Mukesh vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 2833 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                           Judgment reserved on: April 05, 2010
                           Judgment delivered on: May 31, 2010


+      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.242/1997

       MUKESH                                    ....APPELLANT

                       Through:    Mr. Akshai Malik, Advocate/
                                   Amicus Curiae

                       Versus

       STATE                                     .....RESPONDENT

                       Through:    Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing
                                   Counsel

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers
       may be allowed to see the judgment?           Yes

2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?       Yes

3.     Whether the judgment should be
       reported in Digest ?                          Yes

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.

1. The appellant Mukesh has been convicted under Sections 364,

302 and 201 IPC in Sessions Case No.4/96 FIR No.121/93 Police

Station Mansarovar Park in terms of the impugned judgment dated

21.03.1997 on the strength of circumstantial evidence i.e. (a) that

Brahamanand (hereinafter referred to as `deceased') was last seen

in the company of the appellant while leaving his house on 06.06.93

at around 5.00 p.m. - (b) the appellant visited the factory of the

deceased on 07.06.93 and removed one briefcase containing

Rs.50,000/- or Rs.60,000/- (c) that the appellant was not found at

his house at Kot Gaon, Ghaziabad when the complainant Vijay Singh

Sharma(PW-11) visited his village - (d) recovery of the skull and

broken jaws of the deceased at the instance of the above appellant

on 13.06.93.

2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution as per the FIR and the

evidence on record is that on 06.06.93 at about 5.00 p.m., PW-1

Satish Kumar saw the deceased leaving his house No.1/4533, Ram

Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi with the appellant in Maruti Car

No.DL-3CA-3853 belonging to the deceased. The appellant drove

the car and they were also seen going in the car by PW-11 Vijay

Singh Sharma, who was returning home from the side of Mandoli

Road. The deceased did not return thereafter.

3. On 06.06.93 at about 7.00 p.m., the appellant and others,

including the deceased visited the arms and ammunition shop of

PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta at Panipat. The deceased and one

Dharmender were introduced to PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta by

Surender Chaudhary, Advocate (PW-4) who had accompanied the

group. PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta was told that both the deceased

and Dharmender were interested in getting gun licences. PW-2 Ajay

Kumar Gupta told them that the concerned person was not available

and after contacting him, he would get back to Surender

Chaudhary, Advocate. Thereafter, they all left his shop.

4. In the morning of 07.06.93, PW-3 Munish Kumar had gone to

the factory of the deceased for some work. At around 9.00 a.m.,

appellant Mukesh reached at the factory in the Maruti Car belonging

to the deceased. PW-3 Munish Kumar has claimed that the

appellant was carrying the keys of the office of the deceased. He

opened the office and carried away one briefcase containing

Rs.50,000/- or Rs.60,000/- meant for payment of wages to the

workers. While leaving, the appellant is claimed to have told PW-3

Munish Kumar that the deceased would return in the evening. The

deceased, however, did not return.

5. On 08.06.93, PW-11 Vijay Singh Sharma is claimed to have

visited Kot Gaon to find out about his brother. He, however, could

not find his deceased brother, Surender Chaudhary or the appellant

there. PW-11 Vijay Singh Sharma again visited Kot Gaon on

09.06.93 but the appellant was not to be found. Thus, when the

deceased did not return by the evening of 10.06.93, PW-11 Vijay

Singh Sharma visited the police station to report the matter. His

complaint was registered as FIR No.121/93 and the investigation of

the case was entrusted to ASI Balwant Singh (PW-13).

6. In the morning of 11.06.93, ASI Balwant Singh along with the

police party and PW-11 visited Kot Gaon, Ghaziabad. There he met

an informer who told him that the appellant and Surender

Chaudhary might be available in Bulandshahar. He thus proceeded

to Bulandshahar and reported his arrival at P.S. Kotwali. Two Sub-

Inspectors of local police joined him and they proceeded towards

Kalla Am Crossing and the appellant was apprehended on the

pointing of the complainant Vijay Singh Sharma (PW-11). The

Transit Remand of appellant was obtained on the same day from

CJM, Bulandshahar and he was brought to P.S. Mansarovar Park. On

interrogation, the appellant made a disclosure statement disclosing

his complicity in the offence and stated that after killing the

deceased, his head was chopped off and his chopped head was

buried in a pit in the jungle at the bank of Ganga Canal after putting

it in a polythene bag and sprinkling some salt on it. As regards the

headless torso, he disclosed that after removing all his clothes, the

torso was thrown into the Ganga Canal and the belongings of the

deceased were thrown in the way while leaving the said spot where

the head was buried. Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, it

is claimed that the appellant got recovered the skull of deceased

and his broken jaw and hairs which were badly eaten by animals

and there was no flesh on the skull. It is claimed that the said skull

and piece of jaw were identified by the brothers of the deceased,

namely, PW-3 Munish Kumar and PW-11 Vijay Singh Sharma who

had accompanied the police party for recovery.

7. The skull was sent for post mortem examination to ascertain

whether it was a human skull and if so whether it belonged to a

male or a female and also to fix the age of the person to whom the

skull belonged and the cause of death. As per the Autopsy Surgeon

who conducted post mortem, the skull belonged to a human male,

aged around 30 years. The doctor, however, opined that it was

difficult to ascertain the cause of death or the nature of weapon

with which the skull was severed from the body.

8. On completion of necessary formalities of investigation, the

challan was filed against the appellant and others. The appellant,

along with his co-accused Vinod and Ashok Fauji, was charged for

the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 364/34 and 201/34

IPC. The appellant as well as the other co-accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant and his co-

accused, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses.

10. The stand taken by the appellant in his examination under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. is of total denial of the prosecution case.

According to him, he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated

in this case.

11. In defence, the appellant has examined six witnesses. DW-1

to DW-4 are the police officials who have been examined to prove

the daily diary reports of police station Mansarovar Park and the log

books pertaining to the movement of the official vehicles available

at the police station during the relevant period. DW-5 Smt.Chander

Wati is the mother of the appellant. She has stated that in the

month of June, 1993, two police officials including one Sikh

gentleman had visited her house to enquire about her son Mukesh.

She further stated that Mukesh was available at his house during

said period, i.e., from 07.06.93 to 10.06.93 and during that period

no-one except the two said police officials had visited her to enquire

about Mukesh. DW-6 Bhawar Singh also deposed to similar effect.

12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has adopted a peculiar

procedure in this case. Though the appellant was tried jointly with

his co-accused Vinod Kumar and Ashok Fauji, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, after recording of entire prosecution evidence,

opted to split the trial of the appellant from the trial of other two

accused persons who were acquitted vide a separate judgment

dated 05.03.97 and on the said date of hearing, the trial court

recorded supplementary statement of the appellant under Section

313 Cr.P.C. and adjourned the case for recording of further defence

evidence by the appellant Mukesh. On consideration of the

evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the

appellant guilty of offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and

201 IPC and convicted him vide impugned judgement, followed by

the consequent order on sentence dated 31.03.97.

13. Learned Shri Akshai Malik, Amicus Curiae on behalf of the

appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has

been falsely implicated by the police. Learned Amicus Curiae

further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has

ignored the fact that in the instant case, neither the motive for

crime is established, nor the purported recovery of skull and jaw at

the instance of the appellant is above suspicion. Even the arrest of

the appellant is shrouded in mystery and the identity of recovered

skull and jaw is highly doubtful. Learned Amicus also contended

that even the last seen evidence produced by the prosecution is not

above suspicion. Thus, learned Amicus has contended that

prosecution has miserably failed to prove the incriminating

circumstances against the appellant which, when taken together

form a chain so complete as to lead to the irrefutable conclusion of

guilt of the appellant, ruling out any possibility of his innocence.

Therefore, his conviction is not sustainable under law.

14. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has

canvassed in favour of the impugned judgment. He has submitted

that from the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the above-

referred incriminating circumstances have been fully established

and those circumstances, taken together, form a chain so complete

as to point towards the guilt of the appellant, leaving no scope for

any hypothesis of innocence of the appellant. Thus, he has

summed up that the appellant has been rightly convicted by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge.

15. Since the case of the prosecution is based upon the

circumstantial evidence, it would be appropriate to have a look upon

the law on appreciation of circumstantial evidence. In the matter of

Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, it

was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests upon

circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following

tests:

"10.(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."

16. The above enunciated principle of law was reiterated in the

matter of State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) 2

SCC 86, where the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed thus:

"9. This Court has, time out of number, observed that while appreciating circumstantial evidence the Court must adopt a very cautious approach and should record a conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is capable of being negatived on evidence. Great care must be

taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The circumstance relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt."

17. In the light of the above enunciated principle of appreciation

of circumstantial evidence, we now proceed to analyse whether the

prosecution has been able to establish the relied upon incriminating

circumstances against the appellant and, if so, whether the

circumstances so established on record form a complete chain

pointing towards the guilt of the appellant, leaving no possibility of

his innocence.

18. As per the case of prosecution, the deceased left his house on

06.06.1993 along with the appellant in the Maruti car belonging to

the deceased at around 5 pm. He was last seen in the company of

the appellant and four others purportedly on 06th June, 1993 at

07:00 p.m. by PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta when they visited his arms

and ammunition shop. As per PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta, Surender

Chaudhary, Advocate introduced him to Brahmanand and Devender

and explained that they both were interested in getting license for

rifle. Learned Amicus Curie has submitted that the aforesaid

testimony of PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta is not of much help to the

prosecution for the reason that Ajay Kumar Gupta in his cross-

examination has admitted that apart from Surender Chaudhary,

Advocate none of the above five persons were previously known to

him. Therefore, in absence of any test identification parade being

conducted to fix the identity of the appellant and the other accused

persons, dock identification of the appellant by PW-2 Ajay Kumar

Gupta is unreliable. On perusal of the record, we find that PW-2 Ajay

Kumar Gupta claims that he saw the deceased in the company of

the appellant and others at his shop on 06.06.1993 at around 7 pm.

His testimony was recorded in the court on 19.02.1996. In view of

this, we find it unsafe to rely upon the identification of the appellant

done by him in the court after a lapse of almost two and a half

years, particularly when as per PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta, he was

never called by the police to identify any of those persons who had

visited his shop on 06.06.1993 and also because of the fact that no

test identification parade was got conducted to fix the identity of

the appellant and the other accused persons. We may also add that

even if PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta is believed, his testimony only

establishes that one Brahamanand visited his shop in the evening of

6th June, 1993, but it falls short of fixing the identity of said

Brahamanand as the deceased because there is the evidence to

show that the Investigating Officer, with a view to confirm whether

the deceased ever visited the shop of PW-2, showed him a

photograph of Brahmanand (deceased) for fixing his identity. Thus,

we find that prosecution has failed to firmly establish that the

deceased was seen in the company of the appellant and others at

Panipat on 06.06.1993 at around 7 pm.

19. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that even if the

dock identification of the appellant by PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta does

not find favour with the court, then also the prosecution has been

able to establish from the testimony of PW-1 Satish Kumar Sharma,

PW-3 Munish Kumar and PW-11 Vijay Singh Sharma that the

deceased was last seen leaving his house along with the appellant

on 06.06.1993 at 5 pm in the Maruti Car belonging to the deceased.

In support of this contention, learned counsel for the State has

taken us through the testimony of above said witnesses. PW-1

Satish Kumar Sharma has categorically stated that on 06.06.1993 at

about 5 pm, the appellant visited their house and after some time

he left for Kot Gaon to meet one Surender along with the deceased

in his car and thereafter, the deceased never returned. Aforesaid

version of PW-1 finds corroboration in the testimony of PW-11 Vijay

Singh Sharma (complainant), who has testified that in the evening

of 06.06.1993 at about 5 pm when he was returning home from the

side of Mandoli Road, he saw the appellant driving Maruti Car of his

brother Brahmanand and the deceased Brahmanand was sitting by

his side on the passenger seat. He also stated that the appellant

even wished him. PW-3 Munish Kumar has also stated that on the

relevant day, the deceased left his house with the appellant.

20. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the testimony of

the above three witnesses regarding the last seen circumstance is

unreliable, firstly on the ground that they are interested witnesses

being the brothers of the deceased and secondly, their version is

not reliable for the reason that despite of the fact that the deceased

went missing since 06.06.1993, no missing report or complaint was

lodged till 10.06.1993, which circumstance raises a strong doubt

that the FIR registered in this case is the result of manipulation and

afterthought. As regards the first limb of contention, it is suffice to

say that it is trite law that the evidence of a related witness is as

good on evidence as that of any other witness. Testimony of a

related witness is not liable to be rejected solely on the ground of

relationship of the witness with the deceased/victim. If, on careful

scrutiny of the evidence, testimony of such a witness is found

trustworthy, the Court can always act upon said evidence. In the

instant case, the deceased is claimed to have left his house with the

appellant. Therefore, PW-1 Satish Kumar Sharma, who is brother of

the deceased, being the family member is a natural witness who

was expected to see him leaving the house. Therefore, we find no

reason to reject his testimony, which is corroborated by the

testimony of PW-3 Munish Kumar as well as PW-11 Vijay Singh

Sharma. The testimony of PW-11 is criticised by the learned Amicus

Curiae on the ground that in the FIR, he has not specifically

mentioned that he noticed his brother Brahmanand going in a car

with the appellant. In our considered view, the aforesaid

discrepancy, i.e., non-mention of the above referred minute details

pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae in the FIR cannot be taken as

a reason to reject the testimony of PW-11, which otherwise appears

to be consistent and natural. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in

the finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge that the deceased

was seen leaving his house on 06.06.1993 at 5.00 p.m. along with

appellant.

21. Coming to the circumstance (b) which also is projected as

motive for crime by the prosecution. On this aspect, the testimony

of PW-3 Munish Kumar is relevant. He has stated that in the

morning of 07.06.1993, he had visited the factory of his brother

Brahmanand (deceased) for some work. At about 9.00 a.m.,

appellant Mukesh came to the factory in the car of the deceased.

He was carrying keys of the office of the deceased. The appellant

opened the office with those keys and carried away one briefcase,

which as per the witness contained Rs.50,000/Rs.60,000/- meant for

the payment of wages to the workers and while leaving, told that

the deceased would return home in the evening. PW-11 Vijay Singh

Sharma(complainant) and PW-1 Satish Kumar Sharma have also

testified that earlier the deceased had actually carried said amount

to his office in a briefcase.

22. The above evidence of the witnesses does not inspire

confidence, firstly because of the reason that the FIR Ex.PW-11/A

was registered four days later in the evening of 10.06.1993 despite

of the fact that the deceased did not return home even in the

evening of 07.06.1993 as assured by the appellant. Further, perusal

of the FIR reveals that there is no mention of the appellant having

taken away the briefcase containing Rs.50,000/Rs.60,000/- from the

office of the deceased in the morning of 07.06.1993. The absence

of this material fact in the FIR which was lodged after a delay of four

days raises a strong suspicion against the correctness of the version

of PW-3 Munish Kumar regarding the visit of the appellant to the

factory of the deceased in the morning of 07.06.1993 and taking

away the briefcase. The aforesaid suspicion is further compounded

by the fact that the prosecution has failed to examine any of the

employees of the deceased to prove that the workers were not paid

wages on the pay day of June 1993. In view of the above factual

matrix, a possibility cannot be ruled out that the story of visit of the

appellant to the factory of the deceased and taking away of the

briefcase containing money has been introduced on an afterthought

after due deliberations to strengthen the case of the prosecution.

Thus, in our considered view, the motive for commission of crime

has not been firmly established. This factor goes against the case

of the prosecution. We may also mention that as per the inquest

report Ex.PW-3/B prepared on 13.06.1993 against the column

"apparent cause of death", the Investigating Officer has recorded

"Mukesh, the accused and his accomplices committed the murder

by chopping off the neck due to old enmity". If we go by this

observation, it is apparent that till 13.06.1993 when the inquest

report was prepared, there was no mention of the removal of money

contained in the briefcase by the appellant Mukesh, otherwise

looting of said money would have appeared as reason for killing in

the inquest report.

23. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the

absence of the appellant from his house at Kot Gaon, Ghaziabad on

8th and 9th June 1993. In this regard, the prosecution has examined

PW-11 Vijay Singh Sharma, the complainant. He has stated that

when his brother Brahmanand(deceased) did not return even on

07.06.1993, he visited Kot Gaon in order to find out about the well

being of his brother. Neither the appellant nor Surender met him

there. He deposed that Sunil, brother of Surender met him at the

house of Surender and gave him telephone number of Surender. He

telephoned Surender on that number but nobody picked up the call.

He further stated that mother of Surender assured him that

Surender was expected back in the evening and she would send him

to meet him(witness). He further stated that on 09.06.1993, he

again visited Kot Gaon and met mother of Surender as well as

mother of the appellant. Mother of the appellant was worried and

she told him that the appellant might be with Surender and that she

would send Mukesh to meet him as soon as he comes home. From

the aforesaid evidence, it cannot be inferred that the appellant

Mukesh had absconded from his village. From the testimony of PW-

11, it is obvious that even if he visited Kot Gaon, he did not stay

there for a long time and after meeting the relatives of Surender

and the appellant, he came back. A possibility cannot be ruled out

that during day time, the appellant was away for his work. Thus, in

our considered view, even the circumstance (c) referred to above

has not been firmly established.

24. The most material incriminating circumstance relied upon by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge for conviction of the appellant

is the discovery of skull, jaw and hair of the deceased from the

jungle at the bank of Ganga Canal at the instance of the appellant.

At the outset, we may mention that as per the case of prosecution,

the said recovery was effected on 13.06.1993. As per the

Investigating Officer, on the said day, the appellant led the police

party to a jungle at the bank of Ganga Canal and on his pointing out

a human skull, lower jaw and hair were recovered, which were

identified by PW-3 Munish Kumar and PW-11 Vijay Singh Sharma,

brothers of the deceased as that of the deceased Brahmanand.

Perusal of the inquest report Ex.PW-13/B prepared by the

Investigating Officer on 13.06.1993 reveals that as per the facts

detailed in the report, the flesh of head and eyes of the recovered

skull had been eaten away by wild animals. As per the post mortem

report dated 14.06.1993 available on the trial court record, though

it has not been proved by the prosecution, there was no flesh on the

recovered skull. Under these circumstances, we fail to comprehend

as to how the complainant Vijay Singh Sharma and PW-3 Munish

Kumar managed to identify the said skull and the jaw as that of the

deceased Brahmanand. Thus, it is highly doubtful that the aforesaid

skull belonged to the deceased. Otherwise also, from the cross

examination of the Investigation Officer ASI Balwant Singh (PW-13),

it is apparent that a number of persons apart from the brothers of

the deceased accompanied the police party for the recovery of the

skull of the deceased. Despite that, the Investigating Officer, for

reasons best known to him, has opted not to join any independent

witness to the recovery, which circumstance raises suspicion

against the story of the prosecution regarding recovery of skull and

the jaw at the instance of the appellant. Learned counsel for the

State has submitted that non joining of independent witnesses is

insignificant because it is common knowledge that public persons

generally avoid to have any brush with the investigation conducted

by the police. We do not find any force in this contention because

of the fact that as per the Investigating Officer, 10/15 persons had

accompanied him in the police vehicle. Besides that, there was a

private van and 3/4 motorcycles on which public persons had gone

to Ganga Canal along with the police party. This version, if true, is

indicative of the fact that public persons opted to accompany the

police party from Delhi to Bulandshahar for the purpose of recovery

and if those persons had bothered to go with the police upto

Bulandshahar, it does not appeal to logic that they would not have

preferred to join as witnesses to the recovery. Not only this, as per

the Investigating Officer, for the purpose of recovery he left the

police station in the morning of 13.06.1993. Thereafter, he went to

the house of the complainant Vijay Singh Sharma and took him and

his brothers along and on the way they also took along the

photographer and proceeded to Ganga Canal. In the cross-

examination, A.S.I. Balwant Singh has stated that the skull and jaw

were recovered at 2.30 p.m. The aforesaid version is belied by the

testimony of PW-5 Girish Kumar, photographer who claims that he

had accompanied the police party to a place near Chittor Garh on

Hapur Road where he took photographs of the skull and other

remains of the deceased. This witness, in his cross-examination,

has stated that he was taken by the police from his shop at 3.30

p.m. The aforesaid mismatch about the time of recovery of skull

and jaw also compounds the suspicion against the correctness of

the prosecution story. Thus, we find it unsafe to believe the

evidence of prosecution regarding recovery of skull and jaw at the

instance of the appellant Mukesh. Otherwise also, the evidence

pertaining to identity of said skull is highly unreliable.

25. Even the arrest of the appellant is shrouded in mystery. As

per the case of the prosecution, the appellant was arrested on the

pointing of Vijay Singh Sharma (PW11) from the chambry of Kalla

Am Crossing, Bulandshahar. The Investigating Officer A.S.I. Balwant

Singh has testified that on 11.06.1993 pursuant to secret

information received from the informer, he had gone to

Bulandshahar and reported his arrival at P.S. Kotwali, Bulandshahar.

From there, he took two Sub-Inspectors of local police and went

towards the Kalla Am Crossing where the appellant was arrested.

Neither the DD entry pertaining to the arrival report of ASI Balwant

Singh and party at P.S. Kotwali, Bulandshahar is proved on record,

nor any of those Sub-Inspectors have been cited as witnesses to the

arrest of the appellant. This circumstance also makes the story of

arrest of the appellant suspect.

26. In view of the discussion above, we find that prosecution has

been able to establish only the last seen evidence to the effect that

on 06.06.1993 at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased left his house along

with the appellant. In our considered view, this circumstance by

itself is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the charges of

kidnapping, murder and making the evidence disappear, particularly

when the investigation in this case has been done in a most unfair

manner. The Investigating Officer, as a prudent man with average

common sense ought to have known that it is impossible to identify

the skull or jaw to fix the identity of the deceased. Despite of that,

he took a short cut and did not care to properly investigate the

case. Not only this, there is not even a whisper on the record that

any attempt whatsoever was made to recover the so-called money

which the appellant allegedly took away from the office of the

deceased. Thus, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the

appellant on the charges under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC. We,

accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the

appellant of the aforesaid charges, giving him benefit of doubt.

27. The appellant is on bail. His bail-cum-surety bond stands

discharged.

28. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.

MAY 31, 2010                                           A.K. SIKRI, J.
ks