Desh Raj And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 4054 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved
 
Court No. - 4								   A. F. R.
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1550 of 1986
 

 
Appellant :- Desh Raj Singh And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- T. Pal,Arvind Kumar Srivastava A/C,Ashwani Kumar Sachan,Manish Kumar Singh,Ranvir Singh,Santosh Kumar Singh,Saurabh Sachan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A
 

 
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.)

(1) Heard Sri Saurabh Sachan and Sri Ranvir Singh, learned counsel for the appellant no. 3, Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned amicus curiae for appellant no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State.

(2) This criminal appeal has been filed by appellants-Desh Raj Singh, Girendra Singh and Inder Singh against the judgment and order dated dated 29.5.1986 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 15 of 1985 convicting and sentencing appellants-Desh Raj Singh and Girendra Singh to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and one month R.I. under Section 323/34 I.P.C. while appellant-Inder Singh to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and one month R.I. under Section 323/34 I.P.C.

(3) Desh Raj Singh A1 died during the pendency of this appeal and this appeal qua Desh Raj Singh A1 was dismissed as abated by order dated 13.3.2018 passed by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

(4) Briefly stated the facts of this case are that on 30.3.1983 at about 6 P.M., P. W. 1 Ram Prakash (informant), his brother Shyam Singh (deceased) and their mother, P. W. 3 Rama Devi were sitting on the Chabutra in front of their house by the side of the lane talking to each other. All the three appellants and Babu Ram who died during the investigation had gathered on the Chabutra in front of the house of Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) which was in front of chabutra of P. W. 1 Ram Prakash across the lane. Babu Ram (died during investigation) exhorted the other accused to kill Shyam Singh on which Inder Singh A3 fired a shot from his pistol at Shyam Singh which struck him in his abdomen. Girendra Singh A2 and Babu Ram (died during investigation) thereafter started hurling bricks at them and one of the brick hit P. W. 3 Rama Devi. The alarm raised by them attracted P. W. 2 Mani Ram, P. W. 5 Jawahar Lal and other residents of the locality to the place of incident. The accused thereafter ran inside the house of Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1).

(5) The written report of the incident Ext. Ka1 which was scribed by Jagdish Narain, Pradhan of the village on the dictation of P. W. 1 Ram Prakash was given by him at police station Sikandara, district Kanpur Dehat on the same day at 20:45 hours where he had gone with his brother Shyam Singh and his mother, P. W. 3 Rama Devi, both of whom had received injuries. He then got admitted his brother, Shyam Singh and mother, P. W. 3 Rama Devi to U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur for treatment.

(6) On the basis of the written report Ext. Ka1, chek report Ext. Ka3 was prepared on 30.3.1983 at 10:45 P.M. by P. W. 6 Head Constable Awadhesh Narain who immediately registered the case in the G.D. Ext. Ka4.

(7) Since the incident had taken at a place which fell within the circle of P. S. Mangalpur hence the papers relating to the case were sent to P. S. Mangalpur on 31.3.1984 at 9:20 A.M. by a G.D. entry Ext. Ka5 through Constable Misri Lal. The F.I.R., chek report, G.D. and the injury report pertaining to the case in hand were received at P. S. Mangalpur on 1.4.1984 at 12:35 P.M. from P. S. Sikandara. An entry in the G.D. was made regarding the receipt of aforesaid papers at P. S. Mangalpur by Constable Clerk Sri Sewa Ram Ext. Ka19 in the presence of P. W. 9 Manzoor Ahmad Qazi, S.O. Mangalpur who immediately took up the investigation and went to the place of incident on a government jeep alongwith Sub-Inspector C.B. Yadav and constables. He recorded the statement of P. W. 1 Ram Prakash (informant), P. W. 2 Mani Ram, P. W. 5 Jawahar Lal and other witnesses. Thereafter, he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site plan Ext. Ka15.

(8) He found one empty cartridge on the spot and packed it in a sealed cover and prepared its recovery memo Ext. Ka16. He also found blood on the spot and took the sample of bloodstained and simple earth Exts. I and II, sealed it and prepared its recovery memo Ext. Ka17. He then reached the police station Sikandara and recorded the statement of Head Moharrir who had prepared the F.I.R. and Constable Misri Lal.

(9) P. W. 1 Ram Prakash (informant) after lodging the F.I.R. of the incident, took the injured Shyam Singh and P. W. 3 Rama Devi to U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur. The injuries of Shyam Singh were examined by P. W. 7 Dr. P. S. Misra at U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur on 31.3.1983 at 3:45 A.M. The following injuries were found on Shyam Singh:

Gunshot wound of entrance 1 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on the left upper quadrant of abdomen, 3 cm below coastal margin. Blackening present. Margins inverted. Patient admitted. Injury caused by firearm and was fresh. Clotted blood was present.

(10) The injuries of P. W. 3 Rama Devi were examined by P. W. 7 Dr. P. S. Misra at 4 A.M. on that day and following injuries were found on his person as mentioned in injury report Ext. ka7 :

Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep on the centr eof the head with ptosis of right eye pupilar side constricted.

Patient admitted for investigation of the head injury and x-ray was advised. The injury was fresh. Patient was semi-conscious and was vomitting.

(11) After admission in the hospital, injured Shyam Singh had died on 1.4.1983 at 2:45 A.M. Information regarding his death Ext. Ka8 was sent to Kotwali Kanpur. An entry of this information was made in the G.D. No. 5 at 6:20 A.M. on 1.4.1983. Thereafter, P. W. 8 Sub-Inspector Sheo Nath Yadav went to the hospital for conducting inquest. After conducting the inquest, prepared inquest report Ext. Ka9, diagram of dead body Ext. Ka10 and other papers. He sealed the dead body and sent it for postmortem examination through constables Hazare Singh and Shailendra Kumar along with papers. The case was related to P.S. Mangalpur and thereafter, letter Ext. Ka14 for sending the postmortem report and papers to P.S. Mangalpur were also sent by him.

(12) The postmortem examination of deceased-Shyam Singh was conducted by P. W. 4 Dr. Ram Kumar Gupta on 1.4.1983 at 3 P.M. He prepared the postmortem report Ext. Ka2. The deceased was about 24 years of age and had died at U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur on 1.4.1983 at 2:45 A.M. He was of average built. Rigor mortis was present in both extremities. Eyes were partially closed. Mouth was also partially closed. The following antemortem injuries were found on his person :

Gunshot wound of entry 1 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep on the let side abdomen 7 cm above umbilicus at 10 O' clock position backward downward obliquely from left to right side.

Surgical cut 1.5 cm long, one stitch was present on the right foot.

(13) On internal examination, 700 ml blood was found present in abdominal cavity. Right kidney was ruptured. One metallic bullet was recovered from the kidney. Intestines were also ruptured. The death was caused as a result of shock and hemorrhage caused by injury no. 1. The clothes of the deceased and the metallic bullet were packed in sealed covers and were given to the constable. The injury was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death.

(14) On 3.4.1983, P. W. 9 Sri Manzoor Ahmad Qazi, S.O. Mangalpur arrested accused-Babu Ram who died during investigation. He recorded the statements of the accused on 26.4.1983. Thereafter, he submitted chargesheet Ext. Ka18 against the accused-appellants. Sample of earth and bloodstained clothes were sent to the chemical examiner on 22.4.1983.

(15) Since the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the accused were committed for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge Kanpur Dehat where their case was registered as S.T. No. 15 of 1985 (State Vs. Desh Raj Singh and two others) and made over for trial from there to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge Kanpur Dehat who charged the accused-Inder Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. while the other two accused-Desh Raj Singh and Girendra Singh were charged for offences punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The accused abjured the charge and claimed trial.

(16) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as nine witnesses of whom P. W. 1 Ram Prakash (informant), P. W. 2 Mani Ram, P. W. 3 Rama Devi and P. W. 5 Jawahar Lal were examined as eye-witnesses of the incident while P. W. 4 Dr. Ram Kumar Gupta, P. W. 6 Awadhesh Narain Upadhyay, P. W. 7 Dr. P. S. Misra, P. W. 8 Sheo Nath Yadav and P. W. 9 M. A. Qazi were produced as formal witnesses.

(17) After closure of the recording of the prosecution witnesses, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and alleged their false implication. Girendra Singh A2 and Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) had stated that deceased-Shyam Singh, Ram Prakash, Jagdish and Govind had assaulted Girendra Singh A2. On alarm being raised, his father Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) and his mother came to rescue but they were also assaulted. Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) defended them. Inder Singh A3 had denied his presence at the time of the incident.

(18) In support of the defence, the accused examined Dr. S. N. Srivastava, Munshi Lal and Tej Singh as D. W. 1, D. W. 2 and D. W. 3. D. W. 2 Munshi Lal is a witness of fact and stated that Ram Prakash (informant), Jagdish and Govind are the real brothers of deceased-Shyam Singh; that they all hurled abuses at Girendra Singh A2 and assaulted him by axe, lathis and dandas; that on alarm being raised, Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) and his wife came to his rescue but they were also assaulted. Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) and his wife defended themselves; that many persons reached there and thereafter the accused ran away; that after sometime sound of one round of shot was heard at the roof of the house of deceased; that thereafter he and other persons went at the roof of Shyam Singh and found him injured by bullet but there was none else. He also stated that the prosecution witnesses P. W. 2 Mani Ram, P. W. 5 Jawahar Lal and P. W. 2 Rama Devi were also not there.

(19) D. W. 3 Constable Tej Singh has proved the F.I.R. Ext. Kha4 lodged by Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) against the prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. on 30.3.1983 at 11:30 P.M. at P. S. Mangalpur.

(20) The accused had also examined Dr. S.N. Srivastava as D. W. 1 who on 31.3.1983 at U.H.M. Hospital examined the injuries of Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1), his wife-Smt. Rama Kumari and Girendra Singh A2. He examined the injuries of Smt. Rama Kumari at 7:05 P.M. and found the following injuries on her person as mentioned in injury report Ext. Kha1 :

(i) Incised wound on the left ear cutting the tragus, measuring 2.5 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep. Margins were clean cut. Blood was oozing out left side face.

(ii) Traumatic swelling around the left eye with subconjunctival hemorrhage in an area of 6 cm x 3 cm with blackening.

(iii) Contusions on left arm the middle lateral surface 3 cm x 2 cm, red in colour.

(21) All the injuries were simple and were about one and a half day old except injury no. 1 which was caused by sharp edged object and rest by some hard object.

(22) The injuries of Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) were examined by him at 7:20 P.M. and following injuries were found on his person as mentioned in injury report Ext. Kha2.

(i) Incised wound on scalp in occipital region on right side, vertically 2 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep.

(ii) Lacerated wound on scalp left side parieto occipital eminence 2 cm x 5 cm x bone deep. 9 cm away and above from left ear.

(iii) Lacerated wound on scalp right side frontal region. 5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep, 5 cm above right eye brow.

(iv) Lacerated wound in the middle of left and index fingers of left hand measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm.

(v) Lacerated wound in the middle of left thumb and left index finger measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm in left hand.

(vi) Abraded contusion over spine of scapula on back right side in an area of 5 cm x 1.5 cm.

All the injuries were simple except injury no. 1 whch was caused by sharp object and rest were caused by blunt object. The injuries were one and a half day old. Patient was admitted for treatment.

(23) The injuries of Girendra Singh A2 were examined by him at 7:30 P.M. on that day and following injuries were found on his person as mentioned in injury report Ext. Kha2.

(i) Abraded contusion just above left eye measuring 4 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep. Injury was kept under observation.

(ii) Contusion on left arm middle on lateral surface red in colour 3 cm x 1.5 cm.

(iii) Abrasion on middle of let forearm 3 cm x 1 cm.

(24) All the injuries were simple and were caused by blunt object and were about one and a half day old. The patient was admitted for treatment and x-ray of injury no. 1 was advised.

(25) The learned III Additional Sessions Judge Kanpur Dehat by the impugned judgment and order convicted the appellants and awarded aforesaid sentences to them.

(26) Hence this appeal.

(27) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that admittedly both the sides have received injuries in the occurrence which the prosecution has totally failed to explain, it is apparent that the true genesis of the incident has been suppressed and the prosecution has approached with unclean hands and under the circumstances the learned trial judge committed an error in holding the appellants to be aggressors.

(28) He next submitted that the evidence on record, at the most evinces commission of offenes by the appellants is under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and hence the recorded conviction of the appellants under Sections 300, 302/34 I.P.C. respectively is liable to be converted to one under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them for their conviction palliated to a lesser period of imprisonment.

(29) He also submitted that the medical evidence on record does not support the ocular version with regard to the manner of occurrence as spelt out in the F.I.R. and later testified by the prosecution during the trial.

(30) He lastly submitted that neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the sentences awarded to them can be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

(31) Per contra Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A. I appearing for the State-respondent submitted that it is proved from the evidence on record that the appellants were the aggressors as from the side of the prosecution one person has lost his life and three persons had received injury while from the side of the accused three persons namely Rama Kumari w/o of Desh Raj Singh, Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) and Girendra Singh A2 had allegedly received injuries but all the injuries found on their person were opined to be simple in nature.

(32) She next submitted that neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the sentences awarded to them require any interference. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

(33) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and perused the entire lower court record very carefully.

(34) Since the time, place and participation of the accused-appellants in the incident is admitted to the parties, the two questions which arise for our consideration in this appeal are that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubt or not and if the reply is in the affirmative then whether the recorded conviction of the appellants is liable to be converted to one under Section 304 Part II.P.C. and the sentence awarded to them is palliated to a lesser period of incarceration ?

(35) The site plan of the place of incident which was prepared by the investigating officer of the case after inspecting the same at the behest of P. W. 1 Ram Prakash (informant) has been marked as Ext. Ka15 shows that the place where the deceased and the injured were sitting has been shown by letters 'X, Y, Z'. The point from where the witnesses had seen the incident are indicated by letters 'A, B, C and D'. The chabutra of Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) on which the accused-appellants were present have been depicted by letters 'L, M, N, O' and the place where the deceased was shot is shown by letter 'X'. The place where the pieces of bricks were found by the investigating officer has been shown by letter 'XXX, XXX, XX'. Thus, from the perusal of the site plan, the incident appears to have taken place on the kaccha chabutra in front of the house of deceased-Shyam Singh which is situated opposite to the house of Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) across the road.

(36) P. W. 1 Ram Prakash (informant) has supported the prosecution case as spelt out in the written report Ext. Ka1 which finds full corroboration from the evidence of P. W. 3 Rama Devi, the mother of the deceased who had also received injuries in all material particulars.

(37) P. W. 2 Mani Ram who was the neighbor of the deceased stated that the deceased was sitting at the door of his house at the time of the incident. He has also supported the prosecution case as narrated above and as stated in the F.I.R.

(38) P. W. 5 Jawahar Lal also supported the prosecution case and deposed that he had seen the occurrence while he was going to his field. He further deposed that all the accused-appellants came there and on the exhortation of Babu Ram (died during investigation), Inder Singh A3 fired at Shyam Singh from his country made pistol which hit him in his stomach while the other accused threw pieces of bricks at the mother of the deceased.

(39) P. W. 3 Rama Devi deposed that while she was sitting with her sons, P. W. 1 Ram Prakash and deceased-Shyam Singh on the chabutra in front of her house at about 6 P.M., Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1), Girendra Singh A2 and Inder Singh A3 were also sitting on the chabutra in front of the house of Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) and on the exhortation of Babu Ram (died during investigation), Inder Singh A3 fired at Shyam Singh from his country made pistol which hit him in his stomach and thereafter, Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1), Babu Ram (died during investigation) and Girendra Singh A1 started pelting stones on him and one of the stone hit her causing injuries to her. P. W.1 Ram Praksh in his cross-examination on page 22 of the paper book has admitted that the shot was fired from a distance of about 6-7 paces. P. W. 3 Rama Devi in her cross-examination on page 33 of the paper has stated that the person who had fired at Shyam Singh was standing on the chabutra of Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1). The site plan of the occurrence indicates the distance between the chabutra of Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) from where the accused had allegedly fired at Shyam Singh and the chabutra in front of the house of the deceased is about 18 steps. P. W. 4 Dr. Ram Kumar Gupta who had conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has clearly stated that the shot must have been fired from a distance more than 4-5 feet.

(40) It is noteworthy that the postmortem report of deceased-Shyam Singh does not indicate any blackening or scorching around the antemortem firearm wound of entry. However the injury report of deceased Shyam Singh which was prepared by P. W. 7 Dr. P. S. Misra who had examined his injury immediately after the occurrence and brought on record and proved as Ext. Ka7 indicates the presence of blackening around the gunshot wound of entry.

(41) P. W. 7 Dr. P. S. Misra in his evidence tendered during the trial deposed that injured-Shyam Singh was admitted in district hospital Kanpur Dehat on 31.3.1983 at 3:45 A.M. and after examining him he had noted following injuries on his person :

Gunshot wound of entrance 1 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on the left upper quadrant of abdomen, 3 cm below coastal margin. Blackening present. Margins inverted. Patient admitted. Injury caused by firearm and was fresh. Clotted blood was present.

(42) Relying upon the injury report of deceased-Shyam Singh, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that as per the prosecution case, deceased was shot at by the accused from a distance of 18 steps as is evident from the site plan of the place of occurrence which was prepared at the instance of P. W. 1 Ram Prakash (informant) and as deposed by P. W. 1 Ram Prakash and P. W. 2 Mani Ram in their cross-examination is to be believed, in that case, any blackening around the firearm wound of exit found on the person of the deceased, would not have been present. The presence of blackening around the firearm wound of entry indicates that the shot must not have been fired from a distance of more than 3 feet.

(43) Thus, we find that the oral evidence given by the eye-witnesses of the occurrence is inconsistent with the medical evidence of P. W. 7 Dr. P. S. Misra. As per the facts deposed by P. W. 1 Ram Prakash and P. W. 3 Rama Devi who had received injuries in the occurrence when Inder Singh A3 had fired at the deceased he was standing at a distance of about 6-7 paces which comes to about 15 feet, from the place where the deceased was sitting. The medical evidence to the effect that blackening was present around the firearm wound of entry could have been caused only if the fire has been done from a distance of about 3-4 feet.

(44) It may be noted that the postmortem report of the deceased also indicates 1.5 cm long surgical cut on the upper bone of the right leg. The prosecution has not been able to give any rational explanation as to how the deceased sustained second antemortem injury noted by P. W. 4 Dr. Ram Kumar Gupta on his body.

(45) The postmortem report of the deceased does not indicate the presence of any blackening around the gunshot wound of entry but Ext. Ka7, the injury report of the deceased prepared by P. W. 7 Dr. P. S. Misra who got an opportunity to examine the injuries of the deceased immediately after the occurrence shows the presence of blackening around the only firearm wound found on the body of the deceased. Since we have two different medical reports with regard to the solitary gunshot wound of exit found on the person of the deceased, one favoring the accused and the other the prosecution, we adopt the one which is favorable to the accused-appellants in accordance with settled law on the issue.

(46) It is true that we have the evidence of P. W. 3 Rama Devi, the mother of the deceased who had received injuries in the occurrence as a result of brick batting allegedly done by the accused who supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief but in view of the glaring inconsistency noted by us hereinabove between the medical evidence and the ocular version, we are not inclined to believe that whatever she has deposed is true. There is yet another aspect of the matter which shows that the true genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution. According to the appellants, three persons from the side of the accused namely Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1), his wife Rama Kumari and Inder Singh A3 had also received injuries in the occurrence and an F.I.R. about the incident was lodged against the informant's side by the accused on the basis of which case under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. was registered. Although the G.D. of the aforesaid case was not proved to establish that no injuries were also noted in the G.D. on the person of the accused but Dr. S. N. Srivastava who at the relevant point of time was posted as Medical Officer in U.H.M. Hospital Kanpur and had examined the injuries on 31.3.1983 at about 7:05 P.M. of Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1), his wife Rama Kumari and Girendra Singh A3 was examined as D.W. 1. He noted three injuries on the person of Smt. Rama Kumari and six injuries on the person of Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1) and three injuries on the person of Girendra Singh A2. He in his cross-examination has deposed that the injuries on the person of the deceased could have been caused on 30.3.1983 at about 7 A.M. He denied the suggestion given to him by the prosecution that the injuries of the injured were fabricated and that none of the injured had received any injury.

(47) Thus, from the evidence of D. W. 1 Dr. S. N. Srivastava, it is proved that at least three persons from the side of the accused had sustained injuries in the occurrence for which the prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation. The injuries sustained by Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1), his wife-Smt. Rama Kumari and Girendra Singh A2 were found to be simple in nature but there is nothing on record which may indicate that the injuries received by the appellants' side were either self-inflicted or their injury reports were fabricated.

(48) We have very carefully gone through the statement of the four witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution during the trial as well as the F.I.R. but neither the F.I.R.'s recital nor statement of any of the witnesses furnish any explanation for the injuries received from the side of the accused.

(49) There is further nothing on record which may indicate that the plain and bloodstained earth and empty cartridge of 32 bore allegedly recovered by the investigating officer from the place of occurrence were sent for forensic examination. The presence of large number of slippers at the place of occurrence which were seized by the investigating officer of the case after arriving at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident is another circumstance which indicates that a stampede had taken place at the place of incident and the people present there had started running hither and thither.

(50) Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and since the prosecution has further failed to come up with any explanation for the injuries received by three persons from the side of the accused namely Desh Raj Singh (deceased A1), his wife-Smt. Rama Kumari and Girendra Singh A2, we have no hesitation in holding that the true genesis of the dispute has been suppressed and the prosecution has not approached with clean hands and hence neither the recorded conviction of the surviving appellants namely Girendra Singh and Inder Singh nor the sentence awarded to them can be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

(51) The appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed. Surviving appellants, Girendra Singh and Inder Singh are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The impugned judgment and order stands modified accordingly.

(52) The surviving appellants namely Girendra Singh and Inder Singh are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. However, they shall comply with the mandatory provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

(53) Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned amicus curiae for the appellant no. 2 shall be paid Rs. 15,000/- towards his remuneration.

Order Date :- 3.5.2019

SA