Sheo Bux Singh And Others vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1983 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved on 22.04.2022
 
Delivered on 05.05.2022
 
Court No. -2
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 54 of 1984
 

 
Appellant :- Sheo Bux Singh And Others
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kr.Mridul Rakesh,Anuj Dayal,Kr.Mukul Rakesh,Kunwar Mukul Rakesh,Kunwar Sushant Prakash,Rajiv Raman Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.

(Per:- Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

1. We have heard Sri Anuj Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anurag Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 19.01.1984 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao in Sessions Trial No.112/1980 arising out of Crime No.39/1979, under Sections 148, 302/149, 429, 436, 323 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.), Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao, whereby the appellant No.1, Sheo Bux Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C.; one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C.; life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C.; ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 436/149 I.P.C.; five years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 429/149. The appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C.; life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C.; ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 436/149 I.P.C.; five years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 429/149 I.P.C.; one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323/149 I.P.C. The appellant No.3, Nanha Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C.; life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.; ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 436/149 I.P.C.; five years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 429/149 I.P.C.; one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323/149 I.P.C. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the charge-sheets, Ex. Ka-7 and Ex. Ka-12 were laid before learned trial Court against six accused persons. The case against accused, Ram Bux Singh and Dev Bux Singh stood abated during trial due to their death. The instant appeal was filed by three appellants, namely, Sheo Bux Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Nanha Singh. Due to death of appellant no.1, Sheo Bux Singh and appellant no.3, Nanha Singh, the instant appeal has already been abated, vide order of this Court dated 21.04.2018. Therefore, the present appeal survives only in respect of appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh.

4. The facts as unfolded by the prosecution, in short conspectus, are that a written report, Ex. Ka-2 was given at Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao in the intervening night of 13.02.1979/14.02.1979 at 00:30 hours by the first informant, Vijay Bahadur Singh, P.W.-2 stating therein that on 13.02.1979 at about 9:00 P.M., Ram Bux Singh, Dev Bux Singh armed with fire arms, Sheo Bux Singh armed with lathi along with one of his associate Raj Bahadur Singh, who was armed with country made fire arm and Nanha Singh, who was carrying a knife, came to the house of younger brother of the first informant and pressed his door and opened fire at his door. These accused persons hurled abuses and were also extending threat to kill. On hearing commotion, the first informant came upstairs and raised alarm. The accused persons opened fire at the first informant who, after taking shelter, started pelting stones etc. at the accused persons. Meanwhile, accused, Dev Bux Singh torched the thatch of Ram Singh and Ram Prakash and thereafter, torched the houses of Kallu Singh, Bhagauti Lodh and the house of the first informant. They also set the stubble ablaze. They were extending threat to shoot anyone who comes to rescue. Due to commotion, Jagan, Chetram, Purvi, Prabhu, Ram Sevak Yadav and some other people came to the spot and also raised alarm. Ram Sevak was hit by Sheo Bux Singh by Lathi when he was trying to take his animals away.

4(a) In this incident of torching thatches etc. two bulls, one buffalo, one cow and one calf belonging to Kallu Singh died due to burn injuries, whereas a buffalo and a goat belonging to Ram Prakash and two buffalo and a calf belonging to Ram Singh also died. Various household articles of Kallu Singh, Ram Prakash and Ram Singh were burnt in this incident. First informant's thatch and a window was also burnt in this incident.

4(b) Thereafter, all accused persons are said to have gone to the house of Ram Prashad and have stabbed his wife, Sarju Devi. The son of Ram Prashad, Gurudin was present there, who raised alarm. He was also beaten by Lathi. When they were challenged by the people, who had reached on the spot, the accused persons retreated towards Village Nanatikur.

4(c) According to prosecution, one of the relative of first informant, Narendra was accused in a case pertaining to murder of Mahendra Singh, which had occurred about two years ago. Due to aforesaid reasons, brothers of deceased, Mahendra Singh, accused, Ram Bux Singh, Sheo Bux Singh and Dev Bux Singh nourished grudge against the first informant and his family members. It is also stated in the written report Ex. Ka-2 that the accused persons nourished grudge against Ram Prakash for the reasons that he stood as a witness against Ram Bux Singh.

5. The aforesaid written report, Ex. Ka-2 was scribed by Ram Sevek. On the basis of said written report, Ex. Ka-2 given by PW-2, Vijay Bahadur, a first information report bearing Case Crime No.39/1979, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 436, 452, 324, 429 I.P.C., Ex. Ka-13 came to be lodged at Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao against Ram Bux Singh @ Munnu Singh, Dev Bux Singh, Sheo Bux Singh, Raj Bahadur and Nanha Singh.

6. On receiving information of death of the injured, Sarju Devi, Section 302 I.P.C. came to be added during investigation vide G.D. No.14 dated 18.03.1979, Ex. Ka-15.

7. During investigation, evidence regarding complicity of one Kaptan Singh was also collected by the Investigating Officer, therefore, upon conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet, Ex. Ka-7 was submitted against Kaptan Singh and Ex. Ka-12 was submitted against Ram Bux Singh @ Munnu Singh, Dev Bux Singh, Sheo Bux Singh Raj Bahadur, Nanha Singh and Kaptan Singh.

8. According to injury report, Ex. Ka-5, following injuries were reported on the body of the deceased, Sarju Devi :-

1. Incised wound 2 cm x .25 cm x skin deep on the mid of forehead. 2.5 cm above the junction of eye brow tailing upwards.

2. Incised wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep on the middle of Neck 2.5 cm above the supra sternal notch tailing upwards.

3. Incised wound 1.5 cm x .25 cm over the left side of cheek in front left pinna 1.5 cm away x skin deep tailing anteriorly x 3 cm x 3 cm area surrounding to injury is contused.

4. Incised wound 2 cm x .25 cm x muscle deep. Just close to lower border of left pinna which is also separated, partly attached only on the back side tailing upwards.

5. Incised wound 3 cm x .25 cm x muscle deep on the left temporal area tailing anterior.

6. Incised wound 3 cm x .25 cm x muscle deep over the occipital area left side 4 cm away and posteriorly to injury no.5.

7. Incised wound 4 cm x .25 cm x muscle deep on the top of the head and 3 cm anterior to injury no.6 tailing posterior.

8. Incised wound 2 cm x .25 cm x muscle deep just lateral aspect of left elbow joint tailing anteriorly upwards.

9. Incised wound 2 cm x .25 cm x muscle deep on the lateral aspect of chest 12 cm above the illiac crest left side tailing downwards.

10. Incised wound 2 cm x .25 cm x muscle deep on the occipital area 3 cm below the injury no.6 tailing upwards.

9. According to postmortem report of the deceased, Sarju Devi, Ex. Ka-8 the cause of death is stated to be shock and heamorrhage due to antemortem injuries.

10. According to injury report, Ex. Ka-6 following injuries were reported on the person of Gurudin, PW-4, who is son of the deceased Sarju Devi :-

1. Contusion on the left hand over the area of 4 cm x 3 cm area.

2. Incised wound 6.5 cm x .25 cm x muscle deep (just tailing the skull bone) on the top of the head slightly towards the left side and 7 cm above the left eye brow tailing is towards anterior aspect.

11. It is revealed from the perusal of the injury report, Ex. Ka-1 that following injuries were reported on the person of Ram Sevak:-

1. Lacerated wound of 6 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep over left side of scalp about 10 cms. away from left ear blood clotted over margins.

2. Abrated contusion of 5 cm x 4 cm red color over outer aspect of right hand and area of swelling of 8 cm x 6 cm around it.

12. Dr. R.K. Maheshwari, PW-6 has proved postmortem report of animals as Ex. Ka.3, who are reported to have died due to burn injuries. It is stated in the said postmortem report that the cause of death of animals was shock as a result of burn injuries.

13. The matter was investigated by Sub Inspector, Sripal Tripathi, PW-10, who visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan, Ex. Ka-9. He recorded statements of witnesses, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and collected bloodstainted and plain soil from the spot and prepared memo, Ex. Ka-10 in respect thereof. He has also collected ashes from the spot and prepared memo, Ex. Ka-11. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Ram Bux Singh, Deo Bux Singh, Sheo Bux Singh, Nanha Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh as Ex. Ka-12 by Sub Inspector Sripal Tripathi. Thereafter, he was transferred to other district on 28.04.1979, therefore, the investigation was entrusted to Sub Inspector, Vijay Pal Singh, PW-8 who also submitted charge-sheet Ex. Ka-7 against accused, Kaptan Singh.

14. The accused, Sheo Bux Singh was charged for the offence under Sections 302/149, 429, 436, 147 & 323 I.P.C. Kaptan Singh was charged for the offence under Sections 302/149, 429, 436 & 147 I.P.C. Ram Bux Singh was charged for the offence under Sections 302/149, 429, 436 & 148. Raj Bahadur Singh was charged for the offence under Sections 302/149, 429, 436 & 148 I.P.C. Nanha Singh was charged for the offence under Sections 302/149, 429, 436 & 148 I.P.C. The accused persons denied the charges and stated that they have been falsely implicated. They claimed trial.

15. To bring home the guilt of the appellant to the hilt, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses. PW-1, Dr. R.K. Khattar, PW-2, Vijay Bahadur, who is the first informant, PW-3, Ram Prakash Singh, PW-4, Gurudeen, who is son of the deceased, PW-5, Sri Jaggan, PW-6, Dr. R.K. Maheshwari, PW-7, Dr. Rama Shankar Shukla, PW-8, Sri Vijay Pal Singh, PW-9, Dr. V.C. Rastogi, PW-10, S.I. Sripal Tripathi, Investigating Officer, PW-11, Sri Shubham karan Singh.

16. The statement of the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the charges and stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. He has also stated that the statements of prosecution witnesses were false.

17. After appreciating the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.01.1984 has convicted the accused, Sheo Bux Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh, Nanha Singh as aforesaid and has also recorded the finding of acquittal of co-accused, Kaptan Singh.

18. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the first information report is antetimed keeping in view the fact that the distance of Police Station Ajgain, from the place of occurrence is about nine miles. The incident is said to have occurred at about 9:00 P.M. in the night of 13.02.1979, which spanned over two hours. Thereafter, the first informant proceeded to get the first information report lodged, which ultimately came to be lodged at 00:30 hours at Police Station Ajgain.

19. His further submission is that from the perusal of Ex. Ka-22, G.D. No.11 dated 15.02.1979, entered at Police Station Kotwali, Kanpur. It transpires that the deceased, Sarju Devi died in an incident of dacoity. Her husband was also a witness of Panchayatnama, Ex. Ka-18, wherein too, it is mentioned that the deceased, Sarju Devi died in an incident of dacoity. Therefore, he submits that the entire prosecution story implicating the present appellant is false and concocted.

20. He has also submitted that the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh has been falsely implicated in this case due to his acquaintance with other co-accused, Ram Bux Singh. No specific role in commission of crime has been assigned to him. There is nothing on record to show that he, in any manner, acted in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh has been shown to be armed with country made fire arm, however, it would appear from the perusal of postmortem report of deceased, Ex. Ka-8 that no fire arm injury was reported on the person of the deceased. Even her son, injured Gurudeen, PW-4 has not sustained any fire arm injury. Therefore, he submits that the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh never shared common object of alleged unlawful assembly. The finding of learned trial Court convicting the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. for offence of murder of deceased, Sarju Devi is based on surmises and conjunctures only which are palpably illegal and deserve to be set aside.

21. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the first information report in this case is prompt. In order to prove its case beyond doubt the prosecution has examined as many as eleven prosecution witnesses. Their testimonies are consistent with the prosecution story as contained in written report, Ex. Ka-2. He has also submitted that the injury reports of the injured as well as deceased, Sarju Devi fully support and corroborate the prosecution case in respect of manner of commission of crime. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh was falsely implicated in this case. The finding of conviction of appellant is based on proper appreciation and analysis of prosecution evidence and as a result thereof, the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh has rightly been convicted under Sections 148, 436/149, 429/149, 323/149 and 302/149 I.P.C. He has, thus, submitted that the instant appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.

22. Having heard learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, we find that according to first informant, Vijay Bahadur, PW-2 the incident started about 9:00 P.M. on 13.02.1979, when accused persons arrived at the house of his younger brother, Ram Singh. The entire incident spanned over two hours. After the incident was over, the first informant got the first information report scribed by Ram Sevak, after half an hour of retreat of accused person from the spot. Police Station Ajgain is situate at a distance of nine miles from the place of occurrence. Therefore, taking into account all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find the first information report to be antetimed.

23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. State of U.P., (2004) 13 SCC 257 has held that minor variance in the statement of maker of first information report should not lead to conclude that first information report is antetimed.

24. Adverting to the second contention of learned counsel for the appellant, we notice that the deceased, Sarju Devi died on 15.02.1979 at Kanpur in Ursala Hospital during her treatment. An information was given by Emergency Medical Officer to the Police Station Kotwali, Kanpur that Sarju Devi had died in an incident of dacoity. A general diary entery no.11 dated 15.02.1979, Ex. Ka-22 was entered at Police Station Kotwali, on the basis of aforesaid information given by Emergency Medical Officer. The same information finds mention in Ex. Ka-18, Panchayatnama, of which, husband of the deceased is also a Panch. However, there is nothing on record to show as to what was the basis of such information. There is nothing on record to suggest that such information was given by either first informant or any family members of the deceased. Therefore, such entry made in general diary at Police Station Kotwali, Kanpur made at the behest of Emergency Medical Officer does not, in any manner, affect the veracity and credibility of prosecution case.

25. From the perusal of the written report Ex. Ka-2, it is apparent that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in two distinct legs.

26. Regarding the first leg of incident, PW-2, first informant, Vijay Bahadur has stated on oath that on the date of incident accused persons, who were armed with fire arms, came to the house of his younger brother Ram Singh. Accused, Ram Bux Singh and Dev Bux Singh opened fire from their guns. Accused, Dev Bux Singh torched the thatches of Ram Sevak, Ram Prakash, Kallu Singh and Bhagauti Lodh. Accused, Dev Bux Singh also torched the thatch of first informant. During this process, accused persons were also making regular fires from their fire arms.

27. This leg of incident has also been witnessed by PW-3, Ram Prakash Singh, who has stated that on 13.02.1979 at 9:00 P.M. in the night, the accused person came to his uncle's house. Accused, Ram Bux Singh and Dev Bux Singh were carrying guns. Kaptan Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh were carrying country made fire arms, Sheo Bux Singh was armed with lathi whereas Nanha Singh was carrying a knife. He has stated to have seen accused persons while they were making indiscriminate firing and accused Dev Bux Singh torched the thatches of Ram Sevak, Ram Prakash, Kallu Singh and Bhagauti Lodh.

28. The investigating officer had collected ashases from the spot during investigation and had prepared memo in respect thereof as Ex. Ka-11. It also appears to us that though, PW-3, Ram Prakash Singh and PW-5 Sri Jaggan have not witnessed this incident since its inception, however, they have categorically stated to have seen the accused persons on the spot while the thatches etc. were burning. In this leg of incident many animals had died due to burn injuries. This fact stood proved by the testimony of PW-6, Dr. R.K. Maheshwari who had conducted postmortem of animals and prepared postmortem report, Ex. Ka-3, according to which, the animals are reported to have died due to burn injuries.

29. The prosecution evidence adduced to prove the first leg of incident appears to us to be consistent. It is based on cogent evidence. No material contradiction could be pointed out to us which may lead to any otherwise inference.

30. Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, we converge to the irresistible conclusion that the conviction of appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh, under Sections 148, 436/149, 429/149, 323/149 I.P.C. is based on cogent and reliable evidence available on record.

31. In the second leg of incident, the accused persons are stated to have gone to the house of Ram Sevek, where accused, Nanha Singh is stated to have stabbed the deceased, Sarju Devi mercilessly causing her death. The appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh is also stated to be present on the spot while deceased, Sarju Devi was stabbed by accused, Nanha Singh. The incident of stabbing of deceased, Sarju Devi has occurred at her house where her son Gurudin, PW-4, who is also an injured, was present. His presence on the spot appears to us to be natural being son of the deceased.

32. The PW-4, Gurudin has clearly stated in his testimony that except accused, Sheo Bux Singh no other accused assaulted him. This witness has sustained injuries on his person which has been reported to be a contusion and an incised wound which, according to his injury report, Ex. Ka-6, might have been caused by blunt object and sharp instrument respectively. He has stated to have been given blow from lathi by accused, Sheo Bux Singh.

33. The PW-5, Sri Jaggan, who is an independent witness, has stated in his testimony that the deceased, Sarju Devi was stabbed by accused, Nanha Singh. In his cross examination he has admitted the fact that in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he had not stated that all the accused persons while chasing the deceased had entered into the house of the deceased, Sarju Devi. Thus, his such statement during trial appears to be an improvement in order to rope in the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh.

34. On a close scrutiny of the testimony of prosecution witnesses of fact, PW-2, Vijay Bahadur, who is the first informant, PW-3, Ram Prakash Singh, PW-4, Gurudeen, who is son of the deceased and also an injured and PW-5, Sri Jaggan, who is an independent witness, we find that no prosecution witness has stated in his testimony that the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh either extended threat to the deceased, Sarju Devi or his son, Gurudin, PW-4. He has also not extended exhortation to inflict injuries to Gurudin, PW-4 or the deceased, Sarju Devi.

35. We have been able to notice that the prosecution witnesses have stated in their testimony that in first leg of incident, accused persons including the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh, who were armed with fire arm, had opened indiscriminate fire. However, significantly, despite being armed with a fire arm in the second leg of incident in which an old hapless lady was done to death by the accused, Nanha Singh by stabbing her mercilessly, no use of alleged country made fire arm being held by present appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh was alleged by the prosecution.

36. Therefore, it appears to us that appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh was not sharing the common object of unlawful assembly insofar as it relates to killing of deceased, Sarju Devi is concerned. There is nothing on record to suggest that he had knowledge that the deceased, Sarju Devi would be killed by the co-accused, Nanha Singh in second leg of incident. The fact that the deceased, Sarju Devi was stabbed by accused, Nanha Singh and injured, Gurudin, PW-4 was inflicted injuries by accused, Sheo Bux Singh stands proved in the light of consistent testimony of prosecution witnesses. However, we find that the conviction of appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh, under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C., in absence of any cogent evidence to the effect that either he was sharing common object of unlawful assembly to kill the deceased, Sarju Devi or atleast he knew that the co-accused persons are likely to kill the deceased, Sarju Devi, is not sustainable.

37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chanda v. State of U.P., (2004) 5 SCC 141, in paragraph no.8 has held as under:-

8. The pivotal question is applicability of Section 149 IPC. The said provision has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua non for its operation. The emphasis is on the common object and not on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149. The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly. The only thing required is that he should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141. The word "object" means the purpose or design and, in order to make it "common", it must be shared by all. In other words, the object should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. The expression "in prosecution of common object" as appearing in Section 149 has to be strictly construed as equivalent to "in order to attain the common object". It must be immediately connected with the common object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must be community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter. Members of an unlawful assembly may have community of object up to a certain point beyond which they may differ in their objects and the knowledge possessed by each member of what is likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object may vary not only according to the information at his command, but also according to the extent to which he shares the community of object, and as a consequence of this the effect of Section 149 IPC may be different on different members of the same assembly.

(Emphasis supplied by us)

38. On the appreciation of evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh did not share common object of unlawful assembly to kill the deceased, Sarju Devi in the second leg of incident. Therefore, on a careful scrutiny of the material on record, we have no hesitation to record that in the facts of the case, the learned trial Court has committed an error in holding that the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh was guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C.

39. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the conviction of appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh under Sections 148, 436/149, 429/149, 323/149 I.P.C. is based on cogent and reliable evidence wherein no interference by this Court is warranted. Whereas, his conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the same being illegal and perverse deserves to be set aside.

40. The instant appeal is thus, partly allowed. The conviction of appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh under Sections 148, 436/149, 429/149, 323/149 I.P.C. and sentences awarded therefor are affirmed. Whereas his conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charges under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C.

41. In case, the appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh has already undergone sentences awarded to him for the offences under Sections 148, 436/149, 429/149, 323/149 I.P.C., he shall be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.

42. The appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur Singh, after his release, shall file a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C within a period of one month from today.

43. Let the lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be transmitted forthwith to the learned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.

 
Order Date :- 5.05.2022
 
A.Dewal
 

 
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)        (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.)