Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kewal Chand Alias Neeta Son Of Sarwan Ram ... vs State Of Punjab on 26 July, 2012
CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999
Decided on : 26th July, 2012
1. Kewal Chand alias Neeta son of Sarwan Ram aged 21 years,
resident of Molu Mazra, P.S. Mahilpur.
2. Sarabjit Singh alias Raju son of Daulat Ram, aged 20 years,
resident of village Thakrowal, P.S. Mahilpur, District
Hoshiarpur.
..... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH
*****
Present: Mr. S.S. Hira, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Gian Singh Mungo, Addl. AG, Punjab for respondent.
***** S.P. BANGARH, J Challenge, herein, the appeal is to the legality and propriety of judgment and order of sentence dated 22.10.1999 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur rendered in Sessions case No. 22 of 06.01.1998/25.071998 and Session Trial No.24 of 07.09.1998, emanating from FIR No. 92 dated 04.09.1997, under Sections 376, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short-IPC) registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur, whereby, the CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 2- appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of ` 2000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 (2) IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for commission of offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The case of the prosecution is that on 01.09.1997, mother of the prosecutrix asked her to come to bus stop of village Bham for taking articles and when she was going towards bus stop of Village Bham and was little ahead of Government Middle School Thakrowal, appellants met her and told her that her mother was sitting at bus stop Bham and both took her on their scooter to bus stop Bham where her mother was not present. Thereafter, appellants took her to the shop of Neeta, where she was offered tea containing some intoxicant and after taking tea, she lost senses and then both the appellants took her to village Bham in an Orchard where appellant, Neeta threatened her that in case she raised alarm , she would be killed and, thereafter, appellant, Raju caught hold her arms and appellant, Neeta opened her salwar and underwear and then appellant, Neeta committed rape upon her due to which blood started oozing and later appellant, Neeta caught hold her arms and appellant, Raju committed rape upon her.
While committing rape, both the appellants also gave biting on her thighs, face and other parts of the body. They kept her there CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 3- till the evening and then took her to village Naugram on their scooter. A little behind of village Naugram, she was taken to the maize fields, where she was threatened that in case, she reported this matter to anybody, she would be killed and again appellants committed rape upon her and abandoned her outside village Naugram. Thereafter, she reached house of her paternal aunt Harbax Kaur wife of late Bikkar Singh and narrated the occurrence to her. She stayed that night with her aunt and on next morning, her aunt Harbax Kaur took her to her parents where she narrated the occurrence to her father and, thereupon, the latter and one Paramjit Singh came to village Naugram and she narrated the whole occurrence to them also. Then, her aunt and father got her admitted in the Civil Hospital, Mahilpur on 03.09.1997, where a lady doctor conducted her medical examination.
On the basis of the aforementioned statement of the prosecutrix Ex.PJ, formal FIR Ex.PJ/2 was recorded by Iqbal Singh ASI in Police Station Mahilpur. Investigating Officer, Darshan Singh ASI, inspected the spot, prepared site plan Ex.PM with correct marginal notes and also seized the clothes of the prosecutrix vide memo Ex.PN, which were salwar Ex.P1, shirt Ex.P2, chunni Ex.P3 and underwear Ex.P4 and arrested both the appellants on 14.09.1997 and also got them medically examined.
After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Mahilpur instituted police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appears that the appellants have committed offences punishable CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 4- under Sections 376, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. On presentation of police report, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to the appellants and the case was later committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who framed charge under Sections 376, 506 read with 34 IPC against the appellants, whereto, the latter pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.
At the trial, prosecution examined Dr. Surinder Kaur as PW-1, Dr. Surinder Ganger as PW-2, Dr. Jaswinder Singh as PW-3, prosecutrix as PW-4, Constable Mohinder Singh as PW-5, Harbax Kaur as PW-6, Paramjit Singh as PW-7, Patwari Lobhaya Ram as PW-8, ASI Darshan Singh as PW-9, Constable Iqbal Singh as PW- 10, Constable Karnail Singh as PW-11, Constable Yog Raj as PW- 12, Sukhdev Singh as PW-13 and ASI Iqbal Singh as PW-14 and closed evidence later.
After the close of prosecution evidence, appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, they denied all the allegations of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.
Appellant No.1 Kewal Chand @ Neeta stated that he is handicapped and suffering from Polio. Appellant, Sarabjit Singh @ Raju also gave his version that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to party faction in his village.
Appellants were called upon to enter in defence and they examined Dr. J.S. Bains as DW-1 and Daulat Ram as DW-2.
After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court convicted CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 5- and sentenced the appellants as described in the first paragraph of this judgment vide impugned judgment and resultant order of sentence. Aggrieved, therefrom, the appellants, who were accused before the learned trial Court, have come up in this appeal with a prayer for acceptance thereof, and for their acquittal of the charge framed against them.
Learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent have been heard and record of the learned trial Court perused with their assistance.
PW-1 Dr. Surinder Kaur, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur deposed that on 03.09.1997 at 2.30 p.m., she examined prosecutrix, aged 16 years, who was brought by Harbax Kaur, her paternal aunt. She testified that patient was conscious, cooperative, her blood pressure was 100/60 and pulse was 90 per minute, her menses cycle was 28-30 days and her last date of menses was 31.08.1997. Her menarche age was 2 years before and her hair were cut from the front of head irregularly with scissors. She complained of pain during and after the act and there was no effect of alcohol and drug.
PW-1 Dr. Surinder Kaur, further testified that the clothes were changed after the act and she also took bath. She further testified that there were scratches on the upper side of both the breasts, which were of dark brown colour and there were also scratches on face, right side of cheek and pubic hair were non matted and she did not find any dried blood on the pubic hair. She further testified that vaginal bleeding was moderate, fresh, odourless CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 6- and tenderness was present and there was no laceration of hymen. She further testified that vagina admitted two fingers tightly; there was no redness of hymen; vaginal smear was taken from the posterior fornices and was tested by the technician, CHC, Mahilpur; sample of vaginal smear was taken and one culture tube and one slide was sent for chemical analysis to the Chemical Examiner Patiala, she also proved the correct carbon copy of the MLR as Ex.PA and pictorial diagram showing the seats of injuries as Ex.PA/1. She also proved report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PB and she opined that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse and injuries on her person could be caused if she resisted from the sexual intercourse and these could be caused during the course of sexual intercourse.
PW-1 further testified that on 03.02.1997, she sent chit Ex.PC to the Police Station Mahilpur regarding the admission of prosecutrix in the hospital. She also proved the police request Ex.PD and her opinion Ex.PD/1 declaring prosecutrix fit to make statement. She also proved her opinion Ex.PE/1 on police request Ex.PE made by her on 06.09.1997.
PW-2 Dr. Surinder Ganger, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur testified that on 27.09.1997, she conducted the x-ray examination of prosecutrix and gave her skeleton age between 16- 1/2 to 17 years. She proved her report Ex.PF and skiagrams Ex.PF/1 to Ex.PF/4.
PW-3 Dr. Jaswinderwant Singh, Medical Officer, CHC Mahilpur testified that on 15.09.1997 on police request Ex.PG, he CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 7- conducted medico-legal examination of Sarabjit Singh, appellant, and opined that there was nothing to suggest that Sarabjit Singh, appellant was unable to perform sexual act. He also proved his report Ex.PG/1. He also testified that on the same day, on police request Ex.PH, he medically examined Kewal Chand, appellant and vide his report Ex.PH/1, he declared him fit to perform sexual intercourse.
PW-4 prosecutrix corroborated the case of the prosecution as described in the earlier part of the judgment and proved her statement Ex.PJ, made before the police.
PW-6 Harbax Kaur also testified that a year back on 1st September, prosecutrix came to her at 11.00 p.m. and she was nervous and told that the appellants had raped her in the garden of village Bham and in the maize fields of village Naugram and she went to village Thakrowal at 11.00 a.m. on the next day, to the house of her brother leaving prosecutrix at her house, but nobody met her as they all had gone in search of prosecutrix. She also testified that the parents and uncle of prosecutrix returned at about 5.00 p.m. and she narrated them the incident as told by the prosecutrix to her and then the parents and uncle of the prosecutrix came to her house and took the prosecutrix to the hospital at Mahilpur.
PW-7 Paramjit Singh stated that on 02.09.1997 at about 9.00 a.m. when he was going to his shop, he received a message that prosecutrix was missing and he alongwith the father of the prosecutrix went to village Naugram who was nervous and weeping and on their asking, she told them the whole story. He further CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 8- testified that the clothes of the prosecutrix were later on washed, which were drenched with blood.
PW-8 Patwari Lobhaya Ram, prepared the site plan Ex.PL. PW-9 Darshan Singh ASI, testified that on 03.09.1997, he received a wireless message from Police Station Mahilpur regarding the admission of prosecutrix in the hospital and after collecting chit Ex. PC, he moved application Ex.PD, whereupon doctor, gave his endorsement Ex.PD/1, declaring the prosecutrix fit to make statement, but on that day, prosecutrix was nervous. He then recorded her statement Ex.PJ on the next day and he entered this fact in the DDR and made his endorsement Ex.PJ/1 and on the basis thereof, formal FIR Ex.PJ/2 was recorded by ASI Iqbal Singh. He further testified that he visited the spot on 07.09.1997 and prepared the rough site plan Ex.PM with correct marginal notes. He also testified that he seized the clothes of the prosecutrix vide Memo Ex.PN, which were salwar Ex.P1, shirt Ex.P2, chunni Ex.P3 and underwear Ex.P4.
PW-13 Sukhdev Singh Headmaster, proved certificate Ex.PS, of the prosecutrix wherein, her date of birth was recorded as 21.04.1981.
PW-14 Iqbal Singh ASI, proved the FIR Ex.PJ/2 recorded by him on the basis of statement Ex.PJ.
PW-5 Constable Mohinder Singh, PW-10 Constable Iqbal Singh, PW-11 Constable Karnail Singh and PW-12 Constable Yog Raj tendered their affidavits Ex.PK, Ex.PP, Ex.PQ and Ex.PR respectively.
CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 9-
DW-1 Dr. J.S. Bains testified that handicapped certificate was issued in favour of Kewal Chand, appellant wherein, his disability was assessed as 40%.
DW-2 Chowkidar Daulat Ram brought the chowkidar register for the year 1979 and testified that prosecutrix was born to Swaran Chand and Vidya Devi of village Thakrowal on 20.09.1979 and proved the birth entry Ex.DB.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent contended that the appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment and order. He also contended that the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and that was rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court for holding the appellants guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) and 506 IPC. He also contended that there were injuries on the person of prosecutrix and, therefore, she cannot be said to be a consenting party to the sexual intercourse. He also contended that the medical evidence suggests rape upon the prosecutrix.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent has placed reliance upon "State of Haryana v. Anil Kumar, 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 299", wherein, it was held that in the instant case, prosecutrix was uneducated, unsophisticated and utterly poor, therefore, benefit of consent by such girl cannot be given.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent also placed reliance upon "Farukh v. State of Haryana, CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 10- 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 210", wherein it was held that the testimony of prosecutrix can be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. Even if no injury on the person of the prosecutrix is found, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent further placed reliance upon "Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 2003 (3) RCR (Criminal) 455", wherein it was held that in case of gang rape if the prosecutrix states that she did not consent to sexual intercourse, the Court is to presume that she did not consent. In the instant case prosecutrix was a simple village girl, therefore, there was no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent also placed reliance upon "State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shree Kant Shekari, 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 345", wherein it was held that rape was committed on a girl of 14 years by her teacher. It was further held that no girl of a tender age and her parents would like to jeopardize her entire future by falsely implicating a person alleging forcible sexual intercourse and accused was convicted without corroboration.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellants rightly contended that the consensual sexual intercourse has been blown out of proportion from the very beginning and the appellants were wrongly held to be guilty of commission of rape upon prosecutrix. While on the contrary she was a consenting party and the appellant, Kewal Chand @ Neeta was 40% disabled, as can be CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 11- seen from the testimony of DW-1 Dr. J.S. Bains. Therefore, he was not capable of commission of rape and he could only commit consensual sex with the prosecutrix.
Learned counsel for the appellants also rightly contended that the ruling, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shree Kant Shekari (Supra) relied upon by the respondent was rendered in a case where rape was committed on a girl of 14 years by her teacher. One fails to understand as to how this ruling can bolster the case of the respondent especially when the prosecutrix in the case in hand was more than 17 years of age, as per medical evidence.
Ruling, Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supra) relied upon by the respondent is also not applicable in this case as the appellants had taken stand from the very beginning that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and there was no injury on her private parts.
Ruling, Faruq Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) relied upon by the respondent is also inconsequential as the prosecutrix was below the age of 16 years and, therefore, her consent for consensual intercourse was inconsequential.
Ruling, State of Haryana Vs. Anil Kumar (Supra) relied upon by the respondent is also inconsequential as in para 32 of this judgment, the age of the victim was described as 14 years and 7 months when she disappeared from her home, so, she was incapable of giving her consent being below 16 years of age. According to the medical evidence of PW-2 Dr. Surinder Ganger, skeleton age of the prosecutrix was between 16 1/2 and 17 years. CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 12- According to the school certificate produced by PW-13 Headmaster Sukhdev Singh, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 21.04.1981. So, according to this certificate also on the day of alleged occurrence, she had already completed the age of 16 years. There is no dispute even about the age of the prosecutrix being more than 16 years at the time of alleged occurrence.
Even according to the testimony of DW-2 Daulat Ram, Chowkidar, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 20.09.1979 whose testimony remained unshattered and in this manner, the prosecutrix was even more than 18 years of age. As per prosecution version, after the alleged rape, prosecutrix was dropped in her father's sister's house in Village Naugram at about 11.00 p.m on 1.9.1997, but the FIR was lodged on 04.09.1997 and this, delay has not been properly explained. Even PW-1, Dr Surinder Kaur, who medico-legally examined prosecutrix on 03.09.1997, declared the prosecutrix fit to make statement vide endorsement Ex.PD/1, but even then her statement was not recorded by the police as her father stated that she was nervous.
When once prosecutrix had been declared fit to make statement by PW-1 Dr. Surinder Kaur, her non-recording of statement by the police due to her alleged nervousness causes considerable doubt in the prosecution version and inference can be drawn that she may not be agreeing to implicate the appellants for alleged commission of rape upon her and she would have been compelled to suffer false statement containing allegation of rape against the appellants. So, in this view of the matter, the delay in CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 13- lodging the FIR assumes significance and causes considerable doubt in the prosecution version.
PW-9 Darshan Singh ASI, explained that the prosecutrix was nervous and her statement, therefore, was not recorded, but this explanation is meritless especially when PW-1 Dr. Surinder Kaur had declared the prosecutrix fit to make statement meaning, thereby, that she was not at all nervous and if, due to nervousness, she would have been incapable of suffering statement, in that event, PW-1 Dr. Surinder Kaur, would not have declared her fit to make statement.
So, PW-9 Darshan Singh ASI, should have followed the medical advice of PW-1 and when she was declared fit to make statement, no other option was available to him save to record her statement and that would have been a correct statement but when recording of statement Ex.PJ of the prosecutrix, was deferred uptill 04.09.11997 then that made the version of the prosecutrix doubtful and possibility of coxing and goading prosecutrix to suffer statement Ex.PJ indicting, therein, the appellants as rapist cannot be ruled out.
Even, if the prosecutrix was nervous on 03.09.1997, in that event, the statement of Pw-6 Harbax Kaur or PW-7 Paramjit Singh, who were apprised about the version of alleged rape by the prosecutrix, could be recorded by the police for lodging FIR with promptitude. Prosecutrix in her statement Ex.PJ alleged that the appellants gave bites on her face and cheeks and such injuries could have been suffered by fondling. Even, PW-1, during her testimony deposed that there were scratches on the upper side of both the breasts and on face and cheek. During cross-examination, she CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 14- testified that it is not necessary that female who resisted for sexual intercourse shall have marks of violence on thigh. Even she admitted that in the MLR Ex.PA of the prosecutrix, she did not mention about the mark of violence on her thighs as there was none. She also testified that possibility of injury on the breast and cheek having been caused during the fondling cannot be ruled out.
In, this, view of the matter, it must follow that in case of consensual sex, injuries which were found on the person of the prosecutrix, can be suffered. So, the injuries on the person of the prosecutrix cannot lead to the conclusion that these occurred when resistance was given by the prosecutrix.
During day time, she was taken on scooter by the appellants. If she would not have been consenting party, she had not joined the company of the appellants. It is her case that the appellants told her that her mother was sitting at bus stop Bham and on this pretext, she joined them on scooter to bus stop Bham, but her mother was not available there. She was in the company of both the appellants, who were males and she being female should have been reluctant to travel with them on the scooter, which is a vehicle for travelling of two persons. Joining of prosecutrix with the appellants on scooter indicates her consent for flirtation and eventually the consensual sex. Though she stated that some intoxicant was administered to her in the tea, but that was not found by the Medical Officer during her examination. When her mother was not found at bus stop Bham, then she should have suspected the intention of the appellants and she should have departed company with them. Non CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 15- departing of company by the prosecutrix with the appellants at bus stop Bham is indicative of her consensual sexual intercourse with the appellants.
During the day time, the appellants took the prosecutrix to Village Bham in an orchard, which did not belong to the appellants and she should have raised alarm when the appellants allegedly undertook to have sex with her. Alleged rape was later committed in the maize field of Village Naugram, which also did not belong to the appellants. Here again the prosecutrix had an occasion to raise alarm to attract the villagers for her emancipation from the appellants. Her silence on this matter, whereon, she should have acted with alacrity is indeed intriguing and is indicative of consensual sex with the appellants.
Prosecutrix in her testimony admitted that if one has to go to Village Naugram from village Bham, first village Chabbewal comes, and then comes village Chaggran. She admitted that there were many shops in bus stop Chabbewal and she did not raise alarm in bus stop chabbewal. Her explanation is that the appellants had given threat to her. Even, if it is so, she should have raised hue and cry to get her emancipated from the appellants and that would indicate that she was a consenting party to the alleged occurrence and if, she would not have been a consenting party, she would not have travelled with the appellants on their scooter and also she would not have gone to village Bham where she was allegedly raped and on the way throughout, she had an opportunity to raise hue and cry to attract the passers-by, who could help her in emancipation or CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 16- atleast they had informed the police.
Learned counsel for the appellants rightly placed reliance upon "Kishori Lal v. State of Haryana, 2009 (5) RCR (Criminal) 446", rendered by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein, it was held that when two views are possible on the adduced evidence, the one which favours the accused ought to be adopted. In this case, there was unexplained delay of 12 hours in lodging FIR and conviction was set aside. In the case in hand, there is a delay of three days in lodging FIR.
Learned counsel for the appellants also rightly placed reliance upon "Kuldeep K. Mahato v. State of Bihar, 1999 (5) BCR 81", rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, accused was acquitted as prosecutrix was a consenting party. It was also held that there was no evidence that accused kidnapped the prosecutrix with intention to marry her against her will or in order that she may be forced to illicit intercourse. Accused and prosecutrix lived nearby. Prosecutrix stated that accused met her in Bazar, forced her to sit in Tempo at point of dagger and took her to a village where she was raped. It was held that she had opportunity to run away and could take help of neighbours. So, it was held that prosecutrix was a consenting party.
Learned counsel for the appellants rightly placed reliance upon "Shyam and another v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 AIR (SC) 2169", rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, it was held that prosecutrix did not put up struggle or raised alarm while alleged to be taken away by accused. It was also held that she CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 17- went with accused on her own. It was held that culpability of accused is not established and the conviction was set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellants rightly placed reliance upon "Bahadur Ali v. State of Punjab and others, 2011 (3) AICLR 750", rendered by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein, allegations were that prosecutrix was abducted by accused with the aid of co-accused and was taken in bus at Kalka, where he committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent and, thereafter, she was bought by accused to his house. Accused person acquitted by the trial Court. It was held that the prosecutrix is a consenting party as since when she was taken by accused on bus, she had sufficient opportunity to raise hue and cry, but she did not do so.
So, the fact remains that prosecutrix herself joined the company of the appellants for consensual sex with them and if she had no such intention, she would not have boarded the scooter of the appellants for going to bus stop Bham and if at the most, she had believed them that her mother is at bus stop Bham then on reaching there, she should have understood the evil design of the appellants and should not have gone further with them and at bus stop Bham, where she did not find her mother present, she would have gone away from the appellants. Her further association with the appellants from bus stop Bham till the orchard of Village Bham, where she was allegedly raped, is indicative of the fact that she herself wanted to submit herself to the appellants for sexual intercourse.
It is improbable that during day time, people would not be CRA No. S-1149-SB of 1999 - 18- present at the bus stop Bham and at other places from where she passed on scooter with the appellants. So, in sum, she had an occasion to expose the design of appellants by raising alarm while travelling on their scooter and at that time, she could struggle for her emancipation and if she had done so, help of the passers by would have been easily available to her for her emancipation from the appellants. If she would not have been consenting party, she would not have gone to the orchard at village Bham and then to maize field in the area of village Naugram, where at both the places she was allegedly raped. So, at both the places, she consented for sex and later out of fear being punished by her parents for her absence from the house, she fabricated the prosecution version alleging commission of rape by the appellants upon her.
Learned trial Court, thus, wrongly, convicted and sentenced the appellants vide impugned judgment and order of sentence, which are liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to be accorded benefit of doubt in this case by holding that they had consensual sex with the prosecutrix.
Resultantly, appeal succeeds and is, hereby, accepted; impugned judgment and order of sentence are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them by the learned trial Court.
(S.P. BANGARH) JUDGE JULY 26, 2012 sham