Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pawan Kumar vs Anand on 27 October, 2022
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
Reportable
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 27th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2008
Between:
PAWAN KUMAR,
S/O SH. PREM SINGH, R/O
CHAJWALI THANA BALH, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
....APPELLANT
(MR. BIMAL GUPTA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE WITH MS. KUSUM
CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH
(MS. SVANEEL JASWAL, DEPUTY
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.PC, lays challenge to the judgment dated 15.3.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2003, ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 2 titled State of HP v. Pawan Kumar, whereby learned court below while .
holding the appellant-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.
1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; and under Section 366 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case as emerge from the record are that deceased Anjana, daughter of complainant Mohan Singh PW1, resident of Village Chajwali, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, who at that relevant time was studying in school went missing on 26.4.2002. In the evening of 26.4.2002, Smt. Bimla Devi, mother of the deceased Anjana (PW2) after having found that her daughter Anjana is missing from the house rang up her husband Mohan Singh, who had gone to Kullu that their minor daughter was missing from the house. Mohan Singh came from Kullu next morning and alongwith his brother in law went in search of his daughter Anjana. On enquiry, it transpired that accused Pawan Kumar, who happens to be nephew of the complainant Mohan Singh had kidnapped his daughter from the village in a taxi of person namely Jagdish PW11 to ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 3 Sundernagar and from Sundernagar, he took the deceased Anjana in the .
taxi of Lekh Ram (PW6) to Shimla. Mohan Singh (PW1) and his brother in law Chint Ram went to Shimla in order to trace out Anjana and the accused, however, they failed to trace out them and as such, lodged report at Police post Shimla.
3. On 29.4.2002, Mohan Singh received information on telephone from his wife that his daughter Anjana has expired at Theog in District Shimla and as such, he went to Theog, where he was told that his daughter had expired and her body has been sent to Shimla for post mortem examination. On enquiry, complainant Mohan Singh came to know that accused had kidnapped his minor daughter to Theog, where they both consumed poison. Unfortunately, Anjana expired at Theog, whereas accused survived and case under Section 309 IPC came to be registered against him at PS Theog. The accused was subjected to trial and ultimately, was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month by the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 15.10.2004.
4. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 (3) Cr.PC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Shimla vide order dated 7.4.2005 after having ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 4 taken note of report of concerned Probation Officer, recommended for grant .
of benefit of provision of Section-4 of the Probation of Offender's Act, as a consequence of which, accused came to be released on probation, subject to his furnishing personal bonds with one surety in the like amount with condition that he shall appear before the court, if called to do so within six months from the date of passing of the order.
5. After more than 2 months of the alleged incident of kidnapping, complainant Mohan Singh lodged a complainant at PS Balh, District Mandi, H.P., alleging therein about kidnapping of his minor daughter by the accused with an intention to marry her. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR Ext.PW1/A came to be lodged against the appellant accused under Section 363 and 336 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, which after having found prima-facie case against the accused, charged him under Sections 363 and 336 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 12 witnesses, whereas accused was afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, but he failed to lead any evidence in defence, however, he in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, denied the case of the prosecution in toto.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 57. Learned trial court on the basis of evidence collected on record .
by the prosecution held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 363 and 336 of IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant appeal, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the court below.
8. Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused vehemently argued that there is no plausible explanation available on record qua the delay in lodging the FIR, save and except bald statement of PW1 Mohan Singh and PW2 Bimla Devi i.e. parents of the deceased Anjana that they remained under the impression that action with regard to the alleged incident of kidnapping of their daughter at the hands of the accused would be taken by Police Station Theog. He submitted that once parents of the deceased never reported the matter with regard to the alleged kidnapping of their daughter at PS Theog, there was otherwise no occasion for the Police Station Theog to take any action, rather PS Theog after having taken note of the death of deceased registered case under Section 309 IPC for abatement of suicide against the accused, for which proper trial was held and accused was held guilty, but ultimately was given benefit of ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 6 Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He further submitted that at .
no point of time, prosecution ever succeeded in proving that at the time of the alleged incident of kidnapping, age of the deceased Anjana was less than 16 years and as such, court below after having noticed the conduct of the deceased ought to have acquitted the accused with whom deceased of her own volition had gone to Theog. He submitted that PW1 Mohan Singh categorically deposed that at the time of the alleged incident, age of his deceased daughter was 16 ½ years, but yet court below placing undue reliance upon the matriculation certificate Ext.PW1/13 wrongly proceeded to hold that at the time of the alleged incident deceased was less than 16 years of age. He further submitted that PW8 Rakesh Kumar Panchayat Secretary categorically deposed while proving birth certificate that there is interpolation of record. He argued that initially, name of the deceased was Nirmala, but subsequently same was changed to Anjana and there is no initial upon the same of any official of the Panchayat and as such, very basis of recording the date of birth on the matriculation certificate goes and in that event, court below had no option but to ignore the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate Ext.PW1/B. Lastly Mr. Gupta, argued that if the statements of all the material prosecution witnesses are read in conjunction juxtaposing each other, it clearly reveals that there are ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 7 lot of contradictions and inconsistencies and as such, ought to have been .
ignored by the court below while ascertaining the guilt, if any, of the accused.
9. To the Contrary, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the court below strenuously argued that delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained because admittedly matter with regard to the alleged kidnapping of the deceased Anjana was very much in the knowledge of the Police Station Theog and as such, PW1 and PW2 are right in contending that they remained under the impression that action with regard to kidnapping of their daughter at the hands of the accused shall be taken by the PS Theog. She further submitted that matriculation certificate Ext.PW1/B taken into consideration by the court below is /was sufficient to conclude that at the time of the alleged incident, age of the deceased was less than 16 years because as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, any public document is per-se admissible. She further submitted that if date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate is perused juxtaposing birth certificate Ext.PW1/A issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat, which duly came to be proved by PW8 Rakesh Kumar, Secretary Gram Panchayat, no illegality can be said to have been ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 8 committed by the court below while returning finding that at the time of the .
alleged incident, deceased was less than 16 years of age. While making this Court peruse statements of material prosecution witnesses especially, PWs 1 and 2, learned Deputy Advocate General strenuously argued that there are no inconsistencies and contradictions because both have stated that their daughter Anjana had gone missing on 26.4.2002 and they subsequently came to know that accused kidnapped her with an intention to solemnize marriage. Lastly learned Deputy Advocate General contended that it is not in dispute that in criminal proceedings, accused was convicted, however, he was subsequently released by the appellate court by extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which fact itself establishes guilt, if any, of the accused under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
11. Having heard Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused and Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General representing the State vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the court below, there appears to be merit in the contention of the learned ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 9 Senior counsel appearing for the accused that court below has failed to .
appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, findings to the detriment of the accused have come to the fore. First of all this Court finds from the record that alleged incident of kidnapping happened on 26.4.2002, whereas FIR qua the aforesaid incident came to be lodged on 29.6.2002 i.e. approximately after two months and three days.
12. It is not in dispute that FIR Ext.PW1/A, which is subject matter of the present case, was instituted on 29.6.2002, whereas alleged incident of kidnapping took place on 26.4.2002. Though in the case at hand, both PW1 and PW2 Mohan Singh and Bimla Devi i.e. parents of the deceased Anjana, attempted to justify delay in lodging of FIR by stating that they remained under impression that case with regard to kidnapping already stands registered against the accused at PS Theog, but after some time, villagers inquired about the fate of the case and they went to police station Balh and lodged the FIR. Though it is well settled by now that delay in lodging of FIR may not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, especially when there is plausible explanation rendered on record qua the delay, but here in the case at hand, explanation rendered on record by the complainant PW1 Mohan Singh and his wife PW2 Bimla Devi, does not appear to be plausible.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 1013. Interestingly, when factum with regard to kidnapping, if any, of .
the deceased Anjana had come to the notice of the complainant PW1 Mohan Singh on 26.4.2002, it is not understood that what prevented him to lodge FIR then and there, rather as per his own statement, he after having received the information with regard to missing of his daughter from his wife Bimla Devi, he came back to Balh and from there, he alongwith his brother in law Chint Ram went to Shimla. It is not understood that on what information Mohan Lal alongwith Chint Ram proceeded to Shimla because factum with regard to accused alleging having taken the deceased to Theog came to the notice of PW1 Mohan Singh after one day of his arrival at Shimla. It has come in his statement that though he tried to find out whereabouts of his daughter Anjana at Shimla, but once she was not found, he lodged report at police post, Bus stand Shimla. Interestingly, there is no record with regard to report, if any, lodged by Mohan Singh at Bus-stand Shimla. He deposed in his statement that his wife PW2 Bimla Devi telephonically informed him that he should go to Theog, but nowhere stated that some policemen came to her house at Balh informing therein factum with regard to death of their daughter Anjana, which fact otherwise has been stated by PW2 Bimla Devi while making deposition before the court below. Interestingly, PW1 in his statement deposed that while he ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 11 alongwith his brother in law was going back to Balh, same police men came .
and said that he know about the whereabouts of his daughter and he should go to the Theog. He deposed that after having reached Theog, he came to know that his daughter Anjana and accused consumed poison and dead body of his daughter is in the dead house, from where same was taken to IGMC for post mortem. He categorically deposed that he did not meet the accused at Theog, though he was admitted in the hospital. PW1 further deposed that he after having received information with regard to missing of his daughter from his wife reached Balh in the morning of 27th and from there, directly went to Shimla alongwith his brother in law Chint Ram, whereas PW2 in her statement deposed that her husband after having reached home from Kullu went to Sundernagar alongwith brother in law Chint Ram and Father in law Mal Ram, whereas PW1 Mohan Singh has not stated something specific with regard to Ram Mal i.e.father of the PW2 Bimla Devi. PW1 Mohan Singh though deposed that he was informed by PW11 Jagdish Singh that he saw his daughter going in taxi with the accused towards Sundernagar. He further deposed that above named Jagdish also told him that accused hired another taxi of Lekh Ram PW6 from Sundernagar to Shimla. PW6 Lekh Ram deposed that he after having dropped the accused and Anjana at Shimla, came back to Sundernagar.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 12PW1 nowhere stated that before his arrival at Shimla, he could see PW6 .
Lekh Ram, in whose Taxi allegedly accused and deceased Anjana had travelled to Shimla. Interestingly, neither Chint Ram nor Mal Ram, ever came to be examined by the prosecution. As per PW1 Chint Ram accompanied him to Shimla, where he allegedly lodged report at police post bus stand Shimla, but no effort ever came to be made by the prosecution to associate aforesaid witnesses, which could be relevant and material to the prosecution case. Similarly, police men, who allegedly told PW1 Mohan Singh that he should go to Theog, also never came to be examined. PW2 Bimla Devi in her statement stated that on the 3rd day, police came to her house and told her that Anjana had died at Theog and thereafter, she informed her husband that Anjana had died at Theog, however aforesaid fact never came to be deposed by PW1 complainant in the court, rather he deposed that he received a call in the evening of the same day at Theog by which time, he had already come to know factum with regard to death of her daughter. PW1 in his cross-examination categorically stated that age of his elder daughter is about 25 years and age of his younger daughter is 22 to 23 years. He further admitted that there is age difference of 2 to 3 years in between his children. He stated that Anjana had done her matriculation and he had sent Anjana to School when she was six years old. He ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 13 categorically deposed that when Anjana had completed matriculation her .
age was 16 ½ years.
14. If the statements of both the material prosecution witnesses PW1 and 2 are read in conjunction juxtaposing each other, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of both the aforesaid witnesses. Moreover two material prosecution witnesses, apart from PW1 and PW2, who had information with regard to alleged kidnapping of Anjana by the accused namely Chint Ram and Mal Ram never came to be examined by the prosecution. There is contradiction with regard to receipt of information with regard to death of deceased Anjana at Theog by PW1 and PW2. As per PW1, he was informed with regard to whereabouts of his missing daughter by some policeman and thereafter, he proceeded to Theog, whereas PW2 deposed that on 3rd day of the alleged incident, she was informed by the police that her daughter is found dead at Theog in the morning, whereafter she allegedly informed her husband at Shimla. If it is so, it means that PW1 Mohan Singh was in Shimla for three days as per her version, whereas as per version of Mohan Singh, he was in Shimla for 1 and 2 days and thereafter after having received information from the police about ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 14 whereabouts of his daughter proceeded to Theog, where information was .
given to him that his daughter Anjana has died after consuming poison. It has nowhere come in the statement of PW1 Mohan Sing that at Theog, he lodged report, if any, with regard to alleged kidnapping of his daughter by the accused, rather he after having received information with regard to death accompanied the police to IGMC Shimla and from there, he took body of the deceased daughter to his village for cremation.
15. There are two other material prosecution witnesses PW4 Lali Devi and PW5 Ram Pal, at whose residence at Theog, both the accused and deceased Anjana stayed during the day time before the unfortunate death of the deceased Anjana. As per these witnesses, accused was known to them as he had worked in their shop 2-3 years back. As per these witnesses, accused had introduced the deceased Anjana as his wife and thereafter they both had gone in a room for rest. PW4 deposed that at about 3-4 pm, when she went to wake the accused and Anjana in the room, accused Pawan Kumar stated that Anjana is not feeling well and she was inside the room. PW4 further deposed that accused told her that he had consumed liquor and as such was not feeling well. She alleged that her husband came home at 7pm and then accused told him that he and Anjana had consumed poison. PW5 Ram Pal called the neighbour Banka Ram and ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 15 went to the police station Theog. Police came from police station Theog and .
found Anjana dead in the room. Interestingly, Banka Ram, who accompanied PW5 Ram Pal, never came to be examined by the prosecution.
Though it clearly emerges from the statements of aforesaid material prosecution witnesses that accused had introduced the deceased Anjana as his wife, but at no point of time, deceased Anjana complained with regard to her alleged kidnapping by the accused, rather she of her own volition stayed in the room with the accused for some time in the house of PW4 and PW5. PW4 has categorically deposed that when Anjana reached her house, she was not frightened or perplexed and told her that they have come from Sundernagar and they would go in the evening.
16. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds from the record that though dead body of deceased Anjana was taken for post mortem to IGMC, Shimla, but if the post mortem report placed on record Ext.PW3/C is perused in its entirety, it nowhere stated something specific with regard to cause of death, rather it has been stated that report of death shall be given after the receipt of chemical examination of the Viscera. Final report of post mortem on the basis of viscera, if any, never came to be placed on record. Though omission on the part of the prosecution to place on record postmortem report complete in all respects may not be of much relevance ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 16 as far as this case is concerned, but certainly it creates doubt with regard .
to story of the prosecution. Since there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of material prosecution witnesses, especially PW1 and PW2, court below ought to have exercised due caution and care while placing reliance on the statements of aforesaid witnesses. If the statements of both the aforesaid witnesses are read in conjunction, it clearly emerges that accused was their nephew and he was residing in the same house. Though prosecution has attempted to carve out a case that accused kidnapped the deceased Anjana with a view to solemnize marriage, but there is no whisper, if any, in the statement of PW1 and PW2 with regard to intimate relationship, if any, inter-se accused deceased Anjana, rather both PW1 and PW2 have categorically deposed that accused was their nephew and he had been residing with them only. Aforesaid statements made by PW1 and PW2 gains significance on account of statement made by PW6 Lekh Ram, who dropped the accused and deceased Anjana in his taxi from Sundernagar to Shimla. He deposed that in the year, 2002, one boy and girl came to him. Boy claimed that girl was his sister and he hired taxi to Shimla. He also deposed that girl was feeling some sort of tiredness while coming to Shimla. Though he stated that next day, one person inquired as to where he had taken the passengers to the ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 17 Shimla and he had told him that one boy and girl had hired his taxi to .
Shimla but he cannot identify the person who had hired his taxi.
17. No doubt, PW4 in her statement deposed that accused Pawan Kumar told her that Anjana was his wife but that may not be sufficient to conclude intimate relationship, if any, inter-se accused and deceased Anjana, especially when she in her cross-examination admitted that deceased was appearing from her dress and make up to be unmarried girl.
She further stated in her cross-examination that she did not inquire from the accused as to when their marriage was solemnized. Though PW1 in initial complaint given to the police claimed that accused had kidnapped his daughter with a view to solemnize marriage, but on what basis he gave this information to the police, is totally missing. Neither PW1 nor PW2 deposed that in past their daughter and accused had some kind of relationship and they wanted to solemnize marriage. It is difficult to believe that though accused was living in the house of the complainant and he had no knowledge/intimation with regard to his relationship with his daughter.
Leaving everything aside, version putforth by PWs 1 and 2 being totally contradictory, otherwise could not be given much weightage by the court while holding the accused guilty of his having committed offence punishable under Section. Reliance is placed on Judgment passed by the ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 18 Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) .
5 SCC 645, wherein it has been held as under:-
"45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency.
Needless to emphasise, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Suraj Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (11) SCR 286 has held:- (SCC p. 704, para 14) "14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy. The probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation."
46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that "no man is guilty until proven so", hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situations where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses."
18. Though after having carefully perused the statements of material prosecution witnesses, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused kidnapped the deceased Anjana on the date of the alleged incident, but even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that accused with a view to solemnize marriage kidnapped the deceased Anjana, this Court ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 19 having taken note of the conduct of the deceased that she of her own .
volition and without there being any external pressure joined the company of the accused and thereafter, introduced herself as wife of the accused to PW4 Smt. Lali Devi, this Court finds it difficult to agree with Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General that accused taking undue advantage of innocence of minority and innocence of the victim-prosecutrix, made her elope with him. No doubt, in the instant case, prosecution has succeeded in proving the age of the deceased to be less than 16 years by placing on record matriculation certificate, but now question remains whether aforesaid certificate ever came to be proved on record by leading cogent or convincing evidence or not. No Doubt, PW1 complainant placed on record the aforesaid certificate to prove that at the time of the alleged incident, age of the deceased was less than 16 years but whether mere exhibition of aforesaid document is sufficient to prove the same is a question needs to be determined at the first instance. Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act though suggests that an entry in any public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty is itself a relevant fact, but till the time record on the basis of which such entry came to be made in the certificate is not produced and ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 20 proved by the person, who made entry, it cannot be said that such .
certificate stands proved in the case at hand. On one hand, prosecution placed on record birth certificate Ext.PW8/A, which came to be proved by PW8 Rakesh Kumar i.e. Panchayat Secretary, who deposed that date of birth of Anajana Kumari is recorded in the record is 22.10.1986 and her name is entered at page No. 20. However in his cross-examination, he admitted that there is cutting in the name of Anjana. While stating that cutting was not made by him, he stated that cutting in the name has not been initialed or attested by any of the officials of the panchayat.
Prosecution while proving matriculation certificate has not been able to prove that date of birth recorded in the matriculation certification is based upon birth certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, rather prosecution attempted to prove from the record of Gram Panchayat that date of birth of the deceased Anjana was 22.10.1986. However as has been taken note herein above, statement of PW8 Rakesh Kumar becomes doubtful on account of his admission made in the cross-examination that there is interpolation in the record. He stated that initially Nirmala Devi was written in the first column and there is cutting and name Anjana is mentioned and there are no initials of the any of the official of the Panchayat on the cutting.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 2119. In the absence of evidence to show on what material the entry .
of date of birth in the matriculation certificate was made, mere production of a copy of matriculation certificate, though a public document, in terms of Section 35, is/was not sufficient to prove the age of the deceased. To render a document admissible under Section 35, provisions are required to be satisfied i.e. entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; (ii) it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and (iii) it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of his duty especially enjoined by law. Reliance is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and Anr, (2008) 13 SCC 133, wherein it has been held as under:
"27.Insofar as the Board is concerned, it is evident that it has mechanically accepted the entry in Voters List as conclusive without appreciating its probative value in terms of the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 35 of the said Act lays down that an entry in any public or other official book, register, record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty especially enjoined by the law of the country is itself a relevant fact.
28. It is trite that to render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely: (i) entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record;
(ii) it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 22
(iii) it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official .
duties, or in performance of his duty especially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded. (See: Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit)
29.Therefore, on facts at hand, in the absence of evidence to show on what material the entry in the Voters List in the name of the accused was made, a mere production of a copy of the Voters List, though a public document, in terms of Section 35, was not sufficient to prove the age of the accused. Similarly, though a reference to the report of the Medical Board, showing the age of the accused as 17-18 years, has been made but there is no indication in the order whether 1988 (Supp) SCC 604 the Board had summoned any of the members of the Medical Board and recorded their statement. It also appears that the physical appearance of the accused, has weighed with the Board in coming to the afore-noted conclusion, which again may not be a decisive factor to determine the age of a delinquent. Insofar as the High Court is concerned, there is no indication in its order as to in what manner Rule 22(5)(iv) has been ignored by the Board. The learned Judge seems also to have accepted the opinion of the Medical Board in terms of the said Rule as conclusive. Therefore, the afore- stated ground on which the High Court has set aside the opinion of the Board and holding the accused to be a juvenile, cannot be sustained."
20. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 23 the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to .
prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, 1988 (Supp) SCC 604. Paras 14 and 17 of the afore judgment read as under:
"14 We would now consider the evidence produced by the respondent on the question of age of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi. The respondent examined Anantram Sharma PW 3 and Kailash Chandra Taparia PW5. Anantram sharma PW 3 has been the Principal of New Government Higher Secondary School, Jodhpur since 1984. On the basis of the scholar's register he stated before the High Court that Hukmi Chand joined school on 24.6. 1972 in 9th class and his date of birth as mentioned in scholar's register was 13.6.1956. He made this statement on the basis of the entries contained in the scholar's register Ex. 8. He admitted that entries in the scholar's register are made on the basis of the entries contained in the admission form. He could not produce the admission form in original or its copy. He stated that Hukmi Chand was admitted in 9th class on the basis of transfer certificate issued by the Government Middle School, Palasni from where he had passed 8th standard. He proved the signature of Satya Narain Mathur the then Principal who had issued the copy of the scholar's register Ex. 8. Satya Narain Mathur was admittedly alive but he was not examined to show as to on what basis he had mentioned the date of birth of Hukmi Chand in Ex. 8. The evidence of Anantram Sharma merely proved that Ex. 8 was a copy of entries in scholar's register. His testimony does not show as to on what basis the entry relating to date of birth of Hukmi Chand was made in the ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 24 scholar's register. Kailash Chandra Taparia PW 5 was Deputy .
Director (Examination) Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, he produced the counter foil of Secondary Education Certificate of Hukmi Chand Bhandari. a copy of which has been filed as Ex. 9. He also proved the tabulation record of the Secondary School Examination 1974, a copy of which has been filed as Ex. 10. In both these documents Hukmi Chand's date of birth was recorded as 13.6.1956. Kailash Chandra Taparia further proved Ex. 11 which is the copy of the tabulation record of Secondary School Examination of 1977 relating to SuraJ Prakash Joshi. In that document the date of birth of Suraj Prakash Joshi was recorded 11.3.1959 Kailash Chandra Taparia stated that date of birth as mentioned in the counter foil of the certificates and in the tabulation form Ex. 12 was recorded on the basis of the date of birth mentioned by the candidate in the examination form. But the examination form or its copy was not produced before Court. In substance the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses merely prove that in the scholar's register as well as in the Secondary School examination records the date of birth of a certain Hukmi Chand was mentioned as 13.6.1956 and in the tabulation record of Secondary School Examination a certain suraj Prakash Joshi's date of birth was mentioned as 11.3.1959. No evidence was produced by the respondent to prove that the aforesaid documents related to Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi who had filed nomination nation papers. Neither the admission form nor the examination form on the basis of which the aforesaid entries relating to the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi were recorded was produced before the High Court. No doubt, Exs. 8,
9. 10. 11 and 12 are relevant and admissible but these documents have no evidentiary value for purpose of proof of date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi as the vital piece of evidence ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 25 is missing, because no evidence was placed before the Court to show .
on whose information the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and the date of birth of Suraj Prakash Joshi were recorded in the aforesaid document. As already stated neither of the parents of the two candidates nor any other person having special knowledge about their date of birth was examined by the respondent to prove the date of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents. Parents or near relations having special knowledge are the best person to depose about the date of birth of a person. If entry regarding date of birth in the scholars register is made on the information given by parents or some one having special knowledge of the fact, the same would have probative value. The testimony of Anantram Sharma and Kailash Chandra Taparia merely prove the documents but the contents of those documents were not proved. The date of birth mentioned in the scholar's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. If the entry in the scholar's register regarding date of birth is made in the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value. Merely because the documents Exs. 8, 9, 1(). 11 and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Mere proof of the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents. Since the truth of the fact, namely, the date of birth of HukmiChand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was in issue, mere proof of ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 26 the documents as produced by the aforesaid two witnesses does not .
furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the documents. The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth of the two candidates as mentioned in the documents could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouch safe for the truth of the facts in issue. No evidence of any such kind was produced by the respondent to prove the truth of the facts. namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the circumstances the dates of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents have no probative value and the dates of birth as mentioned therein could not be accepted.
17. The appellant was declared elected aS he had polled majority of valid votes. His election could not be set aside unless the respondent-
election petitioner was able to prove that Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi had attained the age of 25 years on the date of nomination by producing cogent and reliable evidence before the High Court. The burden to prove that fact was on the respondent throughout and he could not and did not discharge that burden merely by producing the documentary evidence Ex. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 or on the basis of oral testimony of Anantram Sharma PW 3 and Kailash Chandra Taparia PW 5. As discussed earlier these documents do not conclusively prove the dates of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi. The entries regarding dates of birth contained in the scholar's register and the secondary school examination have no probative value, as no person on whose information the dates of birth of the aforesaid candidates was mentioned in the school record was examined. In the absence of the connecting evidence the documents produced by the respondent, to prove the age of the aforesaid two candidates have no evidentiary value. The High Court committed serious documents. In our view the ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 27 High Court's entire approach in considering the question of dates of .
birth was wholly misconceived. The burden to prove the fact in issue, namely, the dates of birth of Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was on the respondent who was the election petitioner. The respondent could not succeed if no evidence was produced by the appellant on the question of age of the aforesaid candidates and his election could not be set aside merely on the ground that the respondent had made out a prima facie case that the entry contained in the electoral roll regarding the age of two candidates was incorrect. It appears that in his list of witnesses the appellant had included the name of Suraj Prakash Joshi and his father Maghdutt Joshi as witnesses but they were not examined by him. Similarly, Hukmi Chand was also cited by the appellant but he was also not examined instead Navratan Mal Bhandari, brother of Hukmi Chand was examined as PW 4 and Ghanshyam Chhangani was examined as PW 6 by the appellant, who supported the appellants case that Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi had not attained the age of 25 years on the date of nomination. Since the appellant had not examined Hukmi Chand. Suraj Prakash Joshi or their parents, the High Court drew adverse inference against him. The High Court committed serious error in doing so. There was no question of drawing adverse inference against the appellant, as the burden to prove the age of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash joshi was on the election petitioner and since he had failed to prove the same by cogent evidence no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant. In fact. burden was on the respondent to prove his case by producing the Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi, or their parents to prove and corroborate the dates of birth as mentioned in the school register and the certificate. If he failed to do that he could not succeed merely because appellant had not produced them. In the circumstances no ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 28 adverse inference was at all possible to be drawn against the .
appellant for not examining Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi or their parents."
21. In Alamelu and Anr v. State represented by Inspector of Police (along with connected matters) 2011 (2)385, it has been held as under:
"42. Considering the manner in which the facts recorded in a document may be proved, this Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit1, observed as follows:-
"14.....The date of birth mentioned in the scholars' register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined................Merely because the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Mere proof of the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents. Since the truth of the fact, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was in issue, mere proof of the documents as produced by the aforesaid two witnesses does not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the documents.
The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth of the two candidates as mentioned in the documents could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue. No evidence of any such kind was produced by the respondent to prove the truth of the facts, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the circumstances the dates of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents have no probative value and the dates of birth as mentioned therein could not be accepted." (emphasis supplied).
43. The same proposition of law is reiterated by this Court in the case of Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal2, where this Court observed as follows:-
"The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 29 be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by .
admissible evidence, that is, by the "evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue"."
44. In our opinion, the aforesaid burden of proof has not been discharged by the prosecution. The father says nothing about the transfer certificate in his evidence. The Headmaster has not been examined at all. Therefore, the entry in the transfer certificate can not be relied upon to definitely fix the age of the girl.
45. In fixing the age of the girl as below 18 years, the High Court relied solely on the certificate issued by PW8 Dr. Gunasekaran.
However, the High Court failed to notice that in his evidence before the Court, PW8, the X-ray Expert had clearly stated in the cross- examination that on the basis of the medical evidence, generally, the age of an (2003) 8 SCC 745 individual could be fixed approximately. He had also stated that it is likely that the age may vary from individual to individual. The doctor had also stated that in view of the possible variations in age, the certificate mentioned the possible age between one specific age to another specific age. On the basis of the above, it would not be possible to give a firm opinion that the girl was definitely below 18 years of age.
46.In addition, the High Court failed to consider the expert evidence given by PW13 Dr. Manimegalaikumar, who had medically examined the victim. In his cross-examination, he had clearly stated that a medical examination would only point out the age approximately with a variation of two years. He had stated that in this case, the age of the girl could be from 17 to 19 years. This margin of error in age has been judicially recognized by this Court in the case of Jaya Mala Vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.3, In the aforesaid judgment, it is observed as follows:-
"9......However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side."
47. We are of the opinion, in the facts of this case, the age of the girl could not have been fixed on the basis of the transfer certificate. There was no reliable evidence to vouchsafe the correctness of the date of birth as recorded in the transfer certificate. The expert evidence does not rule out the possibility of the girl being a major. In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the girl was a minor, at the relevant date.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 3048. We may further notice that even with reference to Section 35 of .
the Indian Evidence Act, a public document has to be tested by applying the same standard in civil as well as criminal proceedings. In this context, it would be appropriate to notice the observations made by this Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P.4 held as follows:-
"38. The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted. (emphasis supplied)."
22. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that court of law for the purpose of determining the age of party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standards in civil as well as criminal cases. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 31 accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by .
the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Since in the case at hand though prosecution placed on record matriculation certificate showing date of birth of the deceased to be 22.10.1986, but since no record on the basis of which such entry came to be incorporated in the matriculation certificate came to be placed on record or proved by official, who made such entry, no much reliance could be placed upon the same. Apart from above, another document placed on record to prove date of birth of deceased Anjana is Panchayat Certificate, wherein though date of birth of deceased has been shown as 22.10.1986, but as has been noticed herein above, PW8 Rakesh Kumar, has categorically admitted that there is interpolation in the records and while cutting, none of the official has initialed the same and as such, court below otherwise could not have placed much reliance upon the same.
23. Leaving everything aside, (PW1) father of the deceased in his statement categorically stated that age of his daughter was 16 ½ years at the time of the alleged incident. If it is accepted, there is contradiction on account of certificates placed on record by the prosecution to prove the age ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 32 of the deceased. At this stage, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, learned Deputy .
Advocate General placed reliance upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh, 2015 7 SCC 773 to contend that certificate proving the age of prosecutrix to be below sixteen is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 363 366 and 376 of IPC, relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment read as under:
"12. We believe that the present case involves only one issue for this Court to be considered, which is regarding the determination of the age of the prosecutrix.
13. In the present case, the central question is whether the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident. The prosecution in support of their case adduced two certificates, which were the birth certificate and the middle school certificate. The date of birth of the prosecutrix has been shown as 29.08.1987 in the Birth Certificate (Ext. P/5), while the date of birth is shown as 27.08.1987 in the Middle School Examination Certificate. There is a difference of just two days in the dates mentioned in the abovementioned Exhibits. The Trial Court has rightly observed that the birth certificate Ext. P/5 clearly shows that the registration regarding the birth was made on 30.10.1987 and keeping in view the fact that registration was made within 2 months of the birth, it could not be guessed that the prosecutrix was shown as under-aged in view of the possibility of the incident in question. We are of the view that the discrepancy of two days in the two documents adduced by the ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 33 prosecution is immaterial and the High Court was wrong in .
presuming that the documents could not be relied upon in determining the age of the prosecutrix.
14. This Court in the case of Mahadeo S/o Kerba Maske Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 637, has held that Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, is applicable in determining the age of the victim of rape. Rule 12(3) reads as under:
"Rule 12(3): In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining -
(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available;
and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 34 considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one .
year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law."
15. This Court further held in paragraph 12 of Mahadeo S/o Kerba Maske (supra) as under:
"Under rule 12(3)(b), it is specifically provided that only in the absence of alternative methods described under Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii), the medical opinion can be sought for. In the light of such a statutory rule prevailing for ascertainment of the age of the juvenile in our considered opinion, the same yardstick can be rightly followed by the courts for the purpose of the ascertaining the age of a victim as well." (Emphasis supplied) This Court therefore relied on the certificates issued by the school in determining the age of the prosecutrix. In paragraph 13, this Court observed:
"13.In light of our above reasoning, in the case on hand, there were certificates issued by the school in which the proseuctrix did her V standard and in the school leaving certificate issued by the school under Exhibit 54, the date of birth has been clearly noted as 20.05.1990 and this document was also proved by PW 11. Apart from that the transfer certificate as well as the admission form maintained by the Primary School, Latur, where ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 35 the prosecutrix had her initial education, also confirmed the .
date of birth as 20.05.1990. the reliance placed upon the said evidence by the Courts below to arrive at the age of the prosecutrix to hold that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of occurrence was perfectly justified and we do not find any grounds to interfere with the same."
16. In the present case, we have before us two documents which support the case of the prosecutrix that she was below 16 years of age at the time the incident took place. These documents can be used for ascertaining the age of the prosecutrix as per Rule 12(3)(b). The difference of two days in the dates, in our considered view, is immaterial and just on this minor discrepancy, the evidence in the form of Exts. P/5 and P/6 cannot be discarded. Therefore, the Trial Court was correct in relying on the documents.
17. The High Court also relied on the statement of PW-11 Dr. A.K. Saraf who took the X-ray of the prosecutrix and on the basis of the ossification test, came to the conclusion that the age of the prosecutrix was more than 15 years but less than 18 years. Considering this the High Court presumed that the girl was more than 18 years of age at the time of the incident. With respect to this finding of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have relied firstly on the documents as stipulated under Rule 12(3)(b) and only in the absence, the medical opinion should have been sought. We find that the Trial Court has also dealt with this aspect of the ossification test. The Trial Court noted that the respondent had cited Lakhan Lal Vs. State of M.P., 2004 Cri.L.J. 3962, wherein the High Court of Madhya Pradesh said that where the doctor having examined the prosecutrix and found her to be below ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 36 18½ years, then keeping in mind the variation of two years, the .
accused should be given the benefit of doubt. Thereafter, the Trial Court rightly held that in the present case the ossification test is not the sole criteria for determination of the date of birth of the prosecutrix as her certificate of birth and also the certificate of her medical examination had been enclosed.
18. Thus, keeping in view the medical examination reports, the statements of the prosecution witnesses which inspire confidence and the certificates proving the age of the prosecutrix to be below 16 years of age on the date of the incident, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and uphold the judgment and order dated 24.04.2006 passed by the third Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Special Case No.123/2003."
24. However, having carefully perused the aforesaid judgment, this court finds no application of the aforesaid judgment in the case at hand because facts are totally different. In the aforesaid case, question before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether court was right in placing reliance on the report of ossification test given by the radiologist ignoring other documents placed on record suggestive of the fact that age of victim-
prosecutrix at the time of the alleged incident was less than 16 years.
Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of Rule 12 (3) (b) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Rules 2007, ruled that medical opinion can be sought from the duly constituted medical board only if matriculation or equivalent certificate of date of birth certificate are not available. Since ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS 37 in that case, matriculation and birth certificate were available, but court .
placing reliance upon ossification test report given by the radiologist proceeded to hold that victim was above 16 years of age, Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the judgment. Herein, as as been discussed in detail, matriculation certificate as well as date of birth certificate issued by board of school education and Gram Panchayat never came to be proved in accordance with law and as such, court below may not have placed much reliance upon the same while holding the deceased to be less than 18 years of age.
25. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and as such, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.3.2008 is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, same are quashed and set aside and appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Bail bonds if any, discharged. Present appeal is disposed of alongwith pending applications if any 27th October, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2022 20:29:51 :::CIS