh only in the court. In his cross-examination he has candidly admitted that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he had not disclosed the names of any constable and he does not even know their names, even today. In fact, from testimony of PW 5, it is clear that he has unequivocally stated that on account of fear of police he did not go to the police station or lodge any complaint. He has further admitted that he knew that at Police Station Kunwar Gaon, District Budaun, the aforesaid Inspectors were posted. He also did not name respondent-constables either in the F.I.R. or in the statement before the court. Admittedly, no identification was held during investigation to fix identity of respondent nos. 2 to 8. Defence has not been able to dislodge his deposition so far as identity of respondent no.1, SO concerned. We may further clarify that during investigation SO K.P.Singh and Sub Inspector S.P.Singh along with other police constables were found to be involved in the case. However, Sub Inspector,S.P. Singh died during trial.

19. PW 6, Surendra Pal Singh has deposed that Deshraj Singh is his distantly related brother and the police had taken Deshraj at 4 p.m. on 5.9.1994 in front of him from the field. In the police party, there were two Sub Inspectors, K.P.Singh and S.P. Singh. He has further stated that he has heard that police had killed Deshraj Singh. In his cross-examination nothing much has been elicited by the defence from this witness except that he does not know the number and name of policemen deputed at the police station. We may observe that said witness has only named two inspectors and did not name any of the constables accompanying them. The trial court has discarded his testimony solely on the ground that he kept silent for so many days and did not to the S.P. and D.M. for making complaint against the policemen regarding atrocities being committed with Deshraj at the police station. In our opinion, barring few minor contradictions, the defence could not elicit any material for the court to disbelieve testimony of this witness regarding involvement of respondent,SO, K.P.Singh.

20. PW 7, Bhanu Pratap Singh in his deposition has stated that he is the brother of Deshraj. On 3.9.1994 theft had taken place at the house of one Yaduraj Singh. On that day itself, the Investigating Officer had arrested, Shyamvir and had taken him to the police station. Then on 5.9.1994 when he was working in the field along with his brother, Deshraj and others, at about 4-5 p.m.,SO, K.P.Singh, Sub Inspector, S.P.Singh along with 5-6 constables came along with Shyamvir who was handcuffed, then Sub Inspectors, arrested his brother Deshraj and then came to the village and also arresed Dharamvir alias Pappu and took all of them to the police station. Deshraj was detained at the police station for one week but on account of fear and terror of police he could not dare to go to the police station. His father, Ballister Singh used to take food for Deshraj and Pappu. He used to inform him that they are being tortured in the police station. On 12.9.1994, he came to know that police has set ablaze his brother, Deshraj after pouring kerosene and he was taken to the hospital. On reaching the hospital, he found that his brother had died. At the very outset in his cross-examination he has admitted that he did not disclose the names of constables as he did not know their names and even today he cannot tell their names. They were 7-8 in number. In the same breathe he has stated that after his brother was taken on 5.9.1994, he was terror stricken due to which he did not visit the police station. The trial court while discarding testimony of this witness by recording that he is an interested witness and he did not name any of the constables and they were not even put up for identification during investigation. He has also not given description of the constables. Another reason for disbelieving his testimony is that for so many days he did not move an application to the higher authorities.

21. PW 8, Brijpal Singh in his deposition has stated that he was arrested by police constables and was detained by them in police lockup for 4-5 days. He was later on challaned for having Charas in his possession. When he was detained in police station, Deshraj and Pappu were also lodged in police lockup and both of them were beaten by both Sub Inspectors and has also taken names of respondent constables. He has stated that he knew all the accused as they used to visit their village. He was also beaten by the police due to which his hand also got fractured. In his cross-examination he has stated that after illegally detaining him for about 4-5 days, he was challaned in a false case for possession of Charas. On 10.9.1994 after his release on bail he got himself medically examined on 17.9.1994 as noted earlier. His medical examination has been proved as Ext. Ka-7 as the formal proof of his injury report was dispensed with by the defence, which also supports his version of 3rd degree treatment meted out to him. However, in his cross-examination he has admitted that he did not disclose the names of any of the constables to the Investigating Officer. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that he is not the witness of killing of Deshraj as he was already lodged in jail. We find from the cross-examination that the defence has not been able to dislodge the testimony of this witness who has received injuries during detention which has not been challenged in any manner, whatsoever. His testimony, therefore, inspires confidence that he was detained in the police station for 4-5 days in connection with theft of gun of Yaduraj Singh and the deceased,Deshraj was also detained at the police station. Accused,Dharamvir alias Pappu though not examined by the prosecution during trial but his injury has been brought on record whose discussion has already been made. He was examined on 12.09.1994 at about 4.45 p.m. and the duration of the injuries has also been discussed earlier. Formal proof of his injury report was dispensed with by the defence. Therefore, there remains no doubt that the said injured was arrested along with Deshraj and was given 3rd degree treatment by the police. PW 8 has admittedly not witnessed the incident which took place on 12.9.1994. The trial court has disbelieved his testimony on the ground that there is no medical report in support of his version that he was beaten by the police in which there was fracture in his hand. Though he has stated that when he was produced before the Magistrate, he had told him that the police had broken his hand. We may observe that as the police was being prosecuted and the investigation was also conducted by their colleagues, the possibility of Investigating Officer making no effort to collect X-ray report of said witness who admittedly was challaned under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act cannot be ruled out.

22. PW 9, Mahendra Singh has stated that Yaduraj Singh had lodged F.I.R. at the police station against Shyamvir Singh PW 11. Master Yaduraj Singh also bore enmity with him and on 3.9.1994, police had arrested Shyamvir Singh and later on, on 7.9.1994 he, Virendra and Ashok were also arrested by the police in connect with theft of gun of Yaduraj Singh. For their release SO, K.P.Singh had demanded Rs.25,000/- from him and one of his associates, Ashok was let off and he came back making an arrangement of Rs.18,000/- and after greasing palms of 'Darogaji' without naming anyone as bribe, they were released. He has also stated that his rifle and cartridges were also taken by the police. He has further stated that he had learnt that Yaduraj Singh sprinkled kerosene oil on Deshraj and Darogaji set him on fire. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he was arrested by the police on 7th September,1994 along with two others and then let off on the same day. After scanning the testimony of this witness carefully, we also find that his testimony is not trustworthy and reliance can be placed on his statement inasmuch the setting Deshraj ablaze is merely basis of hearsay and the said witness being the real uncle of Shyamvir, he has developed story of passing bribe to Darogaji without disclosing any name. We find that this witness has gone to the extent of stating that in order to extract confession from Deshraj, Yaduraj Singh has poured keresene on Deshraj and Darogaji has set him ablaze. It appears that on account of enmity with Yaduraj and close proximity with SO, he has fabricated the demand of bribe, etc. and his illegal detention. We are not inclined to believe testimony of this witness.

23. PW 10 Ashok Kumar has stated that on 7.9.1994 Sub Inspector and 5-6 policemen had arrested him, his father-Virendra and uncle Mahendra Singh in connection with the theft of gun. For their release a demand of Rs.25,000/- was made as bribe, they were let off after he made arrangement of Rs.18,000/- as bribe which was paid to S.I. S.P.Singh on 7.9.1994. We may record that the trial court has not committed any illegality in discarding the testimony of this witness about passing on the bribe to S.P. Singh, Sub Inspector on behalf of SO, K.P.Singh. His evidence about death of Deshraj is also based on hearsy to which no legal sanctity can be attached. At that juncture, we also do not find force in the statements of PW 9 amd PW 10 regarding demand of illegal gratification to respondent, SO K.P. Singh. He has rightly been acquitted by the trial court for the offence under Sections 7/13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

24. Last witness and the star witness of present case is PW 11, Shyamvir Singh. He has stated that he was on inimical terms with master Yaduraj Singh. In the year 1994 theft took place in his house in which he was named by him in the F.I.R. He was arrested by the police from his village on 3.9.1994. After his arrest, he was continuously tortured by S.O, K.P.Singh and Constables Sardar, Dewan, Bhimsen Singh and Majeed Ahmad. He was detained at the police station till 13.9.1994. During this period, Pappu and Deshraj were also arrested and were detained at the police station. Mahendra Singh, Virendra and Ashok were also arrested and after detaining them for a day, they were let off. He has also stated that on 12.9.1994, Deshraj and Pappu and he were badly beaten by the police. S.P.Singh and K.P. Singh retorted that Deshraj is not going to tell truth and after getting kerosene oil it was poured by Yaduraj Singh and SO, K.P. Singh set him ablaze. He was detained in police lockup and was challaned on 13.9.1994. He was forcibly made to sign on a paper. Thereafter S.O. K.P. Singh and other policemen took him to Budaun where Deshraj succumbed. He was detained in Hawalat and on 13.9.1994 he was challaned. He was also forced to write on a paper under duress that he had committed theft and also that Deshraj had poured kerosene oil and set himself ablaze. The gun of Yaduraj was recovered from other miscreants. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was challaned as an accused in the theft case and was released on bail on 17.9.1994. He remained in illegal custody at Police Station Kunwargaon for about nine days in the theft case, except him no other accused was challaned. Brij Pal P.W.8 was challaned in the case of recovery of Charas. He has further admitted that he has no knowledge as to how many Police personnel are posted at the said police station. None of the accused was put up for identification before him. He further stated that Deshraj was brought to the police station after two days of his arrest. It is further stated by him that after one month of the incident he has disclosed about the incident of Deshraj to the Investigating Officer and in this behalf he did not make any complaint to Higher Police Authorities or Administrative officials. He has categorically denied to the suggestion made by defence that he is a man of criminal propensity and several cases are pending against him. The defence, however, could not confront him regarding his involvement in any criminal case except one case under Section 325 IPC to which he has stated that he was falsely implicated. The trial Court disbelieved and discarded the testimony of these witnesses on a finding that he is a man of criminal propensity and has not produced any document especially the telegram which is stated to have been sent by his brother to higher authorities about his illegal detention for so many days. The trial Court also doubted the credibility of his testimony on the ground that neither he nor family members of Deshraj reported the matter against the Police to any higher Police officers and the said witness has admitted that the shop of the tailor, P.W.4 Qamaruddin is situated in front of the Police Station. However, he has also not supported the prosecution version and has simply stated that he cannot say as to how Deshraj caught fire. Therefore, as the said witness was an accused in the theft case and was also challaned, he is deposing falsely against the appellants. Further, if he was given third degree treatment, he certainly would have got medically examined. We have perused the statement of P.W.1 thoroughly and we could not decipher anything very material to discard his testimony so far as participation and involvement of respondent-accused S.O. is concerned. He made no mistake in making direct and specific allegation against him and as per the admitted case of defence also he was arrested along with Pappu and Deshraj and the defence has not made any suggestion that he was not challaned on 13.9.1994.

25. Now we examine the testimony of P.W.12 the Inspector C.B.C.I.D., Sri N.P. Deshwal who has given the details of the steps taken by him towards investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the respondents-accused.

26. Now we proceed to deal with the defence evidence and to appreciate the entire prosecution version in its light. In defence, the respondent-accused S.O. Krishna Pal Singh, himself, examined as D.W.1. He has stated that in the year 1994 he was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Kunwargaon District Budaun. During his posting Master Yaduraj Singh lodged a report of theft in his house registered as Crime No.154 of 1994 under Sections 380, 457 IPC in which accused Shyam Veer P.W.11 and two others Ram Veer and Suwa Singh were named. In connection with the investigation of this case on 12.9.1994 he had arrested named, accused, Shyamveer and on disclosure of names of two other accused,viz. Deshraj and Pappu, they were also arrested on that day. They were brought to Police Station for interrogation and in order to threaten him Deshraj attempted to commit suicide by setting himself on fire in front of the office of Police Station. The exact words stated by him are as under :-

"Poonch Tanch ke Irade se Thana Karyalay ke Kamre se bahar Deshraj Singh ne Dhamkane ke uddesh se apne ko jalane ka prayas kiya aur atm hattya ki koshish ki, iski report dinank 12.9.1994 ko samay 10.10 baje par mere dwara bolne par Head Moharrir Chamakar Singh ne Likhi thi."

27. He has proved the first information report written by Head Moharrir Chamkar Singh as Exhibit Kha-1. The entry of the said first information report is made in G.D. No.16 and it is proved as Exhibit Kha-2. He has also referred to G.D. No.14 dated 12.9.1994 at 9.40 A.M. which is concerning the arrest of accused Shyam Veer and about the disclosure of involvement of accused Pappu and Deshraj along with him. He has further deposed that Deshraj had attempted to commit suicide regarding which he has registered a case under Section 309 IPC and then sent him for treatment and after his death in the Hospital, this false case under Section 302 IPC and case of demand of illegal gratification was foisted on him by Krishna Pal Singh P.W.5. In cross-examination the prosecution has suggested that as he was the S.O. of the Police Station and thus in order to save himself and his other colleague in defence he has fabricated the aforesaid documents to screen from the offence to which he denied. At this juncture, though we will examine the credibility of the evidence of D.W.1 at a later stage yet we may observe that the said witness has also not explained the circumstances under which Deshraj could commit the suicide inside the Police Station and from where he could get kerosene oil and the match sticks. We may record that in the examination-in-chief D.W.1 had stated that Deshraj had attempted to commit suicide in front of the room of Police Station whereas as already noted above the ashes of burnt dress of Home Guard and other incriminating articles to show that in fact Deshraj was burnt inside Sub Inspectors' room in the office of Police Station as shown in the site plan. This material fact completely falsifies the stand taken by the said witness.

28. Before adverting to the correctness of judgement taken by trial judge, we would like to state to the role of the Court while dealing with the judgement of acquittal as has been consistently held by the apex court in several judgements.

29. In State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271, this Court held as follows:

"There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re- appreciate the evidence even where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not."

30. In State of M.P. v. Bachhudas alias Balram and others (2007)9 SCC 135, after referring to Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. and other pronouncements, it has been stated that the principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference.

31. In State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta (2012) 1 SCC 602, after survey of the earlier pronouncements, it has been observed that there is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience.

32. Now we advert to the decisions of the apex court the regarding the manner in which cases of custodial death are to be dealt with and also appreciation of evidence of witnesses. In Gauri Shanker Sharma etc. v. State of U.P. etc., AIR 1990 SC 709, Apex Court held :

"....it is generally difficult in cases of deaths in police custody to secure evidence against the policemen responsible for resorting to third degree methods since they are in charge of police station records which they do not find difficult to manipulate as in this case.

33. In Munshi Singh Gautam (D) versus State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2005 SC 402, the appex court held that peculiar type of cases must be looked at from a prism different from that used for ordinary criminal cases for the reason that in a case where the person is alleged to have died in police custody, it is difficult to get any kind of evidence. The Court observed as under:

"6. Rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence is available of the complicity of the police personnel, who alone can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues.......

7.The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt by the prosecution, at times even when the prosecuting agencies are themselves fixed in the dock, ignoring the ground realities, the fact situation and the peculiar circumstances of a given case, .............often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice-delivery system suspect and vulnerable. In the ultimate analysis society suffers and a criminal gets encouraged.......The courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kinds of crime in a civilised society governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society. Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens recognised by the Indian Constitution and is an affront to human dignity. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/undertrial prisoners or suspects tarnishes the image of any civilised nation and encourages the men in "khaki" to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become a law unto themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady of the very fence eating the crop, the foundations of the criminal justice-delivery system would be shaken and civilisation itself would risk the consequence of heading towards total decay resulting in anarchy and authoritarianism reminiscent of barbarism. The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve, otherwise the common man may tend to gradually lose faith in the efficacy of the system of the judiciary itself, which if it happens, will be a sad day, for anyone to reckon with."

34. Before coming to the acceptability of the evidence of PWs 1 to 11, we may observe that it is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be carefully scrutinized, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence'.

35. After scanning and analyzing the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the testimony of D.W.1, we may record that arrest of Deshraj is admitted by D.W.1, Station House Officer. We have to find out as to whether the arrest of Deshraj was made 6-7 days before the incident or on 12.9.1994 as per the defence of D.W.1. After screening the medical report of Pappu, Exhibit Ka-8 which reflects that the duration of several injuries sustained by him is between 5-7 days and one injury was half day old. As noted above, the genuineness of the injury report of Pappu has remained unchallenged by defence therefore, we hold that Pappu, Deshraj Singh and Shyamveer were arrested much before the incident and not on 12.9.1994.

36. Learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously argued that no explanation has been given by P.W.5, P.W.6 and other witnesses for not lodging any first information report about their illegal detention at the Police Station till 12.9.1994. In this behalf, we may record that no ordinary person especially an illiterate villager would dare to lodge complaint against the Police for the fear and terror of Police and it needs a lot of courage and willingness to take bold risk to his life and liberty and also of his family members. There is nothing unusual and improbable that none of the witnesses have lodged any first information report or sent any complaint about their illegal detention to higher police authorities or after their release on bail in case of some witnesses. However, we may observe that the first information report was lodged by P.W.1 on the same day on 12.9.1994 itself at 3.30 P.M. As per the record the deceased was declared dead in the Hospital at about 12.00 noon on 12.9.1994. The F.I.R. lodged by P.W.1 prima facie appears to be unblemished and contains all the necessary details to pin point towards the guilt of respondent no.1, S.O.

37. We have also carefully perused Exhibit Kha-1, the oral report lodged by S.O., K.P. Singh in which the following fact is given below:

"Samay karib 10 baje din Deshraj Singh ne kamre se Uthkar Karyalay ki Gallery men rakhi mitti ke tel ki Pipiya utha kar Atm Hatya karne hetu apne upar mitti ka tel chhidak kar apne sharir men aag laga li us samay main Thana Adhyaksh va S.I., S.P. Singh Thana Karyalay ke bahar baithe sarkari kam kar rahe they."

38. Even in this report the place of incident is stated to be the gallery of the Police Station which is totally contradicted by the site-plan and other things recovered from a room which also contains blackening on the walls and ceiling, thus, apparently the case set up by D.W.1 is totally false and fabricated and apparently in order to save himself and other Police personnel, the respondent no.1 lodged a false report and fabricated the entries made in the General Diary which were directly under his control. In the F.I.R., Exhibit Ka-1, there is no mention as to from where the deceased could get the match sticks. However, in G.D. no.16 of registration of the first information report lodged by D.W.1, it is mentioned in two hand writings, Exhibit Kha-2 that Deshraj Singh in order to commit suicide took match sticks from the pocket of a shirt kept in the room of a Home Guard. D.W.1 has not stated any such thing in his statement recorded during trial and under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The entry made in the General Diary by the naked eye also appears to be fabricated and concocted.

39. We further find that the trial Court has committed grave miscarriage of justice in discarding the testimony of independent witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4, especially P.W.1 who has stated on oath that 6-7 days before 12.9.1994 he had seen deceased Deshraj at the Police Station along with two others. At the cost of repetition, we may record that the witness P.W.2, Ram Niwas whose tailoring shop is in front of the Police Station has stated that he had seen Deshraj at the Police Station and the Police used to interrogate him after beating. He was asked only one question to which he replied that it is true that he has not seen Deshraj being beaten by the accused. As admittedly the entire episode of burning of Deshraj had taken place inside the Police Station, there was absolutely no possibility of any third person entering the premises of Police Station to be an eye witness of the same. The presence of respondent no.1 is admitted by him and also by P.W.11 and other witnesses. No suggestion was made to P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the cross-examination that they were telling a lie about the arrest of Deshraj 6-7 days prior to incident and also third degree treatment being given to him.

In HALSBURY 4 Ed. Vol. 17, Para-278 Page 194, it is observed "failure to cross-examine the witnesses of some material part of his evidence, or at all may be treated as acceptance of the truth of that part or the whole of his evidence."

40. Matter of cross-examination is not a mere empty formality, but one is required to put its own case in cross-examination, otherwise version of the witnesses has to be taken as unchallenged. Therefore, the testimony of the independent witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4 remains unchallenged.

41. Before going further, we arrive at a conclusion that so far as the respondent nos.2 to 8 are concerned, they were neither named in the first information report nor put up for identification by any of the witnesses during investigation. Their names were also not known to the witnesses as admitted by them. The prosecution has failed to establish their participation and involvement in the alleged illegal arrest of Deshraj, Pappu and Shyamveer and also their involvement in setting the deceased Deshraj on fire. The acquittal recorded by the trial Court against them requires no interference. We are also of the view that all the constables who were posted at the police station cannot be hauled up and held guilty unless their involvement and participation is established by any reliable and cogent evidence. The case of the respondent nos.2 to 8 is totally different from that of the respondent no.1. In a case of police custody like the present one we would like to keep in mind the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proof is upon him.

42. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Versus State of Maharashtra-(2006) 10 SCC 681 Hon'ble Apex Court 12. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC 315 quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271). The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. ..... Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.

43. The question of burden of proof where some facts are within the personal knowledge of the accused was examined in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors (2000) 8 SCC 382. This Court took note of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and laid down the following principle: The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty.

44. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order and the evidence on record and considering the entire picture, we are of the opinion, that there are glaring circumstances and evidence on record which have not at all been assessed or appreciated by the trial Court, the arrest of Deshraj, deceased, Pappu, injured and Shyamveer P.W.11 is an admitted fact. All these accused after their alleged arrest were made to sit in front of the office of the Police Station as disclosed by S.O. Krishna Pal Singh, does not influence this Court at all. The fact that from where the deceased got inflammable articles like kerosene oil to set him ablaze, has not at all been negated by any of the accused-policemen. The trial Court has not discussed the post-mortem report at all in the judgment. Though we do not find the presence of any injury underneath the burn injury which was 99% on the whole body of Deshraj but there appears to be probability that while he was detained, he was beaten by the Police to exert pressure for confession. We find that according to prosecution witnesses the deceased was detained for several days at the Police Station Kunwargaon where he was given regular beating and was forced to confess his guilt. The deposition of the witnesses in this behalf is reliable as for as the respondent no.1, S.O. Krishna Pal Singh is concerned. The other S.I. S.P. Singh died during trial. In a case where an offence of this nature of custodial death which was committed within four walls of the Police Station, it would not be possible to adduce evidence of any public witness by the prosecution.

45. P.W. 5 has categorically stated that he was not permitted to meet Deshraj in the Police Station and the Police had done so to save its skin. The evidence of the witnesses had to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances available before the trial Court as observed by the Apex Court as quoted above. The trial Court has failed in its duty to discard the defence documents Exhibit Kha-1 and Kha-2 and other two General Diaries entry which only indicates that the same have been manipulated by respondent no.1 to save his skin. The preparation of these records before shifting the deceased to the Hospital who according to record was admitted at 11 P.M. speaks volume of fabrication by respondent no.1.

46. The trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution witnesses and discarded their evidence on the basis of some minor contradictions in their statements which were quite natural and has not appreciated that at least P.W.5 had the courage and audacity to go against the police and lodged the first information report on the same day at 3.00 P.M. naming, especially respondent no.1-K.P. Singh.

47. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the guidelines issued by the Apex Court from time to time that the case of custodial deaths have to be looked at from a prism different from that used for ordinary criminal cases for the reason that in any case where the person is alleged to have died in Police custody, it is difficult to get any kind of direct evidence. We may further record that the story of committing suicide by the deceased, Deshraj also appears to be false, on the face of it inasmuch as he was not a criminal and if at all he was simply called by S.O. K.P. Singh for the purposes of interrogation, he would not have dared to take such a drastic step of committing suicide specially when defence have not explained as to how the deceased could get kerosene oil and the match sticks to set himself ablaze. None of these material facts have been considered, discussed and appreciated by the trial Court so far as the respondent no.1, S.O. Krishna Pal Singh is concerned. We would further like to clarify that the conduct of respondent no.1, S.O. is very relevant and there is sufficient evidence on record to show that he fabricated evidence to screen / absolve himself from the evidence, therefore, the circumstances appearing against him points towards his guilt.

48. Now, considering the entire picture as culled out is that prosecution has successfully anointed guilt of respondent no.1-Krishna Pal Singh and there is nothing on the record to confer benefit of doubt on him even on preponderance of probabilities. It was the duty of the learned trial Judge to fathom out the truth and separate grain from chaff. This requires a distinguishable and analytical examination of evidence on record which the trial Court has failed to observe and, therefore, his conclusion suffers from vices of absurd and livid reasons.

49. The precipitated residue of our above discussions are that this State appeal against accused-respondents no.2 to 8 viz. Constables Majid Ahmad, Ram Saran, Bhim Sen, Rajendra Singh, Suresh Chandra, Karan Singh and Chamakar Singh is dismissed and their acquittal by the impugned judgment and order is hereby affirmed. These accused-respondents are on bail, they need not surrender, their personal and surety bonds are hereby discharged. The said appeal against acquittal of respondent no.1-S.I. Krishna Pal Singh under Section 7/(13)(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is dismissed and his acquittal under the said sections is hereby affirmed.

50. This State appeal is allowed against respondent no.1-S.I. Krishna Pal Singh and he is held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302, 343, 220 IPC. We are very much conscious of the fact that the respondent no.1 was charged for committing an offence inter alia under Section 302/120B IPC along with other respondents-accused. However, as the prosecution has not brought any reliable evidence on record regarding hatching conspiracy by him with other accused-respondents to constitute an offence under Section 120B IPC, he cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC read with section 120B IPC. However, as we have observed, there is consistent evidence on record against respondent no.1 that he had set the deceased ablaze and even this evidence as an incriminating circumstance was put to him in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and we are of the opinion that it would not cause any prejudice or has occasioned any failure of justice for not framing the charge under Section 302 IPC simpliciter against respondent no.1.

51. Sanchar Sahni Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 SC 3786, the Apex Court considered the issue and held:

"Therefore, ... unless the convict is able to establish that defect in framing the charges has caused real prejudice to him and that he was not informed as to what was the real case against him and that he could not defend himself properly, no interference is required on mere technicalities. Conviction order in fact is to be tested on the touchstone of prejudice theory."

52. Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 840, the Apex Court considered the similar issue and came to the conclusion that the accused has to satisfy the court that if there is any defect in framing the charge it has prejudiced the cause of the accused resulting in failure of justice. It is only in that eventuality the court may interfere. The Court elaborated the law as under:

"The defect in framing of the charges must be so serious that it cannot be covered under Sections 464/465 CrPC, which provide that, an order of sentence or conviction shall not be deemed to be invalid only on the ground that no charge was framed, or that there was some irregularity or omission or misjoinder of charges, unless the court comes to the conclusion that there was also, as a consequence, a failure of justice. In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in framing the relevant charges, has led to a failure of justice, the court must have regard to whether an objection could have been raised at an earlier stage during the proceedings or not. While judging the question of prejudice or guilt, the court must bear in mind that every accused has a right to a fair trial, where he is aware of what he is being tried for and where the facts sought to be established against him, are explained to him fairly and clearly, and further, where he is given a full and fair chance to defend himself against the said charge(s)."

53. Adverting to the sentences to be imposed on respondent no.1 S.I. K.P. Singh we find that his crime does not fall within the parameters and category of rarest of rare case to impose death sentence and, therefore, we are of the opinion that sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/- and two years further imprisonment, in default of payment of fine under Section 302 IPC, two years imprisonment for the offence under Section 343 IPC and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to serve out one year additional imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 220 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to serve six months additional imprisonment with a further direction that all the sentences to run concurrently, shall meet the ends of justice. We punish him accordingly. The accused respondent no.1-K.P. Singh is on bail, his personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled and he is directed to be lodged in jail to serve out sentence imposed as above.

54. This Government appeal is allowed in part as above.

55. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial Judge forthwith for compliance.

Order Date :- 18.12.2017

MN/Hasnain

(Rajul Bhargava,J.) (Arun Tandon,J.)