Vikas Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6319 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vikas Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 21 March, 2025

Author: Rajan Roy

Bench: Rajan Roy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
 
(Lucknow)
 
************************************
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16420
 
Reserved on:17.02.2025
 
Delivered on:21.03.2025
 
Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 100 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- Vikas Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sandeep Yadav,Naved Ali
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anuj Pandey,Ashish Kumar Shukla,Ashish Kumar Singh,Kapil Misra,Katyayan Mishra,Lalta Prasad Misra,Nagendra Mohan,Niteesh Kumar,Rajeev Narayan Pandey,Randheer Singh,Ripu Daman Shahi,Sarvesh Upadhyay,Sushil Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Naved Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Kapil Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2, Sri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4, Sri Nagendra Mohan Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 7 and Sri R.D. Shahi, learned Counsel assisted by Sri Anand Yadav, Advocate, for the respondent no. 8.

2. This is an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. by the informant against acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Trial No. 357 of 2011, Criminal Case No. 100 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 555 of 2010, under Sections 147, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 27 Arms Act, Police Station- Maharajganj, Faizabad (Ayodhaya), wherein they had been charged of having committed the offence punishable under Section 147, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1925.

3. Out of seven respondents two, namely, Girish Pandey @ Duppul Pandey respondent no. 5 and Vijay Kumar Gupta respondent no. 6 have been acquitted by the trial Court and their acquittal has been upheld in this very appeal by a Division Bench of this Court on 20.12.2024. As regards other respondents the two Hon'ble Judges, who were part of the Bench diferred on the question of their acquittal, as such, this appeal has been placed before this Bench.

4. This appeal is, therefore, confined to the acquittal of respondents no. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8.

5. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 15.05.2010 at about 08.45 p.m. the informant- Vikas Singh was traveling from Faizabad to his house at Devgarh in his Scorpio vehicle which was being driven by his friend Dharmendra Singh S/o Virendra Singh and he was accompanied by his cousins, namely, Vanshbahadur Singh and Ajeet Pratap Singh. When he reached a little ahead of Sarai Rasi near the turn of temple of Mai Ji Ka Mandir, all of a sudden, a black Safari vehicle bearing No. UP 32 CA 9473 came from behind, over took his vehicle and stopped a little ahead of it. Sri Abhay Singh, Sri Ramakant Yadav, Sri Ravikant Yadav, Sri Shambhunath Singh, Sri Sandeep Singh and two other unknown persons alighted from the vehicle whom the informant saw in the head lights of his vehicle. They stood by the side of the road and all of a sudden Abhay Singh, Ramakant Yadav and Ravikant Yadav fired several shots upon the informant with intent to kill him. The bullets hit his vehicle. All these persons were exhorting each other to kill the informant and were abusing profusely. Sri Dharmendra Singh who was driving the informant's vehicle sped away and saved the life of the occupants. Sri Abhay Singh was a history sheeter and the informant and his family had a long enmity with him.

6. The Police investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against all the seven respondents (accused).

7. Charges were framed against all the accused under Sections 147, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1925.

8. As many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution including two witnesses of fact.

9. PW- 1- Dharmendra Singh is the alleged driver of the vehicle. PW- 2 Vikas Singh is the informant and eye witness. PW- 3 Tanveer Ahmad was the computer operator/ munshi at Police Station- Maharajganj, District- Faizabad on 15.05.2010. PW- 4 Dinesh Chandra Mishra was the Station House Officer, Police Station - Maharajganj, District- Faizabad who took over the investigation of the case after Sri Sanjay Nagwansi the earlier SHO of Police Station, who has not been examined.

10. PW- 5 is the Doctor who examined the informant, Vikas Singh on 15.05.2010 at 12.30 a.m. and has prepared and signed the injury report, Ka-7. PW- 6 was the first Investigating officer of the case and posted as In-Charge Police Chowki, Poora Bazar, Police Station- Mahrajganj, District- Faizabad.

11. The Defence examined Constable Rajesh Yadav who was assigned security of Ramakant Yadav, as DW-1.

12. The vehicle in which the informant was riding at the time of incident was subjected to forensic examination and the forensic report is dated 03.07.2010. It has not been specifically exhibited but no objections were filed to the said report before the trial Court by any accused, therefore, in view of Section 293 and 294 Cr.P.C. the same was admissible in evidence. Reference may be made in this regard to the judgement reported in (2019) 17 SCC 523; Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat (para 12).

13. Exhibit Ka- 8 is the site plan of the site where the incident took place. There is no recovery of any weapon which may have been used for firing at the time of incident. There is no recovery of any bullet or empty cartridge from the scene of crime, though, two bullets have been recovered during forensic examination of the vehicle from inside the vehicle.

14. The case of the prosecution is based on the direct evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the injury report pertaining to PW-2, testimony of PW-5 in this regard and the Forensic Lab Report as also on the testimony of police personnel PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6.

15. The case of the respondents is one of denial and of false implication on account of prior enmity and political rivalry.

16. Sri Naved Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that PW-1 became hostile, therefore, his testimony should not read at all as a factor discrediting the prosecution case, especially as, PW-2 is an injured eye-witness. His testimony itself is sufficient to prove commission of the offence by the respondents but the trial Court has erred on facts and in law in disbelieving his testimony purely on conjectures, surmises and presumptions ignoring the evidence on record in the form of the testimony of PW-2, injury report, forensic report and other testimonies of the police personnel which corroborated the testimony of PW-2, especially the testimony of Doctor PW- 5. He submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse and contrary to material on record, therefore, it is liable to be set-aside and based on the evidence on record the respondents are liable to be held guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1925 and to be sentenced appropriately.

17. Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 invited the Court's attention to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 13 SCC 657;Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 10 SCC 451; Khema @ Khem Chandra and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and 2016 SCC Online (SC) 742; Baby @ Sebastian and Anr. Vs. Circle Inspector of Police, Adimaly, wherein, the law as to interference by the Appellate Court in a judgment of acquittal by the trial Court has been laid down and then to the facts and evidence on record to drive home the point that the view taken was a possible view which did not require any interference. He submitted that the forensic report was not reliable. The testimony of PW-2 was wholly unreliable for the reasons already given by the trial Court, as his testimony was repleat with inconsistencies and discrepancies. The forensic examination of the vehicle took place after a month of the incident and there is no explanation as to where the vehicle was during this period. Prior enmity and rivalry between the parties gives sufficient motive for false implication of the respondents.

18. Sri Kapil Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 pointed out the inconsistencies in the medical evidence and the testimony of PW-2. He also submitted that forensic report was not shown to the accused at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The entire investigation was manipulated and conducted under the influence of the informant. He relied upon the testimony of DW-1 to establish that two accused Ramakant and Ravikant Yadav were at Lucknow at the relevant time and were not present at the scene of crime.

19. Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, leaned counsel for the respondent no. 4 adopted the arguments of Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7. He, however, submitted that there is no injury of firearm to any occupant of the vehicle which is highly unnatural and improbable, if there was discriminate firing by as many as 6 to 8 accused, most of whom were armed.

20. Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that it is not proved as to who brought the tehrir to the police station. The informant himself was an absconder in connection of a criminal case. He could not furnish the tehrir at the police station, as, he would have been arrested. The chik F.I.R. does not bear his signature. There are improvements in the testimony of the PW- 2 apart from inconsistencies and discrepancies and the fact that his testimony is not supported by other evidence on record, makes it highly unreliable, as has rightly been held by the trial Court. No weapon allegedly used in the commission of crime was recovered. The informant himself has a long criminal history of eight cases.

21. Sri R.D. Sahi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 adopted the arguments of Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7.

22. As, this is an appeal against acquittal, therefore, this Court has to keep in mind the contours for considering such an appeal, which is not to say that a judgment of acquittal can not be interfered by the Appellate Court, which can be, but, only to say that, this can only be done within the parameters for such interference which are well settled. Such interference can be made if the findings of the Court below are wholly perverse, not based on evidence on record, or they suffer from serious illegality including omission or misreading of evidence on record; the view taken by the trial Court is not a possible view and the only conclusion based on the evidence on record, which could be reasonably drawn, is regarding conviction of the acquitted persons, the approach of the trial Court is vitiated by manifest illegality etc. Reference may be made in this regard to the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2015) 15 SCC 666; Sudershan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2005) 9 SCC 291; State of Karnataka Vs. K. Gopalakrishna, 2015 (1) SCC 737; Dilawar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and connected matter and (2023) 9 SCC 581; H.D. Sundara and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka.

23. The PW-1 Dharmendra Kumar, who was alleged to have been driving the vehicle in which the injured informant was sitting, when the incident occurred, has totally denied the prosecution case. He has also denied having given any statement to the 'Daroga' under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He was declared a hostile witness. In his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor also he stood his ground and there is nothing in the entire testimony which could be read in support of the prosecution case.

24. There are various inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony of the injured informant PW-2 Vikas Singh. PW-2 has stated that vehicle was being driven by Dharmendra Kumar (PW-1) but the said Dharmendra Kumar has denied the said fact and has clearly stated that he has absolutely no knowledge about the incident. In the tehrir/F.I.R. there is mention of two unknown persons whose name the PW-2 did not know but had seen them in the head light of the Scorpio vehicle. In his examination-in-chief before the Court PW-2 has given their names as Girish Pandey @ Dupul and Vijay Gupta, but, in his cross-examination he has stated that he knew both these persons prior to the said incident and then, he says that he had not seen these two persons at the scene of the crime, which, is apparently incongruous and inconsistent. Of course, we have already observed that these two accused were acquitted by the trial Court which has been upheld by the Division Bench also, but, this discussion is only in the context of reliability of the testimony of PW-2.

25. In cross-examination PW-2 has stated that firing took place for about 1 minute and 30 seconds. He has then stated that 2 - 4 shots had been fired. He has stated that 2-3 bullets hit his vehicle. Apparently, if the firing took place for about 1 minute and 30 seconds, that too indiscriminate firing, as stated by PW-2, then, his statement that 2 to 4 or 2 to 3 shots were fired, is incongruous and unbelievable.

26. In examination-in-chief, PW-2 has stated that he saw the accused carrying arms when they alighted from their vehicle in the headlight of his Scorpio vehicle and he had already stated that six of them were carrying arms, but, neither in his tehrir nor in his testimony before the Court, did he state the nature of the arms being carried by them.

27. As per FSL report dated 03.07.2010 six holes were found on the left side of the vehicle which were indicative of six fire shots having entered the vehicle from the left side, however, the statement of PW-2 is that 2 or 3 shots hit the vehicle. Thus, clearly the statement of PW-2 was not corroborated by the FSL report dated 03.07.2010.

28. PW-2 has stated that the front glass of the vehicle broke on account of his head having hit the dashboard when the vehicle was sped away by the driver, whereas, the FSL report does not mention any broken front glass, rather evidence is to the contrary that is, except the left hand back light, all other glasses were intact. PW-4 on being shown the photographs Exhibited Ka-5 was unable to state as to who had developed the negatives and photographs and stated that there was no mention about this in the case diary. He has categorically stated that from seeing the photographs of the vehicle from the front it was evident that front glass of wind screen was totally safe and was not broken nor did it have any cracks. He has also accepted the fact that the forensic report dated 03.07.2010 also mentions that except for the left hand back light which was broken all other mirrors on the vehicle were in good conditions which belies testimony of PW-2 that the front wind screen/glass of the vehicle broke due to impact of his head when the driver was driving the vehicle to take it away from the scene of crime.

29. PW-2 has stated that none of the bullets fired by the accused had entered the vehicle, but, in the FSL report two bullets have been found inside it including one 7.2 bullet along with other remnants of a cartridge including led parts, therefore, there were discrepancies between the statement of PW-2 the alleged eye witness and the FSL report relied by the prosecution. No such 7.62 pistol was recovered.

30. Most important no live cartridge or empty cartridge was recovered from the scene of crime and there is no evidence to this effect, although, indiscriminate firing for about 1 minute and 30 seconds took place as per PW-2.

31. In the tehrir submitted by PW-2 there is no reference to any injury sustained by him, but, for the first time, in his examination-in-chief he has spoken about it. He has stated that when the firing started his driver drove the vehicle fast and in this process on account of brakes being applied by the driver suddenly, his head hit the dashboard, on account of which, he sustained injuries on his head and chest. In cross-examination he has added to his statement by saying that on account of the aforesaid the front glass of the vehicle broke and his hand was hurt by the broken glass and it started bleeding. This fact has came for the first time in the cross-examination and was not mentioned in the tehrir, though, he has stated that he had mentioned about it to the 'Daroga' and if he has not mentioned it in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he does not know the reason for it. The medical examination report Ex. Ka-7 and the testimony of Doctor (PW-5) which mention about four injuries- a contusion on the forehead, pain on the right shoulder and chest and another contusion on the left forearm near the wrist. There is no mention in the injury report regarding any lacerated or bleeding wound. It is mentioned that the injuries had been caused by blunt object, therefore, the testimony of the PW-2 as to the number and nature of the injuries is also belied from the injury report itself, which, does not mention about any bleeding from any part of his body including hand nor about any lacerated or incise wound. According to PW-5 the Doctor, the 'chiththi majroobi' mentioned only three injuries, none of which was external injuries. Such injuries are mentioned in the statement of the injured, as, there was no external and visible injuries. PW-5 has opined that such injuries could be caused by blunt object and could also be created by deliberate striking of the body with force.

32. There is prior enmity and political rivalry between the informant and accused, especially, Abhay Singh, Ravikant Yadav and Ramakant Yadav which is admitted to PW-2. While enmity is a double edged sword, in the facts of this case, where there are several inconsistencies and discrepancies in testimony of PW-2, this is also a factor which becomes relevant while assessing the reliability of testimony of PW-2. The trial Court has also noticed the criminal history of the informant especially that he was an absconder in Case Crime No. 715 of 2006 in which he was an accused having fired upon Ravikant who was made an accused in this case lodged by him. The trial Court has noticed that proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. were undertaken in this regard against him in 2008 and he was arrested in April, 2011, therefore, at the time of the incident in question the appellant himself was a wanted accused in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 715 of 2006 and was absconding, therefore, it has expressed its intrigue as to how he has set-up a case that he presented a tehrir at the police station regarding the incident in question and yet was not arrested by the police. PW-2 has accepted absence of his signatures on the relevant document 5 v/1 (Exhibit Ka-2). In this context Sri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the one of the respondents submitted that in fact the tehrir was not submitted by the informant and could not have been done by him, as, he himself was absconding. He has also stated that Chik FIR etc. does bear the signature of the PW-2 informant. He relied upon the testimony PW-3 where he has stated that he does not know who brought the tehrir to the police station. It was also submitted by Sri Singh that the FIR was lodged in connivance with the police personnel taking advantage of political patronage which was available to the PW-2 Informant under the then Government in the State and that it was a false implication on account of prior enmity and political rivalry.

33. Thus, the statement of PW-2, who is the sole eye witness of the incident, is not corroborated by other evidence adduced by the prosecution, rather it is belied, and is not reliable. No doubt conviction can, in a given case, be based on testimony of a sole witness also, but then it has to be of unimpeachable, and sterling quality, which PW- 2's testimony is not.

34. Two material eye-witnesses, namely, Vanshbahadur Singh and Ajeet Pratap Singh, who were cousins of PW-2 and were alleged to be in the vehicle with the informant PW-2, when the incident took place, have not been examined by the prosecution.

35. DW-1 is the Constable who was assigned security duty with accused Ravikant Yadav. He has testified about presence of the said accused and Ramakant Yadav along with him at Lucknow at the relevant time of commission of the crime. there is nothing in his cross examination to bely his testimony nor is there any other evidence which does so. His testimony materially dents the prosecution case, but, there was no such recovery.

36. There is no recovery of any weapon which may have been used in commission of crime during investigation, whether prior to him taking over the investigation or thereafter and it was not clear as to what types of weapons were used for committing the crime. PW- 4 Investigating Officer has accepted the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act would be proved only on recovery of an prohibited weapon.

37. The vehicle in question was sent to the Forensic Lab through Driver Constable Kammalal on 10.06.2010, but, it reached the Forensic Lab only on 15.06.2010 when it was given at the Lab. The incident took place on 15.05.2010. There is no explanation, much less an acceptable one, for this time gap between 15.05.2010 to 15.06.2010 nor regarding the time gap of 5 days from the date of handing over of the vehicle to Driver Constable Kammalal and its presentation at the Lab on 15.06.2010. There is no evidence to show that the vehicle was ever technically examined by the police personnel prior to be sent for forensic examination. PW-2 has prevaricated in his testimony on the issue as to when the vehicle was taken by him to the police station and whether it was detained there and when did he get it back. Initially, he has stated that he had taken the Scorpio vehicle to the police station on the same night at the time of giving the tehrir, but, then, he has also stated that may be he had sent the vehicle a day thereafter. He has stated that he does not remember it. After failing to give any categorically statement as to when he left the vehicle at the police station and saying that he does not remember it, he has then stated that as far as he remembers he got the vehicle from the police station 15-20 days later. He has stated that the vehicle had been detained by the police personnel on the ground of technical examination. There is no such technical examination by the police on record. If this statement is to be believed, then, the PW-2 was given his vehicle by the police on 30.05.2010 or 05.06.2010, whereas, the said vehicle was handed over to Driver Constable Kammalal for being taken to the Forensic Lab on 10.06.2010. The time gap of 10/5 days in this regard has not been explained. Even before the forensic examination took place at the Lab, the vehicle had been handed over to PW-2 as per his statement who had then given it back for forensic examination. PW- 4 Investigating Officer has accepted that he did not inquire/ investigate as to where was the vehicle from 10.06.2010 to 15.06.2010 before being given to the Forensic Lab and that he did not inquire about it from Driver Constable Kammalal as to where he had kept the said vehicle during this period of 5 days. There is no evidence about any technical examination of the vehicle having taken place by the police personnel either on 15.05.2010 or immediately thereafter. This makes the Forensic Report and entire story of the prosecution highly doubtful and unreliable.

38. As per the prosecution, the Scorpio vehicle bearing No. UP 42 M 4140 was owned by the informant, who had also stated so, but, no evidence has been led in this regard. PW-2 in his cross-examination has, in fact, stated that the said vehicle did not belong to him. There is discrepancy and inconsistency in this regard where firstly he has stated that the vehicle was his, then, he has retracted from it.

39. The trial Court has noticed that Ex. Ka-5 which contains the negatives and 8 photographs of the vehicle taken from the left side and the front (not the rear side and right side) were not sealed and there was no mention about the criminal case in connection with which they had been taken nor the case number, section, nor the police station nor the district was mentioned on the said envelop. These photographs were prepared prior to release of the vehicle in pursuance to the order of the Court, on 28.06.2010.

40. There are serious inconsistencies and discrepancies as regards the number of accused alleged to have committed the crime, their presence, their identity, the role of firing assigned to the accused, the identity of the weapon used, the number or nature of the injuries sustained by the PW-2, the identity of the vehicle and its owner, the number of shots fired, the statement of PW-2 under section 161 Cr.P.C. and his testimony before the Court, his statement is not corroborated by other evidence on record and is self-contradictory and inconsistent, therefore, the incident itself is not proved. As already discussed, there were two eye-witnesses to the incident who were examined, one of whom PW-1 Dharmendra Singh who initially, in the tehrir is mentioned as PW 2's friend but in his testimony he is mentioned as driver Dharmendra Singh, has totally denied having seen any such incident or being present at the scene of crime. There is nothing in his testimony which could support the prosecution case. Sri Naved Ali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that considering the long drawn examination of PW-1, he was one over by the accused who was powerful influential person. Even if, this contention is taken at its face value, it does not help the appellant, because there is nothing in the testimony not even in his examination-in-chief which could support the prosecution case. Two material eye-witnesses, namely, Vanshbahadur Singh and Ajeet Pratap Singh, who were cousins of PW-2 and were alleged to be in the vehicle with the informant PW-2, when the incident took place, have not been examined by the prosecution. The testimony of PW-2 is not reliable. There are various inconsistencies and discrepancies in his statement. He has stated about the front glass of the vehicle having broken during the incident but the Forensic Lab report does not mention about it. In fact, it says that all the glasses except left back light glass were intact. If the firing took place, as stated by PW-2, for 1 minute and 30 seconds that too by at least 6 armed persons, then, his subsequent statement that 2-4 or 2-3 shots were fired is highly improbable. Moreover, no empty cartridges etc. recovered from scene of crime. PW-2 has stated that bullets did not enter the vehicle, yet, during forensic examination of the vehicle more than a month later some bullets etc. are found in the vehicle, which is again inconsistent. The type of weapon being carried by accused is not disclosed by PW-2, though, he claims to have seen them in the head light of the Scorpio. There are inconsistencies and discrepancies in the injuries pointed out by the PW-2 vis-a-vis the same borne out from the injury report and the 'chiththi majroobi' as already discussed. The forensic lab report pertaining to the vehicle itself is unreliable in view of the time gap of about a month from the date of incident and the absence of any explanation as to where the vehicle was during this period, especially in view of the statement of PW-2 that it was given to him 15-20 days after the incident which means prior to forensic examination of the vehicle by the Lab it has with him. 4The entire story set-up by the prosecution is highly suspect and on consideration of over all facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court qua respondents no. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 does not require interference and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of the offence under Section 147, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 27 Arms Act, by the respondents no. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 beyond reasonable doubt.

41. That the prosecution has failed to prove the incident as alleged to have occurred on 15.05.2010 at 08.45 p.m. at the scene of crime. It has also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the offence with the intent to murder the informant on the said date and time as also the unlawful assembly, as alleged. It has also recorded a finding that the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is also not made out.

42. After going through the judgment of the trial Court in the light of the facts and evidence on record, which have also been examined by this Court independently, it can not be said that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse or that the view taken by the trial Court is not a possible view. No such manifest illegality could be pointed out or seen by this Court so as to persuade it to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.

43. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

44. In compliance with the provision contained in Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the respondents no. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are directed to furnish personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned within a period of six weeks from today.

45. Let the Lower Court Records along with certified copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court and the C.J.M. concerned for necessary action.

(Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 21.03.2025

R.K.P.