Sattar Khan vs State And Ors. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 996 Raj

[2023/RJJD/002236]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 924/2011

Sattar Khan son of Gafoor Khan by caste Musalman, Resident of Bada Bas, Jaitaran, District Pali

----Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Umrao son of Shri Kishanlal, by caste Darji, Resident of Gopal Ji Ka Mohalla, Regaron ka Bada Bas, Beawar Police Station Kotwali, Beawar, District Ajmer

3. Raju Khan alias Shaukat Khan son of Shri Niyamat Khan, by caste Musalman, Resident of Sipahiyon ka Bada Bas, Jaitaran, Police Station Jaitaran, District Pali

4. Niyamat Khan son of Shri Mukti Khan, by caste Musalman, Resident of Sipahiyon ka Bada Bas, Jaitaran, Police Station Jaitaran, District Pali

5. Smt. Rukiya wife of Shri Niyamat Khan, by caste Musalman, Resident of Sipahiyon ka Bada Bas, Jaitaran, Police Station Jaitaran, District Pali

6. Imran son of Shri Nathu Khan, by caste Musalman, Resident of Sipahiyon ka Bada Bas, Jaitaran, Police Station Jaitaran, District Pali

7. Rafique Khan son of Shri Babu Khan, by caste Musalman, Resident of opposite Tehsil, Bilara, District Jodhpur

8. Bablu alias Nisar son of Shri Nathu Khan, by caste Musalman, Resident of Aakhaliya, Merta City, District Nagaur

----Respondents

CONNECTED WITH

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851/2011

Umrao S/o Kishanlal, by caste Darji, R/o Gopalji-ka-Mohalla, Regaron-ka-Bada, Beawer (Distt. Ajmer)

---Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

[2023/RJJD/002236] (2 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K. Poonia for appellant - Sattar Khan

For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP

Mr. Suresh Kumbhat Mr. D.S. Udawat for accused-

respondents (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 924/2011)

Mr. Suresh Kumbhat for appellant -

                                Umrao     (S.B. Criminal   Appeal
                                No. 851/2011)



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

                          Judgment / Order
25/01/2023

By the Court (Per Hon'ble Vijay Bishnoi, J)

These two appeals have been preferred against the

judgment dated 27.9.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Pali, Headquarter Jaitaran (for short

'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.31/2003.

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.924/2011 is preferred on

behalf of complainant-appellant Sattar Khan challenging

acquittal of respondent No.2 - Umrao from the offences

under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC; respondent No.3 - Raju

Khan @ Shaukat Khan from the offences under Sections 302,

120-B and 201 IPC and accused-respondent Nos.4 to 8 from

the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC.

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.851/2011 is preferred on

behalf of appellant - Umrao challenging the impugned

[2023/RJJD/002236] (3 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

judgment dated 27.9.2011 passed by the trial court, whereby

he has been convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC

and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment with a

fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further

undergo three months' simple imprisonment.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant-appellant

Sattar Khan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.924/2011) filed a

written report (Ex.P/1) dated 12.8.2000 before the SHO, PS

Jaitaran at 7:30 AM stating therein that his younger brother

Salim is living with him and when he did not reach the home

in the night of 9.8.2000, he started searching for him at

about 11:00 PM because his gouna (Muklava) was to be

solemnized on 11.8.2000. The complainant, in his written

report, has stated that he searched his younger brother at

everywhere, but today at 4:00 AM, Mumtaj Khan S/o Sattar

and Salim S/o Rafiq knocked his door and called him and

when he came out from the house, Salim S/o Rafiq told him

that dead body of his younger brother Salim is lying on the

road and he also told that when he came out of the house, he

saw that the tenants of Niyamat Khan namely Nathmal

Patwari, Shyamlal @ Bhupendra, Umrao were dragging the

dead body of his younger brother Salim and they threw it on

the road, however, when they reached there, all of them ran

away. It is further stated by the complainant that he informed

about the incident to the police on telephone and the

[2023/RJJD/002236] (4 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

respected residents of the colony had also seen the dead

body of his brother, which was in bad shape and eyes of the

dead body were burnt by some substance. It is further stated

that the house, from where the dead body of Salim was

dragged was stinking badly and skin of his hand was stuck in

a Moped, lying in the house. It is also alleged by the

complainant that his brother was detained by accused

persons Nathmal, Shyamlal @ Bhupendra and Umrao and

they killed him. It is also alleged that some more persons are

involved in the commission of murder of his brother.

On receiving the report, the police reached the spot,

prepared a site map and started investigation. The accused

persons namely Nathmal, Shyamlal @ Bhupendra and Umrao

were arrested from the house of Nathmal and other evidence

was also collected by the police from the house of Nathmal.

After recording statements of the several persons and

collecting evidence, the police filed charge-sheet against the

accused persons. The post mortem of the dead body was

conducted but cause of death is not mentioned in the post

mortem report, however, it is mentioned that the cause of

death of the deceased cannot be ascertained because the

dead body is badly decomposed.

After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against

accused persons Shyamlal @ Bhupendra, Nathmal, Umrao

and Raju Khan for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and

[2023/RJJD/002236] (5 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

120-B IPC and filed charge-sheet against accused persons

Niyamat Khan, Smt. Rukiya, Imran, Rafiq Khan and Bablu for

the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 176 IPC. As the

case was triable by Sessions Court, it was transferred to the

court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sojat, Camp

Jaitaran and from there it was transferred to the trial court.

The trial court has framed charges against the accused

Shyamlal @ Bhupendra, Nathmal, Umrao and Raju for the

offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC, however,

accused Niyamat, Smt. Rukiya, Imran, Rafiq and Bablu were

charged for the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC.

Since accused Nathmal died during trial, the proceedings

against him were dropped and as accused Shyamlal was

found juvenile, his case was sent to the Juvenile Justice

Board, Pali.

To prove the charges against the accused persons, the

prosecution has produced as many as 26 witnesses and also

exhibited certain documents and articles. Statements of the

accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC,

wherein it is claimed that they have falsely been implicated in

the case. Accused Niyamat Khan, Smt. Rukiya, Raju, Imran

and Bablu, in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, have

stated that dead bodies of two pigs were lying in a nearby

plot and on account of that, bad smell was spread in the

entire colony.

[2023/RJJD/002236] (6 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

The trial court, after analyzing the evidence produced by

the parties, has acquitted the respondent No.2 from the

offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, however,

convicted him for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The trial

court has acquitted the respondent No.3 from the offences

under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC and respondent

Nos.4 to 8 from the offences under Sections 201 and 176

IPC.

Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel

appearing for appellant - Sattar Khan has argued that the

trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the respondent No.2

from the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC and

respondent No.3 from the offences under Sections 302,

120-B and 201 IPC and the respondent Nos.4 to 8 from the

offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC. It is argued that

the trial court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence

and material produced on record in right perspective and has

illegally acquitted the accused vide judgment impugned. It is

further argued that though, the instant case is based on

circumstantial evidence, however, the chain of events is

linked by the prosecution by producing cogent and reliable

evidence, but the trial court has illegally disbelieved the same

for mechanical reasons.

Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, argued

that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the

[2023/RJJD/002236] (7 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

accused respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced

for the offences, they were charged by the trial court.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the private

respondents has vehemently argued that the trial court has

not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent No.3

from the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC

and respondent Nos.4 to 8 from the offences under Sections

201 and 176 IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove

cogent and reliable evidence to connect them with the

commission of offence. It is argued that admittedly the

prosecution has failed to produce any direct evidence and the

case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial

evidence only. It is submitted that the respondent Nos.4 to 8

were charged for the offences under Sections 201 and 176

IPC for the reason that they had not informed the police

regarding the dead body, which was hidden in their house.

Learned counsel has submitted that the accused persons

namely Nathmal and Shyamlal @ Bhupendra were the

tenants of respondent No.4 Niyamat Khan, but the portion

which was rented to them is altogether separate from the

residence of the respondent Nos.4 to 8. It is argued that the

trial court has also taken note of the fact that house of

respondent No.4 Niyamat Khan was having two portions, one

of which was rented out to accused Nathmal and Shyamlal @

Bhupendra and there is only one door between both the

[2023/RJJD/002236] (8 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

portions which was not found open. It is also submitted that

the trial court has also taken note of the fact that on the plot

situated near the house of respondent No.4 Niyamat Khan,

dead bodies of two pigs were lying from last two to three

days and they were stinking badly, due to which, all the

residents of the colony were suffering. It is further argued

that as a matter of fact, the respondent Nos.4 to 8 had no

access to the rented premises, as such, there was no

occasion for them to know that one dead body is lying in the

rented premises because the smell of dead bodies of two pigs

was also spread all over the colony. It is further submitted

that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to

the effect that the respondent Nos.4 to 8 were aware of the

fact that the dead body was lying in the rented premises.

Learned counsel has, therefore, argued that the trial court

has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent

Nos.4 to 8 from the offences under Sections 201 and 176

IPC.

It is further argued that so far as the case against

respondent No.3 Raju Khan @ Shaukat Khan is concerned,

the prosecution has produced complainant Sattar Khan

(PW-2), who has stated that he saw deceased Salim in the

company of accused Raju and Shyamlal in the night of

9.8.2000. Learned counsel has argued that simply because

Sattar Khan (PW-2) saw the respondent No.3 Raju alias

[2023/RJJD/002236] (9 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

Shaukat Khan in the company of deceased Salim on

9.8.2000, it cannot be concluded that he was connected with

the commission of crime in any manner. It is argued that no

corroborative evidence of this effect has been produced by

the prosecution that the respondent No.3 was last seen with

deceased Salim on 9.8.2000. Learned counsel, thus,

submitted that the trial court has rightly acquitted the

respondent No.3 Raju Khan @ Shaukat Khan for the offences

under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC.

So far as respondent No.2 Umrao is concerned, learned

counsel Mr. Suresh Kumbhat has argued that though the trial

court has rightly acquitted him from the offences under

Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, but it has erred in convicting

and sentencing him for the offence under Section 201 IPC.

Learned counsel has submitted that as the prosecution has

failed to prove involvement of respondent No.2 with the

commission of crime, the trial court has rightly acquitted him

from the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, but

despite there being no admissible evidence against the

respondent No.2 in this regard, the trial court has convicted

him for the offence under Section 201 IPC. It is, therefore,

argued that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court

acquitting the respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the offences

under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC and the respondent

Nos.4 to 8 from the offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC

[2023/RJJD/002236] (10 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

is liable to be affirmed, however, the judgment of the trial

court convicting and sentencing the respondent No.2 for the

offence under Section 201 IPC is liable to be set aside.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

scrutinized the record.

First of all, we deal with the case of the respondent

Nos.4 to 8 viz. Niyamat Khan, Smt. Rukiya, Imran, Rafique

Khan and Bablu @ Nisar to ascertain whether the prosecution

has produced reliable and cogent evidence to bring home the

guilt of the above named accused respondents, for which,

they have been charged.

Admittedly, no direct evidence in respect of commission

of crime is available against the above named respondents

and the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence.

On the basis of written report (Ex.P/1) submitted by

Sattar Khan (PW-2), the police registered FIR No.237/2000

(Ex.P/111) at Police Station Jaitaran, Distt. Pali on 12.8.2000.

In the written report, the respondent Nos.4 to 8 have not

been named, whereas accused Nathmal, Shyamlal and Umrao

have been named. The prosecution case against the

respondent Nos.4 to 8 is this that though they were aware

about the dead body hidden in the rented house of Nathmal,

but they did not inform the police about the same. The

prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to the effect

that the respondent Nos.4 to 8 were aware of the fact that

[2023/RJJD/002236] (11 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

co-accused Nathmal, Shyamlal and Umrao murdered

deceased Salim and hid his dead body in the house. To

establish the charge under Section 201 IPC, the prosecution

first has to prove that an offence has been committed and the

accused knowing or having reason to believe that an offence

has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission

of that offence to disappear.

From the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, it

can be gathered that the prosecution has failed to prove that

the respondent Nos.4 to 8 had reasons to believe that the

offence has been committed and despite having the

knowledge tried to screen the offender by disposing of the

dead body.

Sattar Khan (PW-2), in his court statement, has simply

stated that he is having doubt that the respondent No.4,

Niyamat Khan, respondent No.7 Rafique Khan and respondent

No.8 Bablu @ Nisar along with co-accused Raju, Shyamlal,

Nathmal, his son-in-law and one lady are involved in the

commission of crime. The other witnesses namely Salim

(PW-1) and Mumtaj (PW-3) have stated that they saw

accused Shyamlal, Nathmal and respondent No.2 Umrao

dragging the dead body of Salim, however, they have not

uttered a word against the respondent Nos.4 to 8.

Shaira (PW-7), mother of deceased Salim, has also not

deposed a single word against respondent Nos.4 to 8. The

[2023/RJJD/002236] (12 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

police also did not recover anything related to the case at the

instance of the respondent Nos.4 to 8.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Palvinder Kaur Vs. The

State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1952 SC 354 has held

as under :

"15. In order to establish the charge under section 201, Indian Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed - mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient, - that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed, and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false."

Relying on Palvinder Kaur's case (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel Vs. The

State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2018 SC 951 has held

as under :

"15. Thus, the law is well-settled that a charge Under Section 201 of the India Penal Code can be independently laid and conviction maintained also, in case the prosecution is able to establish that an offfence had been committed, the person charged with the offence had the knowledge or the reason to believe that the offence had been committed, the said person has caused disappearance of evidence and such act of disappearance has been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Mere suspicion is not sufficient, it must be proved that the Accused knew or had a reason to believe that the offence has been committed and yet he caused the evidence to disappear so as to screen the offender. The offender may be either himself or any other person."

[2023/RJJD/002236] (13 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, if we go through the evidence produced by the

prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to

prove the charges against the respondent Nos.4 to 8 for the

offences under Sections 201 and 176 IPC. The explanation

given by the respondent Nos.4 to 8, in their statements

recorded under Section 313 CrPC that the dead bodies of two

pigs were lying in the nearby plot from two to three days and

bad smell was spread in the entire colony is reasonable and

the trial court has rightly relied upon the same.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any

illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court

acquitting the respondent Nos.4 to 8 from the offences under

Sections 201 and 176 IPC.

So far as respondent Nos.2 and 3 viz. Umrao and Raju

@ Shaukat respectively are concerned, they were charged

with the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC. To

bring home the guilt of the accused respondent No.3 Raju,

the prosecution has come out with a case that he was seen

with the deceased on 9.8.2000, however, no corroborative

evidence of last seen is produced by the prosecution.

Admittedly, respondent Raju was not named in the

complaint/FIR filed by Sattar Khan (PW-2). Though, Sattar

Khan (PW-2) has stated that he saw respondent Raju, but no

other evidence corroborating the said version of Sattar Khan

[2023/RJJD/002236] (14 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

(PW-2) was produced by the prosecution to prove the charge

under Section 120-B IPC. The prosecution has to produce

evidence to the effect that two or more persons conspired

together to commit an offence or and actionable ground, that

is say, there should be a prima facie evidence that the person

was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used

against the co-conspirators.

In the present case, though Sattar Khan (PW-2) has

stated that deceased Salim was seen in the company of

accused respondent Nos.2 and 3 Umrao and Raju

respectively, but no other evidence is produced by the

prosecution to the effect that the above named accused

respondents were in agreement to kill deceased Salim.

So far as charge for the offence under Section 201 IPC

against the respondent No.3 Raju is concerned, again the

prosecution has failed to prove that respondent No.3 was

having knowledge of murder of deceased Salim and with the

intention to screen the offender, he caused the evidence to

disappear.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the

case, we hold that the trial court has not committed any

illegality in acquitting the accused respondent No.3 for the

offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC.

So far as respondent No.2 Umrao is concerned, though,

the trial court has acquitted him from the offences under

[2023/RJJD/002236] (15 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, but convicted for the offence

under Section 201 IPC. Admittedly, the dead body of

deceased Salim was found in early hours of 12.8.2000 and as

per the prosecution, he was missing since night of 9.8.2000.

As per the post mortem report, dead body of Salim was badly

decomposed and his death occurred two to three days prior

to the day when his dead body was found.

After analyzing the prosecution evidence, the trial court

has held that the prosecution has failed to produce any such

evidence that the accused respondent No.2 was present in

Jaitaran prior to 12.8.2000 when the dead body of Salim was

found. The trial court has held that no direct evidence is

available on record to suggest that the respondent No.2

Umrao along with accused Nathmal and Shyamlal @

Bhupendra either murdered deceased Salim or had conspired

to commit his murder along with the above named accused

persons.

After carefully scrutinizing the evidence produced by the

prosecution, we are of the view that the prosecution has

failed to produce any evidence to the effect that prior to the

day when the dead body of the deceased was found, the

accused respondent No.2 Umrao had entered into conspiracy

with the accused respondents namely Nathmal and Shyamlal

to commit murder of deceased Salim and, in such

circumstances, no fault is found with the decision of the trial

[2023/RJJD/002236] (16 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

court acquitting the accused respondent No.2 from the

offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC.

So far as conviction of respondent No.2 Umrao for the

offence under Section 201 IPC is concerned, the trial court

has placed heavy reliance on the fact that accused

respondent No.2 Umrao was found in the house of accused

Nathmal on 12.8.2000 and he was arrested along with

accused Nathmal and Shyamlal @ Bhupendra. The trial court

has also placed reliance on the fact that the clothes of

respondent No.2 were found in a washing machine in the

house of Nathmal, whereon, body remains and blood stains of

the deceased were found.

Though, the prosecution has produced two witnesses

namely Salim (PW-1) and Mumtaj (PW-3), who have stated

that they saw respondent No.2 dragging the dead body of

deceased Salim from the house of Nathmal along with co-

accused Nathmal and Shyamlal and after seeing this, they

ran away towards their house and bolted the door, but the

trial court has disbelieved their testimony and found that

their presence at 4 AM is highly doubtful.

Now, the evidence of arrest of the respondent No.2

Umrao from the house of Nathmal on 12.8.2000 and recovery

of clothes from the washing machine from the house of

Nathmal containing body remains and blood stains of

deceased Salim is the only evidence on which the trial court

[2023/RJJD/002236] (17 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

has placed reliance while convicting him for the offence under

Section 201 IPC. Simply because the respondent No.2 Umrao

was arrested along with co-accused persons namely Nathmal

and Shyamlal @ Bhupendra, it cannot be said that he

disposed of the dead body of the deceased. As observed

earlier, the case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial

evidence only as no direct evidence is available on record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navaneethakrishnan

Vs. The State, reported in AIR 2018 SC 2027 has held as

under :

"23. The law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the Accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to Rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the Accused. When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The court in mindful of caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by this Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the

[2023/RJJD/002236] (18 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypotheses that except the Accused, no one had committed the offence, which in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove."

It is important to note that the prosecution has

produced two witnesses namely Salim (PW-1) and Mumtaj

(PW-3), who have stated that they saw the respondent No.2

while dragging the dead body of the deceased from the house

of Nathmal along with other co-accused persons, but the trial

court has not relied upon their testimony and disbelieved the

said witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the prosecution

has failed to produce any reliable and clinching evidence

regarding the chain of events, on the basis of which, only

irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can

safely be drawn. The chain of events gets snapped when the

trial court has not relied upon the testimony of two witnesses

i.e. Salim (PW-1) and Mumtaj (PW-3).

It is also to be noticed that the trial court has placed

reliance on another piece of evidence i.e. recovery of clothes

of the respondent No.2 from a washing machine from his

house containing blood stains and body remains of the

deceased. As per the FSL report, human blood was found on

the clothes recovered from the accused respondent No.2, but

the prosecution has not produced any evidence to the effect

that the blood found on the clothes is of what group and the

same is matching with the blood group of the deceased.

[2023/RJJD/002236] (19 of 19) [CRLA-924/2011]

Simply finding of human blood on the clothes of the

respondent No.2 Umrao does not by itself establish his guilt

unless he connects with the murder of deceased Salim.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that

the trial court has erred in convicting the accused respondent

No.2 Umrao (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.924/2011) for the

offence under Section 201 IPC and the said conviction cannot

be sustained.

Resultantly, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.924/2011 is

dismissed.

However, S.B. Criminal Appeal No.851/2011 preferred

on behalf of appellant - Umrao is allowed and the conviction and

sentence awarded to him by the trial court for the offence under

Section 201 IPC is set aside. The impugned judgment passed by

the trial court is modified accordingly.

Appellant - Umrao is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.

He need not surrender.

Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

95-msrathore/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)