Karnataka High Court
Mynuddin S/O Imamsab Jatagar And Ors vs The State Through Dy. S.P. Yadgiri on 30 November, 2022
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL B. KATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3643/2012
C/w
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3664/2012
In Criminal Appeal No.3643/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Mynuddin S/o Imamsab Jatagar,
Age: 35 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
2. Gafarsab S/o Chandsab Gogi,
Age: 35 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
3. Irfan S/o Yusufsab Gogi,
Age: 31 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
4. Alisab S/o Chandsab Gogi,
Age: 40 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
5. Chandsab S/o Kajalal Gogi,
Age: 33 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
All are R/o Dornahalli, Tq: Shahapur,
Dist: Yadgiri.
... Appellants
(By Sri Shivasharana Reddy, Advocate)
Crl.A.No.3643/2012
C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012
2
AND:
The State
Through Dy. S.P.,
Yadgiri.
... Respondent
(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow the appeal and the judgment of
conviction and sentence in Spl. Case No.68/2010 C/w Spl. Case
No.33/2011, dated 07.09.2012 and order of sentence dated
12.09.2012 be set aside, convicting the accused/appellant for
the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 326, 504,
506, 149 of IPC and 3(1)(X) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
In Criminal Appeal No.3664/2012
BETWEEN:
Saleem S/o Yusufsab Gogi,
Age: 33 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Dornahalli, Tq: Shahapur,
Dist: Yadgiri.
... Appellant
(By Sri Shivasharana Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
The State
Through Dy.S.P.,
Yadgiri.
... Respondent
(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment of conviction in Spl.
Case No.33/2011 dated 07.09.2012 and order of sentence
dated 12.09.2012 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge at
Crl.A.No.3643/2012
C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012
3
Yadgiri, convicting the accused/appellant for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 326, 504, 506 R/w 149 of
IPC and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and etc.
These appeals having been heard through Physical
Hearing and reserved for Judgment on 28.09.2022, coming on
for pronouncement of Judgment this day, Anil B. Katti J.,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants-accused Nos.1 to 5 in Spl.C. No.68/2010 and the appellant-accused No.6 in Spl.C. No.33/2011 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Special/Sessions Judge, Yadgiri dated 07.09.2012 have preferred the respective appeals.
2. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on 07.12.2009 at 6:00 p.m., the father-in-law of complainant came to the house and on seeing Mayavathi being unwell was taken to hospital for treatment along with complainant. When they were near the hospital all the accused picked up quarrel Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 4 with the father-in-law of complainant, i.e., Ningappa and abused in filthy language by taking his caste on the pretext that he has fetched the water from their well. The said Ningappa objected for abusing him, since he has taken water from the well for drinking, however, all the accused being enraged of the same have assaulted by means of hands. The accused No.6 - Saleem and accused No.7 - Irfan have picked up the stone and came to assault on the head of Ningappa. The complainant has dragged her father- in-law Ningappa. Accused No.4 - Alisab and accused No.5 - Chandsab have assaulted on the complainant. On these allegations, the case was registered in Crime No.250/2009 in Shahapur Police Station. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has filed the charge-sheet.
3. The trial Court after securing the presence of accused on being prima facie satisfied with the material evidence placed on record, has framed Charge Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 5 against all the accused for the offences alleged against them. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution was called upon to prove the charges leveled against the accused.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused relied on the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 11 and the documents as per Exs.P1 to P13 so also got identified MO Nos.1 to 4. The accused have not led any defence evidence. The trial Court after having heard the arguments of both sides and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed before it, has convicted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,326, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and imposed sentence as per order of sentence dated 12.09.2012.
Crl.A.No.3643/2012C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 6
5. The appellants-accused in both the appeals have challenged correctness and legality of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court by contending that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The evidence of injured witness PW4 - Ningappa and the evidence of eyewitnesses, PW5 - Honnappa, PW6 - Neelamma and PW7 - Ambalappa are not consistent with each others version and the same is also not in consonance with the complaint allegations as per Ex.P3. The medical evidence in the form of PW9 - Dr. Maqsood Ali is not in conformity with the Wound Certificates as per Exs.P5, P7 and P8. There is no any evidence on record as to where the Well is situated, which is the root cause for leading to the incident in question. There is also no any evidence on record to show that all the accused have shared their common object of unlawful assembly to cause injuries to PWs.4 to 7 as claimed by the prosecution. The approach and appreciation of oral and Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 7 documentary evidence by the trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record. Therefore, prayed for allowing both the appeals and to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.
6. In response to the notice of both appeals, leaned Addl. SPP has appeared for respondent.
7. The trial Court records have been secured.
8. Heard the arguments of both sides.
9. On the basis of the above narrated facts, the following points arise for determination of the case.
i) Whether the impugned judgments of acquittal dated 07.09.2012 passed in Special Case Nos.68/2010 and 33/2011 by the learned Sessions/Special Judge warrant any interference at the hands of this Court?
ii) What order?
Crl.A.No.3643/2012C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 8
REASONS
10. Point No.1:- The prosecution alleges that on 07.12.2009 at 6.00 p.m., in front of the hospital while the complainant and her father-in-law Ningappa were proceeding to get medical treatment for child Mayavathi, who was unwell, all the accused with their common object have picked up quarrel with PW4 Ningappa by questioning as to why he has fetched the water from their well. The accused No.1 - Mainuddin and accused No.2 - Gafur have assaulted with hands and accused No.6 Saleem and accused No.3 - Irfan have picked up a stone and attempted to throw on the head of PW4 - Ningappa. However, the complainant PW3 - Manamma has dragged PW4 - Ningappa and thereafter accused No.4 - Alisab and accused No.5 - Chandsab have assaulted with hands. When PW7 - Ambalappa and PW6 - Neelamma came to rescue they were also assaulted with hands. Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 9
11. The prosecution in order to prove the above referred allegations made in the complaint as per Ex.P3, mainly relies on the oral testimony of PW3 - Manamma and PW4 - Ningappa, who has sustained grievous injuries in the alleged incident. PW5 - Honnappa and PW6 - Neelamma, PW7 - Ambalappa and PW10 - Hanmant are the eyewitnesses to the incident in question. PW6 - Neelamma and PW7 - Ambalappa have also sustained injuries when they went to pacify the quarrel. The prosecution seeks to corroborate the above referred evidence of injured and eyewitnesses by the evidence of PW9 - Dr. Maqsood Ali. The prosecution also relies on the oral testimony of Investigation Officer PW8 - Chandrakanth Poojari and PW11 - Rashmi J.K.
12. PW1 - Chandrashekar is the panch witness to Spot Panchnama as per Ex.P1 and the seizure of MO No.1 stone under the said Panchnama. The spot of incident was shown by the eyewitness PW5 - Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 10 Honnappa, who identified MO No.1 stone used for inflicting injury on PW4 - Ningappa. PW1 - Chandrashekar has further identified the MO No.1 stone seized under the Panchnama as per Ex.P1. The credibility of this witness was challenged by the defence on the premises that there was criminal case against the brother of this witness in Sessions Case No.77/2010 and the Auto Rickshaw used for kidnapping Afrin daughter of Abdulsab is belongs to him, further accused No.2 - Gafursab and accused No.4 - Alisab who are the brothers of complainant Abdulgafar in the said case have given evidence. The said case has nothing to do with this witness and merely because the auto rickshaw of this witness was involved in the said case cannot be valid ground to out rightly reject the evidence of PW1 -
Chandrashekar. The evidence of PW1 -
Chandrashekar is consistent with regard to the preparation of Spot Panchnama as shown by eye witness PW 5 - Honnappa and seizure of MO No.1 Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 11 under the said panchnama. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve his presence at the spot while preparing the Spot Panchnama as per Ex.P1 and seizure of MO No.1. Therefore, the prosecution through the evidence of PW1 has proved the preparation of Spot Panchnama as per Ex.P1 in the presence of this witness and seized MO NO.1 under the said panchanama.
13. The evidence of PW2 - Manappa would speak about the seizure of blood stained clothes of injured witnesses PW4 - Ningappa under the panchnama as per Ex.P2 which he identifies as MO Nos.2 to 4. It is true that this witness has admitted in his cross- examination that he was called to the Police Station by making phone call and his number was with the police since he use to visit the Police Station. This admission itself cannot be a ground to reject the evidence of this witness by branding him as a stock witness. The prosecution out of the evidence of Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 12 PW2-Manappa has proved the preparation of blood stained clothes Seizure Panchnama of injured PW4 - Ningappa as per Ex.P2.
14. The material witness, PW3 - Manamma, who has filed the complaint as per Ex.P3, has deposed about the incident to the effect that, about 2 and 1/2 years prior to give evidence, herself and PW4 - Ningappa were proceeding along with unwell child Mayavathi to get treatment, at that time all the accused picked up quarrel with PW4 - Ningappa and abused by taking his caste in filthy language. The accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted by means of hand and by picking up stone thrown at Ningappa and she dragged him, due to which, the stone which was suppose to fall on the head, fallen on the left side chest, due to which he sustained fracture injury over the chest. PW4 - injured Ningappa during the course of his evidence also maintained that the stone first fell on his shoulder and then on the left side of the chest due to Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 13 which he sustained fracture injury. The eyewitness to the incident PW5 - Honnappa has also deposed to the effect that the stone fell on the left shoulder, chest and then on the legs. PW6 - Smt. Neelamma has also deposed to the effect that, PW4 - Ningappa sustained injury over the chest due to throwing of stone. PW7 - Ambalappa has also deposed to the effect that, the stone hit on the shoulder and chest, due to which PW4 - Ningappa sustained injuries.
15. The evidence of PW9 - Dr. Maqsood Ali would go to show that on 07.12.2009 at 7.35 p.m., he has examined injured PW4 - Ningappa and on examination found the following injuries:
i. Bleeding from the nose ii. Swelling left side of chest On giving first aid treatment, the injured PW4 - Ningappa was referred to Gulbarga Government Hospital, wherein he was admitted in the hospital from 07.12.2009 to 10.12.2009. On the basis of Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 14 X-ray report of chest as per Ex.P6, it was found that there was fracture of 3rd rib left side of chest and on the basis of said report injury No.2 was opined to be grievous in nature and accordingly issued Wound Certificate as per Ex.P5. The other two injured witnesses PW6 - Neelamma and PW7 - Ambalappa as per the Wound Certificates at Exs.P8 and P7, respectively, no any injuries found over body. The incident in question as per complaint allegation at Ex.P3 took place at about 7:00 p.m., on 07.12.2009. It is in the evidence of PW5 - Honnappa that Police Jeep came from Shahapur side and the injured Ningappa was taken to Shahapur Hospital. The Wound Certificate of PW4 - Ningappa as per Ex.P5 would go to show that he was examined by PW9 - Dr. Maqsood Ali at 7:35 p.m., on 07.12.2009, wherein the left side chest was swollen. It is in the evidence of PW8 - Chandrakanth Poojari that on 07.12.2009 at 8:00 p.m., he received information over phone that three injured persons are taking treatment in the Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 15 hospital and on going to the hospital recorded the oral complaint of PW3 - Manamma at 8:00 p.m., and on coming back to Police Station at 9:00 p.m., registered the case. If the above referred sequence of events with reference to the timings in setting criminal law into motion are taken into consideration, then it is evident that injured PW4 - Ningappa has sustained injury over his chest, which was swollen and subsequently on the basis of X-ray report as per Ex.P6 the said injury is opined to be grievous in nature. In view of injured PW4 - Ningappa being shifted to Shahapur Hospital from the place of incident in a Police Jeep, there was no any reason or occasion for injured PW4 - Ningappa to sustain fracture injury over chest other than the one claimed in the incident, due to throwing of stone.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused in both the appeals have argued that the evidence of injured witnesses is not only inconsistent with each others Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 16 version, but the same is against the medical evidence on record. There were no injuries on the injured eyewitnesses PW 6 - Neelamma as per Ex.P8 and PW7 - Ambalappa as per Ex.P7. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that no any injuries were found on the shoulders and legs of injured PW4- Ningappa. Therefore, the evidence of injured witnesses and eyewitnesses cannot be relied to hold that PW4 - Ningappa sustained left side chest 3rd rib fracture in the alleged incident. If the oral evidence of PW3 - Manamma who has filed complaint as per Ex.P3 and the injured witness PW4 - Ningappa, PW6 - Neelamma and PW7 - Ambalappa are carefully read in the light of allegations made in the complaint as per Ex.P3, then it would go to show that their evidence is consistent regarding all the accused with their common object have picked up quarrel with injured PW4 - Ningappa on the premises of fetching water from their Well leading to the incident claimed in the complaint. PW4 - Ningappa sustained grievous Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 17 injuries over his chest i.e., fracture of 3rd rib of left side of chest. When the accused by forming a group assaulted on PW4 - Ningappa and the other witnesses PW5 - Honnappa, PW6 - Neelamma, PW7 -
Ambalappa, who are the eyewitnesses to the incident, some minor contradictions are bound to occur with reference to the overt-acts of the accused in causing injuries to PW4 - Ningappa. Therefore, the witnesses having given evidence about overt-acts of different accused in causing injuries is quite natural and mathematical accuracy of each accused in inflicting the injuries cannot be expected. The minor contradictions appearing in their evidence in describing the overt-acts of each accused cannot be a valid ground to discredit the entire case of prosecution. It is also true that no any injuries were found on the two injured witnesses PW6 - Neelamma as per Ex.P8 and PW7 - Ambalappa as per Ex.P7. It is in their evidence that they were assaulted by hands, therefore, there must not have been visible Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 18 injuries found on their body. However, that itself does not mean that no any incident has taken place as claimed by the prosecution.
17. The genesis of the incident according to the case of prosecution is due to fetching of water from the Well of accused. The learned counsel for appellants in both the appeals has argued that there is no tangible evidence on record as to where the well was situated. They have also invited our attention to the evidence of Investigating Officer PW11 - Smt. Rashmi J.K., wherein she has stated that during the course of investigation she came to know that quarrel took place due to fetching of water from the well and she has not drawn any panchnama of the Well, she further admitted that she has not gone to the well and she has not seen the same. It is in the evidence of PW3 - Manamma that the Well is situated in Gafur's land, which is after 2 to 3 lands from their land. She has also further deposed that prior to 2 to Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 19 3 years from the incident they were using the well water for drinking. PW4 - Ningappa in his evidence has stated the Well is situated in the land of Gogi, who is the relative of the accused. Therefore from the evidence on record, it is evident that the incident in question took place due to PW4 - Ningappa fetching water from the well of accused. In view of the said fact, the non-drawing of panchnama of the Well and in whose land of accused the well is situated cannot be of any much significance.
18. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals is that the prosecution has not produced any Wound Certificate of PW3 - Manamma. It is in the complaint that Alisab and Chandsab have assaulted on PW3 - Manamma by hands. It is not her case that she sustained noticeable injuries and therefore, the non- examination of PW3 - Manamma and there being no any Wound Certificate of PW3 - Manamma cannot be Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 20 said as sufficient evidence to discredit the case of prosecution.
19. On careful perusal of the complaint allegation as per Ex.P3, it would go to show that the incident in question took place in a spur of moment after seeing PW4 - Ningappa, who fetched water from the Well of accused in spite of their objection. The intention of all the accused in questioning PW4 - Ningappa regarding fetching water from their well, since he belongs to SC community. The trial Court by keeping in mind the manner in which the incident has taken place and the above referred evidence on record was justified in holding that no offence under Section 307 and 323 of IPC is made out by the prosecution.
20. The prosecution alleges that all the accused by questioning PW4 - Ningappa as to how he could fetch water from their Well and abused him by taking his caste. The evidence of the above referred material witnesses would speak to the effect that the accused Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 21 by taking the caste of PW4 - Ningappa has abused in filthy language. The Certificate as per Ex.P11 issued by Tahsildar, Shahpur, would go to show that all the accused belongs to Muslim caste. The injured witnesses PW4 - Ningappa, PW3-Manamma, complainant, PW6 - Neelamma and PW7 - Ambalappa are all belongs to SC Caste, i.e., 'Holeya Doranahalli'. It is in their evidence that all accused have abused PW4 - Ningappa in filthy language by taking his caste. The said evidence is in conformity with the allegations made in the complaint as per Ex.P3.
21. The learned counsel for appellants in both the appeals has argued that basically the provision of Atrocities Act is not applicable, as there is omnibus allegations against all the accused abusing them by taking their caste. The allegations must be specific, otherwise by taking the help of Section 149 of IPC, all the accused cannot be made liable to hold that they have insulted PW4 - Ningappa by taking his caste, so Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 22 as to attract the penal provision under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989. In view of there being inconsistent evidence, Section 3(2)(v) of Act cannot be invoked. The evidence of the above referred witnesses is cogent and consistent with regard to accused having abused PW4 - Ningappa in filthy language by taking his caste. Undisputedly, as per the Caste Certificate, issued by Tahsildar Shahapur as per Ex.P11, the complainant and injured witnesses belong to SC caste and the accused belong to Muslim caste. The foundation leading to the incident in question is the accused abusing PW4 - Ningappa by taking his caste being consistent is sufficient to hold that the accused have intentionally insulted them with intent to humiliate a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe on a public place, which would be sufficient to attract Section 3(x) of the Act.
Crl.A.No.3643/2012C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 23
22. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the incident in question took place in a spur of moment and there was no preparation for commission of the alleged offence. However, the prosecution has proved that the accused have caused grievous hurt. In view of the above recorded reasons, this Court affirming the findings of the trial Court that there was no any intention of accused in attempting to commit the murder of PW4 - Ningappa. On the other hand, the incident in question took place in a spur of moment in the process of questioning PW4 - Ningappa for fetching water from their Well. PW4 - Ningappa sustained 3rd rib fracture over his chest due to assault of accused by means of MO No.1.
23. The trial Court has recorded a finding that in view of PW4 - Ningappa sustaining 3rd rib fracture over his chest would attract the offence under Section 326 of IPC. In view of the sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 326 of IPC has invoked Section Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 24 3(2)(v) of the Act and imposed the sentence accordingly.
24. The question is as to whether Section 326 of IPC is attracted in view of the evidence on record. The essence of Section 326 of IPC is that voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death. The evidence of PW1
- Chandrashekar and the contents of Spot Panchnama as per Ex.P1 would go to show that MO No.1 Stone is the weapon used by accused for causing injuries to PW4 - Ningappa, the same is not covered by any of instrument described as dangerous weapon in terms of Section 326 of IPC. If seized stone MO No.1 falls in the category of "any instrument" then also looking to the stone MO No.1 Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 25 seized in this case and the manner in which the incident in question took place causing grievous injury to PW4 - Ningappa, coupled with the evidence of PW1 - Chandrashekar, the same would not fall within the category of dangerous weapon which is likely to cause death. Therefore, in our opinion voluntarily causing grievous hurt to injured PW4 - Ningappa falls within the ambit of Section 325 of IPC. On the basis of material evidence on record, the trial Court was not justified in holding that the offence under Section 326 of IPC is attracted.
25. The trial Court has invoked Section 3(2)(v) of the Act for imposing sentence of imprisonment for life, in view of the offence under Section 326 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and also with fine. In view of the reasons recorded above, it has been held that the offence under Section 325 of IPC is attracted. The offence under Section 325 is Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 26 punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also liable to fine. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, so also the evidence on record, in our opinion, if the accused are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment of 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 325 of IPC would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, inference of this Court is required to modify the sentence for the said offence. Consequently point No.1 for determination is partly answered in affirmative.
26. Point No.2 :- in view of the reasons assigned while dealing with point No.1, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeals, filed by the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crl.A. No.3643/2012 and the appellant- Crl.A.No.3643/2012 C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 27 accused No.6 in Crl.A. No.3664/2012 are hereby partly allowed.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Special/Sessions Judge, Yadgiri in Spl.C. Nos.33/2011 and No.68/2010 dated 07.09.2012 are hereby modified as under:
The accused Nos.1 to 5 in Special Case No.68/2010 and accused No.1 in Special Case
No.33/2011 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The accused Nos.1 to 5 in Special Case No.68/2010 and accused No.1 in Special Case
No.33/2011 are convicted for the offence under Section 325 R/w. Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment of 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.Crl.A.No.3643/2012
C/w Crl.A.No.3664/2012 28
The imposition of sentence and order for other offences is maintained.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*