Madhya Pradesh High Court
Adityaraj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2023
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 854 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
ADITYARAJ SINGH S/O BRAJRAJ SINGH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
VILLAGE BHOPALPURA, P.S. KARANVAS
DISTRICT RAJGARH ( BIAORA) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VINAY SARAF, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. SHRADDHA DIXIT,
ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH P.S. KARANVAS
DISTRICT RAJGARH (BIAORA) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(SHRI AAKASH SHARMA , GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 819 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
MAHENDRA SINGH S/O KESHARSINGH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILLAGE BHOPALPURA,
2
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
P.S. KARANVAS
DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI RAMESH C. GANGARE, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGHT P.S. KARANVAS
DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(SHRI AAKASH SHARMA , GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Reserved on : 11.01.2023
Pronounced on : 24.01.2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgement,
coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Prakash Chandra
Gupta pronounced the following:
JUDGEMENT
This judgement will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.854/2012 and
Criminal Appeal No.819/2012, which are arising out of the common
judgement dated 06.07.2012. On the joint request of the parties, these
appeals were analogously heard and decided by this common judgement.
2. Both the appellants/accused have filed these appeals under Section
374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the
Cr.P.C.") being aggrieved by the judgement dated 06.07.2012 passed by
the Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in S.T. No.165/2011, whereby learned Trial
Court, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
S. Conviction Sentence
No. Imprisonment Fine Additional
amount imprisonment
in default of
payment of fine
Appellant - Adityaraj Singh
1 302 of IPC Life Rs.20,000/- RI for 03 years
imprisonment
2 25 (1B)(a) of RI for 03 years Rs.5,000/- RI for 06 months
Arms Act
Appellant - Mahendra Singh
1 324 of IPC RI for 01 year Rs.5,000/- RI for 06 months
3. Prosecution story, in nutshell is that there was a program of
"Ausar" at the residence of Bhagwan Singh in village Bhopalpura, a day
prior to the date of incident. Yashpal Singh (PW-2), son of Surendra
Singh (PW-1) was serving food in the program. At the same time,
mother of the appellant Adityaraj Singh scolded Yashpal Singh (PW-2)
and told him to stay away from her. Yashpal Singh (PW-2) came home
from there and complained about the incident to his family members. On
the date of incident i.e. on 31.03.2011, Surendra Singh (PW-1) alongwith
his sons Yashpal Singh (PW-2) and Bhemendra/deceased went to home
of co-accused Shyamraj Singh and Surendra Singh (PW-1) and asked
Shyamraj Singh that why his mother insulted Yashpal Singh (PW-2). Co-
accused Shyamraj Singh answered to him that he will admonish her.
Thereafter on the same day in the afternoon, when Yashpal Singh (PW-2)
was helping in loading of tractor with tent house accessories, appellant
Adityaraj Singh abused and assaulted him, this latter incident was
reported (Ex.P/5) by them in the police station.
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
4. After lodging of report (Ex.P/5), Surendra Singh (PW-1), Yashpal
Singh (PW-2) and deceased Bhemendra Singh came back to the village
at about 08:00 PM, appellant Adityaraj Singh armed with gun, Mahendra
Singh with farsi, co-accused Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu with lathi and
co-accused persons Jitendra Singh, Rajendra Singh, Brajraj Singh,
Keshar Singh and Shyamraj Singh were sitting on the platform near the
temple. When complainant party reached the platform near the temple,
then appellants and co-accused persons attacked with their weapons and
piece of stones. Appellant Adityaraj Singh with an intent to cause death
of Bhemendra Singh fired shot with 12 bore gun on his neck. Appellant
Mahendra Singh and co-accused Bablu physically assaulted Yashpal
Singh (PW-2) on his head and left hand by means of farsi and lathi
respectively. Other co-accused persons physically assaulted Surendra
Singh (PW-1) on his right wrist and back by means of piece of stones.
Injured Bhemendra Singh was taken to the hospital Biaora for treatment
where he had died. Police also came to the hospital and lodged a Dehati
Nalasi (Ex.P/1) on the same day at 08:50 PM at Biaora hospital on the
basis of information given by Surendra Singh (PW-1) against the
appellants and co-accused persons. On the basis of Dehati Nalisi, Head
Constable Sita Ram (PW-15) lodged an FIR (Ex.P/34) and also lodged a
merg intimation report (Ex.P/35).
5. During investigation on 01.04.2011, SI Ghasi Ram (PW-13) after
giving notice (Ex.P/2) prepared a lash panchnama (Ex.P/3) and sent the
body of deceased for post-mortem through Head Constable Shahzad
Khan (PW/12). SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) inspected the
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
place of incident and prepared a spot map (Ex.P/6) at the instance of
Yashpal Singh (PW-2). He seized blood stained soil, simple soil and two
pieces of fired cartridge from the spot vide seizure memo (Ex.P/18). He
also sent injured persons Surendra Singh (PW-1) and Yashpal Singh
(PW-2) for their MLC. Dr. Sharad Sahu (PW-3) examined both the
injured persons and gave MLC report (Ex.P/7 and P/8). Dr. Saurin Datta
(PW-7), Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Dr. Sharad Sahu conducted post-mortem
of deceased and gave post-mortem report (Ex.P/19). During internal
examination, 3 gun pellets were found in the wound of neck, which were
preserved and sealed for further examination. Clothes of deceased were
also taken and sealed. Aforementioned sealed packets were handed over
to the concerning head constable. ASI Sitaram (PW-14) seized the two
sealed packet produced by head constable Shahzad Khan (PW-12) from
the hospital and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/32).
6. On 01.04.2011, SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) arrested
the appellant/accused Adityaraj Singh vide arrest memo (Ex.P/12).
During interrogation, appellant Adityaraj Singh disclosed that he kept his
gun behind the Godrej almirah in his room at his house vide disclosure
memo (Ex.P/14). He seized a 12 bore gun, a live cartridge and a licence
(Ex.P/37) of gun vide seizure memo (Ex.P/17). SHO Virendra Singh
Chouhan (PW-16) arrested co-accused Brajraj Singh and Dhirendra
Singh vide arrest memo (Ex.P/13 and P/38, respectively). He recovered a
lathi vide seizure memo (Ex.P/16) at the instance of co-accused
Dhirendra Singh Chouhan. On 07.04.2011, he arrested appellant/accused
Mahendra Singh vide arrest memo (Ex.P/9). He prepared disclosure
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
memo (Ex.P/10) on the basis of statement given by accused Mahendra
Singh and he recovered a farsi at the instance of appellant Mahendra
Singh vide seizure memo (Ex.P/11).
7. On 07.04.2011, he arrested co-accused persons Shyamraj Singh,
Jitendra Singh, Rajendra Singh and on 19.05.2011, he arrested accused
Kesar Singh vide arrest memo (Ex.P/29, P/30, P/31 and P/39,
respectively). On 13.04.2011, Armorar Lakhan Singh (PW-9) examined
the seized gun and gave a report (Ex.P/26). Prosecution sanction
(Ex.P/27) against the appellant Adityaraj Singh was taken from District
Magistrate, Rajgarh on 13.05.2011. Information about licence of gun
(Ex.P/28) was also received from District Magistrate, Rajgarh. Halka
Patwari Shailendra Bhati (PW-8) also inspected the place of incident and
gave a revenue map (Ex.P/25) and Khasra (Ex.P/24). Seized articles
were sent to FSL Sagar for chemical examination through letter
(Ex.P/40) of the Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh, wherefrom FSL
report (Ex.P/41) was received. After completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was filed before concerning Judicial Magistrate. The offence was
triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions, Rajgarh (Biaora).
8. Charges were framed by the learned Trial Court. The accused
persons abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. In turn, prosecution in
order to prove its case examined 16 witnesses. After recording of
statement of prosecution witnesses, accused persons were examined u/S
313 of Cr.P.C. They pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the
case due to animosity. In order to lead defence evidence, the accused
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
persons examined Dr. S. Yadu (DW-3), accused Adityaraj Singh
examined Bhagwan Singh son of Shivnath Singh (DW-2) and Bhagwan
Singh son of Bane Singh (DW-4), co-accused Shyamraj Singh examined
Sardar Singh (DW-1).
9. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties acquitted co-
accused persons from all the charges against them and convicted and
sentenced the appellants for the offence as mentioned above.
10. Challenging the impugned judgement, it is contended on the behalf
of appellant Adityaraj Singh that the judgement of conviction and
sentence passed against him is arbitrary and suffers from improper
evaluation of evidence. Alleged eye-witnesses, Giriraj Vyas (PW-4) and
Shailendra Yadav (PW- 5) have not seen the incident. Their name has not
been mentioned in the FIR and they have falsely been made the eye-
witnesses at the latter stage. Their case diary statement was also recorded
after 6 days of the incident meanwhile they did not tell anyone about the
incident, therefore, their statement is not reliable as eye-witnesses.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
appellant has not fired gun on the deceased, at the time of incident,
actually at the time of incident Surendra Singh (PW-1), Yashpal Singh
(PW-2) and deceased had come in the house of appellant and they caught
hold the co-accused Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu and dragged him out of
the house. The complainant party has physically assaulted the co-accused
Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu. Yashpal Singh (PW-2) gave blows to
Dhirendra Singh with farsi on his head. At that time, Brajraj Singh was
returning to home with his gun, then deceased attacked Brajraj and got
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
his gun and he was about to fire on Brajraj Singh, then appellant
Adityaraj Singh tried to take gun from him, in that encounter the gun
fired, due to which the deceased sustained injury. The appellant Adityaraj
Singh did not intentionally fired the gun. On the basis of the report of co-
accused Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu, an FIR (Ex.D/5) was lodged
against Yashpal Singh (PW-2) and deceased Bhemendra Singh. In the
incident, co-accused Dhirendra Singh sustained grievous injuries. The
complainant party was the aggressor of the incident, but the learned Trial
Court has not considered the aforementioned evidence properly.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant Adityaraj Singh has placed
reliance on the judgement of Kumar V State Represented by Inspector
of Police [(2018) SCC 536]; Arvind Kumar alias Nemi Chand and Ors.
V State of Rajasthan [2021 SCC Online SC 1099] and Suresh Singh
and Ors. V State of Haryana [AIR 1999 SC 1773].
13. Learned counsel for the appellant Mahendra Singh argued only
that the appellant was convicted u/S 324 of IPC to cause injury to
Yashpal Singh (PW-2) by farsi and sentenced to RI of 01 year with fine
of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant has already undergone imprisonment for 07
months i.e. since 07.04.2011 to 05.11.2011, therefore, the appellant may
be punished for the period for which he has already served in jail.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the
impugned judgement and submitted that prosecution case is supported by
the eye-witnesses. Statement of eye-witnesses is fully supported by
medical evidences and MLC of injured witnesses. Therefore, there is no
infirmity in the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court has not committed any error in
convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence as indicated
above. Learned counsel has relied on the judgement passed on
29.04.2022 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Satish alias Vikram
Jatav V State of M.P. [CRA 174 of 2011].
15. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
16. Alleged offence is of a murder and causing injury to the injured
person. Therefore, an important question arises for consideration of
appeals that whether death of deceased Bhemendra Singh was homicidal
in nature? And whether injured Yashpal Singh (PW-2) has received
injury with sharp cutting weapon?
17. Dr Saurin Dutta (PW-7) in his evidence deposed that on
01.04.2011, he and Dr. Sharad Sahu (PW-3) and Dr. Rakesh Gupta
conducted the post-mortem of deceased Bhemendra Singh and found that
there were multiple entering and punctured wounds of pellets, with
blackening and tattooing, varying depths in skin, muscles, bones and
cavities that all are over the face, neck and upper chest extending from
below the nose up to both Ist intercostal space. He further said that he
found 55 pellets injuries of which most of them were oval in shape and
were of 0.75 cm in size. 3 injuries were found in the left sub-mandibular
region and over the chin, respectively, measuring 4.5cm x 3.5cm x 1cm
and 2.5cm x 1cm. Margins of wound were blackening and the direction
of the wounds were anterior to posterior over the under region of chin.
Lacerated wound penetrating injury through and through 3cm x 1cm
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
with 3 holes, margins were irregular and blackened and missing of
central and bilateral incisor teeth of lower jaw and the root of the teeth
were broken and were stuck in the jaw. There was blackening around the
wound.
18. Dr Saurin Dutta (PW-7) further stated that there was lacerated and
punctured wound, 6cm horizontal x 4.5cm vertical in between clavicle
bone, skin was missing. Muscles were torn up, blackening of margins of
wound, edging inwards, inconsistent and inverted. Wound was cherry-
red in colour, black particles embodied on the midline and midway to
chin and suprasternal notch in the chin. This witness also stated that in
internal examination, he found that there were 2 palette injuries
penetrating in the chest embodied in the thoracic cavity in the upper part
of the right lung. 250 ml blood clotted in right hemothorax. Food pipe,
larynx and the region around, arteries near the front of neck were
shattered. Several palettes were embodied in the cervical bone. Fracture
in the ramus of the left mandible. The witness stated that the holes
similar to the wounds on the chest of deceased was found on the clothes
of the deceased. During post-mortem, he found 3 palettes in the wound,
he took and preserved and sealed them. He also took shirt, pant, baniyan
and underwear of the deceased and sealed them. He handed over the
sealed packets to the concerning head constable.
19. Dr. Saurin Dutta (PW-7) opined that death of deceased is due to
neck injury caused by gun shot. Cause of death was homicidal in nature.
Range of gun shot is not distant. Death of deceased was within 12-24
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
hours of post-mortem. He proved post-mortem report (Ex.P/19) and also
proved X-ray plates (Ex.P/21 - P/23) of chest and head of the deceased
as well as X-ray report (Ex.P/20). No amount of cross-examination could
cause scratch on the statement of the witness.
20. Therefore, the statement of Dr. Saurin Datta (PW-7) is reliable and
it appears that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature.
21. Dr. Sharad Sahu (PW-3) has stated that on 31.03.2011, he was
posted as Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Biaora. On the said date, he
examined injured Yashpal Singh (PW-2) and following injuries were
found :-
i. Incised wound 3.5cm x 0.5cm x muscle deep on middle of
skull, vertical in direction.
ii. Abrasion 1.2cm x 0.5cm, on the left wrist joint anteriorly.
The witness opined that injury No.i was caused by hard and sharp
object and injury No.ii by hard and blunt object. Duration was
within 2 hours of examination. He advised X-ray for injury No.i.
The witness proved the MLC (Ex.P/7).
22. Statement of this witness is reliable and appears that Yashpal Singh
(PW-2) has sustained injury with sharp cutting weapon as well as by hard
and blunt object.
23. From the statement of Dr. Sharad Sahu (PW-3) it also appears that
on 31.03.2011, he also examined Surendra Singh (PW-1) and found a
swelling 2cm x 1cm on his right shoulder and an abrasion 1cm x 0.5cm
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
on right wrist joint which were caused by hard and blunt object within 2
hours of examination. Both the injuries were simple in nature. The
witness proved MLC (Ex.P/8).
24. Hence, it is found proved that death of deceased Bhemendra Singh
was homicidal in nature, and injured Yashpal Singh (PW-2) has received
injury with sharp cutting weapon.
25. Now, question arises that whether the appellant/accused Adityaraj
Singh had inflicted the gun shot injury to the deceased and
appellant/accused Mahendra Singh had inflicted injury to Yashpal Singh
(PW-2) by means of farsi?
26. From the statement of SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16), it
appears that he has written statement of Giriraj Vyas (PW-4) and
Shailendra Yadav alias Shantilal (PW-5) after 6 days of incident i.e. on
06.04.2011.
27. The question of delay in examining a witness during investigation
is material only if it indicates and suggests some unfair practice by the
investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a got up witness to
falsely support the prosecution case. But in the instant case, SHO
Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) explained for the delay in recording
statement u/S 161 of Cr.P.C. of witnesses in his cross-examination that
Giriraj Vyas (PW-4) and Shailendra Yadav alias Shantilal (PW-5) met
him on 06.04.2011, then he recorded their statement. He further
explained that Choukidar Ram Singh (PW-11) told the name of both the
eye-witness, thereafter he wrote their statement. It also appears that name
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
of eye-witnesses is not mentioned in Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/1) but their
name is mentioned in (Ex.D/2) statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C. of Yashpal
Singh (PW-2), which was recorded on the next to the incident i.e.
01.04.2011. Alongwith it is a well settled law that delay in recording of
the statement of witnesses does not necessarily discredit their testimony.
If the testimony of such witnesses is credible and cogent, alongwith the
delay is well explained, then the Court can rely upon them. In the instant
case, delay of recording of statement of eye-witnesses is well explained
by SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16), therefore, solely on the
ground of delay in recording of statement u/S 161 of Cr.P.C., the
statement of both the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded.
28. In respect of incident, Yashpal Singh (PW-2) stated that on
30.03.2011, he was serving food in the program of 'Ausar' in the house
of Bhagwan Singh, thereafter, he sat at the courtyard of appellant
Adityaraj Singh, then this appellant's mother scolded him. This witness
felt insulted and complained to co-accused Shyamraj Singh on
31.03.2011. Thereafter on the same day at about 02:00 - 03:00 PM,
when this witness was getting the tent materials loaded on the tractor, the
appellant Adityaraj Singh verbally abused him and ran to beat him. The
witness complained to his parents and went to police station to report the
matter alongwith his father Surendra Singh (PW-1). After reporting the
matter, Surendra Singh (PW-1), this witness and deceased returned and
parked their vehicle in front of their home then appellant Adityaraj Singh
carrying gun and Mahendra Singh carrying farsi alongwith other co-
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
accused persons came there and Adityaraj Singh fired a 12 bore gun on
the neck of the deceased and Mahendra Singh gave blow on the head of
this witness by means of farsi. Co-accused Bablu gave blow by lathi on
left wrist of this witness. Other co-accused persons also assaulted
Surendra Singh (PW-1) by means of piece of stones. The deceased was
taken to the Civil Hospital, Biaora, but the doctor declared him dead.
Statement of this witness is supported by Surendra Singh (PW-1), Giriraj
Vyas (PW-4) and Shailendra Yadav alias Shantilal (PW-5).
29. ASI Ghasi Ram (PW-13) stated that on 31.03.2011 at 08:50 PM,
he wrote Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/1) on the basis of intimation given by
Surendra Singh (PW/1) at Civil Hospital, Biaora. Surendra Singh (PW-1)
also supported the statement of this witness. Therefore, statement of this
witness is reliable. Head Constable Sita Ram (PW-14) deposed that on
01.04.2011, he wrote an FIR (Ex.P/34) on the basis of Dehati Nalisi
(Ex.P/1) and sent counter copy of FIR to the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Rajgarh. In this respect, receiving is (Ex.P/36). It appears from the
receiving (Ex.P/36) that counter copy of FIR was received on 01.04.2011
by the concerning Magistrate.
30. On perusal of Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/1), it appears that the incident
had occurred on 21.03.2011 at 08:00 PM and Dehati Nalisi was recorded
on the same day at 08:50 PM. Statement of Surendra Singh (PW-1) is
supported by Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/1). His statement is also supported by
injured witness Yashpal Singh (PW-2) and eye-witnesses Giriraj Vyas
(PW-4) and Shailendra Yadav (PW-5). Statement of aforementioned
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
witnesses is further supported by Dr. Saurin Datta (PW-7), who
conducted post-mortem of deceased and Dr. Sharad Sahu (PW-3) who
examined the injured Surendra Singh (PW-1) and Yashpal Singh (PW-2).
There is no material omission and contradiction in the statement of
witnesses regarding appellant Adityaraj Singh has fired gun shot on the
neck of the deceased and appellant Mahendra Singh gave blow by farsi
to Yashpal Singh (PW-2) on the mid of his skull. Therefore, statement of
aforementioned witnesses is reliable and trustworthy.
31. Head constable Sita Ram (PW-14) stated that on 01.04.2011, he
seized 2 sealed packets from constable Shahzad Khan (PW-12) produced
by him from hospital. Constable Shahzad Khan (PW-12) also stated that
he received sealed packet of clothes of deceased and sealed packet of
palettes found in the body of the deceased from Biaora hospital and
produced the same at police station. Head constable Sita Ram (PW-14)
seized them and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/32). Therefore, it is clear
that statement of Shahzad Khan (PW-12) and Sita Ram (PW-14) is
supported by seizure memo (Ex.P/32), hence, their statement is reliable.
32. SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) stated that during
investigation, he prepared a spot map (Ex.P/6). Yashpal Singh (PW-2)
stated that the police has prepared spot map (Ex.P/6) at his instance.
Statement of both the witnesses is supported by spot map (Ex.P/6), hence
their statement is reliable.
33. SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) stated that on 01.04.2011,
he arrested the appellant Adityaraj Singh vide arrest memo (Ex.P/12), he
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
further stated that during interrogation appellant Adityaraj Singh
disclosed that he hid a licenced gun behind almirah in his house vide
disclosure memo (Ex.P/14) and the gun (Article-A) was seized alongwith
a live cartridge (Article-B) and licence of gun (Ex.P/37) vide seizure
memo (Ex.P/17) at the instance of appellant Adityaraj Singh. Bhanwar
Singh (PW-6) and Ram Singh (PW-11) have admitted their signature on
arrest memo (Ex.P/12), disclosure memo (Ex.P/14) and seizure memo
(Ex.P/17) but have not supported the case of prosecution, hence,
prosecution declared hostile and cross-examined them. There is nothing
in cross-examination of SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) to show
that this witness is interested to falsely implicate the appellant in the
offence. His statement is supported by arrest memo (Ex.P/12), disclosure
memo (Ex.P/14) and seizure memo (Ex.P/17). Bhanwar Singh (PW-6)
and Ram Singh (PW-11) have also admitted their signature on arrest
memo (Ex.P/12), disclosure memo (Ex.P/14) and seizure memo
(Ex.P/17), therefore, alone statement of SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan
(PW-16) is reliable. It appears from licence (Ex.P/37) that it was issued
in favour of Brajraj Singh, father of appellant Adityaraj Singh therefore,
it also appears that he was possessing the gun without having valid
licence.
34. SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) deposed that on
07.04.2011, he arrested accused Mahendra Singh vide arrest memo
(Ex.P/9). Accused Mahendra Singh disclosed that he hid a farsi at the
roof of his house vide disclosure memo (Ex.P/10), and the same was
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
recovered by him at the instance of accused Mahendra Singh vide
seizure memo (Ex.P/11). Statement of this witness is supported by
Giriraj Vyas (PW-4). Ram Singh (PW-11) stated that the police has
arrested accused Mahendra Singh before this witness and prepared arrest
memo (Ex.P/9) but has not supported disclosure statement and seizure
from accused Mahendra Singh, though he admitted his signature on the
disclosure memo (Ex.P/10) and seizure memo (Ex.P/11). The
prosecution has declared this witness hostile but during cross-
examination also has not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, it
is clear that aforementioned statement of SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan
(PW-16) is supported by Giriraj Vyas (PW-4). Ram Singh (PW-11) also
admitted his signature on disclosure memo (Ex.P/10) and seizure memo
(Ex.P/11). He also supported the statement of SHO Virendra Singh
Chouhan (PW-16) in respect of arrest of accused Mahendra Singh. No
amount of cross-examination could cause dent on the statement of SHO
Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) and Giriraj Vyas (PW-4). Hence, their
statement is reliable and it appears that a farsi was recovered from the
accused Mahendra Singh.
35. SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) stated that he seized blood
stained soil, simple soil and two pieces of fired cartridge vide seizure
memo (Ex.P/18). Bhanwar Singh (PW-6) and Ram Singh (PW-11) have
admitted their signature on seizure memo (Ex.P/18) but have not
supported the seizure of articles from the spot. The statement of SHO
Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) is supported by seizure memo
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
(Ex.P/18), both the witnesses also admitted their signature on (Ex.P/18),
hence, statement of SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) is reliable.
36. Halka Patwari Shailendra Bhati (PW-8) stated that on the direction
of Tehsildar, he issued a copy of khasra (Ex.P/24) and revenue map
(Ex.P/25) of abadi land situated at village Bhopalpura. He further stated
that he showed the place of incident in the revenue map with plus sign
(+) in red ink. But this witness has not stated clearly that who told him
the place of incident. Therefore, the statement of this witness does not
support the case of prosecution.
37. Constable Lakhan Singh (PW-9) stated that on 13.04.2011, he
received the sealed packet of seized gun and sealed packet of cartridge
from Police Station Karanvas. He examined them and found that the gun
was 12 bore, single barrel made up of Japanese steel, bearing number
387-1997 on its body. This gun was able to fire. A sealed packet was
opened by him and found an empty cartridge of 12 bore which was
broken. Another sealed packet was opened by him and found that there
was a live cartridge of 12 bore, which was able to be fired. Therefore, it
appears that this witness has examined the gun and found that the gun
was in working condition. As per examination, he issued report
(Ex.P/26).
38. SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) stated that he sent the
seized article to FSL Sagar for chemical examination vide letter of S.P.
Rajgarh (Ex.P/40). He further stated that after examination, FSL report
(Ex.P/41) was received. As per FSL report (Ex.P/41) after examination,
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
it was opined that seized 12 bore gun is a single barrel gun. It is in
working condition. There is residue found in the gun which shows that it
was used. It is further opined that two pieces of a broken empty cartridge
recovered from the spot (Ex.P/EC-1) was fired from the gun seized from
the accused Adityaraj Singh. 3 palettes recovered from the body of the
deceased could be a part of empty cartridge recovered from the spot.
Gun shot holes were present on shirt and baniyan recovered from the
body of the deceased which could have been caused by any laid
projectile as palettes recovered from the body of the deceased. It is
further opined that the distance of firing ranges about 6 yards. Therefore,
it appears that the statement of eye-witnesses is also supported by FSL
report (Ex.P/41). Therefore, statement of injured witnesses and eye-
witnesses is reliable and it is clear that the appellant/ accused Adityaraj
Singh had inflicted the gun shot injury to the deceased and
appellant/accused Mahendra Singh has inflicted injury to Yashpal Singh
(PW-2) by means of farsi.
39. Next question arises for consideration that whether the appellant
Adityaraj Singh intentionally inflicted injuries on the body of the
deceased to cause his death and whether the appellant Mahendra Singh
voluntarily caused injury to Yashpal Singh (PW-2)?
40. Learned counsels for the appellants argued that the complainant
party was the aggressor of the incident. Yashpal Singh alias Gabbar (PW-
2), deceased Bhemendra Singh and other persons had entered into the
house of Brajraj Singh and due to prior animosity started giving blows
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
by means of lathi, piece of stone and farsi. Yashpal Singh (PW-2) gave
blow on the head of co-accused Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu by means of
farsi. He also received injuries on other parts of his body. He started to
cry, then accused Mahendra Singh etc. intervened, co-accused Brajraj
Singh came from his agricultural land alongwith his licenced gun. The
complainant party snatched the gun from Brajraj Singh and the
complainant party was about to fire the gun on the accused party.
Appellant Adityaraj Singh tried to free the gun, meanwhile the tussle, the
gun fired on deceased Bhemendra Singh. Appellant Adityaraj Singh has
not fired the gun on the deceased but due to animosity the appellants and
other co-accused parties have been falsely implicated in the crime.
41. In the case of Kumar (Supra) in para-29, the following has been
held:-
"29. Another point put forth by the learned counsel on behalf
of the accused--appellant is that the prosecution has not
explained the injuries suffered by the accused and hence
prosecution case should not be believed. At the outset, it
would be relevant to note the settled principles of law on this
aspect. Generally failure of the prosecution to offer any
explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the
prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at
any rate not wholly true [See :Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai v.
The State of Bihar, 1968 CriLJ 1479].
42. The Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kumar @ Nemi Chand and
Ors. (Supra) in para-48, has opined as under:-
"48. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater
importance where the evidence consists of interested or
inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which
competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the
instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant
Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been
explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the
court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more
particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating
that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused.
Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to
have given due consideration to this important lacuna or
infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We must hasten to
add that as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima
[(1975) 2 SCC 7] there may be cases where the non-
explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect
the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to
cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor
and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent,
so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and
creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on
the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present,
however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was,
therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in
the prosecution case on unconvincing premises. Falsus in Uno-
Falsus in Omnibus"
43. The Apex Court in the case of Suresh Singh and Ors. (Supra) has
held as under:-
"6. Having considered the rival submissions at the bar and
having scrutinised the impugned Judgment of the High Court
and the findings recorded thereon, there is ample force in the
submission of Mr. Lalit, appearing for the appellants. It was
possible for the prosecution to argue that the conviction can be
sustained on the evidence which have not been relied upon by
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
the High Court but such a step has not been taken and Mr.
Malhotra has not advanced any argument on that score. But at
the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that some of the
findings arrived at by the High Court on the face of it, is
wholly unsustainable. But we are not examining the same in
depth as there has been no appeal against the acquittal
recorded by the High Court even as against the appellants of
all other charges. This being the position, we have ourselves
examined the evidence of the eye witnesses to find out whether
the role ascribed by them to these three appellants of having
given blows on the deceased can at all be accepted or the
entire evidence has to be discarded as contended by Mr. Lalit.
Having scrutinised the same with utmost care and bearing in
mind the medical evidence as unfolded through the doctor who
has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body
of the deceased Mahipal, which in our view corroborates the
ocular statements of the three eye witnesses, we are unable to
persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mr. Lalit
that the entire evidence should be discarded notwithstanding
the fact that the role ascribed as against other accused
persons have not believed and seven accused persons have
been acquitted and even the motive alleged by them has not
been believed. In our considered opinion, therefore, the ocular
statement of the eye witnesses ascribing a particular role to
the appellants in the matter of giving blows on the deceased by
different weapons can be accepted and we find no infirmity in
the impugned Judgment of the High Court in accepting the
same. The question, further remains for consideration is
whether the accused can claim a right of private defence of
person when their case has been believed by the High Court
that while Rameshwar was being chased by Mahipal, the
appellants who happened to be related to Rameshwar, came to
the spot on hearing the Hullah, gave the three blows in
question. In appreciating this contention one thing must be
borne in mind that the theory of chasing may not have much
significance in view of the distance between the house of
Mahipal and the accused persons, which is hardly 56 paces,
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
but all the same the positive finding of the High Court that the
occurrence did not take place in front of the house of Mahipal
as alleged by the prosecution witnesses cannot be lost sight of.
As has been stated earlier, the injuries found on the person of
the accused persons were not that serious though the injury on
Mohinder was an incised wound and could not have been lost
sight of by the prosecution witnesses. However for non
explanation of such injuries on accused persons the entire
prosecution case cannot be thrown out.
7. The deceased, on the other hand had five incised
wounds on his person on the front to parietal, temporal and
tempro occipital region of the skull and two abrasions and a
bruise. Even if we accept the finding of the High Court that the
accused appellants assaulted the deceased while being chased
by the deceased Mahipal but in consideration of the injuries
on the deceased, the conclusion is inescapable that the
accused persons exceeded their right of private defence while
giving the blows on the deceased. Having taken into
consideration of all the aforesaid circumstances and the
infirmities noted earlier, we are of the opinion that the
conviction of the appellants Suresh and Mohinder
under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. We, accordingly,
acquit them of the charge under Section 302 IPC and instead
convict them under Section 304 Part I ,IPC. The conviction of
the accused appellant Chander Pal under Section 304 Part I is
maintained and for such conviction, we sentence all of them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. This appeal is
allowed to the extent indicated above."
44. In the case of Satish alias Vikram Singh Jatav (Supra), the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in para-42 has held as under:-
"42. Regarding scope and limitations of right of private
defence, Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized in detail in the
matter of Kashi Ram & Others vs. State of Rajasthan,
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
reported in (2008) 3 SCC 55 as under:-
''33. The right of private defence is codified in sections
97 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code and all these sections
will have to be read together to ascertain whether in the
facts and circumstances the accused appellants are
entitled to right of private defence or they exceeded the
right of private defence. Only when all these sections are
read together, we get comprehensive view of the scope
and limitation of that right. The position of law is well-
settled for over a century both in England and India.
45. Private defence can be used only to ward off unlawful
force, to prevent unlawful force, to avoid unlawful
detention and to escape from such detention as held by
this court in Bishnas v. State of W. B. (2005) 12 SCC 657.
In the said judgment the relevant portion of Kennys
Outlines of Criminal Law and Criminal Law by J.C.
Smith and Brian Hogan have been quoted. We deem it
appropriate to reproduce the same.
''89. It is natural that a man who is attacked should
resist, and his resistance, as such, will not be
unlawful. It is not necessary that he should wait to be
actually struck, before striking in self-defence. If one
party raises up a threatening hand, then the other
may strike. Nor is the right of defence limited to the
particular person assailed; it includes all who are
under any obligation, even though merely social and
not legal, to protect him. The old authorities
exemplify this by the cases of a husband defending his
wife, a child his parent, a master his servant, or a
servant his master (and perhaps the courts would
now take a still more general view of this duty of the
strong to protect the weak).
90. The learned author further stated that self
defence, however, is not extended to unlawful force:
'But the justification covers only blows struck in
sheer self-defence and not in revenge. Accordingly
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
if, when all the danger is over and no more blows
are really needed for defence, the defender
nevertheless strikes one, he commits an assault
and battery. The numerous decisions that have
been given as to the kind of weapons that may
lawfully be used to repel an assailant, are merely
applications of this simple principle. Thus, as we
have already seen, where a person is attacked in
such a way that his life is in danger he is justified
in even killing his assailant to prevent the felony.
But an ordinary assault must not be thus met by
the use of firearms or other deadlyweapons....''
91. In Browne 1973 NI 96 (NI at p. 107] Lowry,
L.C.J. with regard to self-defence stated:
The need to act must not have been created by
conduct of the accused in the immediate context of
the incident which was likely or intended to give
rise to that need.
92. As regards self-defence and prevention of crime in
Criminal Law by J.C. Smith & Brian Hogan, it is
stated:
''Since self-defence may afford a defence to
murder, obviously it may do so to lesser offences
against the person and subject to similar
conditions. The matter is now regulated by
Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act, 1967. An
attack which would not justify D in killing might
justify him in the use of some less degree of force,
and so afford a defence to a charge of wounding,
or, a fortiori, common assault. But the use of
greater force than is reasonable to repel the attack
will result in liability to conviction for common
assault, or whatever offence the degree of harm
caused and intended warrants. Reasonable force
may be used in defence of property so that D was
not guilty of an assault when he struck a bailiff
who was unlawfully using force to enter D's home.
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
Similar principles apply to force used in the
prevention of crime.''
45. In the instant case, Dr. S. Yadu (DW-3) examined the co-accused
Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu on 01.04.2011 on request of SHO Police
Station Karanvas. This witness stated that Constable Shakeer Khan
brought the co-accused Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu. He found
following injuries on his body:-
i. Lacerated wound 8cm x 2cm skin deep on top of scalp.
ii. Lacerated wound 2cm x 1cm skin deep on second
metacarpal of left hand.
iii. Abrasion 3cm x 2cm on lower part of right arm.
iv. Abrasion 3cm x 2cm on left leg.
v. Abrasion 2cm x 1cm in middle of right arm.
vi. Contusion 6cm x 2cm on right side of back over scapula.
This witness has opined that all injuries were caused by hard and
blunt object within 6 hours of examination. All injuries were
simple in nature except injury No.ii. Injured was admitted in
hospital for further treatment. He proved the MLC (Ex.D/8C).
46. Dr. S. Yadu (DW-3) further stated that X-ray of left hand of the
injured Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu was done on the same day. He
examined the X-ray plate and found that there was a fracture in second
metacarpal bone. He proved the X-ray report (Ex.D/7). The prosecution
has not opted to cross-examine this witness, therefore, there is no reason
to disbelieve this witness. It appears from MLC (Ex.D/6) that on
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
31.03.2011, the co-accused Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu was sent for
MLC by SHO Police Station Karanvas and on 01.04.2011 at night 01:05
AM, he was examined by Dr. S. Yadu (DW-3). It also appears from the
statement of Dr. S. Yadu (DW-3) that there were six injuries on the body
of the injured and one of them, injury No.ii, was grievous in nature. It
also appears that co-accused Dhirendra Singh received injuries in the
same incident.
47. Bhagwan Singh (DW-2), who is resident of Odpur, District
Rajgarh stated that he goes to Bhopalpura for 8-15 times a day but he
does not know Bhagwan Singh (DW-2). In the month of March, 2011, he
went to the house of Bane Singh in the program of Ausar. He had taken
food at 05:00 PM there, and then he returned from Bhopalpura at about
08:00 PM, then he saw that Sooraj Singh and 2 other persons pulled out
a child from a house, aforementioned two other persons were son of
alleged Sooraj Singh. Those 3 persons were beating the child, at that
time, Brajraj Singh was returning from forest bearing a gun on his
shoulder. Aforementioned 3 persons snatched gun from Brajraj Singh,
thereafter a son of Brajraj Singh was trying to snatch the gun which
resulted into a tussle between them. Considering the statement of this
witness, it is not clear that who is Sooraj Singh and what was the name
of sons of Sooraj Singh. Apart from that this witness has not stated
anything about the act of complainant party. The story presented by this
witness is quite vague, uncertain and does not resemble to the facts of the
case. Therefore, the statement of this witness is not reliable.
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
48. From the statement of Bhagwan Singh (DW-4), it appears that
there was Ausar program at his home on 31.03.2011, due to death of his
mother Anokhi Bai and the program ended at 04:00 PM on the same day.
Therefore, statement of this witness also does not support the defence of
the appellants.
49. On the other hand, SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) in
paragraph-22 of cross-examination has admitted that on the basis of
report of co-accused Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu offence bearing
No.47/2011 was registered. There were injuries on the body of co-
accused Dhirendra Singh. Therefore, he sent him for medical
examination. After receiving X-ray report, crime was registered against
Yashpal Singh alias Gabbar (PW-2), deceased Bhemendra Singh and
others. From the statement of this witness, it appears that he was well
acquainted with the fact that co-accused Dhirendra Singh sustained
grievous injuries in the same incident but he has not filed his MLC and
X-ray report in the case. He has not even tried to record the statement of
co-accused Dhirendra Singh.
50. Surendra Singh (PW-1) in paragraph-19 and Yashpal Singh (PW-2)
in paragraph-13 of the cross-examination though have denied the
suggestion of accused persons about their defence and in paragraph-18 of
the cross-examination, Surendra Singh (PW-1) stated that he does not
know that Dhirendra Singh had received injuries in the same incident.
While Yashpal Singh (PW-2) in paragraph-13 of cross-examination
admitted that the co-accused Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu also sustained
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
injuries in the same incident and explained that deceased got injured by
gun and even though the accused persons were beating him, hence,
complainant party had intervened, which led to tussle between both the
parties, in which Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu sustained injuries.
Therefore, it appears that in this point, Surendra Singh (PW-1) and
Yashpal Singh (PW-2) are lying and their statement is contradictory
amongst each of them in respect of injury caused to Dhirendra Singh.
51. Apart from that, on perusal of spot map (Ex.P/6), it appears that
blood was found on point No.1 which is just in front of the house, point
No.6, of Bihari Lal and platform, point No.2, near the temple. Platform
near the temple is situated just in front of the house of co-accused Braraj
Singh but it is little away from the house of Surendra Singh (PW-1).
Therefore, it appears that the incident occurred near the house of accused
Brajraj Singh and in front of platform near the temple.
52. On the basis of forgoing discussion, it appears that the incident
was witnessed by Surendra Singh (PW-1), Yashpal Singh (PW-2), Giriraj
Vyas (PW-4) and Shailendra Yadav (PW-5). Surendra Singh (PW-1) and
Yashpal Singh (PW-2) also received injuries in the incident and deceased
received gun shot injury on his neck. Statement of eye-witnesses is also
supported by medical evidences as well as FSL report. But co-accused
Dhirendra Singh also received serious injury in the same incident and the
prosecution has not explained his injuries, therefore, it appears that the
prosecution has hidden origin of the incident and in this respect,
statement of Surendra Singh (PW-1) and Yashpal Singh (PW-2) is
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
contrary and consequently appears that both the witnesses are lying.
Therefore, defence of appellants appears to be probable. In this situation,
it appears that the offence is committed by the appellant Adityaraj Singh
without pre-meditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, upon a
sudden quarrel, which comes under the Exception 4 of Section 300 of
IPC and makes the case culpable homicide not amounting to murder and
is punishable u/S 304 Part-I of the IPC.
53. It also appears from the statement of injured witnesses and eye-
witnesses that the appellant Mahendra Singh voluntarily caused injury to
the injured Yashpal Singh (PW-2) by means of farsi which is a sharp
edged weapon and is punishable u/S 324 of the IPC.
54. From the statement of Arms Clerk, office of the District
Magistrate, Rajgarh Prakash Singh Parmar (PW-10), it is clear that the
District Magistrate, after considering the case diary and other documents,
has properly accorded prosecution sanction (Ex.P/27) on 12.05.2011
against the appellant Adityaraj Singh, by exercising his power u/S 39 of
the Arms Act to prosecute him for the offence u/S 25 of the Arms Act.
55. The appellant Adityraj Singh possessed the gun, without having a
valid licence in his favour as well as he used the gun by firing it on the
deceased, which is punishable u/S 25 (1B(a) and u/S 27(1) of the Arms
Act, but learned Trial Corut has convited and sentenced the appellant
Adityaraj Singh only u/S 25 (1B)(a) of the Arms Act and the prosecution
has not filed appeal against the impugned judgement.
56. On the basis of aforementioned discussion, it appears that the
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
learned Trial Court has erred by convicting and sentencing the appellant
Adityaraj Singh u/S 302 of IPC, but has properly assessed the evidence
in respect of the appellant Mahendra Singh and has rightly convicted him
u/S 324 of IPC. Learned Trial Court has rightly held the appellant
Adityaraj Singh guilty u/S 25 (1B)(a) of the Arms Act. On perusal of the
record, it appears that appellant Mahendra Singh has already served in
jail for 7 months i.e. from 07.04.2011 - 05.11.2011. Looking to the fact
and circumstances of the case, it appears that the custodial sentence of 7
months would meet the ends of justice.
57. It appears that appellant Adityaraj Singh has served the jail
sentence since 01.04.2011 - 06.07.2012 and since the date of the
judgement, i.e. 06.07.2012 till date, for almost 11 years and 9 months.
58. Resultantly, both the appeals are partly allowed and the impugned
judgement of conviction and order of sentence in respect of appellant
Adityaraj Singh for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is set aside and
he is acquitted from the offence u/S 302 of IPC instead, he is convicted
u/S 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous
imprisonment. Conviction and sentence u/S 25 (1B)(a) of the Arms Act
against the appellant Adityaraj Singh is affirmed. Both the sentences will
run concurrently. Conviction of appellant Mahendra Singh u/S 324 of
IPC is also affirmed and he is sentenced to the period for which he has
already served in custody. Fine imposed by the learned Trial Court is
affirmed.
59. Appellant Adityaraj Singh has already served the jail sentence for
Cr. A. No.854/2012 & Cr.A. No.819/2012
more than 10 years. Therefore, the appellants, Adityaraj Singh and
Mahendra Singh shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in
any other case. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged.
60. Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of.
61. Copy of this order alongwith record of the learned Trial Court be
also sent back to the Trial Court for information and compliance.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
gp
GEETA PRAMOD
2023.01.24 17:31:33 +05'30'
