Har Narain And Others vs State Of U.P.
2019 Latest Caselaw 3571 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved
 
A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 4
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1305 of 1986
 
Appellant :- Har Narain & Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- R.C. Pal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.

Per Hon'ble B. K. Narayana, J.

Heard Sri Dhruva Narayan Mishra and Sri R. P. Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri H. M. B. Sinha, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants, Har Karan and Satish against the judgement and order dated 24.04.1986 passed by the IInd Additional Session Judge, Farrukhabad in S.T. No. 14 of 1984, Har Karan and another Vs. State of U.P., by which both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life each u/s 302/34 I.P.C. and seven years rigorous imprisonment each u/s 307/34 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case in brief is that while Rameshwar Dayal (deceased) was sleeping with his wife Chandrawati and son Dinesh @ Nanhe on the roof of his house at about 1-1.30 p.m. in the intervening night of 19/20.6.1983, P.W.1 Subhash Chandra, informant and cousin brother of Rameshwar Dayal (deceased), woke up upon hearing the cries for help and barking of the dogs. He and his neighbours, P.W.2 Ram Dayal s/o Kalika and P.W.5 Ram Asrey s/o Kuber, all residents of village- Naikapur, saw from the roof of their respective houses that Harkaran (A1) s/o Narayana armed with a sickle and Satish (A2) s/o Rajaram armed with a sickle in one hand and a country-made pistol in another, were stabbing the informant's brother-in-law and sister-in-law with sickles. On account of noise made by them and pelting of stones at the appellants, both Harkaran (A1) and Satish (A2) climbed down from the roof, firing in the air and ran towards the south leaving behind on the spot two sickles, one torch, one bag, one tehmat and a live cartridge. When P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra and the other witnesses reached the place of occurrence, they saw that informant's brother was pressing his intestines with his hands which were coming out his stomach and breathing deeply. His sister-in-law was also lying on the roof moaning while Dinesh who was sitting near them was weeping. Blood was spread all over the roof. On being asked by P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra, his brother with great difficulty managed to tell him that Harkaran (A1) and Satish (A2) had attacked him and there was no chance of his survival and he should try to save the lives of his sister-in-law and Nanhe. After sometime, he died. His sister-in-law and Nanhe told him that when they woke up, they saw Harkaran (A1) assaulting informant's brother with sickle and when she and Nanhe made a noise then Satish (A2) who was standing nearby, pointed his country-made pistol at them and told them that if they made any noise, he would shoot them. Even then his sister-in-law rose to save her husband on which Harkaran (A1) assaulted her also with sickle. When P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra switched on the torch, Satish (A2) shouting that he would finish the lineage, attacked Dinesh on his chest with sickle with the intention of causing his death. P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra also received injuries in his hand. Harkaran (A1) tried to kill her by dealing a blow with sickle on her head but she dodged and the blow of sickle hit the stool on which its point was twisted. On the noise being made by the injured and the other villagers, the murderers fled from the place of incident. A civil case was also pending between Harkaran (A1) and Ram Shiromani and informant's father, Devi Dayal who was doing pairvi in a civil case on behalf of the deceased, was murdered by the same persons in the year 1981. The incident was witnessed by a large number of villagers. The F.I.R. was not lodged by P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra in the night due to fear and darkness.

Narrating the aforesaid facts, P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra, brother of Rameshwar Dayal (deceased) gave a written report (Ext.Ka.1) at P.S.- Indargarh, District- Farrukhabad on 20.06.1983 at about 6.10 a.m. on the basis whereof Case Crime No. 84 of 1983 u/s 302/307 I.P.C. was registered against both the appellants. Check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.18) and the relevant G.D. Entry were prepared on the same day. The investigation of the case was taken up by P.W.9 S.I. Balvir Singh who reached the place of occurrence on 20.06.1983 and sent injured Chandrawati and Dinesh to the hospital for their medical examination. He also conducted inquest on the dead body of Rameshwar Dayal and prepared the inquest report (Ex.Ka.6) and other related documents challan lash, photo lash, letter addressed to R.I., letter addressed to C.M.O. and specimen seal (Exts.Ka.7 to Ka.11). Thereafter he got the dead body of Rameshwar Dayal sealed and dispatched to the District Hospital, Fatehgarh for postmortem examination. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site plan (Ext.Ka.14). He also collected plain and simple earth from the crime scene and kept it in two different boxes. He seized blood-stained clothes (kathri) and blood-stained string of the cot and after sealing them separately, prepared recovery memo of aforesaid articles seized from the place of occurrence (Ext.Ka.12). He then took possession of the sickle by which injuries were inflicted on the deceased and the injured and which the accused had left behind while fleeing from the place of incident, pieces of broken bangles of injured Chandrawati, torch, live cartridges which were lying at the crime scene were collected by the Investigating Officer who after sealing them in a bundle, prepared their recovery memo (Ext.Ka.13). He recorded the statements of P.W.3 Chandrawati and P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in his own handwriting. The aforesaid statements of P.W.3 Chandrawati and P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra were brought on record and proved as (Ext.Ka.15 and 16). He also took custody of the blood-stained vest with a hole which injured Dinesh Chandra was wearing at the time of the incident and prepared its recovery memo on the spot (Ext.Ka.17).

The postmortem on the body of deceased Rameshwar Dayal was conducted by P.W.8 Dr. Rajendra Shukla, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Fatehgarh on 21.06.1983 at 3.30 p.m. who also prepared and proved deceased's postmortem report as (Ext.Ka.5). The postmortem report of the deceased indicates following ante-mortem injuries :-

1) Three incised wounds in an area of 9 cm x 8.5 cm away from 2 cm x 0.75 cm to 4.5 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp to bone deep, lt. side part of head 10 cm above the lt. eyebrow. Margins all clean cut. All tailing at one end.

2) Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x chest cavity deep 10 cm from lt. Nipple at 10 to 11 o' clock position. Margins & underlying tissues cut clean, lower pole tailing, ragging at places present.

3) Incised wound 16 cm x 12 cm x abdominal cavity deep (intestines protruding out). Rt. side abdomen 9.5 cm below the rt. nipple at about 6 o' clock position. Margin & underlying tissues cut clean ragging at places present outer and lower angle of the wound & lower tailing obliquely placed.

4) Two incised wound 2 cm apart 4 cm above the wrist joint, 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep (on the surface of forearm) 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep obliquely placed (back surface), margins clean cut with tailing.

5) Incised wound 1 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep just above the web of left thumb. Margins clean cut.

6) Incised wound 7 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep at base of left thumb dorsal aspect. Margins clean cut. Lower ends tailing.

7) Two incised wound 4 cm apart palmar aspect lt hand 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep & 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the base of thumb & base of little finger. Margins clean cut.

8) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on left finger and surface of the palm. Margins clean cut.

9) Incised wound 9 cm x 0.5 cm on the base of the right foot. Tailing present on outer angle.

10) Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the dorsal aspect of left stud. Margins clean cut.

The cause of death according to P.W.8 Dr. Rajendra Shukla was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

The injured P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra and P.W.3 Chandrawati were medically examined by P.W.7 Dr. R.D. Pandey, Medical Officer, I/C, S.A.D., Tirwa on 20.06.1983 at 11 a.m. and 11.30 p.m. respectively. Their injury reports were prepared by P.W.7 Dr. R.D. Pandey which were brought on record and proved by him as (Exts.Ka.3 & Ka.4).

Following injuries were found on the person of injured P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra :-

(a) Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm x deep fascia deep on back of rt. arm 6 cm above olecranon prominence of rt. elbow jt.

(b) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x deep fascia deep on back of rt. elbow jt. 2 cm lateral to olecranon process of rt. elbow jt.

(c) Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep on back of lt. wrist joint.

(d) Linear superficial incised wound 7 cm on rt. front chest starting from 6th inter costal space to down & out.

Following injuries were found on the person of injured P.W.3 Chandrawati:-

(a) Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on rt. mastoid region caused by blunt object.

(b) Abraded contusion 2 cm x 1 cm nasal bridge caused by blunt object.

(c) Incised wound semi-circular 3 cm x 0.5 cm x superficial fascia deep on dorsal of rt. thumb. Proximal phallanx caused by sharp-edged object.

(d) Punctured wound 0.5 cm x 1 cm x 3 cm deep on front of rt. forearm, directed upward & medially caused by a sharp-edged weapon.

(e) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.3 cm x skin deep on lateral border of rt. forearm, 6 cm above rt. wrist joint caused by sharp-edged object.

(f) Abraded contusion 2 cm x 1 cm or mid-sternum front chest caused by blunt object.

(g) Linear incised wound 3 cm x skin deep on front of lt. forearm 4 cm below the lt. elbow jt caused by sharp-edged object.

(h) Linear incised wound 2.5 cm x skin deep on postero-lateral aspect of lt. thumb caused by sharp-edged weapon.

(i) Incised wound semi-circular having 21 cm circumference x soft tissue upto muscle deep on postero-lateral aspect of lt. leg caused by sharp-edged object.

The investigation of the case was transferred to P.W.6 S.H.O. M.A. Siddiqui on 17.07.1983 who after completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet against both the accused-appellants before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. The charge-sheet was brought on record during the trial and proved as (Ext.Ka.2).

Since the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad committed the accused for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad where their case was registered as S.T. No. 14 of 1984, State of U.P. Vs. Har Karan and another and made over for trial from there to the Court of IInd Additional Session Judge, Farrukhabad who on the basis of material collected during the investigation and after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge, framed charge u/s 302/34 & 307/34 I.P.C. against both the accused-appellants who abjured the charges framed against them and claimed trial.

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as nine witnesses out of whom P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra, P.W.2 Ram Dayal, P.W.3 Chandrawati, wife of deceased and P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra, son of deceased were examined as eye witnesses while P.W.6 S.H.O. M.A. Siddiqui, the second Investigating Officer of the case, P.W.7 Dr. R.D. Pandey, who had examined the injuries of injured P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra and P.W.3 Chandrawati on 20.06.1983 at 11 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. and prepared their injury reports as (Exts.Ka.3 & Ka.4), P.W.8 Dr. Rajendra Shukla who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rameshwar Dayal on 21.06.1983 at 3.30 p.m. and P.W.9 S.I. Balvir Singh, the first Investigating Officer of the case who had conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, prepared inquest report and other related documents (Exts.Ka.6 to Ka.11), inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site plan (Ext.Ka.14), recovered blood-stained and simple earth, blood-stained clothes (kathri), blood-stained strings of the cot, broken pieces of bangles of injured P.W.3 Chandrawati, crime weapon sickle, torch, a live cartridge and a tehmat from the place of occurrence and blood-stained vest with a hole which the injured P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra was wearing at the time of the incident and prepared recovery memos of the aforesaid articles (Exts.Ka.12, 13 and 17), were produced as formal witnesses.

The accused in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case as false and alleged false implication. They further stated that the witnesses had given false evidence against them due to enmity.

Learned IInd Additional Session Judge, Farrukhabad after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted both the appellants u/s 302/34, 307/34 I.P.C. and awarded aforesaid sentences to them.

Hence, this appeal.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that four out of five witnesses produced by the prosecution during the trial to prove the charge framed against the accused-appellants having failed to support the prosecution case and declared hostile on the request of A.D.G.C. (criminal), the recorded conviction of the appellants which is based on the testimony of sole witness P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra, cousin brother of the deceased was highly inimical towards the appellants on account of the fact that the appellants were accused in the case of the murder of his father Devi Dayal which had taken place in the year 1981 without seeking corroboration from the evidence of any independent witness, is per se illegal and cannot be sustained. The sickle with which Harkaran (A1) had allegedly caused injuries to the deceased, his wife P.W.3 Chandrawati and his son P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra was not sent for forensic examination and there is no evidence on record connecting the sickle with the crime. Moreover, the sickle was neither recovered from the possession of nor on the pointing out of the appellants. He next submitted that the incident had admittedly taken place after midnight when it was pitch dark and it was humanly impossible for any witness to have seen and identified the accused. P.W.3 Chandrawati, wife of deceased and P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra, son of deceased, who were sleeping with him categorically deposed that they could not identify the assailants. P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra had gone further ahead by deposing in his cross-examination that the accused had masked their faces and he had nominated them as accused at the instance of the witnesses. The F.I.R. in this case is clearly ante-timed as it is proved from the evidence of P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra that after the incident, the police had come to the village and the written report of the incident was scribed thereafter. Such being the state of evidence, neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the sentences awarded to them can be sustained and are liable to be set-aside.

Per contra Sri H. M. B. Sinha, learned A.G.A.-I appearing for the State submitted that the complicity of the appellants in committing the murder of the deceased and inflicting injuries on P.W.3 Chandrawati and P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra stand fully proved from the evidence of P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra whose evidence has throughout remained consistent. His evidence finds full corroboration from the facts deposed by P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra, the injured witness in his examination-in-chief though during his cross-examination, he failed to support the prosecution case. The ocular version finds full support from the medical evidence on record. The accused were identified in the light of the torch which P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra was having with him at the time of the incident. Moreover, there is dying declaration of the deceased made by him before P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra immediately after he had been assaulted by the appellants and which has been duly proved by P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra and there is no reason to doubt his evidence on that point. There is nothing on record which may indicate that the F.I.R. in this case is ante-time or prepared after the police had arrived at the place of incident. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

We have very carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the entire lower court record.

The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts or not ?

As already noted, the instant case is one of direct evidence. The prosecution in order to establish the charge framed against the accused-appellants had examined as many as five witnesses of fact.

P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra who is the cousin brother of the deceased, has in his examination-in-chief fully supported the prosecution case as spelt out in the F.I.R. He was subjected to a gruelling cross-examination by the defence counsel but he failed to elicit anything out of him which may persuade us to hold that he is not wholly reliable witness. The suggestion given to P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra by the defence counsel in his cross-examination on page 30 of the paper book that the accused had masked their faces, was denied by him.

P.W.2 Ram Dayal in his statement recorded before the trial court stated that about 2 years 7 months before the day of recording of his statement, Rameshwar Dayal was murdered. He was not aware at what time he was murdered. He was not present at the place of incident. He had seen the dead body of Rameshwar Dayal when he had come out of his house in the morning. He denied that he was eye witness of the occurrence. On the request of learned A.D.G.C. (Criminal), he was declared hostile and A.D.G.C. (Criminal) was permitted to cross-examine him. Upon being confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which he had fully supported the prosecution case, he denied having made any such statement before the Investigating Officer and expressed his ignorance about how his statement was on record.

P.W.3 Chandrawati, wife of deceased in his examination-in-chief admitted that she was sleeping with her husband Rameshwar Dayal and her son P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra on the roof of her house on the date of the incident. She was woken up from her sleep by the sound of barking of dogs and shrieks of her husband. When she woke up, she saw the miscreants attacking her husband but she could not recognize them. The miscreants had beaten her and her son also. P.W.3 Chandrawati was also declared hostile and A.D.G.C. (Criminal) was permitted to cross-examine her. In her cross-examination, she admitted that her injuries were examined in the Government Hospital. Her son was also medically examined in the hospital and the Investigating Officer had recorded their statements in the hospital. However, when she was confronted with her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during the investigation, she denied having made any such statement before him and she did not know why and how the Investigating Officer had named the appellants as accused in her statement. She denied the suggestion given to her that she was not supporting the prosecution case as she had compromised the matter with Harkaran (A1) and Satish (A2).

P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra, son of the deceased who had received injuries in the occurrence in his examination-in-chief fully corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra in all material particulars namely the time, place, manner of assault as well as the identity of the perpetrators of the crime. He had identified the accused-appellants who were present in the court as the persons who had caused injuries to him, his mother and his father. He categorically deposed that at the time of the incident, Harkaran (A1) was armed with sickle while Satish (A2) was armed with a country-made pistol. He further deposed that they had been assaulted by sickle. However, in his cross-examination which was conducted on the same day, he deposed that he could not recognize the accused as they were wearing masks. Their names were disclosed to them by the witnesses and the report of the incident was scribed after the police had arrived. The aforesaid witness was neither declared hostile nor recalled by the learned A.D.G.C. (Criminal) for seeking clarification with regard to the facts stated by him in his cross-examination.

P.W.5 Ram Asrey clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief that it was very dark when the incident had taken place at about 2 a.m. He was not aware who were the miscreants. He had heard noise coming from the side of the house of Rameshwar Dayal. At that time, he was on the roof of his house but he had not gone to the house of Rameshwar Dayal. He had neither seen anyone attacking Rameshwar Dayal or jumping from the roof of his house. On being confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., he denied having made any such statement to the Investigating Officer.

Thus, from the evidence of the five witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution during the trial notwithstanding the fact that P.W.2 Ram Dayal, P.W.3 Chandrawati and P.W.5 Ram Asrey failed to support the prosecution case in their examination-in-chief while P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra had disowned the prosecution story in his cross-examination, it is fully established from their evidence that the incident had taken place after midnight on the roof of the house of the deceased in the intervening night of 19/20.06.1983. It is further proved from the evidence of P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra, P.W.3 Chandrawati and P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra that the deceased, his wife and his son were attacked by the miscreants by a sickle. The postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.Ka.5) and the injury reports of the injured P.W.3 Chandrawati and P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra indicate that the deceased as well as the injured had received incised wound which could have been caused by a sickle. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra, we have no hesitation in holding that he has given a correct and cogent description of the occurrence and assigned specific roles to each of the appellants. The facts stated by P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra in his examination-in-chief find full corroboration from those deposed by P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra in his examination-in-chief. It is proved from the evidence of P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra and P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra that the incident had taken place between 1-1.30 a.m. in the night of 19/20.06.1983 on the roof of the house of deceased Rameshwar Dayal where he was sleeping with his wife and son. Both the appellants had climbed up to his roof. Harkaran (A1) was armed with a sickle while Satish (A2) was carrying a country-made pistol in one hand and a sickle in the other hand. The deceased as well as the injuries were dealt repeated blows by Harkaran (A1) by sickle. However, upon noise made by P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra and the witnesses, they fled from the place of occurrence, leaving behind a live cartridge and a sickle. Live cartridge and sickle could not be connected with the crime by the Investigating Officer by leading any link evidence. The sickle was not sent for forensic examination.

Moreover, it is proved from the evidence of P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra that the deceased had made dying declaration also before him that he had been attacked by the appellants. We have very carefully gone through the cross-examination of P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra but we are afraid to observe that no suggestion was given to him that the deceased had not told him immediately after the incident when he had reached the place of occurrence but he had been assaulted by the appellants although it has been argued that P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra had given false evidence against the appellants on account of the fact that they were accused in the murder of his father Devi Dayal who was doing pairvi on behalf of the deceased in a civil case pending between the deceased and the accused and hence, he being an inimical witness, no reliance should have been placed on his evidence for the purpose of convicting the appellants. However, we find that there is no such law that the evidence of an inimical witness cannot be relied upon for the purpose of convicting the accused. The Court while analyzing the evidence of an inimical witness, has to scrutinize his testimony cautiously and if after a careful appraisal of his evidence, the court comes to the conclusion that he has given a correct and cogent version of the incident, the testimony of such a witness is not liable to be discarded merely on account of his being inimical towards the accused.

We have already found after a meticulous evaluation of the evidence of P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra that he has given a correct and cogent description of the occurrence. His evidence has throughout remained consistent and clinching free from any vacillation, contradiction, discrepancy or improvement. Moreover, his evidence finds full corroboration from the facts deposed by P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra in his examination-in-chief who was not declared hostile by the prosecution.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that since there was no source of light available at the place of occurrence, it was not possible for the witnesses to have identified the assailants. The aforesaid submission is wholly misconceived because P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra categorically deposed that he had a torch with him and the accused were recognized by him in the light of the torch. The possession of the torch was taken by the Investigating Officer who prepared its recovery memo (Ext.Ka.13). Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that no light was available at the place of occurrence, even then since the accused were known to the witnesses and deceased previously, they could have been easily recognized by them considering the close proximity from which they had seen the occurrence.

Another submission has been made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the F.I.R. in this case is ante-timed and was scribed on the dictation of the policemen who had arrived at the crime scene immediately after the occurrence. The aforesaid fact stands proved from the facts stated by P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra in his cross-examination. We have perused the facts stated by P.W.4 Dinesh Chandra in his cross-examination. It is true that P.W.4

Dinesh Chandra has deposed in his cross-examination that the F.I.R. of the incident was scribed after the police had arrived but no such suggestion was given by the prosecution either to P.W.1 informant Subhash Chandra or to the two Investigating Officers of the case, P.W.6 S.H.O. M.A. Siddiqui and P.W.9 S.I. Balvir Singh. Thus, we do not find that the F.I.R. in this case is ante-timed.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has fully succeeded in proving the charge framed against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. We do no find any reason to interfere with the recorded conviction of the appellants or the sentences awarded to them.

This appeal which lacks merit is accordingly, dismissed.

The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and their sureties discharged. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad is directed to get Harkaran (A1) and Satish (A2) arrested and sent to jail for serving out the remaining part of their sentences.

There shall however, be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 26/04/2019

KS