Singhasan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 1101 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Judgment reserved on: 25.02.2014
                                                 Date of Decision: 03.03.2014

+       CRL.A. 592/2013
        SINGHASAN                                        ..... Appellant
                                Through: Mr.Prem Kumar with Mr.Rakesh,
                                Mr.Bhaskar and Ms.Priya Mahajan, Advocates

                                versus

        STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                 ..... Respondent
                       Through:Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP

+       CRL.A. 593/2013
        MUNNA                                            ..... Appellant
                                Through: Mr.Prem Kumar with Mr.Rakesh,
                                Mr.Bhaskar and Ms.Priya Mahajan, Advocates

                                versus

        STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                  ..... Respondent
                       Through: Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP

+       CRL.A. 630/2013
        KALLU                                            ..... Appellant
                                Through: Mr.Prem Kumar with Mr.Rakesh,
                                Mr.Bhaskar and Ms.Priya Mahajan, Advocates

                                versus

        STATE NCT OF DELHI                     ..... Respondent
                       Through: Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                                     JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J.

On 26th February, 2008, an information was received in the Police

Control Room with respect to quarrel over teasing of a girl, in Gali No.3,

Swaroop Nagar, Mukundkam Extension. The information when conveyed to

Police Station Swaroop Nagar was recorded vide DD No.45B and Head

Constable Naresh Kumar was informed about it on telephone. On the said

date, Seema Devi, Sangeeta Devi, Devender Kumar and Anand Kumar were

taken to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital in injured condition, by PCR officials.

2. When Head Constable Naresh Kumar reached the spot, he came to

know that the injured had been taken to Hospital. On reaching the Hospital,

he came to know that the injured Seema Devi, Anand Kumar and Devender

Kumar had left the Hospital after taking treatment whereas Sangeeta Devi

had been declared unfit for statement on her MLC. She had been sent to the

Trauma Centre Hospital, Civil Lines. The Head Constable obtained the

MLCs and reached the Trauma Centre, where Sangeeta Devi was still unfit

for statement. No eyewitness, according to Head Constable Naresh Kumar,

met him either in the Hospital or in the Trauma Centre. When Head

Constable Naresh Kumar went to Hospital on 1st March, 2008, Satish,

husband of Sangeeta Devi, was present there and his statement was recorded

by him. The complainant told him that on 26th February, 2008, his daughter

aged about 13 years, when she came home, complained to him that a boy

named Kallu who was previously known to her and was employed in the

bakery of Singhasan in Swaroop Nagar, Mukundkam Extension had teased

her. Thereupon, the complainant accompanied by Anand Kumar, Devender

Kumar, Seema Devi and his wife Sangeeta Devi reached the bakery of

Singhasan, in order to make Kallu see reason and not to tease her daughter in

future. When they enquired in this regard, Singhasan who was the owner of

the bakery as well as Munna and Kallu became angry and started quarrelling

with them and giving beatings to them. Singhasan gave a blow on the head of

his wife Sangeeta Devi using an iron rod for the purpose whereas Muna gave

a danda blow on the head of Devender Kumar, as well as on the other parts.

Kallu gave danda blow to his relative Anand Kumar and Seema Devi. Smt.

Kiran, wife of Singhasan, also reached, in the meanwhile, and tried to

intervene in the matter but she fell down during scuffle.

3. The case of the prosecution is that during the course of investigation,

the appellant Singhasan got recovered an iron rod from his bakery whereas

the other appellants got recovered one danda each from the said bakery. All

the appellants were charge-sheeted under Section 308 of IPC read with

Section 34 thereof.

4. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty of charge framed against them,

12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution whereas two witnesses were

examined in defence. The injured Sangeeta Devi came in the witness box as

PW-1. In her deposition, she, inter alia, stated on 26th February, 2008, when

her daughter complained to her about teasing by Kallu, she along with her

brother-in-law Anand Kumar and her husband went to the bakery of

Singhasan where all the three appellants, namely, Kallu, Munna and

Singhasan were present. She claimed that appellants Munna and Singhasan

were previously known to her since they were residing in the same colony.

According to her, when she complained to Singhasan against Kallu for

teasing her daughter, all the three accused took iron rods in their hand and

assaulted her as well as brother-in-law Devender Kumar and Anand Kumar

with the said rods. On receiving injuries, she became unconscious and was

removed to Hospital from where she was shifted to Trauma Centre. She,

however, also stated that she had seen iron rod only in the hand of Singhasan

and did not know of the weapons carried out by other two accused. She

identified iron rod (Ex.P-1) which she had seen in the hands of the appellant

Singhasan, at the time of incident.

5. PW-2 Satish is the complainant in this case. He, inter alia, stated that

on being informed by his daughter regarding teasing by Kallu, he along with

his brother-in-law Anand Kumar, Devender Kumar, who is the brother of his

brother-in-law, his sister-in-law Seema Devi and his wife Sangeeta Devi went

to the bakery of Singhasan. All the accused were found present there when

they asked Singhasan to advise Kallu not to tease his daughter in future, all

the accused persons starting beating them. According to him, Singhasan was

carrying an iron rod and Munna and Kallu had one danda earh. Singhasan

gave blow on the head of his wife whereas others hit Devender Kumar, Anand

Kumar and Seema Devi. They also gave a danda blow to him. He further

stated he informed Police Control Room and PCR Van reached the spot. First

of all, they were taken to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital from where his wife

was shifted to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines. According to him, on account of

serious condition of his wife, she could not get treatment at Babu Jagjivan

Ram Hospital. This witness also identified the iron rod Ex.P-1 and claimed

that the said rod was used for assaulting his wife.

6. PW-3 Smt. Seema is the another injured in this case. She stated that

when they reached the bakery of Singhasan, the accused person got annoyed,

Singhasan was having iron rod in his hand and Munna and Kallu were having

danda in their hands Singhasan gave blow from iron rod to her sister

Sangeeta, whereas the other accused gave a danda blow to Devender Kumar,

Anand Kumar and Satish. Satish informed the Police. Then they were taken

to the Hospital. She also identified the iron rod Ex.P-1.

7. PW-4 Devender Kumar also corroborated the deposition of PW1 to

PW3 with respect to their going to the bakery of Singhasan, the appellant

Singhasan causing injury to Sangeeta Devi with an iron rod and the other

appellants causing injury to them with danda blows.

8. PW5 Anand Kumar also corroborated deposition of other eye-

witnesses and deposed regarding the appellant Singhasan giving a blow on the

head of Sangeeta with iron rod and the appellant Munna and Kallu giving

danda blows to them.

9. PW9 is the daughter of the complainant who deposed with respect to

the appellant - Kallu teasing her and stated that she had complained to her

parents in this regard whereupon they had gone to the bakery of Singhasan

along with her relatives - Anand, Davinder and Seema.

10. PW6 Head Constable Naresh Chander stated that when he reached the

spot on 26.02.2008, he came to know that the injured had been taken to Babu

Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital (BJRMH). When he reached there, he came

to know that Smt. Sangeeta had been referred to Trauma Centre whereas the

remaining injured had been discharged. Smt. Sangeeta was unfit for

statement. No eye witness met him in the hospital. According to him on

1.3.2008, Satish Singh, husband of Sangeeta Devi met him in Trauma Centre

where he recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, the investigation was

handed over to SI Pradeep Kumar.

PW8 - Constable D. Lachchi Naik stated that on 1.3.2008 the accused

persons were arrested on being pointed out by the complainant Satish Singh

and their disclosure statements Ex.PW8/A to PW8/C were recorded.

Thereafter, accused Kallu and Munna got recovered one danda each whereas

accused Singhasan got recovered a saria, which were seized by them after

they had been sealed with the seal of PK.

PW10 is the record clerk of BJRMH who proved the MLC Ex.PW10/A

to PW10/C. PW11 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary identified the signatures of the

treating doctor on the aforesaid MLC.

PW12 SI Pradeep Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the case who

inter alia stated that he arrested the appellants on the pointing out of the

complainant on 1.3.2008 and recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW8/A

to PW8/C. According to him, accused Kallu and Munna got recovered one

danda each whereas the accused Singhasan got recovered an iron rod from the

bakery.

11. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, all the appellants denied

the allegations against them and claimed to be innocent. No alternative

version of the incident in question, however, was given by any of them.

12. DW1 - Satya Narain Shah inter alia stated that on 26.2.2008,

Singhasan and Munna were with them from 5 pm to 9 pm and during the

aforesaid period a telephone call was received at about 8/8.30 pm with respect

to a quarrel at the house of Singhasan and Munna. After 9 pm, both of them

went to their house and later he came to know that the accused persons had

been implicated in this case. Thus, according to the witness at the time the

incident in question took place, the appellants - Munna and Singhasan were

with him.

DW2 - Lovkesh Kumar stated that on 26.2.2008, he attended the

inaugural function of the shop of Singhasan and remained there till 8.30/9 pm.

According to him, the appellant - Singhasan remained present in the function

which started at about 7 pm.

13. Vide the impugned judgment dated 15.03.2013 all the appellants were

convicted under Section 325/34 of IPC for causing grievous injuries to

Anand, under Section 323/34 for causing injuries to Devinder and Seema and

under Section 308/34 of IPC for causing grievous injuries to Sangeeta. Vide

impugned Order on Sentence dated 18.03.2013, all the appellants were

sentenced to undergo RI for five years each and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/-

each or to undergo SI for one year each in default under Section 308 of IPC.

They were sentenced to undergo RI for three years each and to pay fine of

Rs.9,000/- each or to undergo SI for six months each in default under Section

325 of IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo RI for one year each and

to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- or to undergo SI for one month each in default

under Section 323 of IPC. Being aggrieved from their conviction and

sentence, the appellants are before this Court by way of these appeals.

14. The impugned judgment has been assailed by the learned counsel for

the appellants primarily on the following grounds:

        (i)     There is delay of three days in lodging the FIR;
        (ii)    The use and recovery of iron rod and dandas is highly doubtful

since they are not the articles which would normally be found in a bakery;

(iii) No offence under Section 308 read with section 34 of IPC is made out against the appellants - Munna and Kallu; and

(iv) No witness from the public was joined in the alleged recovery of iron rod and lathies from the bakery.

15. As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, it appears to me from the facts

and circumstances of the case that the complainant - Satish had not actually

witnessed the incident and that is why he did not meet the HC Naresh either

in BJRMH or in the Trauma Centre on 26.2.2008. The case of the prosecution

is that as many as five persons led by the complainant - Sangeeta had gone to

the bakery of the appellant - Singhasan on coming to know from the daughter

of the complainant that the appellant - Kallu used to tease her. However,

there is no record of any treatment of the complainant either in BJRMH or

elsewhere. It is difficult to accept that despite appellants being heavily armed,

all persons other than the father of the girl would receive injuries at the hands

of the assailants. In fact, father of the girl would be the most agitated person

on being informed of eve-teasing of his daughter and, therefore, would be

most aggressive when he goes to the place where his daughter was teased,

either to complain about the eve-teasing to his employer as the case of the

prosecution is or to teach him a lesson which is the other possibility in this

case. Therefore, he would be the first target of assailants. That having no

happened, as would be inferred from the absence of any record of his

treatment his presence at the time of the incident becomes doubtful.

Though it has come in the deposition of the witnesses that the

complainant had informed PCR about the incident, no record of the PCR has

been produced to prove that it was the complainant Satish who had informed

Police Control Room with respect to the incident in question. It appears to me

that Satish was not present when his daughter complained about eve-teasing

with her and it were his wife and other relatives who went to the bakery to

protest against eve-teasing. That also explains why the complaiant did not

meet HC Naresh on that day, either in the hospital or in the Trauma Centre.

The deposition of Head Constable Naresh shows that after 26.2.2008 he

visited the Trauma Centre only on 1.3.2008 when the complainant was found

present. It appears to me that on 1.3.2008, a report was lodged by the

complainant on the basis of the version given to him by his relatives who

were already injured in the aforesaid incident and their injuries being simple

were discharged, after giving first aid etc. to them.

16. A perusal of MLC Ex.PW10/A of Sangeeta Devi would show that she

had a 6 cm CLW over mid-parietal region, besides multiple abrasions. Injured

Seema, who was brought to the hospital with history of alleged assault had

tenderness and swelling whereas Anand had CLW over his left thumb, which

was 1 cm x 0.1 cm in size, besides CLW of the same size on his left index

finger.

17. Smt. Seema Devi, Smt. Sangeeta Devi and Anand being the injured in

this case, there can be no good reason to reject the testimonies of these

witnesses as regards the injuries caused to them on 26.02.2008. In Mer

Dhana Sida vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1985 SC 386, three injured

witnesses had supported the prosecution. It was held by Hon‟ble

Supreme Court that as there were three injured witnesses, and we would

require very convincing submissions to discard the evidence of the

injured witnesses whose injuries would at least permit a reasonable

inference that they were present at the time of occurrence.

Undoubtedly, this is subject to the requirement that there must be

evidence to show that these witnesses received injuries in the same

occurrence. Very cogent and convincing ground would be required to

discard the evidence of the injured. In Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab

1983 Crl.L.J.1457, ONE WITNESS Hakam Singh himself had sustained

injuries in the course of incident in question, it was observed by Hon‟ble

Supreme Court that it was difficult to believe that he would implicate

the persons other than the real culprits and that the evidence of that

witness alone, was sufficient to bring home the guilt the appellants even

if one were to exclude from consideration, the evidence of other PWs.

Identical view was taken by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a number of

other cases including "Makan Jivan &Others Vs. The State of Gujarat",

AIR 1971 SC 1797, "Hori Lal & Another Vs. The State of U.P.", AIR

1970 SC 1969, and "Jamuna Chaudhary & Others Vs. State of Bihar",

AIR 1974 SC 1822.

18. It would be difficult for me to accept the contention that the iron rod

and dandas etc are not likely to be found in a bakery. Normally bakery

products such as biscuits, before baking, are kept in a tray and thereafter the

tray is kept on a rod and shoved inside for baking. That also explains why the

iron rod and dandas were found in the bakery on 1.3.2008.

19. Ex.PW8/A is the disclosure statement made by the appellant -

Singhasan wherein he inter alia stated that the dandas and sarias had been

concealed in the bakery and they could get the same recovered from there.

Similar disclosure statements were made by the appellants - Kallu and Munna

which are Ex.PW8/C and PW8/D respectively. Since pursuant to the aforesaid

disclosure statements, the police officials discovered the information that the

iron rod and dandas are lying in the bakery and the said statements were

confirmed from the actual recovery of the iron rod and sarias from there, the

statements are admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to

the above referred extent.

Since the iron rod and dandas were recovered pursuant to their

disclosure statements which is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act, it was not obligatory for the Investigating Officer to associate

public witnesses in the aforesaid recovery, the provisions of Section 100 of

Cr.P,C not applicable thereto. In State v. Sunil and Another. [(2001) 1 SCC

652, the blood stained knickers of the deceased were seized by the police

pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the accused. No independent

witness was, however, joined in the seizure. The seizure of the knickers was

assailed on the ground that it was not attested by any independent witness.

Rejecting the contention Supreme Court inter alia observed and held as

under:

In this context we may point out that there is no requirement either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to obtain signature of independent witnesses on the record in which statement of an accused is written. The legal obligation to call independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the exercise made by the police is cast on the police officer when searches are made under Chapter VII of the Code. Section 100(5) of the Code requires that such search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found, shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses.... .... But recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied by an accused in custody is different from the searching endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code.....Hence it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the Investigating Officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any article it is open to the Investigating Officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the

document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court has to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth."

20. The learned counsel for the appellant - Singhasan relied upon Velu lia

Javelu v. State [2004 Crl.LJ 3783]. In the aforesaid case, when the

prosecution witnesses were unloading the iron rods after parking their lorry in

front of the factory, the accused came there in a van, questioned PW2 for

parking his lorry in such a way which was preventing his vehicle from

coming snide the factory, and that resulted in an altercation between them.

Within a few minutes the accused armed with an iron pipe hit on the back side

scalp of PW2. It was held that since the appellant caused the blow in a spur of

moment and there was no proper planning or pre-meditation, the offences

punishable under Section 308 of IPC was not made out and the appellant was

guilty only of offence punishable under Section 324 thereof

In the case before this court, there was no pre-planning or pre-

meditation. In the normal course of human conduct, when the daughter of the

complainant complained to her family members with regard to the teasing by

the appellant - Kallu, they must have got agitated and gone to the bakery of

the appellant - Singhashan where Kallu at that time was employed, so as to

either teach him a lesson or at least to protest against Kallu for teasing the

young girl. This must have led to an altercation between the appellants and

the injured persons. Since the iron rod and lathies were readily available in

the bakery, the appellants picked them up for causing injuries to the injured

witnesses. This is not the case of the prosecution that the lathies and iron rods

were brought from some other place. Therefore, it would be difficult, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, to say that the appellants/ accused caused

injuries to the witnesses with such intention or knowledge and under such

circumstances that if they by their act had caused the death of the injured

persons they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

21. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant - Singhasan used an

iron rod where the other appellants used lathies/ dandas for causing injuries to

the witnesses. The length of the danda alleged to have been used by the

appellant - Kallu was found two and a half feet whereas the length of the

danda alleged to have been used by the appellant - Munna was to be two feet

and half inch. The aforesaid dandas in my view cannot be said to be deadly

weapons.

While picking up lathies for causing injuries to the witnesses, the

appellants Munna and Kallu could not have anticipated that the appellant -

Singhasan would use an iron rod for causing injuries to Smt. Sangeeta or any

other person. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot

be said that they share a common intention with the appellant - Singhasan to

cause injuries with the iron rod and that too on a vital part of the body such as

her scalp. Therefore, the appellants - Kallu and Munna are liable only for

their individual acts and not for the act of the appellant- Singhasan.

22. It was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ved Kumari and another

v. State and another [96(2002) DLT 820] that in order to constitute offence

under section 308 IPC it must be proved (i) that the accused committed an act;

(ii) that the said act was committed with the intention or knowledge to

commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and (iii) that the offence

was committed under such circumstances if the accused by that act had

caused death he could have been guilty of culpable homicide. It was further

ruled that intention is a question of fact which is gathered from the acts

committed by the accused and knowledge means awareness of the

consequences of the act.

23. In Bishan Singh and another v The State [(2007) 13 SCC 65, the

injured suffered as many as seven injuries including three lacerated wound

out of which two were on the scalp and one was on the right forehead. He also

had a fracture with dislocation of wrist joint. The Apex Court, however, felt

that the accused could not be convicted under Section 308 of IPC and the case

would fall under Section 323 and 325 thereof.

24. A perusal of the MLC of Smt. Seema would show that she had only

tenderness and swelling and no injury on any vital part of her body was

found. A perusal of the MLC of the injured Anand would show that the injury

was found only on his thumb and left index finger. Thus, no lathi blow was

given on any vital part of the injured Smt. Seema or Anand. Considering the

nature of injuries sustained by the aforesaid witnesses, coupled with the size

of the lathi/ dandas used by the appellants - Kallu and Munna, they would be

guilty of only of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC for causing

injury to Smt. Seema and Anand and the charge under section 308/34 of IPC

does not stand established against them.

25. As far as appellant - Singhasan is concerned, the consistent deposition

of the witnesses show that he had used iron rod for causing injuries on her.

Even if the recovery of the iron rod from his bakery, pursuant to the

disclosure statement made by him is excluded from consideration, the oral

deposition of the witnesses is sufficient to prove the use of iron rod by him. A

perusal of the MLC of injured Smt. Sangeeta Devi would show that she had a

clean lacerated wound on her parietal region. Thus, the iron blow to her was

given on a vital part of her body. However, only one iron rod blow appears to

have been given to her since besides CLW, she had only abrasion over her

face. This, despite having an iron rod with him, the appellant - Singhasan

refrained from giving multiple blows from the said weapon on vital part of

body of the injured. It would, therefore, be difficult to say that the aforesaid

appellant caused injuries other with the intention or knowledge to commit

culpable homicide not amounting to murder and that had his act resulted in

death of Smt. Sangeeta Devi, he would have been guilty of culpable

homicide.

26. However, this can hardly be disputed that an iron rod would be a

deadly weapon. The expression „deadly weapon‟ has not been defined

anywhere in the Indian Penal Code. The ordinary meaning of the expression

„deadly weapon‟ would be an object which if used as a weapon of offence is

likely to cause death. It would be difficult to dispute that if an iron rod is used

as a weapon of offence for causing injuries on a vital part of the body such as

scalp of the injured, it is likely to cause his/her death. Therefore, the appellant

- Singhasan would be guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC

for causing injuries to Smt. Sangeeta, with an instrument which, if used as a

weapon of offence is likely to cause death. It would be pertinent to note here

that there is no evidence of the injuries sustained by Smt. Sangeeta Devi being

grievous. The expression grievous hurt has been defined in Section 320 of

IPC. There is no evidence which would prove the injuries of Smt. Sangeeta

Devi fall in Class Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly, Fourthly, Fifthly or Sixthly of

Section 320 of IPC. There is no credible evidence of any fracture or

dislocation of bone or teeth. There is no evidence that the injury caused to

Smt. Sangeeta Devi could be dangerous to her life. Neither the doctor who

examined her has been produced nor PW11 - Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary opined

that the injuries sustained by her could have endangered her life. There is no

evidence of the aforesaid witnesses having been discharged from the hospital

after twenty of more days. There is no evidence of her being in severe bodily

pain or having been to follow her ordinary pursuits for that much period.

Therefore, her injuries cannot be said to be grievous punishable under Section

320 of IPC.

Though, the doctor opined the injuries of Anand to be grievous, his

MLC does not explain how the said injury as opined to be grievous. The

injured had CLW on his left thumb and left index finger, but there is no

evidence of his having any fracture of dislocation. The injuries sustained by

him therefore is not covered by the clause Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly,

Fourthly, Fifthly, Sixthly or Seventhly of Section 320 of IPC. Since the doctor

who treated him in the hospital has not been examined, there is no evidence of

the injuries sustained him being dangerous to his life. Admittedly, he was

discharged from the hospital on 26.02.2008 itself. Therefore, it would be

difficult to say that the injuries caused to him to remain him in severe bodily

pain for twenty or more days or that he was unable to follow his ordinary

pursuits for such period.

27. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appellant - Singhasan is

convicted under Section 324 of IPC whereas the appellants - Munna and

Kallu are convicted under Section 323 thereof. The appellants, however, are

given benefit of probation and are released on furnishing bonds of peace or

good conduct to the tune of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each in the like

amount. The term of the bond to be furnished by the appellant - Singhasan

would be two years whereas the term of bond to be furnished by the

appellants - Kallu and Munna would be one year each. During the period of

bond, they shall maintain peace and observe good conduct. They shall refrain

from committing any crime during the aforesaid period. The appellant -

Singhasan shall also pay Rs.30,000/- as compensaton to the victim Smt.

Sangeeta whereas the appellants - Munna and Kallu shall pay Rs.5,000/- each

as compensation to the injured Anand and Seema respectively. In default of

paying the compensation and/or furnishing bond of peace and good conduct,

the appellant - Singhasan shall undero RI for two years whereas the appellant

- Kallu and Munna shall undergo RI for one year each.

The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

One copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent.

Trial court record be returned with a copy of this order.

MARCH 03, 2014/shitu/rd                                             V.K. JAIN, J.