Gujarat High Court
Mukeshbhai @ Tino Vadilal Mochi vs State Of ... on 29 April, 2014
Bench: Jayant Patel, Z.K.Saiyed
R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1611 of 2010
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1052 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
==============================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made
thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil
judge ?
==============================================================
MUKESHBHAI @ TINO VADILAL MOCHI....Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR.MRUDUL M BAROT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KL PANDYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 29/04/2014,
01/05/2014 & 05/05/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) Page 1 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT
1. As both the appeals arise from the common judgment & order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, they are being considered simultaneously.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 28.03.2007, initially complaint Exh.61 was filed by Vinubhai Mohanbhai Solanki, serving as watchman in the irrigation department stating that a dead body was found in the canal and when the dead body was taken out, it was found that about 20 blows were given on the backside and shoulder of the said dead body and the said complaint was filed with Nadiad Rural Police Station. It appears that thereafter Parshottambhai Gopalbhai Gadhvi, PW 1, father of Dipesh (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") filed complaint at Exh.14 stating that his son, deceased, had gone to college on bicycle in the morning and thereafter, when the complainant was at the factory, at about 11.34 hrs., on his mobile, a phone call was received inquiring as to whether the father of the deceased was on phone and when the complainant said yes, he was informed that the deceased was kidnapped and if he wants to be released, the arrangement of Rs.15 lakhs was to be made and it was conveyed that again phone call would be made at 4.00 O' clock and the address and place shall be conveyed. The complainant was conveyed that information should not be given to the police otherwise his son would be killed. After some time, again, a phone call was received. As the Page 2 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT complainant was disturbed, he conveyed to his brother and thereafter, the deceased was not found. When further inquiry was made, it was found by the complainant that at about 9 to 9.30 in the morning, when deceased was waiting on the bus stand, the lift was offered by driver of the motorcycle of silver colour and the deceased had gone with the said motorcyclist. As the demand of Rs.15 lakhs was made after taking the deceased on motorcycle, the complaint was filed with Vatva police station. The said complaint was investigated by the police and ultimately, the chargesheet was filed against Mukesh @ Tino Vadilal Mochi (hereinafter referred to as "A1") and against Mohamadsalim Jumratibhai Sheikh (hereinafter referred to as "A2") and as the third accused Asif was juvenile, the matter was separately presented before the other appropriate court/juvenile justice board.
3. The case was thereafter committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No.300/07. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 44 witnesses, the details of which are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at para 4 of the judgment. The prosecution also produced documentary evidences of 54 documents, the details of which are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at para 5 of the impugned judgment. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 of Page 3 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the evidence against them. However, in the further statement, accused no.1 stated that he has been wrongly arrested when he was working with Ghodasar Chamunda Lining Works. Its opening was made on 26th. It was stated that at about 12 O' clock in noon, he had gone to leave his wife and children and he had come back to the shop and the goods were forwarded on 27th to Vadaj. On 1st, he has been wrongly arrested and the police case was filed against him.
4. On behalf of the accused, application was made to examine one Narendrasinh Jagdev Zala as court witness contending inter alia that he had recorded the statement of various persons. The Court had permitted and thereafter, he was examined at Exh.134 as Court witness. On behalf of the accused one Liladhar Maganbhai Koshti was examined as defence witness at Exh.136. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution and the defence and found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused for the offences under sections 120B, 364A, 302 r/w section 34, 201 r/w section 114 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution and defence for the sentence and then imposed sentence separately upon A1 of life imprisonment for the offences under sections 364A, 302 and 120B and 34 of IPC and further, Page 4 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT imposed fine of Rs.5,000/ for each offence, total Rs.15,000/ and 1 year SI for default in payment of fine, but the learned Sessions Judge observed that the accused would undergo the sentence concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge imposed sentence of 3 years RI with the fine of Rs.1,000/ and further 6 months SI for default in payment of fine upon A1 for the offences under sections 201 and 114 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge imposed sentence of life imprisonment with the fine of Rs.5,000/ for the offence under sections 364A, 302, 120B and 34 of IPC upon A2. The learned Sessions Judge further imposed sentence of 3 years RI with the fine of Rs.1,000/ for the offences under sections 201 and 114 of IPC and 6 months SI for default in payment of fine upon A2. The learned Sessions Judge further ordered for set off of the period undergone as under trial prisoner and the sentences were ordered to be undergone concurrently and the sentence for default in payment of fine was to be undergone separately. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before this Court.
5. We may record that Criminal Appeal No.1052/10 has been preferred by A2 and Criminal Appeal No.1611/10 has been preferred by A1. Pending the appeal, A2 was reported as expired on 29.09.2013. The learned APP has also tendered the relevant papers and the report received by the jail Page 5 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT authority from Vatva Police Station. Under the circumstances, the appeal preferred against A2 being Criminal Appeal No.1052/10 shall stand abated. Hence, the said appeal shall stand disposed of accordingly.
6. However, appeal preferred by A1 is surviving and today, we further proceed to consider the appeal being Criminal Appeal No.1611/10 on merits.
7. Mr.Mrudul Barot, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Pandya, learned APP for the State have taken us to the entire evidence on record. We have heard Mr.Barot, learned counsel appearing for the appellantaccused A1 and Mr.Pandya, learned APP for the State. We have also considered the judgment and the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.
8. As per the prosecution case, the evidence led by the prosecution can be summarised as under:
9. Parshottam Gadhvi, PW 1, complainant, at Exh.13, has supported the case of the prosecution for filing of the complaint and as per him after his son had left on bicycle for college, at about 9.00 O' clock, his practice was to leave the bicycle near Narol circle at his friend's place and from there he would go by bus. As per him, he had received phone call at about 11.34 O' clock on his mobile from Khambhat and he was conveyed that his son was kidnapped and Rs.15 Page 6 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT lakhs was to be kept ready and he would be called at about 4.00 O' clock again and that his son will be killed if anybody was informed about the same. Again, phone call was received after some time and he was conveyed that he might verify as to whether his son is there in the college or not. He was disturbed and then he further inquired with the friends of his son and he found that one bearded person had given lift on silver platinum bike aged about 3035 years. Thereafter, he filed complaint Exh.14. After three days, he learnt that his son Dipesh was killed. He had identified the dead body of the deceased. As per the complainant, he was knowing A1 since he was doing work at the Furniture Design/carpenter. The testimony of the said witness as per the prosecution is getting corroboration by the testimony of Yagnesh @ Tino Biharilal Brahmbhatt, PW 12, Exh.39, an employee, working at STD PCO at Khambhat. As per the said witness, one person aged about 3035 years had come on 26.03.2007 for making phone call and two phone calls were made and the STD PCO was having landline no. of 222505 and 227093. As per him, the printout was given to the police. However, the said printout is not coming on record.
10. The prosecution has examined Savan Vishnubhai Patel, PW 5, Exh.28, Jay Manubhai Patel, PW6, Exh.29, Sanjaysingh Ranjitsingh Bist, PW 7, Exh.30 and Brijesh Vinodbhai Vacheta, PW 7, Exh.
Page 7 of 21R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT 31 to show that the lift was given to the deceased by one person aged about 3035 years who was having beard and he had put on cap and check shirt and the colour of the motorbike was platinum sletiya (grey).
11. One of the witnesses Savan Patel, PW 5, Exh.28, in his crossexamination has admitted that in the statement given before the police, he had stated that the motorcycle was Bajaj Platinum and he had not seen the bike brand but was of Slatiya (grey) colour. As per the prosecution case, no motorcycle of Bajaj company is recovered or discovered but the motorcycle recovered is of Yamaha make having red colour. The said aspect is established through the testimony of Harshadsinh Madhubha Sodha, PW 4, Exh.26 who was panch for the panchnama for recovery of the mobile from the pocket of A1 and of the red motorcycle of Yamaha Company with black helmet. The prosecution has produced the evidence for showing that A1 had produced Yamaha motorcycle of red colour. Further, as per the evidence led by the prosecution, A1 had given lift from the bus stand to the deceased and thereafter, he proceeded further and A2 and A3 joined with A1 by riding the very motorcycle and they reached Khambhat from where the phone calls were made to the complainant, father of the deceased. The relevant aspect is that, as per all the witnesses, friends of the deceased, who had seen Page 8 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT the offering of the lift to the deceased by A1, the motorcycle, stated to have been used, was of Bajaj and of sletiya colour, whereas, the vehicle recovered and discovered is of Yamaha Company having red colour.
12. It has come in the evidence of IO Sharadkumar Balkrushna Trivedi, PW 44, Exh.113, in his cross examination that in the statement recorded of the friends of the deceased before crime branch, the motorcycle was described of Bajaj Company of silver platinum, but he further stated that if the motorcycle is seen from the backside, the side portion is of red colour and the mudguard is not of red colour, but on the backside, mudguard is of silver colour.
13. The prosecution has attempted to prove the identity of A2 by TI parade at Exh.92, identified by Sanjaysingh Bist, PW 7, Exh.30. However, in the testimony of Savan, PW 5, Exh.28, in the crossexamination, he has admitted that when he had gone to crime branch, his other friends Brijesh, Sanjay, Jay, Chintan were also there and they were shown the person sitting on the motorcycle and they had identified. As per him, after 10 days, he was called by one person for identification. As per him, he was not called for identification before the Executive Magistrate. Another witness Sanjaybhai Kanubhai Rana, PW 13, Exh.40 had identified A1, A2 and A3, Page 9 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT but in his crossexamination, he had stated that he was knowing Mukesh A1 and he had admitted that when he went to Haveli Police Station, A1 to A3 were already there. Certain questions were put to Sanjaybhai Kanubhai Rana, PW 13, Exh.40 at whose residence, as per the case of the prosecution all the accused had gone with the deceased for some time and they had stayed for about 45 minutes. The said witness has stated that the motorcycle was of red colour.
14. There is other evidence led by the prosecution for discovery of weapon at the instance of A1 through the discovery panchnama at Exh.22 and in support of the said discovery, panch witness Manohar Sesaiya Aiyar at Exh.21 has also been examined. He has supported the case of the prosecution for discovery of weapon Trishul/trident and the blood was found on the weapon as well as on the clothes. As per the serological report, blood of "A" group was found. However, the relevant aspect is that deceased had the blood of "A" group as well as A1 and A2 had the blood group of "A". As per the prosecution case, when the injury was caused to the deceased by A2, the injury on finger was sustained by A2 and treatment was also given by PW 14, Exh.41 and further, the travelling on the motorcycle was together. It is in light of the aforesaid evidence, we may now further consider the matter.
Page 10 of 21R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT
15. The evidence led by the prosecution shows that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The legal position for considering the case based on circumstantial evidence is by now well settled. The prosecution has to show the link showing that the chain is complete, and the evidence produced by the prosecution for showing the link towards the guilt of the accused should be a lawful and reliable evidence and not based on conjunctures or surmises. Useful reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab reported at AIR 2012 SC 2600, wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the legal position for considering the case based on circumstantial evidence. In the said decision, the Apex Court at paras 13 to 19, has observed as under:
"13. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1, a threeJudge Bench has laid down five golden principles which constitute the "panchsheel" in respect of a case based on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the decision in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra2, it was opined that it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to lay down that the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; that the circumstances should be of Page 11 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT a conclusive nature and tendency; that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
14. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others3, this Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be satisfied: (SCC pp. 71011, para 10) "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
The similar view has been reiterated in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another v. State of A.P.4.
15. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab5, it has been laid down that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be Page 12 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime.All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations, however strong they may be, to take the place of proof.
16. In Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra6, while dealing with the validity of inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, it has been emphasised that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and further the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
17. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, emphasis has been laid that it is the duty of the Court to take care while evaluating circumstantial evidence. If the evidence adduced by the prosecution is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. That apart, the circumstances relied upon must be established and the cumulative effect of the established facts must lead to a singular hypothesis that the Page 13 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT accused is guilty.
18. In Ram Singh v. Sonia and Ors.8, while referring to the settled proof pertaining to circumstantial evidence, this Court reiterated the principles about the caution to be kept in mind by Court. It has been stated therein that 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 have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that 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 doubts.
19. In Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, after referring to the aforesaid principles pertaining to the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, this Court stated that it must nonetheless be emphasised that whether a chain is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be attempted."
16. The aforesaid shows that the chain must be complete and the facts and circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. But while considering the circumstances, cumulatively, the chain should be so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else.
Page 14 of 21R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT
17. If the facts of the present case are examined in light of the aforesaid legal position, it appears that in a case for the offence under section 364 of IPC r/w section 302 of IPC, the first aspect required to be proved by the prosecution would be the conspiracy of extortion of money. In furtherance to the said conspiracy, there should be positive action of kidnapping and demand of money by way of extortion. The next would be whether the object was fulfilled of receiving money and if not, whether the death was caused on account of the nonreceipt of the money. The Court while examining the aspect of causing death, may further examine as to who has played role and further action by the accused who was conspirator.
18. The prosecution has made an attempt to prove the conspiracy by the confessional statement of A2 under section 164 of Cr.P.C. As A2 has expired pending the appeal and the said appeal is abated qua A2, matter may not be required to be further examined. However, for the conviction of A1, the said confessional statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. would assume value as that of a confession made by the coaccused. As per section 10 of the Evidence Act, such would be relevant to expose the conspiracy, but the conviction cannot be based on mere confessional statement of the coaccused. It is for the Page 15 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT prosecution to establish by independent evidence that a particular accused was not only a party to the conspiracy but has played active role in furtherance to the conspiracy by way of a common object and such evidence if proved beyond reasonable doubt, the confessional statement may be considered.
19. If the independent evidence is considered, as led by the prosecution against A1, as per the prosecution case, A1 was the pioneer of the conspiracy. The common object was to extort money. The demand is stated to have been made through the phone call on the mobile of the complainant, father of the deceased. However, no evidence is produced by the prosecution by showing mobile data of the complainant for receipt of a phone call or two phone calls from STD PCO of Khambhat. The mobile number of the complainant has come on record as well as the STD PCO telephone number has also come on record. But no evidence is produced by the prosecution with the help of technical or scientific data for proving that the telephone of STD PCO was used for calling on the mobile of the complainant. Such could be proved by the prosecution either through the printout of STD PCO or from mobile data of the complainant. Neither is produced in the present case. Not only that, but as per the witness Yagnesh, PW 12, Exh.39, police had collected the printout from the STD PCO but no Page 16 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT such evidence is produced by the prosecution. Further, as per the prosecution case, A1 had two mobiles bearing numbers (1) 9328132447 and (2) 9328132448. The prosecution has produced data of both the said mobiles at Exh.78. However, in none of the call details produced by the prosecution, there is calling through the said mobile on the mobile of the complainant. Had the prosecution brought on record the mobile data of the complainant, the use of STD PCO of Khambhat by the accused could have been proved. But no such data is produced.
20. Therefore, we find that the telephonic talk with the complainant is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and if the telephonic talk is not proved with the complainant by the accused beyond reasonable doubt, consequently, the demand of Rs.15 lakhs could also not be said as proved beyond reasonable doubt. In absence of proof of telephonic talk, there was no other means described by the witnesses for demand of the money and the case of the prosecution was that the demand was made on mobile of the complainant.
21. On the aspect of use of the motorcycle for proving the story of last seen together, in our view, there is basic contradiction in the case of the prosecution for the motorcycle used which is stated to have been owned by A1 and the said Page 17 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT vehicle is stated to have been used for giving lift and kidnapping subsequently.
22. As per the evidence referred to by us hereinabove of the witnesses who were friends of deceased, the motorcycle was of Bajaj company and of grey colour, whereas the motorcycle recovered is of Yamaha company of red colour. As per the prosecution case and even if the confessional statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. is considered, after the lift was given to the deceased by A1, A2 and A3 had joined by riding on the same motorcycle and they had gone to Khambhat. As per the prosecution case, there was no other motorcycle which was used for giving lift. The attempt is made by IO to cover up that the back mudguard is of silver colour, but the same in our view would not frustrate the basic evidence led by the eyewitness who were just near to the deceased when the lift was offered and as per them, the motorcycle was of grey colour and that too of Bajaj Company. It may be that brand of the motorcycle may not be easily identifiable or apparent but there is clear difference in the colour being red and being silver or grey. Hence, it appears to us that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt for the lift given by A1 to the deceased on motorcycle of red colour Yamaha, which as per the prosecution is stated to have been used for giving lift and kidnapping.
Page 18 of 21R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT
23. Apart from the above, as per the prosecution case, the phone call was made from the PCO of Khambhat to the complainant and in support of the same, prosecution has examined Yagnesh, PW 12, Exh.39. As per his testimony, he has stated the age of the person of about 3035 years and in the identification parade, he identified Asif Rana, Juvenile, and not A1 who is stated to be of the age of 3035 years. As the case against juvenile is yet to be conducted by Juvenile Justice Board, we may not make any further observation on the said aspect, but it does show that the phone call is not made by A1 if the testimony of Yagnesh, PW 12 is to be believed. Whereas, the prosecution case is that the phone call was made from Khambhat by A1 to the complainant.
24. It is true that the discovery of the weapon trident is made at the instance of A1 and the blood is found, but as per the prosecution case and if considered with the confessional statement of coaccused, while causing injury to the deceased, the injury was also sustained by one of the coaccused Salim and the blood group of Salim and the blood group of the deceased is same, i.e., "A" group.
25. Under these circumstances, a doubt could have been created as to whether blood on the weapon was of A2 or deceased. It is by now well settled that if two views are possible, the one which may Page 19 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT lean in favour of the accused is to be opted or is to be considered before conviction is made. Hence, we find that the evidence of the blood found on the weapon could not be said as proving the link of A1 for the offence which is on a mere discovery and in any case, the blood found from the weapon could not be said to be fully supporting the case of the prosecution. It is by now well settled that discovery even if is to be believed, the conviction cannot be based on a mere discovery when the case is based on circumstantial evidence. It will also be required for the prosecution to show the other linking evidence and corroboration in this regard.
26. In view of the above, we find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the complete chain of the evidence by showing the link towards guilt of A1 and the chain is not complete. Under the circumstances, we find that A1 would be entitled to the benefit of doubt and the conviction made by the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.
27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge for conviction and for sentence upon A1 Mukesh @ Tino Vadilal Mochi is hereby quashed and set aside. A1 shall be put to liberty forthwith unless his presence is required Page 20 of 21 R/CR.A/1611/2010 JUDGMENT for any other lawful purpose. Criminal Appeal No.1611/10 shall stand allowed to the aforesaid extent.
28. In the another appeal preferred by A2 Mohd. Salim Jumratibhai Shaikh, as he has expired pending the appeal, the said appeal would stand abated. Criminal Appeal No.1052/10 shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) bjoy Page 21 of 21