Kali Prasad vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 10213 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
          (LUCKNOW BENCH)
 
                                                      
 
						A.F.R.	
 
		Reserved on 01.06.2022
 
                 Delivered on 16.08.2022
 
Court No. - 1
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1024 of 2018
 
Appellant :- Kali Prasad
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 
WITH 
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 525 of 2018
 
Appellants :- (1) Parsu Ram and (2) Raj Patti
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

(Per Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J. for the Bench)

1. The Criminal Appeal No.1024 of 2018 (Kali Prasad vs. State of U.P.) has been filed by the convict/appellant Kali Prasad and Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2018 (Parsu Ram And Another vs. State of U.P.) has been filed by the convicts/appellants Parsu Ram and Smt. Raj Patti against the judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, (1st), Ambedkar Nagar in Sessions Trial No.189 of 2010 (State vs. Kali Prasad and Others), arising out of Crime No.727 of 2010, under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.), Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals in short are as under:-

A First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) was registered at Case Crime No.727/2010 at Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar on the basis of written report presented by the complainant Jitendra Kumar. It was stated in the report that the marriage of his sister Neelam was solemnized ten years back with Kali Prasad. After so many years his sister had no child, for that reason Kali Prasad, Raj Patti @ Nankau (mother of Kali Prasad) and Parsu Ram (father of Kali Prasad) used to torture and harass his sister. Just three months ahead, his sister conceived and these people doubted that the conception was illegitimate so they started beating and harassing his sister and on 06.08.2010 they ousted his sister from home. His sister reached at the house of complainant on the same day. On 07.08.2010, Kali Prasad came to the house of the complainant and requested to send his sister with him (Kali Prasad), on that the complainant and family members sent his sister with Kali Prasad. Since the evening of 10.08.2010 Kali Prasad and his parents again started beating and abusing his sister which was seen and heard by the neighbours and they intervened also. On that Raj Patti told these neighbours that it was her private matter and it would not be good if they intervene. Thereafter they all took her sister inside a room in the house and killed her and in order to hide the crime hanged her corpse. Information of the same was given on the same day by him (complainant) in the police station and the inquest and the post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted on the same day.

3. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against Kali Prasad, Parsu Ram and Raj Patti, under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of I.P.C. The concerned Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The court of Sessions framed the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of I.P.C. against convicts/appellants. They all denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined following witnesses:-

(i) P.W.1- Ramcharitra;

(ii) P.W.2- Chhati Ram;

(iii) P.W.3- Jitendra Kumar, the complainant;

(iv) P.W.4- Ramprasad, the witness of inquest;

(v) P.W.5- Omprakash Verma;

(vi) P.W.6- Head Constable Bantesh Bahadur Singh;

(vii) P.W.7- Inspector Baijnath Dubey, the Investigating Officer;

(viii) P.W.8- Dr. Omkarnath Verma, who conducted the postmortem examination;

Apart from the oral evidence, relevant documents have also been proved by the prosecution and the exhibits are as under:-

(i) Exhibit Ka-1- Written report;

(ii) Exhibit Ka-2- Primary information given by the complainant;

(iii) Exhibit Ka-2A- Inquest report;

(iv) Exhibit Ka-3- Chick F.I.R.;

(v) Exhibit Ka-4- Carbon copy of the concerned General Diary;

(vi) Exhibit Ka-5- Letter to C.M.O.;

(vii) Exhibit Ka-6- Specimen seal;

(viii) Exhibit Ka-7- Letter to C.M.O. for handing over the clothes of the deceased;

(ix) Exhibit Ka-8- Police Form No.379;

(x) Exhibit Ka-9- Police Form No.13;

(xi) Exhibit Ka-10- Police Form No.33;

(xii) Exhibit Ka-11- Site plan of the place of occurrence;

(xiii) Exhibit Ka-12- Charge sheet;

(xiv) Exhibit Ka-13- Post mortem examination report.

5. After close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of convicts/appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) were recorded. All the three convicts/ appellants denied the incident and stated that there is no eye witness of the incident. Kali Prasad himself informed the complainant Jitendra Kumar about the incident by reaching at his place. The complainant came to the place of incident and brought down the dead body of the deceased and informed the police station. Thereafter, police reached at the spot. They all have stated that the complainant on 11.08.2010 informed the real incident at the police station which is available on record as Exhibit Ka-2. Thereafter on 17.08.2010 he lodged a false F.I.R. with ulterior motive on the basis of false allegations. It has also been stated that the deceased used to think that she was not having child and some days ahead of the incident deceased was considering herself pregnant. On the date of incident i.e. on 10.08.2010 in the evening she accidentally fell down on the cot and got injured and started bleeding. For this reason she felt depressed and after taking meal and medicines she slept and committed suicide in the night at some time. Kali Prasad came to know about this fact in the morning.

6. The convicts/appellants also got examined two witnesses in defence, these are D.W.1- Ramsagun and D.W.2- Chanda.

7. After completion of evidence, learned trial court heard the arguments of both sides. After going through the evidences available on record, the trial court relied upon the evidence of P.W.3, the complainant corroborated by the medical evidence and also the fact that the deceased died in the house of the convicts/appellants and they failed to explain the reason of the death of the deceased, and came to the conclusion that the convicts/appellants killed the deceased and in order to show that the deceased committed suicide hanged her dead body in the room. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges framed against the convicts/appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of I.P.C. The learned trial court held the convicts/appellants guilty under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of I.P.C. and punished them with imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. coupled with a fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of six months for each. Under Sections 201/34 I.P.C., the convicts/appellants were punished with sentence of three years of Rigorous Imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of two months for each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period of incarceration during the trial be adjusted in the present imprisonment. Being aggrieved of this conviction and sentence, these appeals have been preferred.

8. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Ms. Ruhi Siddiqui, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the convicts/appellants has submitted that the impugned judgment and order is bad in the eye of law because the conviction of appellants is based on conjectures and surmises. The learned trial court has not applied its legal mind while convicting the appellants. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has ignored the statements of defence witnesses and without any conclusive evidence has convicted the appellants. The learned trial court has not considered the fact that there was no motive to commit the murder of the deceased as the reason of committing murder mentioned by the informant in the F.I.R. is not proved by the prosecution. The learned trial court has overlooked the fact that Kali Prasad himself informed about the incident to the informant. Kali Prasad went to the house of complainant and informed him that his sister has closed the room from inside and asked the complainant to come to the place of occurrence. The learned trial court has convicted the appellants on the basis of post mortem report only wherein the doctor has given opinion on injury in the intestine but at the same time stated that no external injury was found on the corpse. The learned trial court did not consider the fact that when the brother of the deceased i.e. the informant came to the place of incident, he found the door closed and the complainant himself was one of the witnesses of inquest. It was further argued by the counsel for convicts/appellants Parsu Ram and Raj Patti that they were not present at the spot on the day of incident as they had gone for treatment to Ahmedabad where their daughter was residing. Hence, the impugned judgment and order should be set aside and the convicts/appellants should be acquitted.

10. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the convicts/appellants, learned A.G.A. argued that there is allegation of harassment and torture of the deceased in the first information report and that has been proved by the complainant, the brother of the deceased. The complainant has also proved that his sister came to his house as the convicts/ appellants ousted her from her in-laws' home but Kali Prasad came and took her back. As far as the information given by the complainant i.e. Exhibit Ka-2 is concerned, it is quite natural that, initially he was not thinking aware of the fact that his sister was killed so he just informed the police station about the death of his sister on which the inquest was conducted and the body was sent for post mortem. In the post mortem examination, it was revealed that there were ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased and hanging was 'Post-Mortem'. He doubted that his sister was killed by Kali Prasad and his parents as they used to beat and harass his sister for the reason that his sister had no child and when she conceived just 3-4 months ahead from the date of incident, then they doubted that the pregnancy was illegitimate. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that it is the admitted fact that the deceased was found dead in the room where Kali Prasad and the deceased used to reside. In the post mortem report, the hanging was found post-mortem and ante-mortem injuries were also found. In the post mortem report severe injuries were also found on the body of the deceased and these injuries were sufficient to cause the death of deceased. Learned A.G.A. further argued that the convicts/appellants have failed to explain the fact how deceased sustained these injuries and how the deceased could hang herself after her death. Learned A.G.A. further argued that the plea of alibi by the convicts/ appellants Raj Patti and Parsu Ram is also not reliable because in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they have not stated that they were not present in the house on the day of incident as they were in Ahmedabad but subsequently just to create evidence they examined their daughter Chanda as D.W.2, to prove that they were in Ahmedabad for their treatment. Hence, there is no error in the judgment and order passed by the trial court and both the appeals should be dismissed.

11. Considered the rival submissions and perused the original record of the trial court as well as the record of these appeals.

12. Admittedly the deceased died at her matrimonial home i.e. in the house of convicts/appellants. The place of occurrence where the dead body of the deceased was found, was the room of convict/ appellant Kali Prasad. It is also admitted that the convict/appellant Kali Prasad went to inform the complainant about the incident at his (complainant's) house. After getting the information, the complainant informed the police station submitting Exhibit Ka-2 wherein he stated that in the morning of 11.08.2010 Kali Prasad informed him that his sister had closed the room from inside. When he went there and got the door opened, he found that his sister was dead. On this information police reached at the spot and conducted the inquest i.e. Exhibit Ka-2A and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. In the inquest report it was mentioned that the door was closed from inside, and was opened with the help of the people gathered there. The dead body of the deceased was found hanging and brought down and sent for post mortem. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted on 11.08.2010 at 03:30 P.M. The post mortem report is Exhibit Ka-13. The following facts were found by the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased:-

(i) No decomposition was found and Rigor Mortis was present. Ligature marking 1 cm wide just above thyroid extended up to right ear obliquely on right side and horizontally on left side up to middle on lateral side of neck;

(ii) Teeth clenched with tip of tongue bitten between teeth;

(iii) No Salivation;

(iv) Tongue not protruded;

(v) Eyes congested on the left side with face- PM;

(vi) P/V discharge blood tinged present;

(vii) Fingers and nails cyanosed of both hands;

(viii) Rope of jute 1 cm wide found around neck, loose circle. Pleural was found congested, Larynx pale and intact. No fracture of thyroid bone. S/C Blood clot present above thyroid on anterior surface. Lungs on both sides highly congested with blackening patches. Intestines full of gases with congestion in front loops with blackened intestines in size wound 6 cm x 3 cm area. Uterus was found Nulliparous.

The cause of death of deceased has been mentioned as "hard and blunt injury to abdomen leading to intestinal contusion and resulting shock and followed by Post-Mortem hanging by jute rope." Duration has been mentioned as one day.

13. The doctor who conducted the post mortem has been examined as P.W.8. This witness has proved the post mortem examination report as Exhibit Ka-13 and stated that death of the deceased occurred after becoming unconscious of injuries caused by blunt and hard object and thereafter tightening of rope around her neck. The noose of rope was present on her neck. In the cross-examination this witness has stated that there was no physical injury on the external parts of the body but in the internal examination, injury was found on the small intestine. The injury was blackish and bluish in colour. No blood was oozing out of that injury. It has also been stated in the cross-examination that due to the injury found on the intestine, the deceased might have become unconscious. This witness has denied the suggestion that the injury found on the body of the deceased could come by falling on something.

14. P.W.3, the complainant has stated before the trial court that his sister Neelam was married to Kali Prasad but she could not have child even after passing of 10 years of marriage and for that reason, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law used to beat her. Three months before the incident, his sister conceived and her mother-in-law said to her that the conception was illegitimate and started beating her. On 06.08.2010, these persons ousted his sister after beating her. His sister came to his (P.W.3) house and told her mother about the incident and also told that they used to beat her and said that the child was illegitimate. Thereafter Kali Prasad came to his (P.W.3) house and requested to send his sister with him and he sent his sister with Kali Prasad. On 11.08.2010, his brother-in-law (Kali Prasad) came to his house in the morning at 5 O'Clock and told that his sister (wife of Kali Prasad) had closed the room from inside and requested him to come and get the door opened. Thereafter he (P.W.3) and 4-6 more persons started to the house of the convicts/ appellants, on the way he (complainant) thought that first he should go to the police station. This witness went to the police station and gave information. The police came at the spot and entered the room where the deceased was residing, the door of which was opened by kicks and he saw that the dead body of his sister was hanging, the police got the dead body down and conducted the Panchnama (inquest) and thereafter sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He has further stated that after post mortem examination, he received the dead body and did the cremation. He has further stated that the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased had absconded from the spot. This witness has proved the written report as Exhibit Ka-2.

15. P.W.4 is Ram Prasad who has proved the inquest report as Exhibit Ka-2A and has stated that in his presence, the inquest was conducted and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination and he also signed at the inquest report as a 'Panch'. In the cross-examination this witness has stated that the dead body was found in the room of Kali Prasad and also denied the suggestion that the deceased committed suicide. P.W.6 has proved the Chick F.I.R. as he registered the F.I.R. and made the entry in the concerned General Diary. He has proved Chick F.I.R. as Exhibit Ka-3 and the carbon copy of General Diary as Exhibit Ka-4. P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer and he has stated before the trial court that on 10.08.2011 he reached at the spot after getting the information of death of the deceased. He reached at the spot along with Sub-Inspector P.K. Katiyar, Constable Jagdamba Singh and Head Constable Rangnath Mishra. He got conducted the inquest by Sub-Inspector P.K. Katiyar and the relevant papers were prepared by Sub-Inspector P.K. Katiyar and sent the dead body for postmortem. This witness has proved the inquest report and relevant papers in the handwriting of Sub-Inspector P.K. Katiyar as he has seen the handwriting in the ordinary course and identified his writing and signature. This witness has further stated that he has inspected the place of occurrence on the pointing out of the complainant and prepared the site plan. This site plan has been proved as Exhibit Ka-11. He has further stated that after recording the statements of witnesses he submitted the charge sheet against the convicts/ appellants and proved the same as Exhibit Ka-12. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that he received the information of the incident from Jitendra Kumar. In the written information about the death of his sister, Jitendra Kumar did not tell him about the murder. He reached on the spot and opened the door with the help of the persons present there and found the body of the deceased hanging. He has also stated that the room of Raj Patti @ Nankav and Parsu Ram was at a distance of 15-20 feet from the place of incident. The rope was present around the neck of the deceased. In the cross-examination, this witness has further stated that since findings in post mortem report and the injury sustained were contradictory so the same was placed for legal opinion. In between, on 17.08.2010, the complainant gave written report on the basis of which the case was registered. He has also stated that there was no physical injury on the stomach of the deceased. He has further stated that before getting the post mortem examination report, he was not aware of the fact that the case was of a murder. This witness has denied the suggestion that the deceased had committed suicide and he with the connivance of the complainant made it a case of murder.

16. Learned counsel for the convicts/appellants argued that the room where the incident occurred was found closed from inside. The deceased herself closed the door and committed suicide as she was depressed about not having a child. The learned counsel for the convicts/appellants drew the attention of the court towards the facts mentioned in the inquest report as well as the statement of P.W.7 wherein he has stated that room was found closed and he got it opened and submitted that this evidence shows that the room was closed from inside so the convicts/appellants did not hang the deceased and she hanged herself inside the room.

17. We considered the above argument, In our opinion this argument of defence counsel does not have force because in the cross-examination P.W.7, the Investigating Officer has stated that the room was closed and he got it opened with the help of people present there. He was further asked by the defence counsel whether the door was broken, then he stated that the door was not broken but got opened. This witness has not stated that the door was closed from inside, he has stated only that the door was closed. P.W.3, the complainant has also stated before the trial court that the Investigating Officer came on the spot and made two kicks on the door and the door was opened. He has clearly stated that the door was not closed from the inside and further cleared that if the door might have been closed from the inside then that would not have been opened by merely two kicks of the Investigating Officer. It shows that the door was closed, but it was not closed from the inside. The post mortem examination report shows that severe injury was found in the intestine of the deceased. In the opinion of doctor conducting the autopsy of the deceased, when the deceased became unconscious then she would have been hanged. In the opinion of doctor the hanging was post-mortem. The person cannot hang himself or herself when he or she is unconscious, hence, the version of the defence that the deceased committed suicide herself by hanging cannot be believed. D.W.1 Ram Sagun has stated that the door was closed from inside and that was opened after breaking but the Investigating Officer and P.W.3 both have stated that the door was not broken but it was opened with the help of people. D.W.1 has further stated that when room was opened after breaking the door it was found that dead body was hanging and it was brought down and some water was sprinkled on the dead body and it was found that Neelam was dead then again she was hanged with a noose of rope and door was closed and the police came thereafter. This defence witness has stated that the door was closed again, and in such circumstances the argument that the door was closed from inside is not trustworthy. All this shows that the door was not closed from inside but it was closed. As the dead body was found hanging inside the room where Kali Prasad and the deceased used to reside, a heavy burden lies on convict/appellant Kali Prasad to explain the injuries found on the body of the deceased. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act provides as under:-

"106. Burden of providing fact especially within knowledge.- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Kumar Haldar vs. State of Sikkim (2019) 7 SCC 684 observed as under:-

"15. In another judgment Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 80] , the Court considered a situation wherein the accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife. The prosecution succeeded in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of the crime, they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling house where the appellant normally resided. The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 694-95, para 22)

"22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of H.P. [Nika Ram v. State of H.P., (1972) 2 SCC 80 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 635] it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with "khukhri" and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra [Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 435] the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642] the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of T.N. v. Rajendran [State of T.N. v. Rajendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 40] the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime.""

18. In the present matter the convict Kali Prasad had failed to give any plausible and satisfactory explanation about the death of his wife. The theory put forward by the defence is not supported by the post mortem report and the evidence given by P.W.3, P.W.7 and P.W.8. In the trial court the convict/appellant Kali Prasad has utterly failed to explain the injuries found on the body of the deceased. Though he tried to say that the deceased fell down on the cot and received injuries in her stomach and started bleeding and she went into depression and committed suicide but that is not being supported by the evidence available on record. The medical witness P.W.8 has clearly denied the suggestion made by the defence counsel that such an injury would have occurred due to falling on something, hence it is proved that the deceased was killed by Kali Prasad (the husband of the deceased).

19. As far as the convicts/appellants Raj Patti and Parsu Ram are concerned, according to the evidence available on record, they used to reside in the same house at a distance of 15-20 feet from the place of occurrence. It is quite possible that what happened inside the room they were not aware of that. D.W.2, Chanda daughter of Parsu Ram and Raj Patti has stated that they both were present at her house in Ahmedabad on the date of incident for their treatment. Though no prescription of treatment was produced by D.W.1 and even in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Parsu Ram and Raj Patti have not stated that they were not present in the house at the time of incident, hence, this plea of 'alibi' is not acceptable, but their involvement in killing the deceased is not proved beyond reasonable doubt because only one injury in the stomach was found in the small intestine of the deceased, which according to the doctor proved fatal. If these two convicts/appellants had also assaulted the deceased, some more injuries would have been found on the person of the deceased. Hence from the above analysis, it is clear that the prosecution has proved that the deceased was killed by Kali Prasad by assaulting her in her stomach which was supported by the post mortem examination wherein severe injury in her small intestine was found and when she became unconscious she was hanged, (as the doctor has clearly written in the post mortem examination report that, it was a 'Post-Mortem' hanging). As far as the involvement of Raj Patti and Parsu Ram are concerned their involvement in the killing of the deceased could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt for the reason that only one severe injury in the intestine of the deceased was found. Hence they deserve to be given the benefit of doubt.

20. Hence to sum up the conviction and sentence awarded to Parsu Ram and Raj Patti is hereby set aside. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.1024 of 2018 is dismissed and Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2018 is hereby allowed.

21. The appellant Kali Prasad is already in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court. The convicts/appellants Parsu Ram and Raj Patti are already on bail by the order of this Court. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

22. The convicts/appellants Parsu Ram and Raj Patti are directed to file personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in compliance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

23. Office is directed to send a copy of this order along with lower court record to the trial court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 16.08.2022

S. Shivhare