Rahul vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3099 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

 Reserved on 11.1.2021
 
                                                   Delivered on 2.3.2021
 
1.Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4955 of 2018
 
Appellant :- Rahul
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Noor Mohammad,Araf Khan,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi,Lihazur Rahman Khan,Nirvikar Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dharam Veer Singh,P.K. Singh,Sayed Sohail Asgar 
 
connected with
 
2.Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5108 of 2018
 

 
Appellant :- Munni Devi
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Noor Mohammad,Araf Khan,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi,Lihazur Rahman Khan,Nirvikar Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dharam Veer Singh,P.K. Singh
 
3.Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4942 of 2018
 
connected with
 
Appellant :- Chetan
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Noor Mohammad,Araf Khan,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi,Lihazur Rahman Khan,Nirvikar Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dharam Veer Singh,P.K. Singh
 

 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Sri Nirvikar Gupta and Sri Ishwar Chadra Tyagi, learned counsels for the appellants,Sri Dharam Veer Singh and Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsels for the informant, Sri Vikas Goswami and Smt. Alpana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The above noted criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgement and order of conviction dated 10.8.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court no.2, Hathras in S.T. No. 105 of 2013(State Vs. Rahul and others), arising out of case crime no. 404 of 2011 under sections 304-B,498-A, 316 I.P.C. and section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras convicting and sentencing the appellants for commission of offence under section 304-B I.P.C., to ten years rigorous imprisonment; for offence under section 316 I.P.C. to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine one year additional rigorous imprisonment;under section 498-A I.P.C. to three years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-,in case of default in payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of six months and under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act to two years imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine to undergo three months additional imprisonment. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case, in short, is that informant, Anil Singh Tomar, lodged the First Information Report dated 3.8.2011 alleging that his sister, Alka alias Pooja, was married to Rahul son of Nihal Singh; that soon after the marriage her husband, Rahul, mother-in-law, Smt. Munni, elder brother-in-law (Jeth) Chetan,elder sister-in-law (Jithani) Rashmi, sisters-in-law(Nanad) Deepu and Pooja and brother-in-law (Nandoi), Promod Kumar, started harassing her for an amount Rs. Two lacs and a Wagno R car in dowry;that his sister used to inform about the demand of dowry by the family members of her matrimonial home; that his relatives repeatedly talked to the members of the matrimonial home of his sister but they did not relent and on 3.8.2011 at 5.30 A.M. he received information on mobile phone that his sister has been murdered; that he reached the scene of occurrence and found her dead body lying on the bed.

The First Information Report was lodged on 3.8.2012 at about 8.40 hours against the accused persons,namely, Rahul,Pramod Kumar, Chetan, Munni Devi and Smt. Rashmi Devi. The postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The investigating officer prepared site plan,and inquest report and after recording the statements of the witnesses submitted charge sheet against the accused -appellants only. The charges were framed against the accused persons by the court below under sections 498-A,304-B,316 I.P.C. and section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused persons denied the charges and sought trial.

The persecution examined P.W.1, Pramod Solanki, who stated that he is friend of the informant; that he attended the marriage of Pooja and when he went to her matrimonial home on 1st Holi festival she informed him that the members of her matrimonial home are demanding a WagnoR car and Rs. 2 lcs and are harassing her for the same. At 5.45 hours on 3.8.2011 informant informed him on phone that Alka has been murdered by the members of her matrimonial home. He reached her matrimonial home and found her dead body lying on bed. None of the members of her matrimonial home were present. He wrote the First Information Report as dictated by the informant. He admitted his signature on the inquest report of the deceased and further stated that after postmortem when the dead body of the deceased was cremated none of the members of her matrimonial home were present.

P.W.2, Anil Singh Tomar, the informant, stated that he got his sister, Alka, married on 2.12.2011.He gave Rs 5 lacs in cash and other house hold goods in the dowry to her ,but accused persons were not happy and were demanding Rs. two lacs and and WagnoR car. When he went to her matrimonial home after her marriage his deceased sister informed him about mental and physical harassment by the members of her matrimonial home .Despite his prayer not to press for the aforesaid demand, her harassment continued. He gave an application to the Superintendent of Police Hathras on 7.4.2011 and took his sister back to his house. On 17.7.2011 her husband, Rahul and Nandoi, Pramod Kumar came, to take her back to her matrimonial home and then he informed them that Munni Devi, Rashmi, Chetan,Rakhi,Deepu and Pooja make additional demand of dowry and harass her. They accepted their mistake and assured that his sister will not be harassed. Thereafter he received information that they are again harassing his sister and then on 7.11.2011 he alongwith his friends went to the matrimonial home of his sister. She informed him that they are again demanding Rs.two lacs and WagnoR car and then he gave some house holds goods and informed them that potatoes kept by him in cold storage have rottened .His financial condition is not good and when it will improve, he will fulfill their demand of dowry, but on 3.8.2011 he received the information of murder of his sister at 5.30 hours. He went there along with his family members and friends.P.W.1,Pradeep Solanki wrote First Information Report and he signed the same and got it registered.

P.W.,3,Rashmi, wife of of Manoj alias Dharmendra Tomar and her husband Manoj alias Dharmendra Singh gave their statements as P.W.3 and P.W.4 and repeated the contents of statements of P.W.2. P.W.4 only added that near the dead body of the deceased the Chunari of about one and half meter was found whereby the deceased was hanged after murder.

P.W.5 Circle Officer, Jagat Ram Jogi, stated that he investigated the offence committed by the accused persons after the initial investigation by the Superintendent of Police Anil Kumar and Rajendra Pal Singh.He proved the charge sheet and other record of the investigation.

P.W.6, Anil Kumar, Additional Superintendent of Police,Rural, Ghazipur stated that he conducted the initial investigation and he proved the part of the investigation done by him.

P.W.7, Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sagar, stated in his evidence that he conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Smt. Alka wife of Rahaul Chauhan.His findings are as follows-:

"Ligature mark- 28 cm x 2 cm x around the neck. 8 cm below from chin. Obliquely placed along lower border of mandible. Ligature mark missing at rt. side of martoid process. On cut section, subcutaneous tissue in parchment like. Bed of ligature mark is showing abrasions. Ligature mark is situated above thyroid cartilage".

P.W.8, Manoj Varshney stated before the court that on 3.8.2011 he was posted as Naib Tehsildar, Hathras and got the inquest report of the deceased prepared .He proved his signature thereon.

P.W.9., Yogesh Sharma, Pairokar P.S. Kotwali, Hathras proved the chik F.I.R. and the signatures thereon.

C.W.1, Constable Anil Kumar, proved that the case diary of the case was filed before the court of C.J.M. on 5.11.2011 and proved the same.

The defence examined D.W.1, Dashrath Singh, who stated that at the time of incident accused, Munni Devi, Rashmi and her husband, Chetan, were at his house at Fatehgarh since they had come to attend the funeral of her daughter-in-law on 31.7.2011 and were staying at his house.The witness claimed that co-accused Munni Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased, was his sister.

The statement of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.c. wherein they denied the prosecution case and stated that at the time of incident Smt. Munni Devi was in her parents' house and co-accused, Chetan and his wife, Rashmi, are residing separately from the family of the deceased. Co-accused Pramod Kumar, stated that he does not resides at Gajroli and accused Rahul stated that the deceased was a women of obstinate nature and used to make demands of going to her parents' house and used to taunt him that she has been married to peon and her life has been spoiled.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that ingredients for constituting offence under section 304-B I.P.C. are not made out in the present case.There are general allegations against all the accused persons without any particulars and details as to what action was alleged against each accused.There is no allegation of causing any specific injury or act of cruelty against accused persons. There is no evidence of sending any complaint to the police or S.P. by registered post with regard to any incident in the First Information Report.Even the married daughters, namely, Rakhi and Deepu, were implicated in this case alongwith their husbands. There is no allegation that Smt.Munni Devi was living in the house nor there is allegation that the Jeth and Jithani of the deceased were also living in the same house.He has relied upon a judgement of this court in the case of Shivendra Raizada Vs. State of U.P., 2018, Law Suit(All),382 and has submitted that there should be specific allegations against the members of the family regarding the alleged offence.

The only allegation against all the accused persons is that deceased used to tell her family members about her harassment by the family members of matrimonial home. The appellants have been wrongly convicted for offence under section 498-A I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act without there being any specific allegation of harassment and cruelty against any of the accused.

The appellants are poor persons and the informant Anil Singh Tomar, is an advocate/state Counsel in Firozabad. P.W.1, Pramod Solanki, is friend of Anil Singh Tomar and also an advocate .He has admitted in his cross examination that since 1992 he is practicing and not an eyewitness of any incident or any event of harassment meted out to the deceased. Promod Solanki was not a reliable witness and being friend of the informant and advocate he gave false statement before the court.

There are general allegations against all the family members of matrimonial home of the deceased. The registered letter dated 7.4.2011 was neither mentioned in the First Information Report nor given to the investigating officer during investigation so that its veracity could have been verified by the investigating officer. If it was sent to the office of S.P. what action was taken on the same was not proved. Unless there is cogent and convincing evidence against the accused in connection with demand of dowry merely on suspicion conviction can not be ordered on account of unnatural death of the women within seven years of her marriage.

The trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants under section 498-A I.P.C. and section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act and section 304-B I.P.C. separately when the Apex court in the case of Shanti Devi Vs. State of Hariyana,AIR 1991, SC1226 and Kailash Vs. State of M.P. (2006),12 SCC,667 and other cases held that conviction of the appellants under section 498-A I.P.c. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act alongwith section 304-B I.P.c. is not sustainable.

The First Information Report was lodged alleging the offence of murder but the trial court framed charges under section 304-B I.P.C. None of the accused were present in the house when the deceased committed suicide. The trial court was required to give definite finding that the deceased was murdered or she committed suicide herself. The trial court has only narrated the prosecution case and evidence then suddenly came to the conclusion that it is a case of dowry death. On the same evidence the trial court has exonerated co-accused, Pramod Kumar and Smt. Rashmi and convicted the three accuseds without any specific evidence against them for murder of the deceased and murder of child in her womb, the appellants have been convicted under section 316 I.P.C.

It appears to be a case of suicide since no mark of struggle ,injury on any part of her body or bruises or tearing of hair or loss of cloth, etc., has not been found.Only one ligature mark which incomplete and missing at right side of mastoid was found. The hyoid bone was not fractured and ligature mark was not complete. As per medical jurisprudence it was a clear case of suicide.

In the First Information Report there is no allegation that the deceased was pregnant or that the accused had committed the murder of unborn child. Even in the inquest report there is no such recital. It was only in the postmortem report that the pregnancy was discovered.

Learned counsel for the appellants has laid emphasis on the fact that the marriage of the deceased with co-accused, Rahul, took place on 2.12.2010 and she died on 3.11.2011 and the child in the womb was found of more than eight and a half months ,therefore, the pregnancy of the deceased was of prior to the marriage of the deceased with co-accused, Rahul.The doctor gave the evidence that the cause of death of the deceased was suicide,therefore it was a case of suicide on account of unwanted /undisclosed pregnancy contacted before marriage and the appellants have wrongly been convicted for offence under section 316 I.P.C.

In the absence of any allegation in the First Information Report and only on the basis of postmortem report, trial court framed charge no.3, that all the accused persons beated the deceased on 3.8.2011 resulting into the death of the child in the womb.There was no such allegation in the First Information Report, in the statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating officer and hence the charge was framed hypothetically. If the pregnant women committed suicide on her own the family members of her matrimonial home cannot be punished for the offence under section 316 I.P.C.

In the inquest report the witnesses have stated that Rahul and others have committed murder of the Alka.There was no injury on the body of the deceased except the injury on neck.P.W.1 and P.W. 2 have stated that dead body of the deceased was lying on the bed after being murdered when the evidence shows that the deceased was hanged or she hanged herself to death. The entire evidence is based on hearsay. The inquest report is alleged to have been prepared on 3.8.2011 but the Naib Tehsildar, Manoj Varshney has signed the same on 4.8.2011,therefore, the testimony of P.W.8, Manoj Varshney, is not reliable .The aforesaid witness could not prove the "Chunari" of the deceased,recovered near dead body in his cross examination. In the inquest report pregnancy of the deceased was purposedly suppressed and not mentioned on account of the influence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are advocates . The witnesses of the prosecution have admitted that at the time of incident accused -appellants were not present.From the statement of prosecution witness P.W.3, Rashmi, it is clear that at the time marriage, Rahul was stated to be a teacher but subsequently it was discovered that he was appointed as peon under the Dying and Harness Rules in place of his father.The deceased was not happy with appellant, Rahul, and this was also the cause of uncordial relationship of the informant with the family members of the matrimonial home of his sister.

Learned counsel for the appellants has finally submitted that appellant, Rahul, is in jail since 10.8.2011 and is about to complete the maximum sentence of ten years awarded to him.The other appellants, Smt.Munni Devi and Chetan have been falsely implicated and deserve to be acquitted forthwith.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the arguments made on behalf of the appellants and has submitted that since deceased died within seven years of her marriage with the appellant Rahul, the burden of proving the fact that the appellants are innocent would be on them.There is evidence on record that the deceased was subjected to harassment by her husband and other relatives soon before her death. Even in the absence of direct testimony, offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Under section 113-B of Evidence Act, if it is shown that soon before her death such women was subjected to cruelty by such persons for, or, in connection with any demand of dowry, the court shall presume that such persons have caused the dowry death.He has submitted that prior to the death of the deceased the Superintendent of Police was informed by the informant by registered letter dated 7.4.2011 that his sister is being harassed on the demand of dowry by the accused persons.Therefore soon before the death of the deceased there is evidence of harassment of deceased and hence the conviction and sentence to the appellants is justified and calls for no interference.

Shri Dharam Veer Singh, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that it is a case of dowry death and it was proved from the record that soon before her death deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for not fulfilling the demand of Rs. Two lacs and Wagon R car .He has submitted that as per section 304-B I.P.C. read with section 113-B of Evidence Act,there is presumption against the accused persons that they have caused dowry death if it is proved that soon before her death deceased was subject to cruelty or harassment for any demand of dowry.He has submitted that burden of proof lies upon the accused persons to prove their innocence which they have failed to prove in the present case.The witness has not been able to prove that demand of dowry was not made by them.The allegations in the First Information Report are correct.The cause of death of the deceased has already not been proved by the accused persons as to how she died. In reply to the argument made by the learned counsel for the appellants he has submitted that general allegations have been made against all the members of matrimonial home of the deceased. He has submitted that First Information Report has been lodged by the brother of the deceased, he cannot be expected to have knowledge of various instances on which the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons. The Apex Court has held in various judgments that First Information Report cannot be expected to be encyclopedia of the entire case .The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that no sign of injuries were found on the person of the deceased was not correct since cruelty can be mental and physical and both.Even mental cruelty will constitute the offence under section 304-B I.P.C. He has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kamesh Panjiyar alias Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs. State of Bihar, 2005 SCC(Cri)511 and Judgement of Apex Court in case of Pathan Hussain Basha vs State (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 989. The Apex Court has explained pharse "soon before her death" used under section 304-B I.P.c. and held that narrow contruction of phrase was not intended by the legislature .However Apex Court has held that at the same time, being penal provision it must receive strict construction required to be followed.He has submitted that argument that deceased committed suicide is absurd and has not been proved by any evidence such as suicide note. At the time of incident it is highly doubtful that accused persons were not present in the house ,therefore alibi to this effect is without any basis. The accused persons compelled the deceased and she committed suicide for demand of dowry. Resort to her character assassination has been made by trying to prove that deceased was pregnant prior to her marriage with appellant, Rahul. Doctor was not cross-examined on this point nor other witnesses were examined on this issue. The argument is misconceived and deserves to be turned down.

After considering the rival submissions this court finds that four essential ingredients of section 304-B I.P.C are :-

I. The death of a women is caused by burns or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances;

2.The death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

3.Women is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband soon before her death;

4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for, or inconnection with any demand of dowry.

In the present case the death of the women was caused not because of any burns or bodily injury but "otherwise than under normal circumstance".Whether the women in this case was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relatives of her husband for the demand of dowry soon before her death was required to be determined. The prosecution has relied upon an application dated 7.4.2011 sent by registered post to the Superintendent of police but there is no mention of the same in the First Information Report or in the statements collected by the investigating officer during the investigation. The aforesaid complaint and the receipt of registered post was neither proved nor exhibited before the trial court.

This is the only documentary evidence led by the prosecution to prove that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives of her husband in relation to demand of dowry. There are oral testimonies of P.W.1,P.W.2,P.W.3 and P.W.4 in this regard which are consistent and clear.

The medical evidence does not suggests that the deceased was done to death by way of throttling or strangulation. Her death has been caused by way of asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem hanging. P.W.3, Rashmi wife of Manoj alias Dharmendra Tomar,who is sister-in-law(Bhabhi) of deceased has admitted in her cross-examination that she knew that accused Rahul, husband of the deceased, was a teacher but she has come to know that he was only a peon. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.c. appellant, Rahul, has stated that deceased was women of obstinate nature. She was making request for going to her parents' house which was not accepted by him.She also used to say that she has been married to a peon and her life has become hell. It appears that the family members of the deceased had married her to the appellant, Rahul, on the impression that after the death of his father, who was a teacher, he has been given appointment on the post of teacher on compassionate basis. The deceased had realized this fact after her marriage and her sister-in-law Rashmi (Bhabhi)(P.W.4) admitted that she was not aware of this fact till the death of the deceased.After her death she has come to know that appellant, Rahul was a peon. However, the P.W.2, informant, has stated that he and his parents were aware that Rahul is a class IV for employee and not teacher before his marriage with the deceased

The argument that the P.W.8, Naib Tehasildar ,Manoj Kumar was not present at the time of inquest is not borne from the record.On the last page of the inquest report the date has been mentioned as 3.8.2011 clearly. However in the second last page of the inquest report, above the name and signature of Naib Tehsalidar the date 4.8.2011 has been mentioned which appears to be on account of some manipulation in the record.

The argument that the deceased committed suicide on account of unwanted pregnancy since she was married to appellant Rahul on 2.12.2010 and she died on 3.8.2011 does not appears to be correct. The total period comes to about eight months only. However from the postmortem report of the deceased only 34 weeks of pregnancy of the deceased was found, which comes to 238 days, or 8 months therefore, argument regarding the deceased being pregnant prior to her marriage, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, is not tenable.Even if it is accepted that deceased committed suicide then the act of the appellants was such that it amounted to abetment as per section 107 I.P.C. The appellant, Rahul, may have been married to the deceased on false discloser of fact that he is teacher and after marriage she realised that he was only peon and therefore as per explanation -1 to section 107 I.P.C. the appellants can be considered to have indulged in willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of material fact , which they were bound to disclose to the deceased and her family members and voluntarily instigated the deceased to commit the suicide.The burden of proof was on the defence to prove that the deceased was not subjected to any mental cruelty before her death and they were not responsible for the commission of suicide.They failed to do so.

The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the punishment of the appellant for the offences under section 316 I.P.C. is unwarranted since there was no allegation in the First Information Report in this regard is not correct. From the postmortem report the deceased was found to be pregnant and the child in womb died account of her death.The postmortem report fully supports the charge no.3 framed against the appellants in this regard.

The argument that separate punishment under section 498-A I.P.C. section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act and under section 304 B I.P.C. are unwarranted appears to be well founded. Once the charges under section 304-B I.P.C. was found proved,there is no justification for awarding punishment under sections 498A I.P.c. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act as held by this court in the case of Deepak Kumar alias Babu alias Ballu Vs. State of U.P.,20199Law suit, (All),1225 and judgment of the Apex court in the Shanti Vs. State of Hariyana,1991 AIR, (SC), 1226.

Even if it is assumed that deceased committed suicide cause of her suicide was conduct of the accused persons. They have not been able to prove the cause of suicide by the deceased within a year of marriage. The burden was on them to prove that they are innocent. They have failed to explain as to why deceased committed suicide. The argument that deceased had contacted pregnancy prior to her marriage with appellant, Rahul, cannot be accepted since the period of marriage and previous pregnancy are almost the same coming about 240 days. The doctor was not examined on the point, whether pregnancy could have been older 34 weeks. The argument that the pregnancy of the deceased was not mentioned in the inquest report is misconceived since the witnesses were not in regular contact of the deceased,therefore they could not know whether she was pregnant or not. Therefore conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 316 I.P.C. does not deserves to be interfered and is confirmed.

The conviction under section 498-A I.P.C. and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition are unjustified since appellants have been found guilty of committing offence under section 304-B I.P.C. Therefore conviction of the appellant Rahul and Smt. Munni Devi under section 498-A and section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act are set aside. Therefore conviction under section 304-B I.P.C. is confirmed. The appellant, Rahul is in jail since 10.8.2011 and other appellants,namely, Chetan and Smt. Munni Devi are in jail since 10.8.2018.

The sentence of appellant Rahul under section 304-B and 316 I.P.C. is reduced to period already undergone, which is about nine and half years.

Regarding appellant Smt. Munni Devi, it is found that Munni Devi is aged about 68 years and therefore her sentence is reduced to seven years, while confirming her sentence under section 316 and 304-B I.P.C. which shall shall concurrently

The appellant, Chetan, is the elder brother of appellant Rahul.He has been implicated since he was alleged to be residing with other appellants in the same home. His wife, Rashmi Devi, has been acquitted on the ground that she was pregnant and not residing in her matrimonial home but in her parents' home at the time of the incident. The appellant had taken a plea of alibi that he alongwith his mother had gone to the house of D.W.1 when the incident took place. The D.W.1 has testified this fact before the court below but it did not found favour.

Considering the fact that appellant, Chetan, has his own family and now a days it is difficult for two married brothers to live in the same house, more so when they are not financially very sound, appellant, Chetan, is given benefit of doubt and acquitted.Had he been greedy he would have harassed his wife for dowry and not his brother's wife

The judgement of the trial court stands modified to the extent stated above.

Appellant, Rahul, in Criminal Appeal No.4955 of 2018 is directed to be released forthwith, since his sentence is being reduced to period already undergone. L

Appellant, Munni Devi, in Criminal Appeal No. 5108 of 2018 will complete her remaining reduced sentence of seven years as directed above after adjustment of sentence already undergone.

Appellant, Chetan, in Criminal Appeal No. 4942 of 2018 is acquitted of all charges and shall be released from jail forthwith.

All the three Criminal Appeals noted above are partly allowed.

Let the copy of the judgement alongwith lower court record be transmitted to the court below for compliance.

Order Date :- 2.3.2021

Atul kr. sri.