Shankarappa S/O. Tippanna Koravar ... vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 10686 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Shankarappa S/O. Tippanna Koravar ... vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2023

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                             1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
        DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
                         PRESENT
           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                           AND
   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100330 OF 2022

BETWEEN:
SHANKARAPPA S/O. TIPPANNA KORAVAR
@ GUDAGERI @ BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: CRPF POLICE CONSTABLE,
R/O: BETADUR, TALUK: KANDAGOL-581113.

                                                 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)


AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KUNGAGOL POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
                                             ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.11.2021
AMD ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 08.12.2021 PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD SITTING
AT HUBBALLI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.31/2011 CONVICTING AND
SENTENCING THEM FOR THEOFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 302 AND 307 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 25(1A) AND
27(2) OF ARMS ACT 1959 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE
SAID OFFENCE AND SET THEM AT LIBERTY.
                                  2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 11.12.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, H.P.SANDESH, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and

sentence passed in S.C.No.31/2011 convicting the appellant for the

offences punishable under Section 302, 307 of IPC and Section

25(1A) and 27(2) of Arms Act, 1959.

2. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution is that on

30.08.2010 between 3.00 a.m., and 4.00 a.m., in the house of PW1

Geeta Bhajantri situated at village Betadur, taluk: Kundagol,

accused No.1 fired with pistol towards first informant's husband

Yallappa Bhajantri, son Somappa Bhajantri and daughter Aishwarya

Bhajantri and caused their death. He also fired with same pistol

towards C.W.8 - Madan Bhajantri, another son of first informant

with intent to cause death and attempted to murder. He was in

illegal possession of pistol and used the same for commission

offence and committed the offences punishable under Section 307

and 302 of IPC and under Section 25 and 27(3) of Arms Act. The

charges also levelled against the accused Nos.2 and 3 being the

parents of accused No.1 have abetted him to commit the said

offences and committed the offence punishable under Section of

109 of IPC.

3. The relationship between deceased Yallappa and

accused No.3 are brother and sister to intersee. The accused No.1

and 2 are son and husband of accused No.3. The motive for

committing the murder is that the accused No.1 married the

C.W.15- Galishree the sister's daughter of CW1 and she did not

lead proper marital life and bring her mother's property situated in

Hubballi. Accused Nos.1 to 3 thought of that C.W.1 and her

husband are cause for disturbance of marital life of accused No.1

and committed the alleged offences. The accused persons were

secured before the Trial Court and took the cognizance and the

same is registered as C.C. No.173/2010 and thereafter the same

was committed to the Sessions Court and the same is re-numbered

as S.C No.31/2011.

4. The accused persons have not pleaded guilty and

accused Nos.2 and 3 were on bail and accused No.1 was in custody

and all of them are claimed the trial. The prosecution relied upon

the evidence of witnesses PW1 to PW23 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P35 documents and MO.1 to MO.13. The accused was also

examined under Section 311 of Cr.P.C and prosecution completed

their evidence and the accused did not choose to lead any defence

evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material available

on record acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 3 and convicted the

accused No.1 sentenced for the above offences. Hence, present

appeal is filed before this Court. The State not filed any appeal

against acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3.

5. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the

appellant before this Court that the Court below ought to have seen

that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the Court below

based on the evidence of particularly PW1 to PW4 and PW6 has

come to a wrong conclusion that this appellant/accused committed

the murder of three victims. The mere say of witnesses that they

have seen the accused near the house of the deceased could not

have been the ground for conviction. The very identity of accused

by PW9, PW1 to PW4 and PW6 has not been proved. The Trial Court

has presumed that the accused was seen near the house of the

deceased. Inspite of there are several other contradictions, believed

the evidence of witnesses PW3, PW4 and PW6 and mainly relied

upon the inconsistent evidence. The MOs' alleged to have been

recovered at the instance of the accused has not been proved. The

identity of the articles itself is not proved. Inspite of it, the Trial

Court has committed an error and not appreciated the evidence in a

proper prospective. In order to arrive for a conclusion that accused

only had committed the offences, the prosecution has not produced

any tangible evidence and no motive for committing a alleged crime

also. Under these circumstances judgment of conviction is

unsustainable. The eye witnesses to the incident are partisan

witnesses and due to prior enmity they have falsely implicated

innocent appellant as a accused and hence, the counsel also prays

for acquittal of the accused. The counsel also would submits that

the accused was not at the spot and also not proved that the

weapon belongs to the accused. None of the witnesses have spoken

positively that this accused only has committed the murder.

6. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the State in his

argument would vehemently contend that Ex.P23, Ex.P25 and

Ex.P27 are the P.M reports and the reports clearly establish that it

is a case of homicidal. The counsel also would vehemently contend

that PW1 and PW2 are the eye witnesses who have witnessed the

incident and the PW2 is also an injured witness and the evidence of

the PW1 and PW2 is credible. There was no any prior enmity to

depose against the accused. The witness PW6 also speaks that he

has given the Motor Cycle at the request of the accused and he fled

away from the place of the incident. The prosecution also mainly

relies upon the evidence of PW12 and this witness is a

circumstantial witness who came to the spot immediately after

hearing the sound and these are the believable evidence. The PW13

apprehended the accused.

7. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the

motive for committing the offence is that the victims i.e., the

husband of the PW1 and the PW1 have not allowed his wife to lead

marital life with him. The counsel also would vehemently contend

that the evidence of PW17 is also Doctor who treated the PW2

injured corroborates the case of prosecution. The weapon is also a

illegal weapon and the same is unlicensed. The prosecution mainly

relies upon the substantial piece of evidence. The prosecution also

relied upon on the evidence of PW21 who is the ballistic expert

evidence and minor contradictions will not go to the very root of the

case of the prosecution. When the incriminating evidence has been

put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and he has not

offered any explanation as against the incriminating evidence. The

PW9 is wife of the accused who has also supported the case of

prosecution. The Trial Court taken note of the evidence of all these

witnesses and rightly convicted the accused No.1 and not

committed any error.

8. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also the

counsel appearing for State - Addl. SPP and also on consideration of

material available on record, the point that would arise for the

consideration of this Court are:

1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences invoked against him and whether it requires interference?

2) What Order?

POINT No.1:

9. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal as

well as oral submission of respective appellant's counsel and also

the counsel appearing for the State, this Court has to re-analyze

the material available on record. The prosecution mainly relies upon

the evidence of PW1 to PW23 and the documentary evidence of

Ex.P1 to Ex.P35 and MO.1 to MO.13. Having considered both oral

and documentary evidence and MOs', the MO.7 is the pistol which

was used for committing the alleged murder.

10. The Court has to take note of the evidence of the PW21

who is the ballistic expert witness and also the evidence of the

Doctor who conducted the P.M on the dead body. Having perused

the evidence of PW21 -N.G.Prabhakar and his evidence is very

clear that he had examined MO.6 - three Pistol Cartridges and his

evidence is clear that those MOs' were used through the Pistol-

MO.7 examined by him. He used live bullets to examine the weapon

and MO.11- two Pistol Cartridges line and he identified the MO.8 to

MO.10 bottle sent to him along with sample skin and MO.7- Pistol.

The evidence of PW21 is clear that the said Pistol was used and the

same was is in order and its effect is almost 20 gajas and he gave

the report in terms of Ex.P30. He also identifies signature on Ex.P29

and b1 to b3 are used in the very same Pistol. In the cross-

examination, it is elicited that any person can use unlicensed Pistol,

but he claims that the same is illegal. It is suggested that he did

not examine those cartridges and the said suggestion was denied.

However, he admits that he did not mention the distance of the

firing. It is suggested that without examining the cartridges, at the

instance of the Police he gave the opinion and the said suggestion

was denied. It is suggested that MO.7 is unconnected to this

incident and the said suggestion was denied. In the cross-

examination of this witness, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the

evidence of PW21 except making suggestion that he did not

examine MO.7 and cartridges.

11. The other witness is PW20 who conducted P.M report of

Yallappa Bhajantri and he gave the opinion in terms of Ex.P23 and

Ex.P24 and so also P.M report of Kumari Aishwarya in terms of

Ex.P25 and Ex.P26 and P.M report of Somappa and he gave the

opinion in terms of the Ex.P27 and Ex.P28 and Doctor identifies the

signature on the said documents as Ex.P23(a) to Ex.P28(a). The

Doctor also mentioned the nature of the injuries in respect of all

these dead bodies and also it is his evidence that he took skin

samples from all the three dead bodies from the place near entry

wound and exit wound and handed over to the police to forward to

FSL for opinion and also verified the FSL report which is marked as

Ex.P29. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that time of death is

not mentioned in P.M examination report, but witness volunteers

that in view of presence of rigor martis death was within 24 hours.

It is suggested that he has not borrowed the samples of this case

immediately and the said suggestion was denied. It is also elicited

that he has not mentioned the shape of injuries and volunteers that

he wrote that they were distorted.

12. Having perused the evidence of the witnesses PW20

and PW21 i.e., medical evidence regarding nature of injuries and

also the bullet injuries in terms of the evidence of PW21, it is clear

that it is a case of homicidal and by shot took the life of three

persons and nothing is elicited from the mouth of the PW20 also

except suggesting that he as not forwarded the samples of this case

immediately. But, it is elicited that samples collection could be sent

to Police Station immediately. No doubt it is elicited from the

evidence of PW20 that he has not mentioned the shape of the

injuries and the fact that the evidence of PW21 is clear that the

injuries are bullet injuries. Having perused these evidence it is clear

that all the three persons died on account of bullet injuries and the

same are by using MO.7. The Trial Court also taken note of the

evidence of PW20 and PW21 in order to comes to a conclusion that

it is a case of homicidal. Hence, we do not find any error committed

by the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that there is an

account of homicidal and documentary evidence of Ex.P23 to

Ex.P29 and also the opinion of the PW21 in terms of Ex.P29 and

Ex.P30 substantiate the case of the prosecution as homicidal.

13. Now, we have to examine the aspect with regard to

committing of the murder by using unlicensed weapon and making

an attempt to take away the life of PW2, Court has to consider the

material available on record. The PW1 is the eye witness to the

incident and she had witnessed the incident and prior to the

incident also PW1 claims that the accused and CW.15 i.e., who has

been examined as PW9 was not cordial. It is her evidence that in

the midnight the accused No.1 came to their house and she opened

the door and also she has provided the food at his request. It is

also her evidence that her husband was sleeping and the accused

who is having the pistol immediately shot her husband and when he

showed the pistol on her side, she pulled him and got it closed the

door, but he opened the door and immediately she ran from the

place. At that time, CW8 and his daughter also started running

towards her and her son Somu was also in the house, she heard

another shot sound while running and he shot her son Somu also

and the accused was chasing her and he had shot her daughter

Aishwarya also and inflicted injury to CW8 i.e., PW2 and he was

scolding that he will not allow her to live. He committed murder of

her husband, son and daughter. It is also her evidence that the

accused No.1 went and took the Motor Cycle of CW11 and she

came to know the same later. The PW1 gave the complaint in terms

of Ex.P1. The PW1 also speaks with regard to the conducting of

mahazar and seizure of cartridges. In the cross-examination it is

elicited that he came at around midnight and she only opened the

door. It is suggested that she did not witness shooting the CW8 and

her daughter Aishwarya and the said suggestion was denied. It is

also her evidence that her husband and two children have sustained

bullet injuries and as a result, she lost her husband, son and

daughter.

14. The other witness who is injured witness and also he is

the son of PW1 and he also says that the accused No.1 came and

knocked the door and his mother opened the door and the accused

No.1 fired on his father and his mother PW1 pulled him and she

started running, he himself and his sister Aishwarya followed the

mother and her brother Somu was requesting the accused No.1 not

to shoot him but, he shot him also. Suddenly, the CW1 i.e., PW1

ran towards the house of CW9 and he also shot the Aishwarya and

when he is trying to woke up her, he also fired him, as a result he

sustained injury to his right hand and he also fell down like lost his

breath and he examined his breath and shot in the air. He came at

around 1 'O' clock to his house and the incident was taken place at

around 2.00 a.m., immediately he was taken to hospital in an

ambulance. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and in

the cross-examination the suggestion was made that the accused

did not come to his house and demanded any food and not took

any food and the said suggestion was denied. He says that his

father was also sleeping but he was not slept and no talks were

held between his father and the accused No.1. It is suggested that

no time was asked by the accused No.1 to his mother and at that

time he did not shot his father and the said suggestion was denied.

Further suggestion was made that he did not fire him, his sister and

his brother all these suggestions are denied. In the cross-

examination of PW1 and PW2 also nothing is elicited except making

the suggestion to the witness that the accused did not shot

anybody in his presence.

15. The other circumstantial evidence is PW3, when he

heard the knocking of door sound by the PW1, he opened and

allowed the PW1 to enter his house and he heard the sound of the

accused No.1 shot the CW8 as well as Aishwarya, the CW8 and

Aishwarya are also sustained injuries. This witness is only a

circumstantial witness. In the cross-examination, he admits that he

came to know the reason for the incident subsequently, but he

categorically admits that he did not witness the incident, but he

heard the sound. It is suggested that he did not allow the PW1 to

enter into the house and the said suggestion is denied.

16. The other witness is PW6, in his evidence he says that

the accused No.1 came at around 2.30 a.m., and asked his Motor

Cycle saying that Yallappa is not keeping good health, hence he

gave the bike and he came to know the incident at around 4.00

a.m., and also he says that he had given the Motor Cycle to

accused No.1. In the cross-examination he categorically admits that

except giving of vehicle, he has not stated anything to the Police. It

is suggested that he had given instructions to accused No.1 to

make the policy, but he did not do that and hence he is having an

enmity and the said suggestion was denied.

17. The other witness is PW12, in his evidence he says that

on 30.08.2010 in the night he heard 3-4 shots sound and the PW1

was also knocked the door of CW9 and CW8 and Aishwarya were

running behind the CW1 and at that time, the accused No.1 fired at

Aishwarya and she fell down and also fired against PW2 and he has

sustained injury to his right hand and the PW1 rushed inside the

house of CW9 and accused No.1 also fired towards the house of

CW9 and thereafter he left the spot in Motor Cycle. He came to

know the accused No.1 took the Motor Cycle from CW11. It is

suggested that the accused No.1 did not fire against Aishwarya and

he did not witness the incident and the same was also denied. He

claims that he was at the distance of 15-20 feet from the accused

No.1. It is suggested that he did not witness using of MO.7 and the

said suggestion was denied.

18. The other witness PW13, he speaks with regard to the

arresting of the accused on 31.08.2010 at 4.30 p.m., and causing

injury to the PW17 and he himself and the CW18 held the accused

and he identifies the accused before the Court. In the cross-

examination, suggestion was made that he himself and CW18 are

not held him and the said suggestion was denied and the

suggestion was made that he has been falsely implicated in the

case and the said suggestion was also denied.

19. The other witness is PW17 who examined the injured

Madan Bhajantri and found right humorous bone was fractured and

the same was gun shot injury. He issued wound certificate in terms

of Ex.P21. In the cross-examination he admits that he has not

mentioned signs forthcoming from the injury, body and cloth wore

by injured and he has not preserved the clothes of the injured to

hand over to Police.

20. The other witness is PW23- Investigating Officer who

conducted the investigation, who has received the Ex.P1 and also

conducted of the mahazar in terms of Ex.P9 and also in terms of

Ex.P10- photo and made request to conduct the P.M examination

and seizure of the articles at the spot and got the P.M report and he

has sent CW27 and CW28 to Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir CRPF

office and seizure of articles and received the information that no

permission was given to purchase the Pistol and obtained the FSL

report and the same are marked as Ex.P29 and Ex.P31. This

witness was also subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-

examination suggestion was made with regard to no threat was

caused to anybody else and also he did not fire any victims and he

has been falsely implicated in the case and the said suggestions are

denied.

21. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence

available on record, particularly the deposition of PW1 who is an

eye witness to the incident and the PW2 is also injured witness and

the PW12 also an eye witness who is the circumstantial witness

who came out from the house after hearing the firing sound. The

PW12 witnessed the incident of firing the accused against the victim

Aishwarya and also on her brother PW2 Madan Bhajantri and having

considered the evidence of PW17-Doctor, who conducted the

examination of injured witness i.e., PW2, he had sustained bullet

injuries. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW12 is consistent and also

it is the evidence of PW6 that who went to the house of PW6 on the

very same day in the early morning and took the Motor Cycle

saying that one Yallappa is not having good health and he is in

need of Motor Cycle. In the evidences of these witnesses nothing is

elicited with regard to any animosity against this accused that they

are having animosity to depose against the accused.

22. It is also important to note that on the very same day,

the accused was apprehended by PW13. No doubt CW17 was not

examined who had sustained injury at the instance of this accused

with the connection with other crime and the same is not fatal to

the case of the prosecution. It is also important to note that PW1

had spoken about the motive for committing the series of murder

i.e., her husband one of the victim and this PW1 were not allowed

the wife of the accused to lead marital life with him. It is not in

dispute that they are not the relatives of his wife. It is also

important to note that PW9 who is the wife of the accused also

spoken about her marriage with the accused on 19.05.2010 and

also causing threat on her and also suspecting her fidelity and also

causing her threat to join him and earlier also she gave complaint

against him in Mahila Police Station and she came to know about

causing of death of husband of PW1 and two children. In the cross-

examination of PW9 also nothing is elicited with regard to the

conduct of the accused. Having considered the evidence of PW17

who treated the PW2 injured witness and the injured witness

evidence is very consistent and also the evidence of PW1 is

consistent with regard to causing of murder of her husband and two

children and we have already pointed out that nothing is elicited

with regard to the prior enmity is concerned about these witnesses.

23. It is important to note that PW12 is also neighbouring

witness who also witnessed the part of the incident having heard

the sound and also witnessing PW1 rushing to the house of the

PW12. Having considered the prosecution witnesses evidence i.e.,

PW1, PW2, PW6, PW9, PW12 and PW13 and also these witnesses

evidence and direct evidence point out the act of the accused and

the Trial Court also taken note of this incriminating material

available on record and rightly comes to the conclusion that the

direct evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW12 point out the act of the

accused in hastily committing three murder and causing injury to

PW2. The direct evidence of PW1 and also injured witness PW2 and

also other circumstantial witness PW6 who gave the Motor Cycle to

the accused on the very same day in the early morning immediately

the incident. These evidences are believable evidence as contended

by the counsel appearing for the State. The motive for committing

murder is also proved and also the fact that the weapon is also an

unlicensed weapon and the Doctor evidence of PW17 corroborates

that PW2 had sustained bullet injury and there are sufficient and

substantial evidence is against the accused to believe that he only

had committed the murder of three persons and caused injury to

PW2.

24. No doubt it is the contention of the counsel appearing

for the appellant that motive has not been established and he has

been falsely implicated and we have already pointed out that

nothing is elicited with regard to the ill-will against the accused to

falsely implicate him and none of the independent witnesses have

also not having any animosity against him i.e., PW6 and PW12. The

PW9 wife herself deposed against him with regard to the conduct

and causing of threat to her. No doubt it is the contention of the

appellant's counsel that he was not there at the spot and plea of

alibi has been pleaded and once the defence of alibi has been

taken, it is on the part of the accused to prove the same that he

was not there at the spot, but evidence of eye witness is suffice to

comes to a conclusion that this accused only had committed the

murder and ballistic report of PW21 is also clear that the M.O which

was seized at the instance of the accused only was used for

committing the murder and hence, we do not find any error

committed by the Trial Court in appreciating both oral and

documentary evidence. Hence, the evidence available on record

point out that the accused only had committed the murder of three

persons and caused the injury to PW2 and rightly invoked the

offences under Section 302, 307 of IPC and also the armed offences

under Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act. When there is direct

evidence, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of

Madan V/s State of Uttar Pradesh, the motive would not be that

relevant as held in Criminal Appeal No.1790/2017 and Criminal

Appeal Nos.1381-1382 of 2017 vide order dated 09.11.2023.

25. No doubt it is the contention of the appellant's counsel

that the weapon who had supplied was not examined and proved

and that is only irregularity committed by the I.O and I.O ought to

have collected the material from whom he had purchased the same

and the same is not go to the very root of the case and

investigation defect is only a irregularity. It is also important to

note that the Trial Court only sentenced him for life imprisonment

and not taken note of three murders and not sentenced for three

count, but only on one count it was sentenced, but the State has

not filed any appeal before the Court and in the absence of any

such appeal, this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of enhancing

the sentence, unless an appeal is filed by the State. The State

ought to have filed the appeal with regard to the sentence whether

it is a case for rarest of rare case to impose the death penalty and

the same is also not done by the State and the same cannot be a

ground to comes to a other conclusion with regard to the sentence

is concerned. There are lapses on the part of the State also in not

filing any appeal for enhancement of sentence and these lapses

also cannot take away the case of the prosecution.

26. Having perused the material available on record

particularly documentary evidence of Ex.P23 to Ex.P29 i.e., P.M

report and medical evidence of PW20 and PW21 expert opinion and

also the eye witnesses evidence of PW1 and injured witness of PW2

and PW12 who is also a circumstantial witness and PW9 spoken

about the very conduct of the accused who is none other than the

wife of the accused and coupled with the evidence of the PW17 -

Doctor who treated the PW2 and all these material suggests the

very act of the accused in committing triple murder and causing

injury to PW2.

27. We have given anxious consideration to the both oral

and documentary evidence available on record and nothing is found

committing an error by the Trial Court in convicting the accused for

the offences which have been invoked against him and prosecution

evidence is nothing but substantial evidence and the same is

believable evidence against the accused and minor inconsistencies

and lapses on the part of the I.O will not go to the very root of the

case of the prosecution. The accused also not explained the

incriminating circumstances when he was examined under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. Hence, nothing on record to comes to the other

conclusion and to extend any benefit of doubt in favour of the

accused. Hence, we answered the point No.1 as Negative.

28. We have given anxious consideration to both oral and

documentary evidence, though find that the Trial Court committed

an error in sentencing the accused, this Court would like to make it

clear having considered the sentence and the same not

commensurate with the gravity of the offence of triple murder and

no power to enhance the same in the absence of appeal by the

State and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court i.e., life

imprisonment shall be whole life and benefit of remission shall not

be exercised for premature release having considered the ghastly

murders which is nothing but blood thirsty.

POINT NO.2:

29. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed

against him in S.C. No.31/2011 is confirmed without remission.

The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court record along

with the copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RHS