Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Of on 15 June, 2016
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 239 of 2004
Reserved on: 16.05.2016
.
Date of decision: 15.06.2016
State of H.P. ... Appellant
Versus
of
Vikram Singh alias Bikku and others ... Respondents
Coram :
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the appellant: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. Advocate General
with Mr. Vikram Thakur, Mr. Puneet Rajta,
Deputy Advocate Generals and Mr. J.S.
Guleria, Assistant Advocate General.
For the respondents: Mr. Jitender P. Ranote, Advocate, for the
respondents.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, as Amicus
Curiae.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.:
The present appeal has been filed against judgment dated 16.03.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1998, wherein the accused have been acquitted for the charges framed against them under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 22. The case of the prosecution was that Indira Devi was permanent resident of village Jajjar, Pargana Geharwin, Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur and her husband Lal Singh had been working .
in P.S.E.B. at Amritsar in 1998. Kumari Radha Devi who was their daughter, was a student of Government Degree College, Ghumarwin. Accused No. 1 to 4 were putting up near the house of PW-12 in village Jajjar. On 17.05.1998 there was 'Mundan' of ceremony of grand-son of one Sunka Ram resident of Jajjar and among others Kumari Radha Devi had also attended the said rt 'Mundan' ceremony. After the function was over, Kumari Radha Devi came back to her house at about 10.00 P.M. on 17.05.1998.
Thereafter, as it was summer season she went to the roof of her house for sleeping. Accused No. 1 Vikram Singh tried to climb to the roof of her house in a clandestine manner, however, Kumari Radha Devi saw him and she raised alarm on account of which he managed to escape. Radha informed her mother (PW-12) of the said act of accused No. 1 and PW-12 asked the mother of accused No. 1 to reprimand him.
3. On 18.05.1998 in the morning, accused No. 1 and his father Mangat Ram had started entertaining ill-will against PW-12 and her daughter. On 22.05.1998 at about 8.30 P.M., PW-12 was in the courtyard of her house and accused No. 1 started quarrelling with PW-12. Radha Devi rushed to rescue her mother and accused No. 1 released PW-12 and pounced upon Kumari Rahda Devi.
Accused No. 1 picked stick Ext. P-1 and inflicted injuries with the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 3 said stick on the left side of head of Radha. He inflicted multiple injuries with the stick on the person of PW-12. Accused No. 2 started instigating accused No. 1 to cause injuries to PW-12 and her .
daughter. Accused No. 1 also attempted to dishonour Radha.
Timely intervention of PW-5 Vikas, brother of Radha and son of PW-12 as well other villagers, saved PW-12 and Radha Devi from accused No. 1 and 2. Radha became unconscious as a result of of the injuries to caused to her. PW-12 and her son took Radha to their house. After sometime Radha got up and had vomited and rt thereafter, she again became unconscious. PW-12 examined her daughter and found that she was no more. She told her son to inform PW-13 Champa Devi of the said occurrence. Champa Devi who was member of the Gram Panchayat reached the house of PW-
12. PW-13 had informed PW-12 that the matter shall be looked into on the next date. After the death of Radha, accused No. 1 and 2 started proclaiming in the village that Radha had consumed poison and had died as a result of poisoning. Villagers had collected at the house of PW-12 on 23.05.1998 in the morning. Accused No. 3 and 4 asked the villagers to consign the dead body of Radha to flames or else PW-12 and her family members would be harassed by the police. Honour of the family was also involved since the girl of a very young age had committed suicide. Accused No. 3 and 4 with the help of the villagers started preparing for consigning the dead body to flames. Accused No. 2 to 4 and villagers took the dead body to the cremation ground and had put the same on pyre and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 4 had lit the same. PW-6 Kaushalya Devi, sister of PW-12, was informed of the murder of Radha on the night intervening 22.05.1998 and 23.05.1998. The police was informed of the .
occurrence vide report No. 11, Ext. PW2/A of the daily diary of Police Station, Bilaspur, at 10.00 A.M. on 23.05.1998.
4. On receipt of the information of murder, PW-16 S.I. Surinder Singh, Police Station, Sadar Bilaspur, alongwith other police of officials rushed to village Jajjar. He was informed that the dead body had been taken for cremation, hence he rushed to the cremation rt ground on the bank of the river Sutlej and found the dead body on the pyre, which was on fire. Some villagers were present near the dead body. PW-16 got extinguished the fire and deployed the police at the cremation ground to take care of the dead body. He recorded the statement of PW-12 Ext. PW10/A and routed the said statement to the Police Station for registration of crime under Sections 302/201/34 I.P.C. PW-16 got the pyre and the burnt portion of the dead body of Radha photographed. Accused No. 1 made disclosure statement and got sticks Exts. P-1 and P-2 recovered. PW-16 took into possession the material vomited out by Radha on the night intervening 22.05.1998 and 23.05.1998. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted. Cause of the death could not be ascertained since certain parts of the body and soft tissues stood burnt and the remaining portion of the dead body stood charred and burnt.
The police had sent for chemical examination the material vomited ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 5 by Radha and as per the report of the Chemical Examiner, it was found that there was no poison in the material vomited by her.
5. After the completion of the investigation, the case was .
forwarded to the Court and the accused No. 1 and 2 were charged for offences under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., whereas accused No. 3 and 4 were charged for offences under Section 301 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and all the accused pleaded not guilty and of claimed trial.
6. On the basis of the material placed on record by the rt prosecution before the learned trial Court, the said Court came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the case of the prosecution. As per the learned trial Court, the cause of the death of the deceased could not be determined and the prosecution had not examined any independent witnesses to prove the charges framed against the accused and the evidence of the prosecution simply meted out the suspicion against the accused persons but the prosecution had failed to prove and establish charges under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to the hilt. Accordingly, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences alleged against them.
7. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate Genera has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was not sustainable as the same was based on hypothesis, surmises and conjectures rather then the evidence produced on record by the prosecution. According to him, learned trial Court has erred in not ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 6 appreciating the evidence on record and the judgment passed by the said Court is a result of the slipshod manner in which the entire case has been dealt with by the learned trial Court. Further, .
according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the learned trial Court has not appreciated that Sunka and Rattani Devi who were the eye witnesses of the incident were given up as having been won over by the accused. According to him, during the trial of of the case, it came to the notice of the prosecution that Sunka Ram and Rattani were the brother and sister-in-law of accused Hukam rt Singh and Sunka Ram had collected villagers and started proclaiming that Kumari Radha had consumed poison and as a result of the same, she had died and he had pressurized family of deceased to consign the dead body to flames as the matter related to death of a young daughter and the honour of the family was involved. According to him, in view of the evidence on record and the application of the father of the deceased, the prosecution had rightly given up the eye witnesses and there was no other independent witness to corroborate the evidence of PW-5 Vikas and PW-12 Indira Devi. He has further argued that the learned trial Court has not appreciated that it is not as if the case of the prosecution is to be proved only if the case is supported by independent witness. According to him, the veracity of the witnesses case of the prosecution could not be impinged by the defence and this very important aspect of the matter had not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. He has further argued that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 7 the learned trial Court has not appreciated the fact that PW-12 had received injuries. He further argued that grave error has been committed in sidelining the disclosure statement of accused Vikram .
Singh on the basis of which weapon of offence was recovered.
According to Mr. V.S. Chauhan, in the present case, on the basis of the evidence on record the prosecution had proved beyond any reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. However, the learned trial of Court had in an erroneous manner rejected the case of the prosecution and has wrongly acquitted the accused of the charges rt framed against them. Accordingly, he prayed that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the accused be convicted for the offences charges against them.
8. Mr. Jitender P. Ranote, learned counsel for the respondents and Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae, have argued that it cannot be said that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is either perverse or the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are not borne out from the records of the case. According to them, the learned trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. They further submitted that the accused cannot be convicted on mere suspicion and in the present case, the prosecution had failed to take its case from "the level of suspicion to the level of conclusive proof" that the accused in fact were guilty of the offences alleged against them. On these basis, they prayed that the judgment passed by the learned trial ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 8 Court warrants no interference and the appeal being without any merit deserves dismissal.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well .
as the learned Amicus Curiae and also gone through the records of the case including the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
10. In the present case, the prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses.
of
11. PW-1 Dr. J. Goswami had medically examined Indira Devi PW-12 on 23.05.1998. In his opinion, the nature of injuries rt were simple caused by blunt weapon.
12. PW-2 Anil Kumar has stated that he is permanent resident of village Jajjar and on 23.05.1998 at around 7-8 A.M., he came to know of the death of Radha Devi who had been put to death in a quarrel by the accused persons. He further stated that on receipt of this information, he rushed to the house of Indira and had examined the dead body of Radha. He noticed injury on the left side of head above face on the person of Radha. The accused persons were preparing for the cremation of the dead body and thereafter, he telephonically informed the police about the crime.
He was declared as a hostile witness. He denied that the police had taken into possession stick Ext. P-1 at the instance of accused No. 1. He stated that in his presence accused Vikram Singh had not given disclosure statement. It is pertinent to mention that Anil Kumar was the cousin of deceased Radha and his mother and PW-
12 are real sisters. In his cross-examination, he has stated that it ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 9 was correct that many residents of village had collected at the house of Indra and the gathering included Pradhan, Up Pradhan and members of the Gram Panchayat. He has also admitted that all .
those present had been preparing for cremation of the dead body and that all the villagers of village Jajjar had taken the dead body of Radha for cremation to the cremation ground and thereafter the dead body was consigned to flames. This witness has been of confronted with his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which he has not recorded that when he came to know about the rt death of the deceased he rushed to the house of Indira and he examined the dead body of Radha and noticed injuries.
13. PW-3 Jagan Nath has stated that accused Vikram Singh had made a disclosure statement Ext.PW2/B and on the basis of said disclosure statement, two sticks were recovered.
14. PW-4 H.C. Prem Lal has stated that he had taken the photographs at the cremation ground.
15. PW-5 Vikas is brother of the deceased. According tohim, on 22.05.1998 at around 8.30 P.M., he was present at his house alongwith his mother and sister, who were present outside his room.
His grand-mother Smt. Jasodha was also present with his mother.
Accused No. 1 Vikram Singh picked up a quarrel with his mother and sister. At that time, Vikram Singh was not armed with any weapon. His mother had requested accused No. 1 not to quarrel with his sister. Accused No. 1 tried to drag his sister towards his house and stated that he would dishonour his sister by forcibly ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 10 taking off her Salwar. His mother intervened and the accused No. 1 released his sister and rushed to his house and returned alongwith his father Mangat Ram and at that time, he was armed with stick .
Ext.P-1 and his father accused No. 2 Mangat Ram was armed with stick Ext. P-2. Accused No. 2 had been instigating accused No. 1 to eliminate his sister. Accused No. 1 had inflicted one blow with stick towards the left side of head of his sister and she fell down and of had turned unconscious. Thereafter, accused No. 1 inflicted injury with stick to his mother. Rattani Devi and Sunka came to the site rt after they heard the noise of quarrel and they also saw accused No. 1 inflicting blow with stick on the head of his sister and causing hurt to his mother. According to him, he also saw accused No. 1 inflicting injuries to his mother and sister. He further stated that when his sister became unconscious, he rushed to inform Champa Devi, Ward Member of the Gram Panchayat of the said occurrence.
He narrated the incident to her and she accompanied him to his house. Chamba Devi had seen injury on the head of his sister and informed him and his mother that the matter would be sorted out on the next day. She also stated that she would send for accused No. 1 and his father. After some time, his sister vomited out same material and thereafter, she died. He has also stated that his grand-father was present at the house on that day. He further stated that his sister suffered injury on the left side of the head and the said injury had slightly bled. According to him, his sister had also started bleeding from nose. He has further stated that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 11 accused No. 3 and 4 reached their house and other villagers had also collected there. Thereafter, accused No. 3 and 4 had started saying that they were to say that Rahda had died as a result of .
pain in her stomach. Accused No. 1 to 4 had started saying that the dead body was to be consigned to flames or else decomposition would start. They also stated that incase the matter is reported to the police then family of deceased Radha would be harassed by the of police. Accused No. 1 to 4 had collected the entire material meant for consigning dead body to flames during the night. Accused No. 3 rt and 4 and one Sunka Ram had also informed them that they were to tell others of the death the Radha was a result of consumption of poison. He further deposed that accused No. 1 inflicted 4-5 blows to his sister Radha and his mother. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he and his mother took his sister from the site of the occurrence to the courtyard. He has further stated that Champa Devi reached their house after about 10 minutes. Civil Dispensary/PHC was at a distance of about 1 K.M. from their house. He has further stated that he did not inform Pradhan, Up Pradhan or other members of the Gram Panchayat of the occurrence on the night intervening 22.05.1998 and 23.05.1998. He further stated in his cross-examination that when the dead body was lifted from their house, at that time there was 50-100 persons. He also stated that he accompanied the dead body. He has also stated that when the police reached the cremation ground, he was present there. He denied the suggestion that his grand-mother had been ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 12 administering solution of Lassi and tobacco to his sister. He has also denied that that his sister had consumed poison and had died as a result of poisoning.
.
16. PW-6 Kaushalya Devi had deposed that PW-12 is her elder sister and on 23.05.1998 in the morning she had come to know of the death of Radha. When she reached the house of Indira she found the dead body of Radha was being given bath by of the ladies of the village. She stated that there was mark of injury on the head of Kumari Radha. When she asked Indira as to how rt Radha had suffered injuries, her sister Indira had informed her that accused No. 1 and 2 had picked up a quarrel with Radha and herself on the previous night and accused No. 1 had inflicted injuries with stick on the head of Kumari Radha and on her back side. She also stated that her sister had suffered injuries on her arm. She also deposed that the villagers were present there and were saying that Kumari Radha had taken poison and had died as a result of poisoning and that the dead body be consigned to flames forthwith or else the police would harass the members of the family.
In her cross-examination, she has been confronted with her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein it was not recorded that she was informed of the injuries caused to Radha by her sister Indira. She has admitted that when she reached the house of her sister, the villagers were preparing for cremation of the dead body.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 1317. PW-7 Dharamvir had taken the photographs on 23.05.1998 at the instance of police.
18. PW-9 H.C. Paramvir Singh has deposed that he had .
registered rapat No. 11 Ext. PW2/A in the daily diary on 23.05.1998.
19. PW-11 H.C. Balbir Singh has deposed that he had taken 3 sealed packets from Police Station Sadar and deposited such packets in the laboratory of Chemical Examiner at Junga on the next of day.
20. PW-12 Indira Devi has stated that on 17.05.1998 rt Radha had visited the house of Sunka Ram in connection with a function in his house and she returned back at about 10.30 P.M. On the said date, she informed her that accused Vikram Singh had tried to dishonour her. PW-12 informed the mother of the accused about the said incident and asked her to reprimand her son. On 22.05.1998 at about 08.30 P.M., she was present in her house alongwith her mother-in-law, her daughter and her son. Accused Vikram Singh started quarreling with her daughter and threatened to molest her. Accused Mangat Ram was also accompanying accused Vikram Singh. She has in fact deposed that "Vikram Singh had started quarrelling with my daughter Kumari Radha and had threatened to forcible take off the Salwar of my daughter. The accused person Mangat Ram was accompanying the accused person Vikram Singh. The accused person Mangat Ram had asked the accused person Vikram Singh to beat my daughter. The accused person ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 14 Vikram Singh had caused multiple injuries with stick to my daughter and had dragged her towards his house."
21. She further stated when she tried to save her daughter, .
accused Vikram Singh had caused multiple injuries with stick to her, Her daughter fell down unconscious and her mother-in-law and her son had seen accused persons causing multiple injuries to her daughter. They informed Champa Devi, Ward Member of the Gram of Panchayat of the occurrence, who reached their house and informed them that she would take action on the next day. Her rt daughter died on the night intervening 22.05.1998 and 23.05.1998 after Champa Devi had left. On the next day, accused No. 3 and other accused persons and Sunka Ram had collected villagers at their house and started proclaiming that her daughter had consumed poison and had died as a result of poisoning. They pressurized her family to consign dead body to flames as the matter related to a daughter of young age and the honour of the family was involved. Thereafter, the villagers had consigned the dead body of Radha to flames. In her cross-examination, she admitted that her son was present in the cremation ground and that she had not reported to anyone about the alleged incident, which took place on 17.05.1998, as the matter related to her grown up daughter. She has also denied that her daughter committed suicide with a view to get rid of harassment, which was given to her by her family.
22. PW-13 Champa Devi has stated that she was a Ward Member of Gram Panchayat Geharwin in 1998 and on 22.05.1998 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 15 at around 8.30 P.M., mother-in-law of Indira Devi had reached her house and had informed her that accused Vikram Singh had been quarrelling with her family and had been using foul language .
against her family. On receipt of said information, she went to the house of Indira Devi. There was power shut down and no one was quarreling with any one. She informed Indira Devi that she will take action on the next day. Kuldeep was accompanying her. Both of of them left the house of Indira. Indira Devi had not informed her that accused Vikram Singh and his father had caused hurt to Radha.
rt This witness was declared as a hostile witness.
23. PW-14 Manohar Lal had put off the flames on the cremation ground on the asking of the police.
24. PW-15 Dr. V.K. Mishra has deposed that on 26.05.1998 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kumari Radha. He had stated that viscera could not be collected due to the extensive burn of internal organs (stomach, intestines etc.). No opinion was possible regarding poisoning and no injury over the bones could be seen so cause of death could not be ascertained. He has further opined that the cause of death cannot be ascertained in absence of certain body parts, soft tissue and burning and charring of remaining parts of the body.
25. PW-16 is the statement of Surinder Singh, who has corroborated the story of the prosecution.
26. In our considered view, a perusal of the statements of PW-5 and PW-12 demonstrates that there are major contradictions ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 16 in the same. Incidentally PW-5 and PW-12 are close relatives of the deceased. Whereas, PW-5 Vikas has mentioned in his statement that initially on the fateful night Vikram Singh had come alone and he .
had picked quarrel with his mother and sister and he was not armed with any weapon at that time and he tried to drag his sister towards his house and on the intervention of his mother he released his sister and rushed to his house and returned back alongwith his of father Mangat Ram with stick and thereafter, caused injuries to his sister. PW-12 Indira Devi, her mother, has given totally a different rt picture. According to PW-12, on the fateful night Vikram Singh started quarrel with his daughter and threatened to molest her and he was accompanied by accused Mangat Ram. As per her deposition, Mangat Ram asked Vikram Singh to beat her daughter and accordingly, accused Vikram Singh caused multiple injuries to her daughter. When she tried to save her daughter, accused Vikram Singh caused multiple injuries to her also. She has further deposed that PW-5 had seen accused Vikram Singh beating them.
27. Learned Additional Advocate General has not been able to convince us as to why there is major contradictions in the statements of PW-5 and PW-12. Further, there is no cogent explanation as to why the deceased was not immediately taken to the hospital in case she had received such fatal injuries on account of the beatings given to her by accused Vikram Singh. There is further no cogent explanation as to why immediately the matter was not reported to the police. Incidentally, even on the next day, it is ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 17 not the family of the deceased who have reported the matter to the police. It is an admitted fact that PW-5 had accompanied the dead boy alongwith other villagers to the cremation ground. The .
alleged occurrence which had taken place on 17.05.1998 has also not been reported by the family of the deceased to any person, though they have given an explanation as to why the same has not been reported.
of
28. Further, according to PW-5, it was he who went to the house of Champa Devi and intimated her the incident which took rt place on 22.05.1998. However, PW-13 Champa Devi has stated that it was the mother-in-law of Indira Devi who had reached her house and informed her that accused Vikram Singh was quarreling with her family.
29. Though, Champa Devi has been declared as a hostile witness. She has not been confronted with this part of her statement that it was not the mother-in-law of PW-12 who came to her house and informed her about the incident but it was PW-5.
30. This also demonstrates that the testimony of PW-5 is not trustworthy. Further, we have already pointed out above that both PW-5 and PW-12 had made improvements in the statements as were recorded by them under Sections 154 and 161 Cr.P.C.
31. Another contradiction in their testimony is that as per PW-5 Accused No. 3 and 4 reached their house in the intervening night itself and started propagating that the deceased has consumed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 18 poison whereas as per PW-12, these accused had come on the morning of 23.05.1998.
32. The factum of inconsistencies in testimony of .
close relatives of the deceased shrouds the entire story of the prosecution with suspicion. Thus, if there are clouds of suspicion in the story of the prosecution then in our considered view, the said suspicion cannot be made the of basis of convicting of accused.
33. Though, both PW-5 and PW-12 have come up with a rt version that the accused and the villagers were insisting that they should putforth a story that the deceased had consumed poison and further cremation of the deceased was hurried on this account to avoid any harassment on the hands of the police. There is no independent witness who can corroborate this story of the prosecution.
34. Unfortunately, because the dead body was recovered in a burnt and charred condition, the cause of death could not be ascertained from the postmortem of the dead body. If it could not be ascertained that the deceased had in fact died due to poison this fact also could not be ascertained that she had died on account of injuries inflicted to her by a stick by accused No. 1.
35. We will also now deal with the disclosure statement of PW-1, which is Ext. PW2/B.This disclosure statement has been allegedly signed in the presence of PW-2 Anil Kumar and PW-3 Jagan Nath. PW-2 Jagan Nath one of the witnesses of signing of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP 19 disclosure statement has denied that any such disclosure statement was ever made by the accused in his presence. Further, when the prosecution has otherwise failed to prove that the death of the .
deceased was caused as a result of injuries inflicted upon deceased by a stick, even if it is presumed that the alleged weapon of offence was recovered on account of the disclosure statement made by accused No. 1, still it cannot be made basis of convicting him.
of
36. Therefore, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, it can be safely inferred that the prosecution in fact rt has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of all the accused and the judgment returned by the trial Court of acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against them is neither perverse nor it suffers from any infirmity. The learned trial court in detail has discussed the evidence of the prosecution and thereafter, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. We agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court and uphold the said judgment. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, as we do not find any merit in the same. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.
(Sanjay Karol),
Judge
(Ajay Mohan Goel),
June 15, 2016(BSS) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:08 :::HCHP