Delhi High Court
Pardeep Kumar vs The State (Delhi Administration) on 2 February, 2009
Author: V.B. Gupta
Bench: V.B. Gupta, Badar Durrez Ahmed
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
Crl. Appeal No.142/1992
% Judgment reserved on: 13th January, 2009
Judgment delivered on: 2nd February, 2009
Pardeep Kumar
S/o Shri Hoshiar Singh,
R/o T-481/1. Baljit Nagar,
New Delhi .... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Adv.
Versus.
The State (Delhi Administration)
Delhi ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. M.N.Dudeja, Addl. P.P.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
V.B. GUPTA, J.
Appellant Pardeep Kumar, along with Sapan Rai @ Bengali and Ram Kishan were sent up for trial under Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 1 of 28 Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. On 13th September, 1984, the trial court recorded a finding that Ram Kishan was below the age of 16 years on the date of commission of offence and as such it directed that his case be separated, to be tried by the children court, as per provisions of law and a separate charge sheet was ordered to be filed against him.
3. Appellant as well as Sapan Rai @ Bengali faced the trial before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi.
4. Vide judgment dated 17th August, 1992, Sh.V.S.Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge held the appellant Pardeep Kumar guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was convicted accordingly and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further R.I. for six months.
5. Accused Sapan Rai was given the benefit of doubt Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 2 of 28 and was acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC.
6. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court.
7. First Information Report in this case was recorded on the basis of statement ExPW 2/A dated 22nd February, 1983, given by PW2 Ramesh Chand, who is also the brother of deceased-Ms. Nandi.
8. In this statement, PW2 has stated that he is residing at T-577/3 Baljit Nagar, Delhi and is a student of 12th class in Govt. Boys Sr.Sec. School No.3, West Patel Nagar. A boy named Pardeep has been teasing his sister Nandi with the help of his companions who is also a resident of Baljit Nagar. Fed up with his activities, Nandi was sent to his elder sister's house named Shanti who lives near I.T.O. in the Servant Quarters.
Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 3 of 28
9. On 22nd February, 1988, when he was going to his school and had reached near Girls School No.3, at about 12.30 p.m., Sapan s/o Naresh Rai r/o Sultanpuri and Pardeep Kumar s/o Hoshiar Singh r/o Baljit Nagar, Delhi who were earlier known to him, accompanied by another boy aged 20 or 21 who was wheatish in complexion and round face with a medium built about 5 feet 5 inches in height whom he can identify met him. They called him and took him to the nearby street. Pardeep showed him photographs with his sister Nandi Devi and separate photographs on certain cards. Pardeep also told him that if he needed the negatives, he should accompany them. They took him to Sultanpuri and made him sit in the house of Sapan. Pardeep and the other boy brought the negatives at about 2.30 p.m. Pardeep showed him the negatives and then asked as to where his sister was residing. PW2 told them that his sister was residing with his elder sister near Income Tax Officer, Link House. Thereupon, all three of them said that he should take Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 4 of 28 them to his sister, because they want to talk to her. All four took a three wheeler from Sultanpuri and came to I.T.O. They reached the house of his sister at about 3.45 p.m. He did not remember the scooter number. They told him to call his sister Nandi.
10. It is further stated that he came to the house of his sister Shanti and in his simple way took her sister Nandi. All the three started talking to his sister at a few steps away. In the meantime, his uncle Radha Krishan was visible. On seeing his uncle, his sister Nandi tried to slip away. At this, Sapan caught hold of his sister from the right arm, while the other boy caught her from the left arm. Pardeep took out the knife and stabbed his sister in her abdomen at about 4.30 p.m. All the three ran away and while running Pardeep threw the knife. He and his uncle shouted "Pakro Pakro", but all the three managed to run away. He and his uncle, Radha Krishan placed Nandi in a rickshaw and brought her to J.P.N.Hospital where the Doctor declared her to be dead.
Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 5 of 28
11. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that conviction of the appellant is based on the testimony of solitary witness PW-2 namely Ramesh Chand, who is also an interested witness, since he is brother of the deceased. His testimony has not been corroborated by other witness PW-5 namely Radha Kishan, who is also the relative of deceased.
12. The other contention is that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the appellant to have committed this heinous crime.
13. It is further contended that the recovered weapon was not found to be having any finger prints of the appellant and the alleged weapon of offence has not been satisfactorily connected with the crime and the prosecution evidence is self contradictory as PW-2 states that deceased was stabbed with a knife, while PW-25 Sh.M.S.Chikkar, investigation officer who has seized the weapon, in his statement has stated that the weapon was a double edged one. The sketch Ex.PW- 2/B, shows that it is a "chura" and vide recovery memo Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 6 of 28 Ex. PW/C, the I.O. has recovered a blood stained "chura" from the spot. The double edged sharp weapon was not produced in the court nor was sealed and the prosecution did not clarify as to which weapon and by whom the same was sent for opinion.
14. It is also contended that PW-5 Radha Kishan has been disbelieved by the trial court to whom the seal after use of the parcel of the dagger was given.
15. It is further contended that as per statement of PW-17-H.C.Rajbir Singh who was working as Moharir Malkhana at PS. Darya Ganj, on 19th July, 1983, S.I.Gujar Mal had taken away the parcel purported to contain dagger for purposes of doctor's opinion. On 25th July, 1993, dagger in the sealed parcel was again deposited with him. No question with regard to this fact that on 19th July, 1983 a dagger was taken for doctor's opinion, was put to the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
16. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vital blow in this Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 7 of 28 case was given by Radha Kishan and not by the appellant. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon written statement given by him during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
17. Lastly, it is contended that at the most the appellant, can be liable for conviction under Section 324 or 326 IPC.
18. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that appellant was having an affair with Nandi-deceased and though PW-2 complainant is the brother of the deceased, but as per various decisions of the Supreme Court, a conviction can be based on solitary statement of a witness also.
19. It is further contended that appellant had the intention to kill the deceased since he had come armed with deadly weapon, that is, knife and has given a severe blow at the vital part of the body, which has caused the death of deceased-Nandi. This shows that Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 8 of 28 appellant started from his house with pre-determined mind and he had all the intention to kill the deceased and that is why he was armed with deadly weapon.
20. Though there was no sudden provocation but since the appellant had come armed with a deadly weapon, he had all the intention to kill the deceased.
21. It is also contended that appellant has admitted his presence at the place of occurrence and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2, who had no enmity with the appellant.
22. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has stated that Nandi-deceased was determined to marry him even by elopement and defy the parents. To prevent which she was kept under confinement and restrained at different places. Nandi had succeeded in establishing the contact with him and she used to meet him at different places while staying with her uncle, Radha Kishan PW who was the allottee of house No.10, CAG Staff Quarter, Opposite Link Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 9 of 28 House, New Delhi which resulted in keeping a close surveillance upon her.
23. On 22nd February, 1983, he had gone to meet her at the appointed place. He did not know that Radha Kishan had any ill designs or he was carrying knife with him. Radha Kishan reached the place where he was talking to Nandi. Nandi was insisting to elope with him. Radha Kishan remonstrated Nandi and him. He told Radha Kishan that he had been called by Nandi and that she does not want to go back home and insisting to go with him to get married and he had no objection if Nandi was prepared to go back home. Radha Kishan tried to forcibly drag Nandi on which she clung to him (Pardeep) and imploring him to take her away any where he liked on which he told Radha Kishan not to rough her up. Radha Kishan got enraged, took a knife to stab him. Nandi abruptly turned in front of him, preventing Radha Kishan as a result of which the knife got pierced in her abdomen. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 10 of 28
24. So, as per statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has admitted that he had gone to meet Nandi at the house of Radha Kishan and Nandi had come out of the house and Radha Kishan was also present. The defence of the appellant is that Radha Kishan was carrying a knife with him and deceased-Nandi abruptly turned in front of him, as a result of which the knife of Radha Kishan got pierced in her abdomen.
25. This defence was put to PW-2 as well as PW-5 but both these witnesses have denied this defence of the appellant.
26. PW-2 Ramesh Chand, brother of the deceased in his statement has specifically stated that appellant Pardeep used to tease his sister and thus about a month before incident, his father has sent Nandi to live with her elder sister Shanti.
27. PW-6 Shanti in her statement has also stated that Nandi was her sister and she had to go to stay with her Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 11 of 28 about 1 ½ months before the occurrence and on 22nd February, 1983 his brother Ramesh Chand had come and had taken Nandi out and after 5-10 minutes of their having left the house, his uncle Radha Kishan went out to look for them.
28. PW-7 Amba Dhar, the father of deceased Nandi in his statement has also stated that appellant Pardeep used to tease his daughter Nandi and, therefore, he sent her to stay with her sister Shanti, PW-6.
29. PW-2 and PW-7 have not been cross-examined on this aspect that appellant did not use to tease Nandi and that is why she was sent to her sister's house.
30. The Appellant assured PW-2 Ramesh Chand that he (Appellant) will hand over the photographs and negatives of his sister Nandi, if he takes him to Nandi. In his natural anxiety to save the honour of his sister, PW-2 wanted to have the photographs and negatives from the appellant and the appellant had utilized this occasion to meet deceased Nandi.
Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 12 of 28
31. As per statement of PW-6 Shanti, PW-5 Radha Kishan had left the house just to look out for Nandi and Ramesh. It was no where put to these witnesses in cross-examination that when PW-5 Radha Kishan went out of the house, he was armed with knife or he had the knowledge that appellant is out there.
32. PW-5 Radha Kishan in his statement had stated that on 22nd February, 1983 at about 3-4 p.m., Ramesh Chand had come to meet Nandi and he (Ramesh Chand) took her out. As they had not come back for about 5-10 minutes, he came out to look for them.
33. In the cross-examination, it was nowhere suggested to the witness that he knew that Nandi has gone to meet Appellant outside his house. However, a suggestion was given to PW-5 that "on 22nd February, 1983 when Nandi had gone out of the house on a pretext, he (PW5) had followed her to know where she was going." This goes on to show that PW-5 Radha Kishan, did not know that Nandi was going out to meet Appellant and as such, of his (PW5) going armed with Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 13 of 28 knife, does not arise because he (PW-5) has simply followed Nandi to know as to where she was going.
34. Thus, this defence taken by the appellant that PW- 5 was armed with knife, is not believable at all, since he did know that Nandi had gone out to meet Appellant.
35. Though, it is correct that solitary eye witness in this case is Ramesh Chand, PW-2 who is also brother of the deceased, but is well settled that quality of the evidence is to be looked into and not the quantity. Even if there is a solitary witness to the incident and who is reliable, conviction can be based on the testimony of the solitary eye witness alone.
36. In this regard reference may be made to Vaidivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614. There the question was whether the court can convict on the statement of solitary witness or not. It was held that;
Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 14 of 28
"(1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
(2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character.
(3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes.
In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act has categorically laid it down that "no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact." The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 15 of 28 disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses."
It was further held that;
"Our Legislature had given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime had been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 16 of 28 the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely :
(1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompe- tence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 17 of 28 oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution."
37. PW-2 in his testimony has stated that;
"On 22nd February, 1983 while I was going to my school at about 12.30 p.m. the accused persons and Ram Kishan met me. They took me in a street. In that street Pardeep accused present in the court showed me a few photographs. Those photographs were of my sister Nandi with Pardeep Accused. Pardeep Stated that in case I was interested in the negatives of the photographs I should accompany him. The accused persons and Ram Kishan then took me to Sultan Puri to the house of Sapan accused. On reaching there Pardeep accused and Ram Kishan went away and Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 18 of 28 came back with the negatives of the photographs. I was told that the negatives would be returned to Nandi. They enquired from me about Nandi. I told them that she was living with her sister Shanti in the houses in front of Link House. They asked me to take them there. We all then went to the house of Shanti. Whereas all of them kept standing outside I went to the house of Shanti and brought out Nandi. Thereafter Pardeep stated that he wanted to talk with Nandi in privacy and took her aside. Ram Kishan and Sapan remained with Pardeep. After sometime my paternal uncle Radha Kishan was found coming that side. It was 3.45 p.m. On Seeing Radha Kishan coming my sister Nandi tried to slip away. However, Sapan and Ram Kishan caught hold of Nandi and Pardeep accused gave her a knife blow a little above abdomen. After so causing the injury with the knife all the accused persons and Ram Kishan ran away. Pardeep left the knife there. Myself and Radha Kishan shouted Pakro, Pakro and ran after the accused persons and Ram Kishan. However, the accused persons and Ram Kishan managed to escape in a three wheeler scooter. Thereafter myself and my uncle Radha Kishan took Nandi to J.P.N. hospital in a cycle rickshaw where she was declared dead."
38. PW-2 has corroborated all the material facts which he has mentioned in his earlier statement Ex. PW-2/A Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 19 of 28 given to the police. In the instant case, PW2 was not shaken in spite of incisive cross examination, though counsel for the appellant has pointed out certain discrepancies in the statement of PW2 and contended that his testimony was full of blemishes.
39. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2007) 12 SCC 381, held that;
"Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be levelled as omissions or contradictions."
40. The trial court in this regard held;
"I find no reason to reject his testimony which is reliable and not at all discrepant. In his natural anxiety to save the honour of his sister, he wanted the photographs and the negatives from accused Pardeep. Pardeep accused utilized the occasion to meet the deceased Nandi who had been sent to live with her sister. There is no basis to conclude that Nandi once she was with her sister had been escaping to meet the accused. I hold, therefore, that prosecution has proved that the accused Pardeep used PW.2 Ramesh Chand so as to meet Nandi and thus the scene was set."Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 20 of 28
41. Thus to the extent of proving that the Appellant was present on the spot and was involved in the incident, the prosecution has proved the facts beyond doubt. In fact it has been admitted by the Appellant that he had visited Nandi and was talking to her.
42. Presence of PW-2 at spot is also corroborated by M.L.C. according to which, PW-2 took her sister to Jai Prakash Narain Hospital immediately after incident.
43. The other question that comes for consideration is regarding the weapon of offence with which the victim was put to death. As per the eye witness account, the weapon was a knife which was used to stab his sister Nandi.
44. The investigating officer Mr. M.S.Chikkar i.e. PW25 in his cross examination has stated that:
"The weapon of offence recovered in this case was a dagger. It was a double edged weapon."Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 21 of 28
45. As per Post Mortem report injury at S.No.4 could be caused by a single edged weapon. Injury No. 4 is reproduced as under;
"Incised punctured stab wound of 2.6 x 1 cm, placed vertically oblique, 3.5 cm below xip sternum, 2 cm right to midline, and 103 cms. above Rt. heel present in the Rt. side of epigastric region, by the side of Rt. costal Margin, in the upper front part of Abdomen. Margins of the wound clean cut and gaping. Lower angle of the wound acutly cut and upper angle is rounded, in the floor sub-cutanious fat present. Little of dried blood present around the wound. This wound is entering abdominal cavity."
46. The post mortem was conducted by Mr. B.N.Reddy but he was not examined by the prosecution. However, PW-23 Dr. L.T.Ramani who was working as an Autopsy Surgeon and who had worked with Dr.B.N.Reddy has stated that:
"The injury mentioned at SI.No.4 in Ex.PW23/A was to my opinion could be caused by a single edged penetrating weapon and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature."Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 22 of 28
47. In Chand Mia v. State of Assam, 1990 CriLJ 2389 (Gauhati) it has been held that;
"When evidence of an eye witness is corroborated by medical evidence, the witness should not be disbelieved or his evidence be looked with the suspicion only because he happened to be related to the deceased."
48. In the various decisions of the Supreme Court, it has been clearly held that minor discrepancies during the time of investigation does not affect the prosecution if the case is otherwise made out.
49. The Supreme Court in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1164, held that:
"where the prosecution case is fully established by direct testimony of eye witnesses which is corroborated by medical evidence, any failure or omission of investigating officer cannot render prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of belief."
50. Thus it is clear from the above discussion that the prosecution's case is not affected just because investigating officer states that weapon of offence is a Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 23 of 28 double edged weapon, when as per statement of Pw-2 the eye witness, it was a knife and as per sketch Ex.PW-2/B prepared by I.O., it is a single edge weapon.
51. Next point for consideration is as to whether the appellant actually intended to kill the deceased or in a spur of moment that such an unfortunate event took place.
52. As per the facts of the present case, it is proved that the appellant and the deceased were in love with each other and there seems to be no reason why the appellant would kill his beloved that too when there is no evidence of any enmity and hatred between the two.
53. As per the statement of PW2, the appellant asked him to take to his sister as he wanted to talk to her. On the spot of occurrence, the deceased also came out of the house at her own willingness and was talking to the appellant. It has no where been stated by PW2 that the appellant and the deceased were fighting or were exchanging hot arguments that could lead us to draw Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 24 of 28 an inference that the appellant in fit of anger killed the victim. It is true that the appellant was carrying an offensive weapon with him but that does not bring to the conclusion that he intended to kill the deceased.
54. "Criminal Intention" simply means the purpose or design of doing an act forbidden by the criminal law without cause or excuse. As a general rule every sane man is presumed to intend the necessary or the natural and probable consequences of his acts. This presumption however is not conclusive nor alone sufficient to justify a conviction and should be supplemented by other testimony. The burden of proving guilty intention lies upon the prosecution where the intent is expressly stated as part of the definition of the crime.
55. In the present case, the appellant can be said to have knowledge of his act as he was carrying a weapon along with him. Secondly, why a prudent man will keep her lover's record of the photographs and letters with Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 25 of 28 him and also show it to the brother of her lover when his only intention was to know where his lover-Nandi was putting up. This shows that the appellant had a guilty mind from the very beginning.
56. Now the question arises as to whether the intention was actually to kill her. As per the nature of wound and the knife used in the offence, it cannot be said that the appellant had the intention to kill her since there was no heated arguments between them. All happened on the spur of the moment which resulted in the infliction of injury by the Appellant to Nandi which resulted into her death.
57. In Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1984 SC 759 the facts were somewhat similar, where the Supreme Court held;
"It is equally not in dispute that appellant gave only one blow with a knife. Appellant had no quarrel or dispute with deceased Sampat. It is not shown that deceased Sampat had anything to do with the chit organised by K.G. Rajan. No malice Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 26 of 28 has been alleged to have been entertained by the accused towards deceased Sampat. The incident occurred on the spur of the moment."
"But in the circumstances herein discussed he wielded a weapon like a knife and therefore he can be attributed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. In such a situation he would be guilty of committing an offence under Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code."
58. Under the circumstances, the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
59. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment are set aside and the appellant is convicted for having committed an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 [Ten] years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, he shall Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 27 of 28 undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal is allowed to the extent herein indicated.
60. Since the appellant is on bail, he is ordered to be taken into custody to undergo the sentence of imprisonment as awarded in this case.
61. Period of detention already undergone by him in this case shall be set off in terms of Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
V.B.GUPTA, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J nd 2 February, 2009 Bisht Crl. Appeal. No.142/1992 Page 28 of 28