Hanuman Singh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
2021 Latest Caselaw 4105 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1091/2016

 1. Hanuman Singh S/o. Shri Suraj Singh, B/c Kothyari, R/o.
     Bansda Nadi, Police Station Boli, District Sawai Madhopur
     (Rajasthan);
 2. Gopal Singh S/o. Shri Ramkishore Singh, B/c Kothyari, R/o.
     Bansda Nadi, Police Station Boli, District Sawai Madhopur
     (Rajasthan);
 3. Kuldeep Singh S/o. Shri Hanuman Singh, B/c Kothyari, R/o.
     Bansda Nadi, Police Station Boli, District Sawai Madhopur
     (Rajasthan);
 4. Bahadur Singh S/o. Shri Hanuman Singh, B/c Kothyari, R/o.
     Bansda Nadi, Police Station Boli, District Sawai Madhopur
     (Rajasthan);
                                                                 ----Appellants
                                   Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through PP.
                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Kapil Gupta with
                               Mr. Dharmendra Kumar
                               Ms. Nidhi Sharma
                               Mr. R.S. Sinsinwar.
For Respondent(s)        :     Ms. Rekha Madnani, AGA.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                             JUDGMENT

Judgment pronounced on                 :::             27/08/2021
Judgment reserved on                   :::             25/08/2021



BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)

1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as

below vide Judgment dated 24.09.2016 passed by the learned

(2 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court) Sawai Madhopur in

Sessions Case No.41/2016:

Offences            Sentences                 Fine              Fine   Default
                                                                sentences
Section     302/34 Life                       Rs.2,000/-        6 Month's S.I.
IPC                Imprisonment               each
Section 323 IPC     3 Months' S.I.

Section 341 IPC     1 Month's S.I.

All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the

appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2)

Cr.P.C.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal

are noted herein below:

4. The victim Gopal son of Jagannath Kothyari lodged a written

report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Bowli on 24.11.2013

alleging inter alia that he was working in his field. In the afternoon

at about 3 O' Clock, the accused Hanuman Singh, Gopal S/o

Ramkishore, Kuldeep, Bahadur, Jai Singh, Rasaal and Sampat,

with an intention to do mischief, put a water pipe on the passage

on which, the complainant requested them that the pipe be

removed because the passage would be damaged. Being enraged,

the accused persons launched an indiscriminate assault upon the

informant by axes, lathis, etc. Hanuman Singh drove his tractor

over the informant and then, he inflicted an axe blow on his head.

Hanuman Singh's son Kuldeep also drove the tractor over the

(3 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

victim due to which, he received injuries all over his body

including a deep wound on his head. He was saved by Prahlad

Singh or else, the assailants would have done him to death.

On the basis of this report, an FIR No.320/2013 (Ex.P/21)

came to be registered at the Police Station Bowli, District Sawai

Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341,

323 and 336 of the IPC and investigation was commenced. It

came to light that in addition to Gopal, his son Bhagwan Singh had

also received injuries in this very incident. Both injured persons

were medically examined by the Medical Jurist G.P. Goyal (PW-8)

posted at the CHC, Bowli. He noticed two minor lacerated wounds

on the left arm and right forearm of the injured Bhagwan Singh.

On examining Gopal, a cut wound admeasuring 5 cm. X .05 cm

deep upto bone was noticed on the left side of the head. A

lacerated wound admeasuring 8 cm. X 1 cm. was noticed on the

right forearm. In addition thereto, there were two abrasions on

the left hand of the injured Gopal. X-ray was recommended for

finding out nature of injuries of Gopal. The condition of Gopal

deteriorated on which, he was provided treatment at various

medical facilities. Ultimately, he succumbed on 29.01.2014 i.e.

after 2 months 5 days of the incident. Postmortem upon the dead

body of Gopal was conducted by Dr. G.P. Goyal (PW-8) on

29.01.2014 and while issuing the postmortem report (Ex.P/10),

the Medical Jurist took note of the fact that the head injury was

caused to the injured on 24.11.2013. He was operated upon. On

07.12.2013, follow-up treatment was provided at Jaipur. The head

injury was reopened and fresh surgical procedure was undertaken.

On 18.01.2014, the head injury was again reopened at the SMS

Hospital, Jaipur and treatment was provided to Gopal. The doctor

(4 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

observed that pus was oozing out from the operated wound on

skull of the deceased. Bone pieces were present and foul smell

was emanating therefrom. The doctor opined that cause of death

of Gopal was septicemic shock. The accused appellants were

arrested and a charge-sheet was filed against them for the

offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 323/34 of the IPC.

As the offence under Section 302 was exclusively triable by court

of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Sawai

Madhopur from where, the same was transferred to the court of

the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court), Sawai Madhopur.

Following charges were framed against all the accused as below:

Section 323 in alternate Section 323/34 IPC, Section 341 and

Section 302 in alternate Section 302/34 IPC.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The

prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 21

documents in support of its case. Upon being questioned under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances

appearing against them in prosecution evidence, the accused

denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Four

documents were exhibited but no evidence was led in defence.

After hearing the arguments advanced by the defence counsel and

the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial court proceeded to

convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence this appeal.

5. It may be stated here that the sentences awarded to the

accused appellants other than Hanuman Singh were suspended by

this Court vide order dated 04.09.2017. The accused Hanuman

Singh however continues to remain in custody from 01.01.2014.

(5 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

6. For assailing the impugned Judgment, Shri Kapil Gupta,

learned counsel representing the appellants limited his arguments

on the following aspects:

That the conviction of the appellants Gopal Singh, Kuldeep

Singh and Bahadur Singh for the offence under Section 302 with

the aid of Section 34 IPC is absolutely unjustified. He pointed out

that it is an admitted case that the accused persons were

operating the water pump for drawing water and irrigating their

fields. It is the complainant party who interfered in their bonafide

farming operations of the accused and it is they who instigated the

incident. As per the written report (Ex.P/1) lodged by the

deceased Gopal, only Hanuman Singh is alleged to have caused

him an axe blow. The allegation that the accused Hanuman Singh

and Kuldeep drove the tractor over the deceased is patently false.

The appellants Gopal Singh and Bahadur Singh were not named in

the report. He thus urges that the trial court was absolutely

unjustified in applying Section 34 IPC to hold that the three

accused Gopal Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Bahadur Singh were

having the common intention to murder the deceased Shri Gopal.

Regarding the accused Hanuman Singh, the contention of Shri

Gupta was that as per the highest case set up in the written report

(Ex.P/1) and the statements of the prosecution eye-witnesses

Bhagwan Singh (PW-1), Hanuman (PW-2) and Prahlad (PW-4),

the accused Hanuman Singh was operating a water pump and the

victim tried to stop him on which, the said accused allegedly

inflicted one axe blow on the head of the victim. Shri Gupta

pointed out that single injury attributed to the accused Hanuman

Singh was superficial as Gopal was hale and hearty after the

incident and he himself lodged the written report (Ex.P/1) at the

(6 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

police station. The incident took place on 24.11.2013. The

deceased Gopal was got treated at various hospitals and repetitive

surgical procedures were carried out for treating his head injury

and ultimately, septicemia developed in the wound which led to his

death. Shri Gupta further pointed out that none of the doctors,

who treated the deceased Gopal during the intervening period,

were examined by the prosecution and hence, it was absolutely

unjustified for the trial court to have held that the head injury

attributed to the accused appellant Hanuman Singh was fatal

because there is no connecting evidence to this effect. As per Shri

Gupta, the possibility of complications having developed in the

head injury because of the wrong treatment, cannot be ruled out.

The prosecution could not, with any degree of certainty, prove that

the injury which led to the death of Gopal, was as a matter of fact,

received in the incident reported by Gopal vide report (Ex.P/1). He

therefore implored the Court to accept the appeal of the

appellants Gopal Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Bahadur Singh and to

alter the conviction of the appellant Hanuman Singh from the

offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to Section 326 IPC or in

the alternative Section 304 Part II IPC. In support of his

contention, Shri Gupta placed reliance on the Supreme Court

Judgment in the case of Ganga Dass @ Godha vs. State of

Haryana reported in 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 534 and implored the

Court to set aside the impugned Judgment.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

submissions advanced by Shri Gupta. She urged that there is

consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the accused

persons were operating the water pump in such a manner which

(7 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

was likely to damage the common passage. The victim Gopal

rightfully objected to this illegal act of the accused who became

violent and raised arms without any justification. Indiscriminate

injuries were inflicted to the victim Gopal and the witness

Bhagwan Singh (PW-1). An axe blow was inflicted by the accused

Hanuman Singh on the head of the victim Gopal which proved

fatal. Thus, the learned Public Prosecutor urged that the impugned

Judgment is based on an apropos appreciation of evidence and

does not warrant any interference. She therefore, implored the

Court to dismiss the appeal of the appellants.

8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material

available on record.

9. First of all, we would like to observe that the allegations

levelled by the victim Gopal in the written report (Ex.P/1)

regarding the accused Hanuman Singh and Kuldeep Singh having

driven their tractor over him is patently false and fabricated. The

injured eye-witness Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) did not support this

theory. The medical evidence was also falsifies this allegation and

even the trial court discarded the same. It is also noteworthy that

when Gopal gave the written report (Ex.P/1), the investigating

officer did not notice any significant medical issue with him and

the FIR was registered for minor offences under Sections 143,

341, 323 and 336 of the IPC. Gopal was medically examined on

24.11.2013. The opinion regarding the incised wound

admeasuring 5 cm. X .05 cm. X deep bone noticed by the Medical

Jurist on the left side of the head was kept reserved for receiving

(8 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

the X-ray report. As per the record, X-ray was carried out

regarding the head injury of Gopal for the first time as late as on

10.01.2014 wherein, the presence of a bony injury is reported.

Just on the reverse side of the X-ray report, the medical jurist

noted that "the injury No.1 could be dangerous to life". Gopal

survived for almost 2 months and 6 days after the incident. The

prosecution claims that in the intervening period, he was

subjected to multiple surgical procedures for treatment of the

head injury. However, the medical report/ bed-head ticket/

operation notes pertaining to the treatment of Gopal in the

intervening period, were not proved by the prosecution nor was

any of the doctors, who treated the victim, examined at the trial.

There is a total void in the prosecution case on this vital aspect of

the matter. Thus, a serious question mark is evident on the case

of the prosecution that the head injury attributed to the accused

Hanuman Singh was actually the reason behind death of Gopal. As

per the averments made in the written report (Ex.P/1) and the

statements of the prosecution eye-witnesses Bhagwan Singh (PW-

1), Hanuman (PW-2), Man Singh (PW-3), Prahlad (PW-2) and

Mohan Singh (PW-5), a sudden fight erupted between the parties

when the deceased Gopal tried to obstruct the accused persons

from operating the water pump. Neither any investigation was

carried out on the aspect whether the accused were acting illegally

while operating the water pump nor could the prosecution prove

that there was any illegality in the act of the accused while

operating the water pump. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination

can the accused appellants be imputed with the common intention

for committing the offences alleged. Thus, we are of the firm view

that the conviction of the accused appellants Gopal Singh, Kuldeep

(9 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

Singh and Bahadur Singh for the offence under Section 302 with

the aid of Section 34 of the IPC is totally unwarranted. As has

been discussed above, the deceased Gopal expired after 2 months

and 5 days of the incident. There is no clear evidence on record to

satisfy the Court that the head injury inflicted by the accused

Hanuman to the victim Gopal on 24.11.2013, was life endangering

or grievous. Gopal himself went to the Police Station and

submitted the FIR and at that time, the police officials did not

notice anything amiss in his condition. The Medical Jurist (PW-8)

Dr. G.P. Goyal clearly stated in his evidence that when postmortem

was carried out, the wound on the head of the deceased was

noted to be a post operative wound and pus was oozing out

therefrom and the cause of death was opined to be septicemia.

Therefore, a strong doubt is created in the mind of the Court that

the there is no nexus between the injury which was attributed to

accused Hanuman and Gopal's death. As has been noted above,

the incident took place on 24.11.2013. In the first instance, when

Dr. G.P. Goyal examined the injured, he noticed the presence of

the head injury but no abnormality was noticed in his vital

parameters. Opinion regarding cause of death was reserved for X-

ray examination which was carried out for the first time on

10.01.2014 i.e. after 48 days of the incident. The prosecution case

is totally silent regarding condition of the deceased Gopal or the

nature of treatment provided to him in the intervening period from

the incident to his death on 29.01.2014. Even otherwise, the

cause of death of Gopal was opined to be septicemia. Otherwise

also, the said injury was inflicted in the heat of the moment after

a sudden quarrel flared up because of the action of the deceased

himself in trying to obstruct the accused from operating the water

(10 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

pump. We therefore find considerable force in the submissions of

the appellants' counsel that the offence attributed to the accused

Hanuman would not be that punishable under Section 302 IPC and

would rather fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. For reaching to

this conclusion, our view is fortified by the Supreme Court

Judgment in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh, reported in AIR 2018 SC 2693 wherein, it was held as

below:-

"21. Having taken into consideration, the statement of witnesses on questions of fact, it would be appropriate to have thorough look at the question of law pertaining to Culpable Homicide. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the defense emerging from the evidence is that the deceased party arrived at the place of the incident wherein PW-13 started verbally abusing the accused which ensued a sudden fight resulting in the injuries being caused to the deceased and while so the High Court failed to appreciate that there was no premeditation on behalf of the appellant-accused and the entire incident was due to a sudden fight and the High Court ought to have invoked Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

22. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC reads as under: Exception 4.-Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

23. There is no dispute about the ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the following conditions are to be satisfied namely: (i) that the incident happened without premeditation; (ii) in a sudden fight;

(iii) in the heat of passion; (iv) upon a sudden quarrel and (v) without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

24. It may be relevant to note that in the case of Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, (2004) 11 SCC 395,

(11 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

it was held as under-For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code, it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The fourth exception of Section 300 Indian Penal Code covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A "sudden fight" implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight Page 6 of 9 suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused: (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to

(12 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

Section 300 Indian Penal Code is not defined in Indian Penal Code. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as used in the provision means "unfair advantage".

25. Thus, the totality of circumstances of the case on hand would amply show that there was a sudden verbal quarrel and evidently there was no pre- meditated plan to attack the deceased. In view of the civil disputes already pending between both the families, a minor verbal exchange bloated into a sudden physical attack.

26. In Camilo Vaz vs. State of Goa, (2000) 9 SCC 1, referring to the ambit of Section 304 of the Code, this Court in similar set of circumstances held thus: "This section is in two parts. If analysed the section provides for two kinds of punishment to two different situations. (1) if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Here important ingredients is the "intention"; (2) if the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. When a person hits another with a danda on vital part of the body with such a force that the person hit meets his death, knowledge has to be imputed to the accused. In that situation case will fall in part II of Section 304 IPC as in the present case."

(13 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

27. Again, this Court in Deo Nath Rai vs State of Bihar and Others etc, AIR 2017 SC 5428 observed - "Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, it is clear that it was only the accused -Parsuram Rai who had assaulted Mohan Rai with the help of sword, whose assault resulted grievous injury, and the deceased Mohan Rai ultimately succumbed to the said injury during the course of transit to the hospital. The incident had taken place when the deceased was returning from the disputed land and the accused persons were busy in the adjacent field transplanting paddy seedlings from where they saw Mohan Rai crossing their land. There was no premeditation of any kind on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. However, the eye witnesses have deposed that accused

-Wakil Rai came and started quarreling Page 7 of 9 with Mohan Rai when other family members also joined. The quarrel not only suddenly erupted but also escalated without any premeditation. As rightly concluded by the High Court, the whole incident was spontaneous and went out of hand that too within short spell of time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, though the High Court was justified in altering the conviction of the accused from Section 302 and 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC, it was not justified in imposing lesser sentence on the accused..."

28. It is important to have a look at the evidence of PW 5-Dr. Arvind Kanwar who has conducted Post mortem and according to him there was an incised wound on the right parietal region of size 4" and 10" above right ear and another incised wound of 1" in size on the right index finger. He has deposed that "the brain was found congested, yet no fracture was seen on the scalp". Though in the cross examination he has stated at one place that the injury No 2 on the scalp might be 'grievous' that caused brain hemorrhage. This particular fact is not noted in the postmortem report. Regarding the cause of such injury, PW5 stated that it can be caused by striking with sharp edged object and the depth of the scalp injury depends upon the force and speed. He maintains the stand that it was a 'scalp injury' and not 'skull injury'. Moreover, he did not measure the depth of the head injury which was necessary for classification of injury.

(14 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

29. We may note that the injury to the head resulted in Extra-Dural and Sub-Dural Hematoma. We are conscious of the fact that such symptoms of the same may take some hours to develop in many cases as has happened in this case at hand. [Modi, A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 25th Eds., p. 701]. We are also apprised that in such cases a detailed post-mortem may be necessary and it is important to know the existence of prior medical history and condition. In this case a generalized statement by the Doctor conducting the postmortem that he had causally enquired about any existing medical condition with the deceased. It may further be relevant to note the extract from the Modi, A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, wherein it is noted that- It must be born in mind that a slight injury on the head may cause cerebral hemorrhage in a person previously predisposed to it from age or disease [Id. At 704].

30. The above opinion goes to show that the injury no. 2 on the scalp resulted in hemorrhage which has not been duly accounted for. Moreover, the force and gravity of assault indicates that the aforesaid assault was carried out with only sufficient knowledge of likely death of the deceased in a free fight situation. Had he got intention to commit the murder of the deceased by inflicting such injury, he might have used the weapon with sufficient force and in that case, definitely it would have caused a deep injury causing fracture of skull. This court is bound to show some deference to this particular aspect while evaluating the facts and circumstances of this case at hand.

31. In the case on hand, the death is not instantaneous, but the deceased died after sometime, due to hemorrhage. When several persons of the accused group wielding weapons attacked the deceased, it is surprising to see only two injuries, that too, two simple injuries alone are inflicted; of course, one such simple injury turns out to be fatal sometime later. This circumstance demonstrates that the appellant had no intention to cause death, though he has knowledge that the weapon used by him to inflict injury on the scalp of the deceased may cause death.

(15 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

But in the absence of intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the offence does not fall within the scope of Section 300, IPC but it will fall within Section 304, Part II of the IPC.

32. We, therefore, hold that the appellants Manoj

are guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and not for the offence under Sec. 300 IPC. Their conviction under Section 302 IPC is, therefore, set aside. While modifying the conviction accordingly, the appellants are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. However, we are informed that the appellants have already undergone more than 11½ years imprisonment so far, consequently, the appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case."

10. As a consequence of the above discussion, we hereby set

aside the impugned Judgment dated 24.09.2016 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court) Sawai Madhopur

in Sessions Case No.41/2016 in toto qua the appellants Gopal

Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Bahadur Singh and acquit them of the

charges. So far as the accused Hanuman Singh is concerned, we

alter his conviction from the offence punishable under Section 302

read with Section 34 IPC to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. The

accused appellant Hanuman Singh has suffered substantive

sentence of nearly 7 years and 8 months. We therefore feel that

the sentence already undergone by the accused Hanuman Singh

would subserve the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the appeal of Hanuman Singh is allowed in part.

While setting aside his conviction for the offence punishable under

Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, we tone down the offence

and convict him for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and

reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by him

(16 of 16) [CRLA-1091/2016]

which is nearly 7 years and 8 months. In addition thereto, he is

sentenced to pay a fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and in default

of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple

imprisonment. The accused Gopal Singh, Kuldeep Singh and

Bahadur Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. The

accused Hanuman Singh is in custody. He shall be released from

prison upon depositing the amount of fine (if not wanted in any

other case).

11. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A

Cr.P.C., each of the appellants is directed to furnish a personal

bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like

amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for

a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a

Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of

notice thereof, the appellants shall appear before the Supreme

Court.

The appeal is partly allowed in these terms.

12. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.

                                   (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J                                     (SANDEEP MEHTA),J




                                   TIKAM DAIYA/









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)