Chattisgarh High Court
Premjit Deshmukh And Another vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2012
Judgment Reserved on : 12.01.2023
Judgment Delivered on : 02.02.2023
1. Premjit Deshmukh, aged about 29 years, Son of Puranlal
Deshmukh, R/o. Contractor Colony, Supela, P.S. Supela, District
Durg (C.G.)
2. Smt. Sarita Dehmukh, aged about 31 years, wife of
Jageshwar Deshmukh, R/o. Kuthrel, P.S. Anda, District Durg (C.G.)
---Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Police Station, Anda, District
Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Appellants : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Devesh Chand Verma, Govt. Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
CAV JUDGMENT
Per N.K. Chandravanshi, J.
1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants-accused under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (henceforth "Cr.P.C.") is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th December, 2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg in Sessions Trial No. 07/2010 2 [State of Chhattisgarh v. Premjeet Deshmukh & another], whereby they have been convicted & sentenced as under :-
Conviction Sentence
Accused - Premjit Deshmukh Life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
Under Section 302 of the Indian fine, to further undergo simple Penal Code. imprisonment for two months Accused- Smt. Sarita Deshmukh Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC Both the Accused /appellants Rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.500/-, in Under Section 201 of the Indian default of payment of fine, to Penal Code. further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
Both the sentences have been directed to be run concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.09.2009 one Nand Kumar Sahu (PW-9) seen dead body of female infant in the bank of river (Shivnath) of his village Runda and lodged merg report (Ex.P-26) at police station Anda. Inquest report (Ex.P-5) was prepared by Head Constable - Rajendra Deshmukh (PW-8), wherein it was found that it was dead body of female infant, aged about 4-5 days and it was in a condition of decomposing, maggots were also found on the said dead body. The dead body was sent for autopsy, where Dr. Raj Kumar Singh (PW-7) conducted postmortem on the dead body vide Ex.P-21. Three sealed packets given by doctor were 3 seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-20). One seized bone was sent for chemical examination. Spot Map (Ex.P-22) was prepared. After receiving the postmortem report, FIR (Ex.P-27) for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was registered against the unknown person on 16.9.2009 on the basis of merg enquiry.
2.1. During investigation, it was revealed that in the intervening night of 1 - 2 September, 2009, at 1.10 hours in night, wife of appellant Premjit Deshmukh gave birth to their third live female child in Government Hospital, Durg wherefrom his wife was discharged on 3.9.2009. Since appellant No. 1- Premjit Deshmukh was already having two girl child, hence, due to birth of 3 rd girl child, he angered and with the help of his maternal aunt [appellant No. 2 (ekeh)] made a plan to finish the newly born child. On 3.9.2009, after getting discharge of his wife, appellant Premjit Deshmukh took the newly born baby from her mother - Smt Kirti Deshmukh and gave the infant baby to appellant No. 2, thereafter, he dropped his wife in the house of his maternal uncle at village Kuthrel and came back to Durg and as per their plan, he alongwith appellant No. 2/accused took the child in the motorcycle at the place of occurrence i.e. near river at village Runda where Premjit Deshmukh in association with appellant No. 2 - Smt. Sarita Deshmukh murdered her by throttling and threw her dead body in the river. Memorandum statement of both the accused persons were recorded vide Ex. P-8 & P-9, respectively and arrested them. Motorcycle was seized vide Ex.P-10. Panchnama of 4 spot was prepared vide Ex.P-7. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Wife of appellant No. 1, namely Smt. Kirti Deshmukh was medically examined by Dr. Mamta Pandey (PW-11) on 22.09.2009 in which, vide Ex.P-15 she opined that Smt. Kirti Deshmukh gave birth to live female infant, 2 - 3 weeks prior to her medical examination.
2.2. After usual investigation, charge-sheet under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC was filed against both the accused/appellants in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
2.3 . Charges under Section 120B, 302 and 201 of the IPC were framed against appellant No.1/accused - Premjit Deshmukh whereas charges under Sections 120 B, 302 read with Section 34 and 201 of the IPC were framed against appellant No. 2/accused- Smt. Sarita Deshmukh, which were read over and explained to them, they abjured their guilt and entered into defence by making plea that they are innocent.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses and exhibited 37 documents in support of its case. Incriminating evidence brought by the 5 prosecution against the appellants were put to them, which they denied and pleaded their innocence in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Apart from this, one witness namely Bhaskar Mudaliyar @ Bachu (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case.
4. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. Against which, this appeal has been preferred by them questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the accused/appellants, as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that although wife of appellant No. 1 namely Smt. Kirti Deshmukh had given birth to one live female infant in the intervening night of 1 / 2, September, 2009 at District Hospital, Durg, wherefrom she was discharged on next day i.e. on 3.9.2009, thereafter, she had gone to her house alongwith her infant baby, but on the next day i.e. on 4.9.2009 due to jaundice her infant baby died, who have been cremated in the graveyard, despite that learned trial Court merely on the basis of DNA test report (Ex.P-29), has held that alleged deceased infant was the baby whom she [Smt. Kirti Deshmukh 6 (PW-1)] gave birth and has convicted the accused/appellants on the basis of inferences and conjectures based on the facts available on record, taking high imaginations about those facts. All the findings recorded against the appellants are only imaginary and suspicious, which cannot be a ground of conviction in a criminal trial. 5.1. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that learned trial Court has heavily relied on DNA test report (Ex.P-29) but collection of blood samples of appellant No. 1- Premjit Deshmukh and his wife Smt. Kirti Deshmukh and sending them to Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) has not been proved by adducing any oral and documentary evidence. Witness examined in this regard i.e. Vinod Kumar Singh (PW-12) has not proved any document in support of his statement, therefore, only on the basis of his baseless statement, aforesaid facts cannot be held proved. It is further submitted that case of the prosecution is wholly based on circumstantial evidence, but circumstances relied upon by the trial Court are wholly imaginary and suspicious. He would further submit that it is duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, non-proving of any fact in defence by the accused cannot be taken into consideration to convict them. She placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1, Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala & others 2 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 2 (2019) 8 SCC 50 7 and Malaichamy and another v. State of Tamil Nadu 3 in support of her submissions.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that although case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, but all the chain of circumstances has been proved by the prosecution and discussed by learned trial Court while passing impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Thus, impugned judgment passed by the learned Court is well merited, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment including record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.
8. Nand Kumar Sahu (PW-9), the then Sarpanch of village Runda, has stated in his deposition that on 6.9.2009 at about 8 AM in the morning when he was going to river to take bath, then he had seen the dead body of infant and lodged merg report (Ex.P-26), which is well supported by Head Constable - Rajendra Deshmukh (PW-8), who lodged merg report and conducted & prepared inquest report (Ex.P-5) of deceased infant. This fact has also been supported by village Kotwar - Mansharam (PW-2), who is the witness of inquest report. Rajendra Deshmukh (PW-8) has also proved FIR (Ex.P-27), which was registered by Assistant Sub Inspector Late Shri C.L. Nirmalkar, who could not have been 3 (2019) 17 SCC 568 8 examined due to his death.
9. Rajendra Deshmukh (PW-08), Head Constable, has stated that since dead body was in the state of decomposition, hence, on being sent the same to District Hospital, Durg, it was referred to Medical College, Raipur.
10. Dr. Rajkumar Singh (PW-7) conducted postmortem on the dead body of infant, in which he opined that, all muscles & soft tissues and organs were softened flabby due to decomposition and showing grayish blackish discoluration. He further opined that it was dead body of newly born female infant, who born live, after full term, sign of surgical intervention was found present, duration of death is within 2 days to 4 days prior to postmortem examination, he preserved two bones for diatoms test and DNA profiling, which were handed over to the police. In the postmortem report, he has not given his opinion in respect of cause of death and nature of death of deceased infant. He has stated in his deposition that since dead body was in the state of decomposition, hence, cause of death could not be ascertained. Thus, from the aforesaid evidences, it is proved that on 6.9.2009, dead body of newly borne female infant was found at village Runda in the bank of river (Shivnath) in a decomposing condition and due to which, cause of death and nature of death of the deceased could not have been ascertained in the medical examination. Dr. Rajkumar Singh (PW-7) had suggested for diatoms test of bone of deceased infant but report of such diatoms test has 9 not been filed and proved by the prosecution.
11. In the impugned judgment, learned trial Court, on the basis of circumstances, has assumed that either infant child was murdered prior to throwing it in the river or she died after throwing it in the river. Under this assumption, learned trial Court has held that nature of death of deceased infant was homicidal. Thus, it is evident from the record and impugned judgment that homicidal death of infant child has not been proved by the prosecution and the same has been inferred by the learned trial Court whereas in a criminal case, for conviction of appellants/accused under Section 302 of the IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that nature of death is homicidal. In the instant case, prosecution has utterly failed to prove such fact in respect of death of deceased infant.
12. As per the facts of the case and evidence available on record, Smt. Kirti Deshmukh (PW-1) was admitted in the Govt. Hospital, Durg for delivery where she gave birth to live female child in the intervening night of 1st -2nd, September, 2009 and she was discharged from the Hospital on 3.9.2009. These facts have also been admitted by the appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which also gets corroboration from the admission ticket (Ex.P-31) of Smt. Kirit Deshmukh, of Govt. District Hospital, Durg, which has been proved by Dr. Mamta Pandey (PW-11).
10
13. In the instant case, prosecution has filed DNA test report (Ex.P-29), which purports that, the DNA test performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that the source of exhibit A (bone) is from the biological daughter of the sources of exhibit B (Mrs. Kirti Deshmukh) and exhibit C (Mr. Premjit Deshmukh). Thus, deceased infant was the child, whom Smt. Kirti Deshmukh (PW-1) gave birth on 1st / 2nd - 9 - 2009 and, therefore, learned trial Court has held that Smt. Kirti Deshmukh and appellant No. 1 is mother & father of deceased infant.
14. As per the case of prosecution, blood samples of appellant No. 1- Premjit Deshmukh and Smt. Kirti Deshmukh (PW-1) was taken for DNA test to match DNA profiling with bone of deceased infant, but collection / procedure of collection of their blood sample has not been proved by the prosecution. To prove such fact, prosecution has examined Sub Inspector - Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh (PW-12), who has stated in his deposition that pursuant to the order of the High Court, blood sample of Premjit Deshmukh and his wife Kirti Deshmukh were taken on 27.05.2011 in the Govt. District Hospital, Durg for DNA profiling with deceased infant. As per his statement, he knows both the aforesaid persons and he was present while collecting their blood samples, but he has not proved any document to establish the fact that he had taken both the persons to District Hospital, Durg or he was present while collecting their blood sample. Identification form of Premjit Deshmukh and Smt. Kirti 11 Deshmukh have been filed but the same has not been proved by the prosecution. As per identification form enclosed with the record, Bhaskar & Poshan Lal have been shown as witnesses of collecting blood sample of aforesaid two persons, Pathologist has attested the documents and Lal Brijendra Kumar Shrivastava, D.S.P., Headquarter, State Police Service has also verified / attested the identification forms of both the persons, but none of the aforesaid witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.
15. Vinod Kumar Singh (PW-12) has stated that blood samples of Premjit Deshmukh and his wife Kirti Deshmukh (PW-1) were collected on 27.05.2011, but as per identification form of both of them, their blood samples were collected on 26.5.2011. Both these identification form do not contain signature of Vinod Kumar Singh (PW-12). He has also not proved any document to show that he had brought them for collection of blood samples in District Hospital, Durg. Hence, considering the aforesaid facts and particularly material contradiction about the date of collection of blood sample in his statement and both the identification forms, only on the basis of his oral statement, collection of blood sample of appellant No. 1 - Premjit Deshmukh and his wife Kirti Deshmukh cannot be held to be proved. Although, his statement has not been rebutted in cross- examination but only because of that, his such vague and baseless statement cannot be believed.
12
16. Prosecution has also failed to prove the fact that when and by which mode, the alleged bone of deceased infant and blood samples were sent for DNA test and where the same were sent. Any letter/Memo/Receipt, etc. in this regard have not been filed & proved by the prosecution.
17. In the case of Manoj & others v. State of Madhya Pradesh 4, Hon'ble Supreme Court has refereed an article in respect of DNA profiling, published by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid Article are reproduced below :-
"138. During the hearing, an article published by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata was relied upon. The relevant extracts of the article are reproduced below:
"Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA} is genetic material present in the nuclei of cells of living organisms. An average human body is composed of about 100 trillion of cells. DNA is present in the nucleus of cell as double helix, supercoiled to form chromosomes along with Intercalated proteins. Twenty- three pairs of chromosomes present In each nucleated cells and an individual Inherits 23 chromosomes from mother and 23 from father transmitted through the ova and sperm respectively. At the time of each cell division, chromosomes replicate and one set goes to each daughter cell. All Information about Internal organisation, physical characteristics, and physiological functions of the body is encoded in DNA molecules in a language (sequence) of alphabets of four nucleotides or bases: Adenine (A), Guanine (G}, Thymine (T} and Cytosine (C) along with sugar- phosphate backbone. A human haploid cell contains 3 billion bases approx. All cells of the body have exactly same DNA but it varies from individual to Individual in the sequence of nucleotides. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA} found in large number of copies in the mitochondria is circular, double stranded, 16,569 base 4 2022 SCC OnLine SC 677 13 pair in length and shows maternal inheritance. It is particularly useful in the study of people related through the maternal line. Also being in large number of copies than nuclear DNA, it can be used in the analysis of degraded samples. Similarly, the Y chromosome shows paternal inheritance and is employed to trace the male lineage and resolve DNA from males in sexual assault mixtures. Only 0.1 % of DNA (about 3 million bases} differs from one person to another. Forensic DNA Scientists analyse only few variable regions to generate a DNA profile of an individual to compare with biological clue materials or control sample.
DNA Profiling Methodology DNA profile is generated from the body fluids, stains, and other biological specimen recovered from evidence and the results are compared with the results obtained from reference samples. Thus, a link among victim(s) and/or suspect(s) with one another or with crime scene can be established. DNA Profiling Is a complex process of analyses of some highly variable regions of DNA. The variable areas of DNA are termed Genetic Markers. The current genetic markers of choice for forensic purposes are Short Tandem Repeats (STRs). Analysis of a set of 15 STRs employing Automated DNA Sequencer gives a DNA Profile unique to an Individual (except monozygotic twin). Similarly, STRs present on Y chromosome (Y- STR) can also be used in sexual assault cases or determining paternal lineage. In cases of sexual assaults, Y-STRs are helpful in detection of male profile even in the presence of high level of female portion or in case of azoo11permic or vasectomized" male. Cases in which DNA had undergone 40 DNA profiling in Justice Delivery System, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Science, Kolkata (2007). environmental stress and biochemical degradation, min lSTRs can be used for over routine STR because of shorter amplicon size.
DNA Profiling is a complicated process and each sequential step involved in generating a profile can vary depending on the facilities available In the laboratory. The analysis principles, however, remain similar, which include:
1. isolation, purification & quantitation of DNA
2. amplification of selected genetic markers
3. visualising the fragments and genotyping 14
4. statistical analysis & interpretation.
In mtDNA analysis, variations in Hypervariable Region I & II (HVR I & II) are detected by sequencing and comparing results with control samples:....
Statistical Analysis Atypical DNA case involves comparison of evidence samples, such as semen from a rape, and known or reference samples, such as a blood sample from a suspect. Generally, there are three possible outcomes of profile comparison:
1) Match: If the DNA profiles obtained from the two samples are indistinguishable, they are said to have matched.
2) Exclusion: If the comparison of profiles shows differences, it can only be explained by the two samples originating from different sources.
3) Inconclusive: The data does not support a conclusion Of the three possible outcomes, only the "match" between samples needs to be supported by statistical calculation. Statistics attempt to provide meaning to the match. The match statistics are usually provided as an estimate of the Random Match Probability (RMP) or in other words, the frequency of the particular DNA profile in a population.
In case of paternity/maternity testing, exclusion at more than two loci is considered exclusion. An allowance of 1 or 2 loci possible mutations should be taken Into consideration while reporting a match. Paternity of Maternity Indices and Likelihood Ratios are calculated further to support the match.
Collection and Preservation of Evidence If DNA evidence is not properly documented, collected, packaged, and preserved, It will not meet the legal and scientific requirements for admissibility in. a court of law. Because extremely small samples of DNA can be used as evidence, greater attention to contamination issues is necessary while locating, collecting, and preserving DNA evidence can be contaminated when DNA from another source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case. This can happen when someone sneezes or coughs over the evidence or touches his/her mouth, nose, or other part of the face and then touches area that may contain the DNA to be tested. The exhibits having biological specimen, which can establish link among victim(s), suspect(s), scene of crime for solving the case should be Identified, preserved, packed and sent for DNA Profiling."
18. Although now-a-days accuracy of DNA evidence is increasing with 15 the advancement of science and technology with every passing day, thereby making it more & more reliable, despite that we have not yet reached a juncture where it may be said to be infallible, as has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamilnadu 5 as under :-
"52. Like all other opinion evidence, the probative value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case to case, depending on the facts and circumstances and the weight accorded to other evidence on record, whether contrary or corroborative. This is all the more important to remember, given that even though the accuracy of DNA evidence may be increasing with the advancement of science and technology with every passing day, thereby making is more and more reliable, we have not yet reached a juncture where it may be said to be infallible.................. "
19. In the instant case, conviction of the appellants is based on DNA test report (Ex.P-29), hence, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove all the facts, right from the collection of blood sample of appellant No. 1- Premjit Deshmukh and his wife Smt. Kirti Deshmukh (PW-1) till depositing the same alongwith alleged bone of the deceased infant, in CDFD (Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics), Hyderabad, which the prosecution has utterly failed to prove.
5 (2019) 4 SCC 771 16
20. As has been discussed above, homicidal death of deceased child has also not been proved by the prosecution, despite that learned trial Court has drawn adverse inferences against the appellants on the basis of facts of the case to hold them guilty.
21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala & others (supra) and various other judgments has held that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, in this way it cannot take advantage of weakness of accused/appellants. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment read thus:-
"10. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in support of such defence, the accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. The fact that a defence may not have been taken by an accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. again cannot absolve the prosecution from proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. If there are materials which the prosecution is unable to answer, the weakness in the defence taken cannot become the strength of the 17 prosecution to claim that in the circumstances it was not required to prove anything. In Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand , (2013) 4 SCC 422, this Court observed:
"28...When the prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt it cannot take advantage of the fact that the accused have not been able to probabilise their defence. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own feet. It cannot draw support from the weakness of the case of the accused, if it has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
22. In paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment, learned trial Court while mentioning various reasons has refused to accept statement of Smt. Kirti Deshmukh (PW-1) that the female infant whom she gave birth was died on 4.9.2009 and it was cremated in Ramnagar Graveyard. In this regard, learned trial Court has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT), Delhi reported in [ 2011 A.IR. SCW 2867], but in that case mother of accused Smt. Dhillo Devi had stated to the police that the accused, who was her son, had made extra judicial confession with regard to commission of crime to which she turned hostile in her court statement, but in the instant case Smt. Kirti Deshmukh (PW-1) has not stated in her police statement (Ex.P-1) that her husband had made any extra judicial confession to her that he has killed their infant baby (deceased). Moreover, that was a case of honour killing but instant case is not a case of honour killing, as wife of deceased (PW-1) has conceded in her deposition that appellant is very much affectionate to their both the daughters namely Chanchal & Komal 18 and he always make efforts to get them happy. This fact has also been supported by defence witness Bhaskar Mudaliyar @ Bachhu. Hence, reliance placed by learned trial Court in aforesaid case is not found to be appropriate in the instant case.
23. The facts, on the basis of which, learned trial Court has drawn adverse inference against the appellants are not seems to be of substantive nature, which could connect appellants with the crime in question, i.e. they were seen carrying infant baby born by Smt. Kirti Deshmukh towards river or they were seen throwing the infant baby in the river, etc. rather those facts are ancillary in nature, which of-course creates some doubt against the appellant No. 1 - Premjit Deshumkh, but it is settled proposition of law that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of proof.
24. Appellant - Premjit Deshmukh, who is said to be a Truck Driver has taken a plea, that in between 28.8.2009 to 9.9.2009 he went to Kolkata with a Truck. Defence witness Bhaskar Mudiliyar @ Bachhu, whose truck he had taken, while supporting his statement has deposed that appellant No. 1 had gone in first week of September, 2009 and returned after about a week. He has further stated that, at that time, on being informed by father of appellant No. 1 that the girl child delivered by wife of appellant No. 1 has died, therefore, he had given Rs.1,000/- to him for cremation of the child. Defence taken by appellant No. 1 may be wrong but, prosecution has also not proved any strong circumstances / chain of 19 circumstances to prove the guilt of appellants, rather both the appellants have been convicted drawing adverse inference against them only on the basis of imaginary and highly suspicious grounds, which is against the established principle of criminal jurisprudence.
25. In view of foregoing discussion, we do not find any good / appropriate grounds to uphold the impugned judgment, hence, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, against the appellants deserves to be set aside.
26. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
27. Appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bond shall continue for a further period of six months from today in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) ( N.K. Chandravanshi)
Judge Judge
Amit