Lachman Ram vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 10635 P&H

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M)                             -1-


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH.


                                            CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M)
                                            Reserved on: 05.09.2022
                                            Pronounced on: 07.09.2022


LACHHMAN RAM                                                  .....Appellant


                                   Versus


THE STATE OF PUNJAB                                          .....Respondent


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SHEKHAWAT


Argued by: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate
           Amicus Curiae for the appellant.

             Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Punjab.


                                 ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur through a verdict

drawn on 28.08.2009, upon case SC No. 3 of 2008, proceeded to, in

respect of charges drawn against the accused for an offence punishable

under Section 302/34, and, under Section 201 of the IPC, hence make a

verdict of conviction, upon, the convict.

2. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order drawn on

31.08.2009, the learned trial Judge concerned, imposed upon the

convict, the sentence of life imprisonment qua an offence punishable

under Section 302 IPC, besides imposed upon him, a sentence of fine

comprised in a sum of Rs. 3,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine

1 of 17

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M) -2-

amount, he sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment

extending upto a term of six months. In addition, for an offence

punishable under Section 201 IPC, he sentenced the convict to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for three years, besides imposed upon him, a

sentence of fine comprised in a sum of Rs. 1000/-, and, in default of

payment of fine, he sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two months. Further, he ordered that the period spent

in custody during investigation, inquiry, or, trial be in consonance with

the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C, set off, from the above imposed

term of sentence(s) of imprisonment.

3. The convict becomes aggrieved from the verdict of

conviction (supra), and, also become aggrieved from the consequential

therewith sentence(s) (supra), as became imposed upon him by the

learned Convicting Court, resultantly he becomes led to institute

thereagainst the instant appeal before this Court.

4. Though, co-accused Punit Kumar Aggarwal is alleged to

also alongwith the present convict commit the offences (supra), but he

was declared a proclaimed offender, necessarily he did not participate

in the trial as became opened only against the present convict-appellant.

Since co-accused Punit Kumar Aggarwal has remained absconding

since the year 2007, therefore, the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Ferozepur is directed to, forthwith cause his arrest, and, thereafter to

ensure his production before the learned Committal Court concerned, to

enable the latter to draw committal proceedings against him, for his

subsequently facing trial qua the FIR offences, before the learned Court

of Session, who shall then adopt the statutory mechanism envisaged in

Section 299 Cr.P.C.

                                  2 of 17

 CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M)                             -3-


                      FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. The genesis of prosecution case, becomes embodied in the

appeal FIR, to which Exhibit P-3 is assigned. The present FIR is lodged

at the instance of the father of the deceased Sunil Kumar. A narration is

carried therein, that on 18.09.2007, at about 6.30 P.M. one Sant Ram

son of Chet Ram, resident of Ward No. 8, Tibbi purveying an

information levelling allegations therein, that he has two sons namely

Subhash Chander, and, Sunil Kumar. He alongwith his family is

residing in Ward No. 8, Tibbi. Accused Lachhman Ram resident of

village Taja Patti started living in the house of Om Parkash son of

Kurara Ram about 5/6 years ago. Lachhman Ram is closely related to

said Om Parkash. Lachhman Ram accused was engaged in the work of

worship, and, Tantrik. Sant Ram (complainant) started visiting the

house of Om Parkash, where Lachhman Ram accused had started doing

worship by constructing a temple in his house. His (Sant Ram's) son

Sunil Kumar started learning the work of worship, and, Tantrik from

Lachhman Ram. They also used to give answers to the personal

questions asked by the visitors. In the month of June, 2003, accused

Lachhman Ram left the house of Om Parkash, and, started living and

doing worship, and, working as Tantrik in Sant Ram's house. Near the

house of Om Parkash, there was rented house of Punit Kumar

Aggarwal, who alongwith Lachhman Ram used to sell the articles of

retail together in partnership. So, in this way, Punit Kumar Aggarwal

also used to visit his house frequently. In the year 2006, three days prior

to the festival of Raksha Bandhan, complainant Sant Ram had gone to

Sirsa, whereas his wife Daropati, and, other family members were in the

house. Lachhman Ram, and, Punit Kumar Aggarwal alongwith his son

3 of 17

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M) -4-

Sunil Kumar went to village Taja Patti in connection with worship.

Though, Lachhman Ram, and, Punit Kumar Aggarwal returned to

village Tibbi, but his son Sunil Kumar did not return. When he

enquired from Lachhman Ram about his son Sunil Kumar, he disclosed

that Sunil Kumar has got employment at Abohar. Even thereafter

Lachhman Ram remained stayed in his house. Lachhman Ram accused

visited Abohar twice, or, thrice, and, made telephonic calls to the

complainant by impersonating himself, as Sunil Kumar. Even he also

used to enquire about the well being of his family. As and when he used

to talk telephonically, he used to change his voice representing himself

to be Sunil Kumar. Then accused left his house, and, had gone missing.

Complainant alongwith Nathu Khan, Bhoj Raj, and, Jarnail Singh

started tracing out the whereabouts of accused Lachhman Ram, and,

ultimately on 17.09.2007, he was found by them at village Soniasar,

Tehsil Doonger Garh, District Bikaner in the house of his relative.

When they enquired from him about Sunil Kumar by exercising

pressure upon him, he disclosed that he, and, Punit Kumar Aggarwal

had committed the murder of Sunil Kumar by strangulating him with a

piece of cloth in the deserted area of sand dunes of village Kundala,

near village Taja Patti, and, while taking a spade from the orchard of

Kuldeep Siag, buried the dead body by digging a pit in the said sand

dunes in the area of village Kundala. It was further disclosed by him

that Sunil Kumar was murdered by him, two days prior to Raksha

Bandhan. Punit Kumar Aggarwal, who was residing near their house on

rent had also left the said room, and, went to his maternal uncle about

two, and, a half months earlier. It has further been alleged that

Lachhman Ram, Punit Kumar Aggarwal, and, Sunil Kumar had gone to

4 of 17

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M) -5-

village Taja Patti in connection with worship, where they both i.e.

Lachhman Ram, and, Punit Kumar Aggarwal in connivance with each

other killed his son, and buried the dead body in the sand dunes of

village Kundala, in order to screen away the evidence.

INVESTIGATION PROCEEDINGS

6. Since from the statement of complainant, the place of

disappearance of the deceased, was found to be within the jurisdiction

of Police Station, Abohar, hence, the above said FIR as became

initially, registered at Police Station, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh, did

subsequently become despatched by the Rajasthan police to the SSP,

Ferozepur for investigations thereinto being launched by the authorized

police officer.

7. After investigations into the present FIR becoming

launched, the investigating officer concerned, arrested accused

Lachhman Ram, on 29.09.2007. During the course of the accused

being subjected to custodial interrogation, he suffered a disclosure

statement, to which Exhibit P-4 is assigned, whereins he made a

confession that he alongwith Punit Kumar Aggarwal, after committing

the murder of Sunil Kumar, had buried the dead body of Sunil Kumar

near Kikkar Tree in the sand dunes at a distance of about 5 killas from

the Mazar, about which he has the exclusive knowledge, and, can get

the same recovered. Thereafter, in pursuance to his disclosure

statement, accused Lachhman Ram got recovered the dead

body/skeleton along with a vest of white colour, underwear of red

colour, black thread, some pieces of bangles, and, a red dupatta from

the pre-disclosed place to the investigating officer concerned. The

investigating officer also prepared rough site plan of place of recovery

5 of 17

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M) -6-

of skeleton, as well as, of other articles, to which Exhibit P-12 is

assigned.

8. After completion of investigations by the investigating

officer concerned, into the FIR (supra), he instituted an affirmative

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the learned Committal Judge

concerned.

COMMITTAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

9. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively

triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the learned committal Court,

committed vide order dated 11.01.2008, the case for trial, to the Court

of the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

10. On finding a prima facie case, charge(s) under Section 302

read with Section 34, and, under Section 201 of the IPC became

framed, against the accused, and, to which he pleaded not guilty, and,

claimed trial.

11. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution

examined nine witnesses. After completion of recording of the

depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Ferozepur drew proceedings, under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused claimed false implication, and,

pleaded innocence.

12. After conclusion of the trial, as, became entered upon the

FIR (supra), by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, the

latter proceeded to make the afore verdict of conviction, and, also made

the consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), upon, the present

appellant.

                                    6 of 17

 CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M)                             -7-


SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
CONVICT APPELLANT

13.          (1)    The learned counsel appearing for the convict-

appellant has contended with vigor before this Court, that

the motive for the crime event, comprised in the accused

eliminating deceased Sunil Kumar, as he suspected that he

would disclose their mis-deeds, rather not become cogently

proved. In making the above submission, he rests it, upon

the factum, that given purportedly, the deceased Sunil

Kumar not returning to his homestead, as he was

purportedly serving at Abohar, and, though the present

appellant after purportedly leaving the homestead, of the

complainant, his upon feigning the voice of Sunil Kumar,

allegedly make tele-communications with the complainant

from Abohar, revealing, therein that the deceased is

serving at Abohar. However, he submits that the above

tele-communications purportedly made by the convict to

the complainant, with his feigning the voice of the

deceased, is surmisal, besides is not amenable for credence,

as it is un-believable that the complainant-father of the

deceased, would not recognize the voice of his deceased

son Sunil Kumar. Therefore, he contends that there was no

occasion for the present convict to murder the deceased.

(2) The PW-9, who conducted post-mortem on the

disintegrated body of Sunil Kumar, making a statement in

his cross examination, that the body of the deceased was

brought in a gunny bag, by the police, before him, and, that

7 of 17

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M) -8-

it was very difficult to identify the dead body, as it was in

the shape of a skeleton, besides the internal organs were

also missing from the skeleton. Therefore, he contends that

the person of Sunil Kumar, cannot be related to the person,

upon whom PW-9 made an autopsy. In other words, he

submits that the instant case is a case of corpus delicti, as

the person of one Sunil Kumar has not been yet recovered

nor discovered.

(3) Though, PW-9 who conducted an autopsy on the

person of Sunil Kumar, has made a statement that apart

from other articles, and, clothes, he had also handed over

to the police, the bones of the deceased, part of human

bone for DNA examination in a plastic jar bearing mark

'GM', besides his also stating that the envelope containing

seals was addressed to Incharge, CDFD, Hyderabad,

containing a request letter for DNA examination therewith

being made from the bone, and, blood samples of father of

deceased, but the DNA report has not been placed on

record. Consequently, he argues that for non adduction of

the DNA Report, an inference against the prosecution is to

be drawn.

(4) Though the complainant, as well as, PW-4 Nathu

Khan, disclose that the present appellant disclosed to both

on 17.09.2017, that he alongwith Punit Kumar Aggarwal

committed the murder of Sunil Kumar, through

strangulation by putting a piece of cloth around his neck,

with a further disclosure therein, that the dead body was

8 of 17

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M) -9-

buried by them, after having taken a spade from the Dhani

(Orchard) of Kuldeep Siag, in the deserted place (sand

dunes), in the area of village Kundal. Therefore, he

contends that given the above pre-revelation being made to

the complainant by the convict, as such, the recovery of the

body of the deceased through memo comprised in Exhibit

P-5, has no evidentiary tenacity, as the place of

exhumation, and, thereafter the recovery of the

disintegrated body of the deceased, rather was previously

known to the complainant. In other words, he submits that

the recovery, as made through exhibit P-5, is tainted with a

stain of invention, and, concoction.

(5) The counsel for the convict-appellant has argued,

that though the signatured disclosure statement made by

the convict, and, as becomes comprised in Exhibit P-4,

makes unfoldings, that the deceased was murdered by

strangulation, but PW-9, who made an autopsy, on the

body of the deceased, rather during the course of his

testification making an echoing, that there was cut fracture

present, on the cervical vertebrae first, 2nd and 3rd, and,

that the above was causable through users' of a sharp edged

weapon, therefore, he contends that the disclosure

statement as made by the convict, and, as becomes

comprised in Exhibit P-4, also comes under a shroud of

doubt, given the declarant speaking therein, that the demise

of the deceased was caused by strangulation.

                                  9 of 17

 CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M)                                    -10-


      SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

14. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued

before this Court, that the judgment, as challenged before this Court, is

well merited, and does not warrant any interference.

REASONS FOR REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE CONVICT-APPELLANT.

15. The complainant stepped into the witness box as PW-3,

and, has in his examination-in-chief completely supported the version

as carried in the FIR, to which Exhibit P-3 is assigned. The deposition

of PW-3 is supported by the testification of PW-4.

16. Both PWs (supra) in their respectively spoken

testifications, omit to make any gross improvements, or,

embellishments vis-a-vis, their previously recorded statements in

writings, rather both testify with the completest inter-se, and, intra-se

corroboration. Resultantly utmost credence is to be assigned to their

respectively made testifications.

17. They also speak with unison, about the factum, that the

convict inmating himself in the homestead of PW-3, the father of the

deceased Sunil Kumar, who is stated to be learning tantricism, and,

astrology from the convict appellant. Moreover, both consistently

depose that it was two or three days prior to Raksha Bandhan, in the

year 2006, that when the complainant had gone to Sirsa, that the present

convict alongwith co-accused Punit Kumar Aggarwal, besides with

Sunil Kumar hence proceeded to village Taza Patti, in connection with

worship, but though the present convict, and, co-accused Punit Kumar

Aggarwal returned from there, but the deceased did not return to his

home. Furthermore, both PWs (supra) consistently depose that on

10 of 17

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M) -11-

enquiry from the convict, the latter revealed that the deceased had

acquired an employment at Abohar, but yet the convict continued to

stay at the house of the complainant. However, during the period of the

convict continuing to stay at the home of the complainant, even after

both he, and, co-accused Punit Kumar Aggarwal returning to their

respective homes located at Ward No. 8 Tibbi, from village Taja Patti,

yet for brief spells, he purportedly departed therefrom to Abohar, and,

from there he, with his feigning the voice of the deceased made tele-

communications to the complainant, to assure him, that the deceased is

still alive, and, is serving at Abohar. Though counsel for the convict-

appellant argues, that it is un-believable, that the complainant would

not recognize the voice of his deceased son, besides obviously he

argues, that even the motive, as disclosed by the declarant in his

signatured disclosure statement about the murder of deceased Sunil

Kumar arising from his threatening to disclose their misdeeds also

becomes not cogently proven.

18. However, the above echoings occurring in the consistent,

testifications, as, made by PW-3, and, PW-4, as appertaining to the

convict-appellant after returning to the homestead of PW-3, from

village Taja Pati, where he alongwith other co-accused besides with the

deceased had gone to worship, though spells conduct consistent with

the innocence of the present convict, but yet thereons, no valid

exculpatory plea can be vested, as, the above echoings remain

unshattered rather through denials being made by PW-3, and, PW-4, to

the apposite suggestions, as became meted to both, during the course of

each becoming put to cross examination. If so, the further effect

thereof, is that, during the above spells, the present appellant

11 of 17

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M) -12-

proceeding to a place elsewhere than the homestead of the complainant,

rather only, for his through his feigning the voice of the deceased hence

making tele communications with the complainant but obviously only

for assuring him that the deceased is serving at Abohar. The above was

done only to convince the father of the deceased, that the latter is alive,

besides to, in the garb of his staying in the homestead of the

complainant, subsequent to his alongwith co-accused Punit Kumar

Aggarwal murdering the deceased, his hence falsely assigning to it a

false colour of conduct consistent with his innocence. However it was

but a charade, resultantly when, as above stated, even the tele-

communications, as made by the convict from a place elsewhere from

the home of complainant, and, were made in a feigned voice hence

similar to the voice of the deceased, cannot spur any inference, that yet

the complainant could easily recognize the voice of his son, especially

since, it is not difficult for any person to simulate the voice of any other

person, as such, the above voice simulation also appears to have done

by the complainant, to obviously give assurance, to the complainant

that his deceased son is at Abohar, and, is still alive, besides to create a

purported false innocuous pretext to yet continue to stay in his home.

REASON FOR REJECTING THE ARGUMENT RELATING TO THE PLACE OF HIDING AND CONCEALING THE BODY OF THE DECEASED BEING PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED BY THE CONVICT TO THE COMPLAINANT.

19. The reason for rejecting the above arguments, becomes

rested upon the factum, that though the convict in his signatured

disclosure statement comprised in Exhibit P4, had disclosed the precise

location where he had hidden, and, camouflaged the body of the

deceased, but the afore place of hiding, and, keeping the body of the

12 of 17

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M) -13-

deceased, rather is not precisely unfolded in the declaration, as, made to

the complainant by the convict. Therefore, the above vague general

declaration, as, made by the convict to the complainant about the place

of his hiding, and, concealing the body of the deceased, does not yet

spark any inference, that qua obviously the precise place of hiding, and,

keeping of the body of the deceased, by the convict was either ever

previously known to the police, through the complainant, nor the

recovery of the body of the deceased, as made through memo Exhibit P-

5, can be construed to be false, contrived, or, an invented recovery.

REASON FOR REJECTING THE ARGUMENT RELATING TO NON ADDUCTION INTO EVIDENCE OF DNA REPORT.

20. The doctor who made an autopsy on the body of the

deceased, though in his cross-examination has articulated that the body

of the person brought to him by the police was in a disintegrated

condition, and, that it was in the shape of a skeleton, whereins, the

relevant internal organs were missing. Therefore, the counsel for the

convict-appellant, has argued that, the person exhumed was not Sunil

Kumar, but was somebody else, besides has also argued, that the

charged offences is not related, to the deceased Sunil Kumar, rather it is

a case of corpus delicti.

21. However, the above submission is rejected, as readings of

the signatured disclosure statement of the present appellant, to which

Exhibit P-4, is assigned, and, which becomes extracted hereinafter,

rather vividly unfolds, about the precise location of the hiding, and,

concealing of the body of the deceased by him, and, by co-accused

Punit Kumar Aggarwal, since absconding. The above place is secretive,

and, but could be known only to the convict. He could not cause its

13 of 17

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M) -14-

exhumation, from the precise location of its being buried, unless he was

the sole repository of knowledge qua its becoming buried, or, hidden by

him.Therefore, an apt tenacious evidentiary worth is to be assigned to

Exhibit P-4, as it becomes signatured by the convict-appellant, besides

when his not being able to either ably deny, nor, has been able to prove

any apt denial of his signatures, as become carried thereons. Further, in

pursuance to drawings of Exhibit P-4, through recovery memo carried

in Exhibit P-5, the body of the deceased was exhumed, and, thereafter,

it was taken into possession by the investigating officer concerned.

" ..... that in the last year, two days prior to the festival of Raksha Bandhan, in the night I and Puneet Kumar jointly enticed away Sunil Kumar s/o Sant Ram Caste Ghumiar r/o ward No. 8 Tibbi District Hanumangarh and brought him for paying obeisance at MAJAR PANJ PEER in the area of village Kundal. At a short distance of five killa from the MAJAR, they had murdered Sunil Kumar by strangulation, by putting a red dupatta around his neck, near Kikker tree in the Rohi and after removing his clothes, except underwear and vest on the dead body of Sunil Kumar, buried the dead body of Sunil Kumar in the same position by putting red cloth around his neck, after digging a pit near Kikker tree. Only I and Puneet Kumar have exclusive knowledge about this fact and at this time, I can get recover the dead body of Sunil Kumar by pointing out....."

22. Moreover, since the proceedings relating to the

exhumation of the body of the deceased from the place of its being

buried, occurred in the presence of Executive Magistrate-cum-

Tehsildar, Abohar, who has proven the recitals, as, carried thereins, as,

appertain to the above factum, resultantly the recovery memo

comprised in Exhibit P-5, does require accentuated probative sanctity,

as, it has been drawn in pursuance to the provenly signatured disclosure

statement of the convict, to which Exhibit P-4 is assigned. In

consequence, when the site of recovery of the body of deceased Sunil

Kumar, as above stated was known only to the convict, given it being

14 of 17

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M) -15-

buried in a remote, desolate place. Resultantly with the relevant

declaration made in the apposite proven signatured disclosure statement

to which Exhibit P-4, is assigned, rather openly conveying that the

declarant would ensure the causings' of recovery of none other than the

dead body of one Sunil Kumar, as such, the body recovered through

Exhibit P-5, relates to the body of the son of the complainant. In sequel,

any withholding of the report of the DNA Expert working at Hyderabad

becomes rendered completely inconsequential.

REASON FOR REJECTING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT THAT THE FRACTURES PRESENT ON THE BODY OF THE DECEASED BEING PRONOUNCED BY PW-9 TO BE CAUSABLE BY USER OF SHARP EDGED WEAPONS WHEREAS THE DECLARANT IN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT EXHIBIT P-4 CONFESSING HIS COMMITING THE MURDER OF SUNIL KUMAR BY STRANGULATION, LEADING TO AN INFERENCE THAT EXHIBIT P-5, IS FALSIFIED.

23. The above made argument is also completely devoid of any

merit, as the presence of fractures on the body of the deceased, upon, its

becoming put to autopsy by PW-9, and, with PW-9 making a

testification, that they were causable through users', of a sharp edged

weapon, but it would not yet bely the signatured disclosure statement

comprised in Exhibit P-4, nor, would bely the consequent therewith

recovery, as made through recovery memo Exhibit P-5. Even if in

Exhibit P-4, the declarant convict appellant, had confessed qua his

murdering the deceased, through his strangulating him, and, even if yet

the above injuries became pronounced by PW-9, in the post mortem

report to which Exhibit P-17 is assigned, but yet the predominant

reason for this Court yet assigning tenacious evidentiary value to

Exhibit P-4, and, to the consequent therewith recovery, as, made

through recovery memo Exhibit P-5, becomes comprised in, as above

15 of 17

CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M) -16-

stated, rather the body of the deceased becoming confessed, by the

present appellant to be hidden, or, concealed in a remote, desolate

place, whose location was obviously known only to him. Further, since

it became exhumed in the presence of an Executive Magistrate,

resultantly the exhumation of the body of the deceased, at the instance

of the present appellant, could not have happened, from the remote,

desolate place of its becoming buried, unless the convict had the sole

knowledge about the relevant remote, desolate place. Since the factum

of his being the sole repository of knowledge about its being buried, is

but evident, therefore, reiteratedly even the effect, if any of the above

echoing made by PW-9, in his examination-in-chief, rather not belying

the confession, as made by the convict in Exhibit P-4, about the murder

of deceased becoming caused through strangulation. Therefore, to the

considered mind of this Court, the above testification becomes

completely inconsequential, besides becomes completely

underwhelmed by the above validly drawn memo(s).

CONCLUSION

24. In aftermath, no conclusion other than the one, as became

drawn earlier by the learned convicting Court, rather is to be also drawn

by this Court.

25. The result of the above discussion, is that, this Court does

not find any merit in the appeal, and, is constrained to dismiss it.

FINAL ORDER BY THIS COURT

26. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned

verdict of conviction, and, the consequent therewith sentence(s)

(supra), as become imposed upon the convict-appellant, by the learned

convicting Court, are affirmed and maintained.

                                   16 of 17

 CRA-D-862-DB-2010 (O & M)                               -17-

27. The case property, if any, be dealt with in accordance with

law, after the expiry of period of limitation for the filing of an appeal.

The records be forthwith sent down.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

(N.S. SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE 07.09.2022 kavneet singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

17 of 17