Ram Charan And Another vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 12909 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 2nd September, 2022
 
Delivered on 14th September, 2022
 
A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 43
 
Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 769 of 1991
 
Appellant :- Ram Charan And Another
 
Respondent :- State
 
Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

(Delivered by Hon. Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by appellants, Ram Charan and Baldev against the judgment and order dated 16th September, 1978 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 182 of 1977 State Vs. Zalim and Others), under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. 323/325 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 452 I.P.C., Police Station-Mau, District-Jhansi, whereby all the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo (i) imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for each of the two murders of Khuman and Halku; (ii) rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 452 I.P.C., (iii) imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 325/34 I.P.C., and (iv) imprisonment for six months under Section 323 I.P.C. with the observation that all the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. We have heard Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, Advocate and Ms. Katyayani, Advocate, who was earlier appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Arunendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as also perused the entire materials available on record.

3. The prosecution story, as reflected from the records, is as follows:

The deceased, namely, Halku and Khuman were real brothers and were father and uncle of the informant/P.W.-2 Lakhan and they used to do cultivation in village Baragaon. The accused persons, namely, Zalim, Baldua and Ram Charan belong to the same village and their fields were also adjacent to field of Khuman. On 30th September, 1977 at about 10:00 a.m., the accused Khuman, his nephew Lakhan and niece Panna went to their fields. Panna started to cut grass from the Mendh. At about 11:00 a.m. on the same day i.e. 30th September, 1977, the accused Zalim and the wives of the accused Baldua and Ram Charan also came there and started to cut grass from the filed of Khuman. Khuman objected them not to cut grass from his field on which all the women started a row and told him that they were cutting grass from their own fields. They started to abuse Panna, thereupon Khuman objected and asked the women of the house of the accused to go from there. The aforesaid women, thereafter, went away towards the village but at about 01:00 p.m. on the same day i.e. 30th September, 1977, the accused came to the field of Khuman and out of them, the accused Zalim having Pharsa, accused Baldua having Axe (Kulhari) and accused Ram Charan having Lathi asked the deceased Khuman as to why they forbidden the women of their house to cut grass, while they were cutting the same from their own field. The accused persons also started abusing Khuman on which Khuman said that they were cutting grass from his field that is why he objected. Thereupon, the accused attacked Khuman due to which he sustained injuries. Then Lakhan, Panna and Ghasiram tried to save Khuman, they were also beaten by the accused persons and thereafter they ran way towards the village. Because of the said assault, Lakhan, Panna and Ghasiram also sustained injuries. Due to injuries caused by the accused persons, Khuman died on the spot. Thereafter, the accused persons at about 02:00 p.m. reached the house of Halku and at that time, Halku along with ladies of his house was sitting at the entrance of his house. The accused persons entered into entrance and started to beat Halku badly. Thereafter the accused persons dragged Halku to the entrance and took him to a place near the house of Daasau, where they again beat him. Hearing the alarm raised by Halku, witnesses/villagers reached the said place of occurrence. On seeing the said witnesses, the accused persons ran away. As Halku did not die, he was taken by Lakhan along with Panna and Ghasiram to the Police Station but he died on the way of Police Station. Thereafter, Lakhan lodged a report, resultantly, a case was registered. On registration of the said case, the injured were sent for medical examination and investigation was commenced. Panchayatnama (inquest report) of the dead body of Halku was also prepared at the Police Station. The Investigating Officer took Kurta and Pancha (Paijama) of the deceased Halku in his possession and he also recorded the statements of Lakhan, Panna and Ghasiram and thereafter he reached the field of Khuman and found his dead body. The Investigating Officer also prepared Panchayatnama (inquest report). He also took blood stained earth and ordinary earth in his possession from the places where Khuman and Halku were done to death. The dead bodies of both the deceased, namely, Halku and Khuman were also sent for post-mortem.

4. Injured Lakhan (P.W.-2) was examined medically on 25th September, 1977 by Dr. S.K. Jain (P.W.-6) and as per the medical examination report, which is marked as Exhibit-Kha-9, following injuries were found on the body of Lakhan:

"1. contusion 4½ cm. X 2 cm on the top right shoulder-cum-traumatic swelling. 7 cm x 7 cm on the top of shoulder.

2. abrasion 3/4" x 3/4 cm on the back of left index finger, at 2nd phylanx

3. complaint of pain in 3rd middle finger of left hand."

In the said report it has been mentioned that all the injuries are simple in nature, which were caused by blunt object.

5. The injured Ghasiram (P.W.-3) was also medically examined on 30th September, 1977 by Dr. S.K. Jain (P.W.-6) and as per his medical examination report, which is marked as Exhibit-Ka-10, following injuries were found on his body:

"1. Lacerated wound 3/4 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm on the back of left forearm in its middle-cum-traumatic swelling 14 cm x 10 cm on the left forearm. Advised-X-ray.

2. Complaint of pain in right side chest.

3. Abrasion 2 ½ cm x 1 cm on the lower back right side."

In the said medical examination report, it has been opined by the Doctor concerned that all injuries are simple in nature except injury no.1 for which the injured was referred to District Hospital, Jhansi for X-ray. The Doctor further opined that injuries caused to the injured were by blunt object.

Apart from the above, in the X-ray report of injured Ghasiram (P.W.-3), it has been opined that there is fracture in the middle forearm of injured.

6. On 30th September, 1977, medical examination of injured Smt. Panna was also conducted by Dr. S.K. Jain (P.W.-6) and as per the medical examination report of Smt. Panna, which is marked as Exhibit-Ka 11, following injuries were found on her body:

"1. 6 cm x 1/2 cm abrasion on the back of right arm lower 4 cm above from back of right elbow joint."

The Doctor, who conducted the said medical examination, opined that the injury sustained to injured Smt. Panna is simple in nature which was caused by blunt object.

7. The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Khuman was conducted on 1st October, 1977 and in the opinion of the Doctor who conducted the said post-mortem, the cause of death of deceased is due to cranial haemorrhage as a result of head injury. On post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased, following ante-mortem injuries were reported:

"(1). Incised wound 2½" x 1/4" bone deep oblique in direction on front side of head upto the middle, about 4½" above the roof of left ear. (fracture of posterior bone of left side).

(2). Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" bone deep on the right side of forehead, just above lateral to outer angle of right eye.

(3) Contusion-cum-Traumatic swelling 3" x 2" on right side of head just above root of right ear.

(4) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x bone deep on the right side of face upto the right ear.

(5) Incised wound 1½" x 1/2" x cutting of bone of middle of right ear.

(6) Contusion 2½" x 1" on the back of head of occipital region.

(7) Lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/4" in the middle of left little finger.

(8). Abrasion 1¼" x 1/4" on the medial side of right elbow joint."

8. On 1st October, 1977, the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Halku was also conducted and in the opinion of the Doctor B.D. Magal (P.W.-1), who conducted the said post-mortem, the cause of death of deceased Halku is due to Comma as a result of heart injury. The Doctor (P.W.-1), who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Halku, also reported following ante-mortem injuries:

"(1) Contusion horizontal 1½" x 1½" on the right side of head, 1" above from right eye brow.

(2) Lacerated wound 1/2" x ¼" x bone deep on the right side of head just above injury no.1.

(3) Lacerated wound 1½" x 1/2" x bone deep on the right side of head, about 3" away from root of right ear.

(4) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep, oblique in direction, of the left frontal bone on the front of left side of forehead about 1/2" above from middle eye brow bone is cut and pieces entered the brain matter.

(5) Incised wound 1½" x 1/2" bone deep cum cutting of bone on the front of left side of head, about 1/2" above from injury no.4.

(6) Lacerated wound 1" x 1" x skin deep on the back of left ear, mastoid region.

(7) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the back left side of head on the mastoid process.

(8) Abrasion-cum-contusion 1" x 1/2" on the back side of head, 2" above from injury no.7.

(9) Contusion 1" x 1/2" on the top of 1 left shoulder joint.

(10) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on the lateral side of left upper arm, 1" above from left elbow joint.

(11) Incised wound oblique 1½" x 1" bone deep and 1½ on the lateral side of right upper arm, about 4½" below from the right shoulder joint.

(12) Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2"-x1/2" cum-contusion on the right upper arm, 3½ above from the right elbow joint.

13. Contusion 6" x 1" on the right side of upper posterior of back, in scapular region, oblique in direction.

(14). Contusion 4½" x 1" on the right side middle of back and below angle of scapula.

(15). Abraided contusion 2 x 2½ on the back of right palm in the middle.

(16). Contusion 1" x 1/2" on the front of right leg just below the right ankle joint.

(17). Contusion oblique 4" x 1" on the lateral side of right leg. 4" below from right knee joint.

(18). Contusion 4½" x 1" on the lateral side of right leg about 1/4" away from injury no.17."

9. The Investigating Officer prepared Site Plan of the places of occurrence, which were two in number. He also recorded statements of other witnesses. After completion of statutory investigation in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the charge-sheet and committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge.

10. On 21st March, 1978, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., Section 325 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and also Section 325 I.P.C.

11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution also relied upon documentary evidence, which were duly proved and consequently marked as Exhibits. The same are catalogued herein below:-

"i). First information report was marked as Exhibit Ka -3 ;

ii). The oral information of informant/P.W.-2 Lakhan which was transcribed, was marked as Exhibit Ka-15;

iii). Recovery memo of blood stained cloths of the deceased Halku was marked as Exhibit Ka-20;

iv). Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth was marked as Exhibit Ka-5;

v). Recovery memo of Bandi was marked as Exhibit Ka-6;

vi). Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth from house was marked as Exhibit Ka-7;

vii). Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth was marked as Exhibit Ka-8;

viii). Injury report of informant/P.W.-2 Lakhan was marked as Exhibit Ka-9;

ix). Injury report of injured/P.W.-3 Ghasiram was marked as Exhibit Ka-10;

x). Injury report of injured Smt. Panna was marked as Exhibit Ka-11;

xi). X-ray report of injured/P.W.-3 Ghasiram was marked as Exhibit Ka-13;

xii). Post-mortem report of deceased Khuman was marked as Exhibit Ka-1;

xiii). Post-mortem report of deceased Halku was marked as Exhibit Ka-2;

xiv). Chemical examination reports in respect of both the deceased Halku and Khuman were marked as Exhibits-Ka-37 & 38;

xv). Affidavit of Constable-512 Arjun Lal was marked as Exhibit-Ka-32;

xvi). Affidavit of Constable-594 Rampal Singh was marked as Exhibit-Ka-33;

xvii). Affidavit of Constable-569 Manni Lal was marked as Exhibit-Ka-34;

xviii). Affidavit of Clerk of office of the Chief Medical Officer, namely, Thakur Dutt, was marked as Exhibit-Ka-35;

xix). Affidavit of Clerk of Constable-578 Lalji Singh was marked as Exhibit-Ka-36; and

xx). Site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer qua the place of occurrence i.e. field of Khuman, where he was murdered, was marked as Exhibit-Ka-28;

xxi). Site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer qua the place of occurrences i.e. entrance of the house of Halku and Bara of Dasrau, where Halku was murdered, was marked as Exhibit-29."

12. The prosecution also examined total nine witnesses in the following manner:-

"i). P.W.-1, namely, Dr. B.D. Magal, who conducted the post-mortems of the dead bodies of both the Khuman son of Chilu and Halku son of Chilu.;

ii).P.W.-2, namely, Lakhan son of deceased Halku, who is informant and injured eye witness of the incident;

iii) P.W.-3, namely, Ghasiram, son of deceased Halku, who is also an injured eye witness of the incident;

iv) P.W.-4, namely, Dharmdas son of Paansu, who is an independent eye witness of the incident;

v). P.W.-5, namely, Virendra Singh son of Mulu Singh, who is also an independent eye witness of the incident;

vi). P.W.-6, namely, Dr. S.K.Jain, who medically examined the injured Lakhan (informant/P.W.-2) son of deceased Halku, Ghasiram (P.W.-3) son of deceased Halku and Smt. Panna daughter of deceased Halku;

vii). P.W.-7, namely, Beti Bai, wife of Durjan and daughter of the deceased Halku, who is also said to be an eye witness of the incident;

viii). P.W.-8, namely, Dr. R.C. Gupta, who conducted the X-ray of injured Ghasiram (P.W.-3);

ix). P.W.-9, namely, Head Constable-15 Rajendra Kishor, who had written the chik first information report (Exhibit-Ka-3) on the oral information given by the P.W.-2/informant-Lakhan and proved the same;

x). P.W.-10, namely, Vishwambhar Dayal, Sub-Inspector, who conducted the investigation of murder of both the deceased, namely, Halku and Khuman and proved the inquest reports, blood stained earth etc. whichever have been collected by him."

13. After recording of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence were put to the accused for recording their statements under section 313 Cr.PC. In their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. all the accused appellants denied their involvement in the crime. Accused appellants Ram Charan, Baldev and co-accused Zalim specifically stated before the trial court that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The defence did not examine any witness from its side.

14. The trial court after relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and recording its finding, has come to the conclusion under the impugned judgment of conviction that the prosecution has been able to fully prove that all the three accused including the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Khuman in his field and the murder of Halku near his house. The trial court has also recorded that it has also been proved that all the accused including the appellants caused simple injuries to injured Lakhan and Panna and caused grievous injuries to the injured Ghasiram. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, the trial court has held that all the accused including the present appellants are guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. for the murders of both the deceased, namely, Khuman and Halku. All the accused were also found guilty by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34 I.P.C. and 325/34 I.P.C. and Section 452 I.PC. As such, the trial court convicted and sentenced all the accused including the present appellants for the aforesaid offences. It is against this judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court that the present jail appeal has been filed on the ground that conviction is against the weight of evidence on record and against the law and the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants is too severe.

15. Assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction, learned counsel appearing for the appellants have advanced following submissions:

(i) the informant/P.W.-2,namely, Lakhan, son of one of the deceased Halku was not present at both the places of occurrence;

(ii) there is a distance of half mile between both the places of occurrence i.e. where the deceased Khuman and Halku were said to have been murdered, therefore, it is not possible for the accused-appellants that they have committed both the murders;

(iii) both the deceased, namely, Khuman and Halku were dacoits;

(iv) the blood stained earth recovered by the Investigating Officer from both the places of occurrence has not been proved;

(v) According to the statement of P.W.-4, there was an incident of Maarpeet but no weapon was recovered from all the accused including the present appellants on their pointing out;

(vi) the contents, which were found in the stomachs of both the deceased, namely, Khuman and Halku at the time of post-mortem do not support the prosecution version on the ground that as per the statements of Ghasiram (P.W.-3) and Beti Bai, in the break fast, the deceased Khuman had taken fish and rice, before leaving his house for field and another deceased Halku had also taken rice and gravy of fish in break fast and the murder of Khuman occurred at about 1:00 p.m. (after noon), whereas the murder of Halku occurred at 02:00 p.m. but as per the post-mortem reports, the stomach of Halku was found empty, whereas in the stomach of Khuman, liquid material was found.

(vii) All the accused including the present appellants were in jail for 13 years i.e. from the date of judgment of conviction i.e. 16th September, 1978 to the date of order of the High Court in the present appeal granting bail to the appellants i.e. 15th May, 1991, without remission and as the date of incident is of the year 1977, now they are very old and weak.

On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and order of conviction cannot legally sustained and is hereby quashed.

16. On the other-hand, Mr. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, supporting the judgment and order of conviction, has made following submissions:

(i) the first information report has been lodged promptly naming the accused persons;

(ii) there is clinching evidence to support the prosecution's case;

(iii) the incidents in which the deceased Khuman and Halku are alleged to have been murdered by the accused persons, occurred in broad day light;

(iv) there are three injured eye witness of the alleged incident;

(v) the independent witnesses, namely, P.W.-4 Daram Das, who saw the incident in which Khuman was murdered and P.W.-5, Virendra Singh, who saw the incident in which Halku was murdered, supported the prosecution story;

(vi) the places of occurrence has not been disputed by the defence;

vii) In the document, which is on record at page-4 of paper book, one of the accused person, namely, Zalim has stated that due to cutting of his crops, which was standing on his field, a quarrel took place on 30th September, 1977 in the afternoon between his side and the side of informant in which he sustained some injuries. For the said incident, a report was lodged by the accused Zalim against the informant Lakhan, Gulma, Bal Kishan and deceased Halku, which has been registered on 30th September, 1977 at 16:45 hours, bearing Chik Gairdastanji No. 377, under Sections 323/434/427 I.P.C. at Police Station--Mauranipur, District-Jhansi. Therefore, it is clear that the incidents as alleged by the prosecution, took place, which has not been disputed by the accused persons.

On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned A.G.A. submits that as this is a case of direct evidence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction does not suffer from any illegally and infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. As such the present jail appeal filed by the accused appellants who committed heinous crimes by murdering two persons, is liable to be dismissed.

17. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the original records of the court below as well as the impugned judgment and order of conviction challenged before us.

18. The only question which is required to be addressed and determined in this jail appeal is whether the conclusion of guilt arrived at by the learned trial court and the sentence awarded is legal and sustainable under law and suffers from no infirmity and perversity.

19. Before entering into the merits of the case set up by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State qua impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court referred to above, it is important for us to record statements of the prosecution witnesses in brief.

20. In the examination, PW-1 Dr. B.D. Magal, who conducted the post-mortems of both the deceased, namely, Khuman and Halku, both sons of late Chellu and proved both the post-mortem reports before the trial court, which were marked as Exhibits-Ka-1 and 2, P.W.-2, has specifically stated that he has found various ante-mortem injuries (external injuries) on the dead body of the deceased Khuman, which have already been quoted herein above. He further stated that on internal examination of the dead body of Khuman, he found that there was blood clots below the scalp. The left parietal bone was broken and frontal parietal bone was fractured. The brain membranes were congested and there was blood clots on or below the same. The brain had become soft and very congested and the blood pooled on it. There was 2½ Ounce liquid material in the stomach of the deceased. There was faecal in the small and large intestines. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of Khuman was due to shock and bleeding that resulted from injuries.

21. In respect of deceased Halku, P.W.-1 has stated in his examination-that he found various ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of deceased Halku, which have also been quoted herein above. He further stated that on internal examination of the dead body of Halku, he found that there were blood clots in and near the scalp. The frontal bone was cut and pierced through two places. The membrane was bruised and swollen and there was blood clots on the membrane and below the same. The brain was also hurt. And the pieces of the front bone were inserted in two places in the brain. There was blood clot in his brain. The stomach and intestine of the deceased Halku were empty. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of deceased Halku is due to Haemorrhage, which resulted from injuries.

22. In the examination, Lakhan i.e. informant/P.W.-2 has stated that he is the son of deceased Halku. The field of deceased Khuman is adjacent to the field of the accused persons. On the date of occurrence, P.W.-2, the deceased Khuman, Panna and Ghasiram went to the field of Khuman and when Panna started cutting grass, the women of the house of accused came there and started cutting grass from the field of Khuman and not from their own field. When Khuman objected not to cut grass from his field, the women of the house of the accused started abusing Panna due to which some altercations occurred, thereafter, the Khuman asked them to get away from his field on which they went towards the village. However, at 01:00 p.m. the accused persons, namely, Zalim, who was having Pharsa, Baldev with Axe (Kulhari) and Ram Charan with Lathi came to the field of Khuman and asked Khuman as to why he had asked women of their house to go away on which Khuman replied that as they were cutting grass from his field, he asked them to go away. Thereupon, all the three accused persons started beating Khuman and when Lakhan-Informant/P.W.-2, Ghasiram-P.W.-3 and Panna tried to save him, they also beat them badly. It is further stated by P.W.-2 that Khuman died on the spot and thereafter, P.W.-2, P.W.3 and Panna went to the village, where, near the Bara of one Desrau, they saw that Halku was lying on the ground in an injured condition. They were told that the accused persons, after dragging Halku out of the entrance of his house, beat him badly. Thereafter the informant-P.W.-2 took Halku in a bullock-cart to the Police Station but on the way Halku also died. Resultantly, the informant/P.W.-2 lodged the first information report.

23. The P.W.-3, namely, Ghasiram, in his examination, corroborating the entire statement of informant-P.W.-2, has stated that the accused beat Khuman badly and when he, P.W.-2 and Panna tried to save him, they were also beaten by the accused persons in which he received fracture. Due to injuries caused by the accused persons, Khuman died on the spot. The P.W.-3 further stated that when he, P.W.-2 and Panna went to the village, near the Bara of one Desrau, they found their father Halku was lying on the ground in an injured condition.

24. P.W.-4 Dharam Das, who is also an independent witness of the incident took place in the field of Khuman, has stated that at the time of occurrence, he along with some other persons, was cutting grass in the filed of one Nand Kishor, which was at a distance of 50 paces from the field of Khuman. At 01:00 p.m. in the afternoon, they heard screaming of Lakhan, Panna and Ghasiram and on hearing the same, they reached the field of Khuman, where they saw that the accused persons were beating Khuman and when Lakhan-P.W.2, Ghasiram-P.W.3 and Panna tried to save him, they were also beaten by the accused persons. He also stated that Khuman had died on the spot and P.W.-3 Ghasiram sustained injuries, which were caused by the accused persons including the appellants.

25. P.W.-5, namely, Virendra Singh, who is resident of the same village and is an independent eye witness, has stated in his examination that on the date of occurrence at about 02:00 p.m. when he was returning from the house of the Pradhan, he heard shouts of the family members of Halku and on hearing the same, he reached near the door of house of Halku and saw that the accused persons, after dragging out Halku from his Entrance of his house and taking him to the Bara, started beating him and thereafter they ran away. P.W.-5 is also the witness of the Panchayatnama of Khuman and recovery of ordinary earth and blood stained earth from the field of Khuman as also from the Bara of Desrau and from the entrance of Halku.

26. P.W.-6 Dr. S.K. Jain, who has medically examined the injured P.W.-2 Lakhan, P.W.-3 Ghasiram and Panna on 30th September, 1977, has found injuries on the body of the aforesaid injured, which have already been quoted herein above. He has stated that except injury no.1 sustained by P.W.-3 Ghasiram, all injuries sustained by all the injured are simple in nature and caused due to blunt object. Qua injury no.1 sustained by P.W.-3, he has advised him for X-ray.

27. P.W.-7, namely, Beti Bai, who is married daughter of the deceased Halku and eye witness of incident in which her father was murdered, has stated in her examination that on the date of incident, when she along with Halku and some members of her family was sitting in the entrance of her house, accused persons came and started beating Halku and then after dragging him to Bara of Desrau, they again started beating Halku with Pharsa, Kulhari and Lathi. After beating Halku, all the accused persons ran away. Just after, P.W.-2 Lakhan, P.W.-3 Ghasiram and Panna reached there and they took Halku to the Police Station.

28. In the examination, P.W.-8, namely, Dr. R.C. Gupta, has taken X-ray of left forearm of P.W.-3 and found fracture.

29. P.W.-9, Head Constable Rajendra Kishore, who had prepared the chik report (Exhibit-Ka3) and also registered the case in the General Diary. He stated in his examination that he had also received sealed bundles of the earth recovered by the Investigating Officer (P.W.-10) from the field of Khuman, from Bara of Desrau and from the entrance of the house of Halku as well as other sealed bundles of material, which were marked as exhibits.

30. P.W.-10 Sub-Inspector Vishwambhar Dayal, who was posted at Police Station-Mauranipur, District Jhansi where the case was registered, has stated in his examination that the dead body of the deceased Halku had been brought to the Police Station by the informant-P.W.-2 Lakhan and he prepared the Panchayatnama (inquest report) of the dead body. He also recovered blood stained kurta and pancha (paijama) from the dead body of Halku and prepared the recovery memo (Exhibit-Ka-20). He further stated that he sent the dead body of Halku for post-mortem and recorded statements of informant-P.W.2, Panna and Ghasiram-P.W.-3. Thereafter he went to the field of Khuman and found the dead body of Khuman on his field. After preparing panchayatnama (inquest report), P.W.-10 sent the dead body of Khuman for post-mortem. After inspection, he prepared the site plan (Exhibit-Ka-20). P.W.-10 had also recovered the blood stained and ordinary earth from the places of occurrence, like field of Khuman, Bara of Desrau and entrance of the house of Halku. After collecting necessary evidence and recording statements of witnesses, he had submitted the charge-sheet against all the accused persons.

31. From the testimony of the aforesaid ten prosecution witnesses, it is apparently clear that there are two injured eye witnesses of murder of the deceased Khuman, namely, Lakhan and Ghasiram (P.W.-2 and P.W.-3), whereas Panna, who was also injured eye-witness of murder of the deceased Khuman, had not been adduced as prosecution witness. Apart from the above, there are two independent eye-witnesses, namely, Dharam Das and Virendra Singh (P.W.-4 and P.W.-5), Dharam Das is an independent eye-witness of the murder of Khuman and Virendra Singh is an independent eye-witness of murder of Halku. Apart from the above, Beti Bai (P.W.-7), daughter of the deceased Halku, is also an eye-witness of the decreased Halku. All the aforesaid witnesses have fully supported the prosecution story.

32. For examining the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order of conviction, the version of prosecution as well as defence and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary for us to refer certain case laws laid down by the Apex Court on the subject.

33. In the case of Kartik Malhar V State of Bihar reported in 1996 CRL. L.J. 889, the Apex Court has held as under:-

"We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently, being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh's case, AIR 1953 SC 364 in which this Court expressed its surprise over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses."

34. In the case of Shyam Babu V State of UP AIR reported in 2012 SC 3311, The Apex Court has held as under:-

"Where the presence of the eye-witnesses is proved to be natural and their statements are nothing but truthful disclosure of actual facts leading to the occurrence, it will not be permissible for the Court to discard the statement of such related or friendly witnesses. There is no bar in law on examining family members or any other person as witnesses. In fact, in cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. If the statement of witnesses, who are relatives or known to the parties affected is credible, reliable, trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses, there would hardly be any reason for the court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was a family member or an interested witness or a person known to the affected party or friend etc"

35. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Kishan Chand & Others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 629, has opined that just because the witnesses are related to the deceased would be no ground to discard their testimony, if otherwise, their testimony inspire confidence. In the given facts of the present case, they are but natural witnesses. The Apex Court has further opined that the testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witnesses sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence lends support to their testimony that the witnesses were present during the occurrence. The injured witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony (Reference-paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court).

36. The Apex Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. S. Mohan Singh & Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 272, the Apex Court has observed that it is well settled that in a murder trial, merely because a witness is interested or inimical, his evidence cannot be broadly discarded unless the same is otherwise found to be not trustworthy. In the said case, the view of the Apex Court was that the evidence of these two witnesses is credible more so when witness Ram Lal received injuries. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as follows:

"Other two eyewitnesses are the informant Ram Lal and his brother Babu Ram. Ram Lal is father of deceased Yush Paul Singh whereas witness Babu Ram is uncle of deceased Yush Paul Singh. These two witnesses have supported the prosecution case disclosed in the first information report in all material particulars and consistently stated that respondent No. 1 caught hold of the deceased and respondent No. 2 inflicted injuries upon him with knife. We have been taken through the evidence of these two eyewitnesses in extenso. Their evidence is quite consistent, natural and both the witnesses have stood the test of lengthy cross-examination broadby the defence. Out of these two witnesses, Ram Lal was the informant and an injured witness as the doctor who examined him on the date of occurrence itself found that he received injuries by hurling of stone. Nothing could be pointed out on behalf of defence to show that the evidence of these two eyewitnesses is not credible, excepting this that they were interested witnesses. The High Court was not justified in disbelieving them on the sole ground that they were interested persons. It is well settled that in a murder trial, merely because a witness is interested or inimical, his evidence cannot be discarded unless the same is otherwise found to be not trustworthy. In the present case, we are of the view that the evidence of these two witnesses is credible more so when witness Ram Lal received injuries......"

(Emphasis added.)

37. From the above mentioned pronouncements of the Apex Court, it is apparently clear that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but can not be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence the Court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy there is no bar in relying on the said evidence. It is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon. In Ramashish Rai Vs. Jagdish Singh, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 498, it was observed that the requirement of law is that the testimony of inimical witnesses has to be considered with caution. If otherwise the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that enmity is a double- edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the court to examine the testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence. A survey of the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court on this point leads to the inescapable conclusion that the evidence of a closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon.

38. In the present case, it is no doubt true that eye-witnesses of the incident in which Khuman was murdered, namely, (I) the informant/P.W.-2 Lakhan, P.W.-3 Ghasiram and Panna are sons and daughter of the deceased Halku respectively and nephews and niece of the deceased Khuman respectively. Similarly, another eye witness of the incident in which Halku was murdered, namely, ,Beti Bai (P.W.7) is married daughter of the deceased Halku but their credibility is not affected on the ground that they are relatives of both the deceased. Even otherwise, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and Panna themselves had sustained injuries, thus, their presence at the spot, where Khuman was murdered, is established,

39. In the present case, there are two independent eye witnesses, namely, P.W.-4 Dharam Das and P.W.-5 Virendra Singh, both are villagers of the village of the accused persons and prosecution side. P.W.-4 is an eye witness of the incident in which Khuman was murdered and the injured i.e. P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and Panna were caused injuries by the accused persons at the field of Khuman. P.W.-5 is an eye witness of the incident in which Halku was murdered near Bara Dasrau. P.W.-5 is also witness of Panchayatnama of Khuman. In their testimony, both the independent witnesses have explained about their presence at the places of occurrence.

40. The Apex Court in the case of Mahender Chawla V Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 / 2016 decided on 5 December, 2018 it was observed as under:-

"Witnesses are important players in the judicial system, who help the judges in arriving at correct factual findings. The instrument of evidence is the medium through which facts, either disputed or required to be proved, are effectively conveyed to the courts. This evidence in the form of documentary and oral is given by the witnesses. A witness may be a partisan or interested witness, i.e., a witness who is in a near relation with the victim of crime or is concerned with conviction of the accused person. Even his testimony is relevant, though, stricter scrutiny is required while adjudging the credence of such a victim. However, apart from these witnesses or the witnesses who may themselves be the victims, other witnesses may not have any personal interest in the outcome of a case. They still help the judicial system. ......."

41. It has again been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera V State of Orrisa, reported in 2017 SCC Online Supreme Court 1336 that the conviction can be based on the testimony of single eye witness if he or she passes the test of reliability and that is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence that is important.

42. Again the Apex Court in the case of Veer Singh & others V State of UP, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 455 observed as under:-

"Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of SC 42/17 STATE V GULFAM @ SAJID FIR NO 323/16 5/21 their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable."

43. Further in Namdeo V State of Maharashtra, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 150, the Apex Court held as under:-

"In the leading case of Shivaji Sahebrao vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, this Court held that even where a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration. "It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs."In Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 : JT 1993 (2) SC 290, the Court observed; "Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect."

44. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution fully supports the prosecution version. In the present case, two murders (Khuman and Halku) were committed and three persons (P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and Panna) were alleged to have been caused simple and grievous hurt. From the statements of P.W.-2, P.W.3, P.W.-4, PW.5 and P.W.-7, it is clear that at the time of both the incidents, the accused persons, namely, Zalim, Baldev and Ram Charan were having Pharsa, Axe (Kulhari) and Lathi respectively. From the post-mortem reports of the deceased Khuman and Halku, it is apparent that the aforesaid weapons were used in committing such offence. In the injuries caused to P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and Panna by the accused persons, said weapons were used as is evident from the injury reports of the said injured.

45. So far as the motive is concerned, after perusal of the evidence adduced from the prosecution side, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the same. In the present case, motive arises when P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and injured Panna went to the field of their uncle, namely, Khuman (now deceased), where he was present and Panna started cutting grass from the field of her uncle and at that time, the women of the house of the accused also came to the field of the deceased Khuman. When the women of the house of the accused persons also started cutting grass from the field of Khuman, he objected not to cut grass from his field due to which an altercation took place between them. Khuman also asked them to get away from there. Thereafter the women of the house of the accused persons went towards village and they told the entire incident to the accused persons. Since the women of the house of the accused persons were forbidden to cut grass and they were scolded and reprimanded by the Khuman, all the accused persons first murdered Khuman and thereafter Halku to take revenge for this. The motive in the present case is also proved from the document, which is on record at page-4 of paper book, in which one of the accused person, namely, Zalim has stated that due to cutting of his crops, which were standing on his field, a quarrel took place on 30th September, 1977 at about Noon between his side and the side of prosecution in which he sustained some injuries. For the said incident, a report was lodged by the accused Zalim against the informant Lakhan, Gulma, Bal Kishan and deceased Halku, which has been registered on 30th September, 1977 at 16:45 hours, bearing Chik Gairdastanji No. 377, under Sections 323/434/427 I.P.C. at Police Station--Mauranipur, District-Jhansi.

46. In Suresh Chandra Bahri Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80, the Apex Court has opined that a motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with. Paragraph nos. 21 and 25 of the said judgment which are relevant are quoted here-under:

"21.At the very outset we may mention that sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with. But it has to be remembered that the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime. In the present case before us the prosecution has adduced evidence that the appellant Suresh Bahri had strong motive to eliminate his wife and two children from his way which evidence has been accepted by both the courts below. We shall, therefore, have a look at the said evidence to see whether the two courts are justified or not in taking the view that the appellant Suresh Bahri had a strong motive to hatch a conspiracy with the assistance of the other two appellants, namely, Raj Pal Sharma and Gurbachan Singh to commit the murder of his wife and the two children."

25. .....................It is difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule as to how and in what manner a person would react and to achieve his motive could go to what extent in the commission of crime under a particular circumstance. It is not possible to measure up the extent of his feelings, sentiments and desire and say as to what compelled him to commit a particular crime. There may be persons who under frustration and on mere trifling domestic matters take decision to commit a serious crime, while others may approach it with cool and calm mind and think more dispassionately before taking any hazardous and serious steps. It all depends as to how a person reacts in a given circumstance and it is he alone who best knows his intention and motive to commit a crime and the extent thereof. ..................."

47. From the aforesaid facts, which have been noted herein above, we find substance in the submissions made by the learned A.G.A. that there is a case of direct and clinching evidence like three injured eye witnesses of the incident, namely, P.W.-2,. P.W.-3 and Panna in which Khuman was murdered, two independent witnesses, namely, P.W.-4 and P.W.5 (P.W.-4 is an independent eye witness of the murder of Khuman and P.W.-5 is of Halku). P.W.-7 Beti Bai, who is married daughter of the deceased Halku is also an eye witness of the murder of Halku. The medical evidence fully supports the prosecution evidence. Both the incidents occurred in broad day light. The first information report lodged by the informant is prompt, which was lodged within 4-5 hours on 30th September, 1977 of both the incidents. The accused persons including the appellants had also motive to commit such offence. The incidents and the places of incidents were not disputed by the defence side.

48. Considering the same set of facts, the Apex Court in its latest judgment in the case of Mekala Sivaiah vs. State of Andhara Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 887, in paragraph nos.25 and 26 has held as follows:

"25. The facts and evidence in present case has been squarely analyzed by both Trial Court as well the High Court and the same can be summarized as follows:

i. The prosecution has discharged its duties in proving the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt.

ii. When there is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, mere non-recovery of weapon from the appellant would not materially affect the case of the prosecution.

iii. If the testimony of an eye witness is otherwise found trustworthy and reliable, the same cannot be disbelieved and rejected merely because certain insignificant, normal or natural contradictions have appeared into his testimony.

iv. The deceased has been attacked by the appellant in broad daylight and there is direct evidence available to prove the same and the motive behind the attack is also apparent considering there was previous enmity between the appellant and PW-1.

26. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case in juxtaposition with the judgments referred to above and upon appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses and other material adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were right in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Therefore, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court."

(Emphasis added)

49. So far as submission no. (i) made by the learned counsel for the appellants that at the time of incident in which Khuman was murdered, the informant was not present, is concerned, we may record that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is apparent from the version of the injured and independent witness i.e. P.W.-4 Dharam Das that the informant was present at the time of incident, when Khuman was murdered by the accused persons and when he along with P.W.-3 and Panna tried to save Khuman, they were also caused injuries by the accused persons. Therefore, the first submission made on behalf of the appellants has no legs to stand.

50. To the submission no.(ii) made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants regarding the distance between the place where the Khuman was murdered i.e. field of Khuman and the place where Halku was murdered i.e. entrance of house of Halku and Bara of Dasrau, this Court may record that as the first incident in which the Khuman was murdered occurred at 01:00 p.m. (noon) and the second incident in which Halku was murdered occurred at 02:00 p.m. (noon), therefore, one hour was sufficient time for the accused-appellants to reach both the places of occurrence and murder both the deceased. In such circumstances, we find no substance in the said submission.

51. So far as the submission no. (iii) made on behalf of the appellants that both the deceased were dacoits, it may be recorded that such evidence that both the deceased, namely, ,Khuman and Halku were dacoits, has not been produced by the defence before the trial court. Therefore, we are not required to make any observation on the said submission. Apart from the above, this Court may record that nobody has a right in this country to take law in his/her own hand by murdering any person, whosoever it may be, like criminal, dacoit etc. Therefore, this plea taken on behalf of the appellants is also liable to be rejected.

52. Qua submission nos. (iv) & (v) made on behalf of the appellants, this Court may record that same are treated to be minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution which has fully been supported by the injured eye witnesses, independent eye witnesses, medical evidence, inasmuch as motive is also involved therein. Such discrepancies which do not otherwise affect the case of the prosecution, even if present, that itself would not prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor discrepancies.

53. The Apex Court in the case of State Represented by Inspector of Police VS. Saravanan @ Another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 587, in paragraph 18 has opined as follows:

"18. The High Court also held that as there were some discrepancies and improvements in the statement of the witnesses, their evidence should not be relied upon. In State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony, [(1985) 1 SCC 505] this Court has laid down the approach which should be followed by the Court in such cases:

"10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper- technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross- examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer..................."

Even otherwise, it has been said time and again by this Court that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. Further, on the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms an opinion about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances the appellate court would not be justified to review it once again without justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the situation, which has to be taken note of. Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, that itself would not prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies."

54. To the last submission i.e. (vi), this Court may record that for the same, a categorical finding has been recorded by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction. In respect of deceased Halku, who was said to have taken rice and gravy of fish in the break fast, the trial court has recorded that as per the post-mortem report, stomach and small intestine of Halku were empty and there was slight faecal matter at places and faecal matter was also escaping from the anus of Halku. Consequently, it appears that he must have taken food more than six hours before he died, this is also true, as alleged by the prosecution. Since deceased Halku had taken rice and gravy of fish only, which is easily digestible and by the time he died, it must have been converted into faecal matter. So far as the deceased Khuman, who had taken rice and fish in the breakfast before leaving his house for his field, is concerned, the trial court has recorded that as per the post-mortem, there was liquid food material 2½ ounces in his stomach, there was slight faecal matter in small intestines as also in the large intestine, the faecal matter was present. Since the deceased Khuman had also died at the expiry of six hours of taking food and he had taken rice and fish, which is quite easily digestible. Consequently, the contents of stomach of Khuman, which the Doctor found during the course of post-mortem, cannot be said to be contradictory to the fact that he had taken rice and fish in his breakfast. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the trial court came to the conclusion that the post-mortem reports of both the deceased fully support the prosecution version qua occurrence of both the incidents. We are in resepctful agreement with the finding recorded by trial court on the said issue. Apart from above, this Court may also record that while conducting the post-mortem of dead bodies of both the deceased, the Doctor B.D. Magal (P.W.1), who conducted the same, had found that there were vomiting materials in the mouths of both the deceased.

55. Taking cumulative effect of the evidence, we are of the view that the trial court was fully justified in convicting the appellant. Accordingly, we confirm the order of trial court.

56. The appeal has no substance and the same is dismissed. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they be taken into custody for serving the remaining sentence.

57. However, it is provided that it shall be open for the accused appellants to approach the State Government, which may consider the request of permanent release of the accused-appellants after calling for reports from the Jail Superintendent concerned qua total period of their incarceration with remission, seeing the facts that the incident in question took place in September, 1977, judgment of conviction was passed in September, 1978, the accused-appellants had been in jail for more than 13 years (from 1977 to 15th May, 1991 i.e. the date of order of the High Court in the present appeal granting bail to the appellants), their work and conduct during their incarceration, now they are very old and weak.

58. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith for compliance.

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)       Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 
Order Date :- 14.9.2022
 
Sushil/-